Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive994

User:Blackgaia02

• Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous ANI discussion can be viewed here. For simplicity's sake, I shall refer to this user as BG02. I am very bothered by this user's uncollaborative behavior, frequent dismissal of rules, and generally rude behavior towards other users, even going as far as threatening another user to kill themselves. BG02 has previously acknowledged his behavioral problems in his last chance unblock request, yet over the years, he has continued the same type of behavior. Even his signature (talkpage if you dare) indicates that he is an inapproachable user. Please also note that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about his abusive behavior recently. Please view the following diffs:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

---

Note: There's plenty more instances of abusive behavior, but I do believe listing 10 diffs (mostly) from this year alone is enough is state my case.

Given that the user has already been given a final chance, and is showing no signs of improvement at all, he should be indef blocked per the agreement in his last chance unblock request. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• I feel about the same as Sk8erPrince as seen above. —JJB^ers 16:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• Looking at these diffs, I also concur. Holy smokes.--Jorm (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• My first thought is: none of this is very recent. The user's last block and the "last chance" unblock discussion are from 2013. Only one of this list of diffs occurred in the last month, and that was itself pretty mild. The user does seem to have ongoing conduct issues especially within the past year, however. I'm just not sure there's anything for admins to do with this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right, BG02's last chance unblock discussion was in 2013. Yet, he broke the promise he made; I am pretty sure he understands that continued outbursts will result in being reblocked. Over the course of 5 years, BG02 has continued to belittle other users and ignore Wikipedia policy, noted in this diff. Additionally, Farix has warned BG02 one final time this year, which is gracious enough on Farix's part, since he could have just went ahead and reported BG02. From my perspective, it seems that BG02 has ignored the warning, and continued his spree of abusive behavior. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• You got off of an indefinite block less than two weeks ago, and this is what you get up to? --Calton | Talk 20:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to kindly remind you that BG02 is the subject here, and not me. Yes, you are right. I recently got off an indef block, but unlike BG02, I value second chances granted by administrators. Regardless of my personal history, it doesn't make my report any less valid. Problematic users are still problematic users, either way. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way Skater. Opening an ANI thread means your behavior is just as much in focus as theirs. I'm likewise not amused that you're diving head first into the drama boards two weeks after coming off of an indef. In the future I'd rather you go to an admin you trust and then them file it. --Tarage (talk)

I thought a user that is unblocked is to be treated just like any other contributor, unless they violate the terms of their unblock again. By your logic, Tarage, a user that was blocked before should not be reporting other users? I can't see why relaying my report to an admin is a better option, considering that I could compile my own report and post it myself. And to clarify, I have no prior interaction with BG02, but I find his abusive behavior very disturbing. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahem. I would like to say, as an admin, that I try with greater or lesser succes to not sound pushy, aggressive, or imperative. Try to be polite until the time for politeness has passed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we don't care much about 2013. So long ago, who remembers. At the risk of sounding imperious, Tarage is right in saying that when one brings a complaint here, their edits and behavior are very much of interest of the denizens of this place. They have been know to hurl boomerangs. Has anyone tried to reason with the editor in question?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no evidence, Sk8erPrince, of you attempting to engage the user in discussion. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I have not attempted to engage with BG02, because I do not wish to be at the receiving end of his personal attacks. BG02 has displayed a pattern of abusively replying to other users and sending death threats to any contributor that he thinks is in his way, or proves to be an inconvenience to him (at least, in his perspective). I do not believe BG02 can be reasoned with because he has been warned one final time in June 2018, and since then, has made no improvements in editing civilly in a collaborative environment, which is what Wikipedia is. So to answer your question, other users have tried to reason with BG02, but to no avail.

Additionally, although the last chance unblock request dates back to 2013, the conditions of that unblock are still in effect. The diffs listed above shows that BG02 is in violation of those terms; 9 out of 10 of them are from this year. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to per-emptivly judge someone guilty of attacking you BEFORE they attack you. You always engage. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

His recent past interactions all point to a strong unwillingness to communicate civilly. I do not wish to subject myself to the possibility of being cussed out. It's like deliberately walking into a lion's den just to get bitten. Sure enough, that's just a possibility, but I have listed what he has done, and there's no denying nor excusing the excessive amount of abuse in the diffs. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please, if you're absolutely dead set on ignoring everything else I'm telling you, next time you find yourself in a need to report an editor, run it by an admin you trust first? I really don't want things to go south for you so quickly after you were unblocked. --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Putting aside the fact that Sk8rPrince was only recently unblocked, that list of diffs is problematic, considering they go back quite a number of months this year. I'm not sure I agree with Ivanvector that there isn't much that admins can do with this. At a minimum, BG02 should get a reminder of the 2013 unblock agreement. A less merciful admin could certainly block them for violating those terms. Blackmane (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  I would go with a reminder and asking them what is going on first. Engagement, discussion and then maybe a block. Five years? I think blocking someone on an issue that has lain dormant for 5 years would be a bit trigger happy even for me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  I have gone with the reminder and inquiry. Blackgaia02 has not edited since 6 hours before this thread was started. The last time personal attacks were raised as an issue on his talk was in June. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Blackmane, I don't disagree with what you said, and I should have said "I don't see anything for admins to push buttons over". Reminding the user they have been told to keep it civil as a condition to remaining unblocked seems a perfectly reasonable admin response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, Ivanvector. I'm not good at this interpersonal stuff. On reflection, I see I may not be the only one. Probably the nature of the interface or something. FWIW, Blackgaia02 replied on my talk page. He's at a loss. Perhaps those of you who are good at interpersonal dynamics can help.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector:Apologies if I came across as being overly critical. That was not my intention. The thrust of my point was that the discussion had descended into more about the complainant than about the user being reported. Even though a glance at the diffs did show some problematic behaviour from BG02. I may stop by Dlohcierekim's TP to make a comment. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• I also agree with the basics of what Sk8erPrince has laid out above. Back in April I had a debate with this editor over the addition of unsourced content (which they repeatedly refused to source) and ended up warning them that I would have to report them here if they kept acting contrary to their unblock agreement. If the warning in June is any indication, apparently they chose to ignore that. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the diff that shows BG02's unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia policy. And this is the message GS has posted on BG02's talkpage. It is apparent that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about the possibility of a reblock. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps in light of the many comments above, you could stop posting in this thread? You made your report. Your participation here is controversial. We can handle it from here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• I hate the recent rules here, the whole "you need to put a source or else its nuked or removed" especially in anime articles. The fact people are always being so high and mighty by reverting said things such as genres added and such like removing HUGE chunk of characters in a page. Just because adding a picture not related to the article, genre not related to the article, character sections that regarded as cancerous by people like TheFarix and removing facts due to NOT SOURCED offends me, insults me, depresses me to the verge of losing hope to this site. So what, I should delete all the articles I made because all of them are violations of Wikipedia's "Anti Fandom Law"? Look, I am not happy and not in a good mood on actually stating opinions because I felt someone pointing a gun over my head if I add an "unreliable source". I don't have my freedom anymore over which is content and which is not :<.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you don't believe that sourcing "rules" should apply to you, or the areas you're interested in?--Jorm (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• The "recent rules" you "hate" are merely a sign of the maturing of Wikipedia. For better or worse, we are now the English-speaking world's first stop for quick information on the Internet, so we now have a much heavier obligation to make certain that the facts we present are accurate. That means that more and more information is going to be required to be sourced, and if it's not sourced, it's going to be deleted. You can look back fondly on the good old days where one could play a bit fast and loose and slip in a bit of {factual) OR without sourcing it, but those days are unlikely to return: in fact, it's much more probable that sourcing requirements will get tighter as time goes on. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now, no new information will be allowed to be added to an article unless it is accompanied by a citation from a reliable source.
  We are never going to be a site that welcomes "fans" with open arms - Wikia exists for that. Perhaps you would be more comfortable there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That site never ever want to accept me either. Even if I did one edit as what I did on their "Gundam Wiki". Wikia is also starting to go on the route of wikipedia, I don't belong there too.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: That was down right eloquent. I too sigh for the good old days when someone's edits were their own damn business. (Dear, unsourced except for my own head edits, I bid thee a fond adieu.} Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I just removed a few characters from your last post because they altered the font on the rest of the page. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Welp. I guess the upshot of all this is Blackgaia02 must 1) cease and desist from making edits w/o a reliable source, and 2) must cease and desist from venting in an uncivil manner. I don't believe we need sanctions at this point beyond a final warning that even one repeat from here on out may result in an immediate and indefinite block. Can we wrap this up this way? Sk8erPrince-- I echo Floquenbeam's sentiment from above. We understand your position.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:1205dz

User talk:1205dz has recently been reverting good faith edits on Roman Catholic Diocese of Novaliches. They claim that only people associated with the diocese are permitted to edit the page and only the diocese can approve. I noticed they left a message saying this on at least one user's talk page. [1] I left them a message on their talk page asking them to allow other users to edit the page, and they responded by leaving a message on my talk page by accusing me of insulting them as an editor by arguing with them and that no one on Wikipedia knows more about the subject than they do. [2] I think WP:COI may be involved here, in addition to the WP:OWN.Runawayangel (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I left some messages on their talk page that were almost immediately removed. We shall see.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I've been annoying again-- "(I dont want annoying messages)" (sigh)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

They're reverting edits again (and threating to report to the Bishop of Novaliches??) [3]Runawayangel (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Just be glad it's not Cardinal Sin. EEng 08:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that's me. I was being annoying. I posted a welcome template to his Talk page and then posted comments that he might want to join two Wikipedia projects on Catholicism and the Philippines. He found those annoying and blanked them both. I didn't mention the article. He had already previously blanked your comments before I posted. I am the user that deleted the list of vicars from the diocese website (with edit comment WP:NOTADIRECTORY) that sparked his original comment on my Talk page demanding that I stop editing the page without permission. He was also reverted changes, again. He is at war it seems.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Warned them again. Invited them here-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Dlohcierekim

 – -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

1. It is true that anyone can edit in Wikipedia. No one owns any page here. 2. Why don't you trust people who hold the records for the churches or dioceses? 3. Information are based on the Catholic Directory of the Philippines. 4. Why focus much on the DIOCESE OF NOVALICHES where there are more than 70 dioceses, which Wikipedia entry is not monitored fairly as with this one? 5. I can help editors, but I don't want other editors telling me what information I have to put it. 6. We can dialogue, not rant or argue. 7. Please acknowledge my work. 8. Check other Wikipedia entries of other dioceses. 9. Even if anyone is free to edit here, do you not consider it a personal insult by not allowing the people, especially the priests, to give proper information?

10. This is not taking sides or parties. This is for the TRUTH!1205dz (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

1205dz has apologized on his Talk page: "I would like to apologize for my inappropriate demeanor. May we all work for the better of Wikipedia. 1205dz (talk) 2:24 pm, Today (UTC+8)" --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A user name Hr croguy

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

---

A user name Hr croguy had vandalized Olympus Has Fallen and stated an incorrect reason for it as seen on this diff. I reverted it and gave him a warning. This is what he said on the user's talk page. I don't think this guy is here to contribute this site and he's clearly not right in his head because I know the movie well enough to know that he is very incorrect on what he said to me on his talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

For the future, this kind of bog standard vandalism is better reported at WP:AIV, but since it's here already I've blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 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.

Edit warring at Saudi Arabia

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

---

Hi, i would appreciate if an admin could put an end to the ongoing edit war between OxfordLaw and SharabSalam at Saudi Arabia. Please take a look at the revision history of the article. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• For future reference, edit warring actually has its own separate noticeboard. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• I filed a WP:RFPP request for protection as well; there are quite a few people involved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Was not aware there was an edit war....all I was concerned with was unsourced statements of human rights crimes added with imagery....still not sourced in the article as of now. No point in joining talk page chat OxfordLaw is not going to think anything other then there preferd media outlets will do. it's funny those screaming bias all the time always appeared to be the most biased. Need more Centrist Canadiens all over the place...lol. --Moxy (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to dole out some blocks here on all sides. Moxy, that was a personal attack you need to retract. I am also unimpressed by SharabSalam saying "you to act like a whiney bitch in Wikipedia". Either way, new fresh eyes will hopefully solve this. What a mess though. --Tarage (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked both OxfordLaw and SharabSalam for 60 hours for repeated edit warring on the article, as well as for civility violations on the article's talk page (repeatedly calling other editors "anti-Arab", "anti-KSA", "a whiny little bitch", and other names). I was originally going to just leave SharabSalam this warning on his/her user talk page and remind them about the exemptions to 3RR and the proper way to resolve the matter (dispute resolution protocol), but then I saw this edit on the article's talk page and saw that this user has been warned for the same behavior before. It then became clear to me that a block of the same duration for the both of them is what was needed here, and have done so accordingly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Kurtis: Yeah, i'm aware of e/w noticeboard, but i wanted to report two users, not only one of them, i don't know if this can be done at e/w noticeboard, this is why i came here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikaviani - Sure, you can report more than one user to AN3. If you're reporting more than one user over the same edit war(s) and over the same content and page(s), you can either do it by creating a report for one user and then by adding the second user to the same report as a comment or in-line next to the first user (in the title and report body as separate evidence), or you can just file two separate reports and then comment on each report about the existence of the other. The first method is what I see used the most, but either way should be just fine. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I figured the process would be something like that. I wasn't sure which of those two methods would be the right one, but it makes sense. Either one works fine. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not very familiar with the EW noticeboard, so I can't say I know much about how things are done over there. I'd imagine that reporting multiple editors is permitted - since edit wars are multi-party affairs by nature, it wouldn't make sense for Wikipedia to place restrictions against submitting more than one user for review. But, like I said, this is not an area in which I have a whole lot of experience. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kurtis: Reworking EW/N certainly would be a convenience, but with the way EW/N is run right now, ANI certainly helps whenever it is more complex issues than simply an editor violating the 3RR. With that said, I do agree it doesn't make sense to only report one editor for edit warring. I've seen people making three reverts on a page and then turn around and report the other party for 3RR and only the party that violated the 3RR get blocked.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 08:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is very unfortunate. You'd think administrators would be more cautious about things like that. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kurtis: This was awhile back ago. Although I can understand (to some degree) how administrators can overlook it since EN/W complaints usually only show diffs of one of the offending parties, it's just so easy to game the system by say baiting someone into 3RR. It needs to be made less of a 3RR thing and more of an edit warring thing, where if one user violates 3RR and the other hasn't, there needs to be a way to report both users (as part of one complaint) instead of having to report them individually or having to go to ANI.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 10:48, 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.

IP with a history of adding unsourced content

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

---

• 99.254.82.72 (talk · contribs)

A quick reading of a few dozen edits turns up nothing in the way of sources, but lots of unsourced plot descriptions, actors' TV and movie credits, and most recently, original research about athletes. Long term pattern, continuing despite numerous warnings. Seen this many times before, and IPs operating in this way can blemish hundreds of articles without action being taken, but a block and mass reversions would seem justified. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours with the understanding that they can be unblocked at any time if they agree to start citing their sources.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:40, 10 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.

Series of unilateral move provocations without any discussion or consensus

An editor with has performed a series of problematic moves without any consensus, many of which are in explicitly against past consensuses. A motive in provocation is likely, given that the target is Gjon Kastrioti, the object of long and acrimonious talk page fights and continuous move warring with the objective of obscuring the "Albanianness" of the figure, whose son is the national hero of Albania, Skanderbeg. See this earlier move request (Talk:John_of_Castriot#Requested_move_28_June_2018) by a now blocked WP:NOTHERE sockpuppet who was obsessed with proving that Albanians come from Antalya in Turkey and have a "rather poor culture that consists mostly of borrowings from neighbors"

Very interesting is that when performing this move, the user added the supposed Serbian name of Gjon Kastrioti, Ivan Kastriot [[4]], which was an obsession of the past sockpuppet (of course, with some disagreement between the sockpuppet and his "allies" over whether the "correct" Serbian name was Ivan Kastriota, Ivan Kastriot, Jovan Kastriotic, Jovan Kastriota or other permutations of these...).

The current user moved the page to John of Castriot, claiming this is the name in use in the English language. This is patently false. See Google Scholar : zero results [[5]].

Admin help in reverting these disruptive moves is requested. Aside from Gjon Kastrioti, other affected pages include House of Kastrioti ([[6]]) and Gjon Kastrioti II ([[7]]). --Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Another technical issue here is that the sockmaster, Irvi Hyka, was renamed after having been blocked for a good long time (see The199206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) on several wikis and with an extensive sockpuppet investigation history on this one. Courtesy ping Céréales Killer - is this normal? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I also see now that Irvi Hyka is a different case than OP reported. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I don't think Irvi Hyka is involved here. The relevant master was Aleksander i Madh eshte Shkipetar. But it is not clear whether this new initiative is his work, the user Fongtzack seems to, aside from these moves where he did reproduce AMES' edits, have an independent editing history beforehand. Could be a case of off-wiki recruitment, a very clever sleeper, or something else entirely. The account was created on 20 September, which was indeed after the last AMES sock, but it has a history focusing on the Arab world with occasional Albanian edits. Nevertheless, this was clearly disruptive, and I need help undoing these moves because new redirects were created, preventing me from undoing it.--Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar where I have started a new report. I'll comment further on that page with respect to possible sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have renamed Irvi Hyka on August because his blocks were since a long time (I do not knew all the history), I though it was no issue with that. Now, If it is needed, I can rename back the user if there are currently problems. Let me know what is your choice. I am not a number (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Hi Calthinus, as you requested, I have reverted the undiscussed page moves at Gjon Kastrioti, House of Kastrioti and Gjon Kastrioti II to their original locations. if you need further batch page moves or mass page move reverts, you can post the list here or at WP:RMT, cheers.

I had come across one of the socks who was making undiscussed moves at WP:TURKEY articles and was asked to revert, on looking at his contributions, I had posted a note on WP Turkey #Multiple_undiscussed_page_moves, glad to see these sock accounts finally taken care of. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Railroad IP

What needs to be done regarding the railroad IP? See, for example, 42.110.135.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 42.110.132.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) At User talk:42.110.135.220, I warned the IP about incorrect formatting, but the IP is still at it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

And there is reference removal or reference changes, such as here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

EEng's humor confounds as usual... (non-fun police closure) TheDragonFire (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dlohcierekim pieces through the wreckage. WP:POVRAILROAD? No? EEng 03:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC) EEng, so you think that what the IP is doing is fine and that I'm bullying the IP? Whatever the case, since it seems no one is pressed about the IP's edits, except for those who will have to go through and fix all that formatting, I'll leave those articles to others. I only came across the IP via WP:Huggle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Pinging RHcosm, who also reverted and warned the IP, for a heads up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC) It's a joke. "Railroad IP"... get it? Not my fault no one's taking an interest. EEng 05:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I obviously didn't get the joke. As for no one taking an interest, I'm not pressed about it. Even if disruptive, editors commonly don't see WP:MOS issues as a priority. I brought the issue to the attention of others; my job is done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The joke is off the tracks like this discussion. I see no way to get a grip on this w/o a range block. It may be they are missing warnings if their IP changes w. each login. I don't think a rnage range block would create a lot of collateral damage.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

So, Special:Contributions/42.110.128.0/18 Should get it. SQL^{Query me!} 22:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the edits to railroad-related and railway station-related articles are coming from the IP range 42.110.128.0/18 as SQL pointed out above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

SizzleMan

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

---

SizzleMan (talk), for resumed genre warring and unverified changes in late September through today, following several warnings in past months before a period of inactivity beginning in early September after the final warning. See contributions; every single edit after the inactivity targeted genres in the infobox or added unsourced material to the articles. Some diffs:

• 24 September 2018
• 25 September 2018
• 27 September 2018
• 2 October 2018
• 3 October 2018
• 9 October 2018

In a few instances, they removed citations that verified existing genres in the infobox ([8], [9]). Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Barely half an hour passes since being reported here and SizzleMan continues their genre warring here. here and here to name a few. Robvanvee 05:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm blocking for 48 hours, as this user has been completely unresponsive to repeated warnings. That said, Robvanvee, while I understand your frustration go easy on rollback; the edits aren't vandalism, so it's best to do a standard revert with an explanation (such as this). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:39, 10 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.

Hidden messages

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

---

IP user, 173.235.84.234, was in a dispute over format of production codes at M*A*S*H (season 10). The IP user was determined to be correct and now insists on adding several hidden messages to the main page warning others not to change the material. The dispute is over and the content is not hotly contested, so this is unnecessary. I have asked them to simply make their edits and not add 4000 characters worth of hidden messages for an issue that no longer exists. Can someone help explain to them why this is not appropriate? Thanks. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Basilosauridae - Have you reached out to the IP user directly to express your concerns? I don't see any messages on the IP's user talk page showing that an attempt was made to ask the user to stop doing this and explain why such changes aren't necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I first reverted their edits with a note asking them to just make the edit and that the added hidden messages were over the top. After that, they reached out on my talk page expressing frustration over the situation. Since the talk page discussion, I haven't heard a response from them and instead they re-did their edit today without further discussion. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Basilosauridae - Ah okay, so it looks like you two last communicated back at the end of September - no worries. I'll be happy to reach out to the user directly and talk to them for you. Just make sure that you don't repeatedly revert the article and fall into the "edit warring pit". I'll try explaining things to them and then we'll see how things go. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Basilosauridae -  Done. The message I left is here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:14, 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.

User talk:195.204.12.242

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

---

195.204.12.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Please remove talk page privileges. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 11:08, 11 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:Kaimaidment18

This specific user has been problematic for months, continually making disruptive that are almost always reverted and constantly making unsourced edits. They have been warned multiple on their talk page for making disruptive and unsourced edits, but have never once replied on their talk page. They also never use edit summaries, which is disruptive. Look at the edit history for List of American Horror Story episodes, where they make the same repeated edits, but are reverted every time, but keep on doing it. Posting warnings on their talk page doesn't do anything, as they continue with the same disruptive behavior. I warned them on adding unsourced content earlier this month, and they just recently made three consecutive edits of adding unsourced content (TV ratings without a reliable source): [10][11][12]. I feel a temporary block is needed here or this type of unhelpful behavior will just continue. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked until they respond on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Widespread insertion of bogus references and incorrect information

It looks like Mill 1 (talk · contribs) has been adding quite a few bogus references and incorrect information to WP:DOY articles. See discussion starting at User_talk:Mill_1#Info_not_found and the following section.

For most editors, I'd WP:AGF, or maybe WP:CIR but given the rants in this discussion about how the change requiring sources for additions to DOY articles is going to fail and then later stating "I have decided not to comply with it and I accept any consequences.", it appears that we have a serious case of WP:SNEAKY vandalism that appears to have potentially far-reaching impact as this editor is quite active on year pages and DOY pages.

I've seen folks not drop the stick, but this looks like sabotage. Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: I'd really expect to see more evidence than you've given for this being vandalism. It is naturally going to be harder to find reliable sources for people with birth and death dates going back into the middle ages and beyond, and I'm guessing that Mill 1 (talk · contribs) is having difficulty tracking them down. Deb (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

BS. The WP:BURDEN to ensure your references are real is on the person who adds them. This is fundamental to WP:V. If you can't find a good source, you don't fake it:

1. doesn't even mention the subject
2. source does not contain the info
3. source shows that he's entering an incorrect date
4. source does not contain the info
5. source shows that he's entering an incorrect date
6. source says date is not clear but event added anyway
7. source does not contain the info

These are just in the past few days. How far back do we need to go? There are quite a few non-wikilinked references as well.

This comment from Mill 1, in the context of all this, looks like baiting: "It is going to be really interesting watching the project members enforcing the new level of sourcing regarding new entries on WP:DOY" which was never struck retracted. It certainly paints his actions in a seriously questionable light.

If we want to put aside the fact that he's said he decided not to comply with the requirement for sources and the baiting above, and we wanted to act with the greatest of naivete, we're left with WP:CIR and a bunch of crap added to articles that needs to be combed through along with an editor that should not continue editing. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I contest this accusation. All of the references provided are not bogus and can all be found in the corresponding biographies. Edits regarding WP:DOY and WP:YEARS articles I made are made in good faith. You can read about it on my user page. I particularly resent the accusation of sabotage. Why would I do that if I'm spending so much time on improving WP:DOY and WP:YEARS? Also, I find the term 'widespread' a bit dramatic; I count about 40 34 DOY-edits with references. In closing I find it deceiving that Toddst1 (talk · contribs) quoted my old 'non-comply' statement, which I deleted shortly after. I dropped the stick regarding the new guideline a long time ago. I leave it to this forum to decide whether I am a vandal or not. Mill 1 (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have spot-checked some of Toddst1’s examples, and found the same inaccuracies. This is insidious misconduct. AGK ■ 21:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with AGK; this is not acceptable. It looks like this user is taking references from the linked article without checking them. The error on Lothar II the Old, Count of Walbeck is in the article as well; the source clearly says that his wife died on 3 Dec 992. If Mill 1 doesn't agree to stop using references they haven't checked for entries on birth/death pages, a block will be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• It does appear to me that there are some inaccuracies compared to the cited source, but only in some of those linked (some sources are very rare and I couldn't view them right away to confirm or deny). The Lothar II article does clearly reference his wife (died 3 Dec 992) and his paternal grandmother of Mathilde also died on 3 Dec, it doesn't seem (to me) to say that he died on that day. However, it does seem that is the actual day he died (from another source) [13] The Michael I of Kiev does seem to say that day is his feast day, which is the day the Church either believes he died or chooses to recognize as his death day, so that seems close enough to me. The Dirk II source, seems to confirm that he did die on the day that is claimed by Mill 1. The Egbert edit, the source says he died on the "8 or 9 December" rather than on the 9th of dec. That's fairly close to what was claimed (not far enough I would call vandalism). The Adalbert Atto edit , it does appear to me that he died on the date that Mill 1 claimed[14], but I could not find that at the source cited. Overall I would say both Mill 1 and the OP (Toddst1) seem to be making mistakes. I wouldn't go so far as to call it bad faith mistakes yet by either of them. Mostly, what I suspect is that Mill 1 is finding death days from WP articles and then adding those days to the DOY using the source in the WP article (and assuming that source is correct). Sometimes the original WP page isn't correctly citing the source. Other times the only source on the page doesn't include the death day (even though a death day is in the WP article), and he used that source anyway assuming it included the death day. I wouldn't call that vandalism, but he should be personally double checking the source before he uses it. I would suggest closing this with an admonishment to both of them to be more careful. -Obsidi (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, The two sources you supposedly “confirmed“ the dates with are WP:USERG genealogical sites. Perhaps you should refrain from WP:RS discussions - those are pretty obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, didn't realize they were user generated. -Obsidi (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I found a source for Lothar II's death date, but I only have access to it second hand. Maybe someone can get the original source. Supposedly this part of Die sächsischen Grafen 919-1024 is available online [15]. The odd part is that the year of death doesn't seem to match, but all other other details we have do. According to that source he died on 21 January 964. A possible second source I found is Studien und Vorarbeiten zum Historischen Atlas Niedersachsens, which appears to say the same date of death. Is this a different person? Many of the details seem to match, not sure why the years would be so far off. -Obsidi (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, your diligence and effort in tracking down these sources is more than commendable. However, you're missing the point: We aren't discussing how we're going to augment/supplant Mill's bogus referencing. What we publish on Wikipedia must be 100% correct and verifiable. Otherwise we are at best fake news and/or a fake encyclopedia.

We're talking about Mill 1's wholesale fakery of sources with either malevolent or incompetent basis. Toddst1 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course the problem before this board is one of behavior not content. But I at least wished to know if there was actual harm to WP done by the actions. Were actually incorrect information added? Maybe others wouldn't care about that, but I at least wanted to find out. -Obsidi (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• There is nothing worse than faking references. If people who understand the topic confirm that is the case, the user must be indeffed with no appeal. People who think it is ok use fakery never change their mind. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your first statement but the references are real and not at all fake; all of them are stated on the linked biography article on either the English or German wiki. Mill 1 (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Where you took these so-called references from is irrelevant - they're bogus. They do not support your statements. Only you are responsible for that. You have compromised the integrity of this project in the most insidious way - and now you've been exposed. Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

And you need to get a fucking grip. --Calton | Talk 09:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What I think needs to happen is for User:Toddst1 to get a fucking grip. Look at July 8, for example. In the face of this horribly, terribly important need to to add an external link to each and every entry -- and by "horribly, terribly important need", I mean "uselessly redundant busywork" -- there are 96 death entries, of which one (1) has the external link which is so direly important. Which means, basically, the people pushing this have done exactly fuck all to solve this terrible, terrible problem.

Meantime, Mill 1 adds this, using the source that is in the original article and has been since it was created in 2012. And Toddst1 reverts it with the hysterical edit summary more CONFIRMED WP:SNEAKY vandalism by Mill1.

So according to Toddst1, the problem here is Mill 1, not the original bad source -- which I notice that Toddst1 hasn't bothered to fix, either -- and this is "vandalism". Really? Does he actually know the meaning of the term "vandalism"? This is not just assuming bad faith, it's ABF on steroids. --Calton | Talk 09:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Would it be a problem if an editor were found to have used sources which investigation showed failed to verify a claim? What if there were numerous examples of that? Have you investigated the seven links above "These are just in the past few days"? I haven't examined the situation but I know that there is a gigantic problem if the statements about source misuse are accurate. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I looked at some of them and yes, there are errors, but at least one of them (the second one in the list) looks correct to me. I haven't got the books or access levels to check them all out. What I'm thinking is that maybe we could introduce notes for entries in earlier centuries, such as "(estimated)", "(feast day)", etc, so that people know how reliable or otherwise the dates are. My main concern about the introduction of the need for references into these articles is, and always has been, that it would work against the need to combat recentism and at least attempt a global approach, instead of the very US- and Western-biased list that currently exists. A plethora of references doesn't necessarily mean that an individual is more important or more historically significant than any other. We currently have an over-abundance of Australian sportsmen, European footballers and 21st century "celebrities" that would sink a ship. I've been banging my head against a brick wall for some years now in an attempt to improve these lists but few people seem to be willing to recognise that there's a problem. User:Toddst1's changes to the guidelines have been of some (rather unexpected) assistance in removing crap, but there's a need to recognise the difficulties inherent in the need to enforce the changes. Deb (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If by the Michael of Kiev one, Google translate here does not seem to confirm the death date. It gives the feast day as 15 June, but that does not equate all the time to death date. Further in the article it says "The memory of St Michael is also honored as late as 30 September". This leaves aside whether the website (http://www.synaxarion.gr/gr/sid/3821/sxsaintinfo.aspx) is a reliable source - Google translate gives this as the about page, which seems to me to be a personal website using Orthodox Church materials only for the information. The third entry in the list is sourcing something to the Medieval Lands project, which is not the best source (to put it mildly, it's generally considered not reliable at WP:RSN) but the edit is putting the death date of Lothar II's WIFE on Lothar II himself. The source clearly gives Lothar's death date at 986 with no specific date listed. (Thankfully, someone has corrected these errors). The fourth one is sourced to this reference which gives the dates for Folcuin as "ca. 935-990". There is no date given for his death beyond a circa 990 date. The fifth one is again to medieval lands, but the title given is not supported in the source - the source clearly states "Dirk II Count of Holland" with no mention of "Count of Frisia" connected to Dirk II. I could go on but... why? These are just sources I can check online. Granted - this is an endemic problem across wikipedia - things that were originally sourced correctly get moved around or someone comes along and inserts further information into a sentence with a source without caring whether the given source actually supports the new information. This is why its not enough to rely on something in a list article being sourced in another wikipedia article linked to the list. Nor is it enough to just copy the information from the linked article to the list. The source must be checked before being used. If you copy over a source from another article without checking and understanding it (aka the use of the wife's death date instead of the husbands above), you're not helping ... you're actually hurting the encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Further problems - edit from 7 October adding a source but the source is a personal geneaology site. Another problematic source - this edit and this corresponding edit are sourced to this site in German. The FAQ for the site through Google translate gives this page which says "Scientific claim?: The required extensive study of sources is usually not possible for us. But the Ecumenical Holy Encyclopaedia arose not least from annoyance that the information given in the Holy Directory is often contradictory or even obviously false. So we strive for clarification and as reliable as possible information through careful research. An important role for reliability plays the committed cooperation of our readers: their corrections - often by proven experts - ensure that the Ecumenical Holy Encyclopaedia is becoming ever more reliable." Later, the FAQ says the copyright is with "the author, Joachim Schäfer in Stuttgart". Is he an expert on medieval German history? What makes this source a reliable one? We don't know... and thus the information is not helpful because it's probably not reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't deny that the need to add refs for birth and death dates has possibly caused User:Mill 1 to act in desperation, perhaps seeking references in the wrong places. However, over time he has worked hard to ameliorate the effects of recentism, which is still a major problem on the DOTY pages as far as I'm concerned - and frankly, makes these pages a laughing stock even before we get into the business of what sources are and are not reliable. I must ask also, would you favour the removal of such dates from the articles concerned, or would you limit yourself to including a note that they may not be correct? Deb (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that adding information without sources or, worse, with wrong or unreliable sources, is much more of a concern than the effects of recentism. It’s not like I don’t know the problems of medieval sourcing, but sloppiness isn’t helping at all and is only making things worse. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. How would it be if we all start working together to eliminate entries from the date articles where there is no reliable reference for birthdate? Deb (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen the WP:DOY articles? Look at today's article: October 8, I see 403 entries, and not a single one cited. Are we really going to nuke all of the content from these articles? -Obsidi (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, for a start, we shouldn't really have more than fifty birth and death entries on a date page - it's way too many. Deb (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• This seems to me to be the proper consequence of poor or absent attention to sourcing of content in all these 'showcases', arbitrary assemblages of unquestioned data are ubiquitous in article space and elsewhere, yet there is little disincentive for willing contributors to do the same (the motive being irrelevant). The more experienced contributors who tolerate, encourage, or participate in this sort of editing might try to stand back and ponder the net value of time and energy expended on this type of contribution versus encouraging people to read good sources and add the facts they find. Those who pile on to point out the obvious about unsourced content might prefer to expend their energy on forestalling this happening in future, rather than chastising those who have been actively encouraged by experienced users (not OP, they are always delightful^{[citation needed]}). Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on this. — cygnis insignis
• Comment - There may well be people reading and participating in this discussion who aren't aware that, for the first few years of Wikipedia, and certainly when most of the Date articles were created, there was no compulsion to include any references to third-party sources in any article. Hence you will find plenty of unreferenced content already in existence and correcting it all will take a lot longer than it took to create it in the first place.Deb (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that would be from 2007 till 2017, no citations were required. -Obsidi (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No. I mean that no citations were required in any articles for the first few years of the project. References may have been used by some editors, but they were not obligatory. Deb (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest we put together a table of sources (sound/difficult to check/erroneous) that Mill 1 has added. We seem to be drawing different conclusions, which makes it difficult to analyse the problem. The devil's in the detail here. AGK ■ 18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is my list (of the ones cited by Toddst1, I'm not including all of the additions by Mill 1):

Henry I	difficult to check
Michael I	soundclose (if you accept feast day = death day)
Lothar II	erroneous (date was for wife not him)
Saint Bertin	difficult to check
Dirk II	sound
Egbert	close (Source said "8 or 9 December", but used on the DOY of 9th of Dec.)
Adalbert Atto	erroneous (could not find in source)

All of them that I can see, had a recorded death date in the WP article (which was the date that Mill 1 used), and he pulled a source from the WP article (I guess assuming that source was the basis for the death date in the article as it was usually the only source in the WP article). He did not change the WP article itself to add the death date, I believe that was prior to his adding the person to the DOY list. -Obsidi (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

One more:

Richardis

erroneous (but mirrors article; perhaps the source is just applicable to a different noble)

AGK ■ 18:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I can tell that death date is accurate [16], but I could not find it in source cited. (The only mention was that she was married to Liutpold and uses the name "Richwara", which is another one of the names she is called. I've seen Richardis, Richwar, Richarda, and Richwara all used as her name. Clicking on the link that is her name, you can find her entry, but I don't see any death date recorded in that source.) Do you want me to merge that into one table? -Obsidi (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No... if the source says "8 or 9 December" it is NOT okay to pick one and put it on that date. That's not being true to the source. Nor can we "accept feast day = death day" ... that's assuming something that's not in the source. In this case, when the source says that there was also commemorations on another day - that means there are possibly TWO death dates (and that assumes that the source is a reliable one (which I doubt, still haven't seen anything that says that's a reliable source by our standards)) or perhaps neither of those days is the death date because ... the source does not say "commemorated on his death date" so it's WP:OR to assume that "feast day=death date". Good gods, people... this is elemenatary editing - we don't pick one date from two presented in the source nor do we assume something that isn't in the source. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree if the source says "8 or 9 Dec." He shouldn't just pick one. But this is a question of intention, was he trying to just screw up WP by entering false information? That would be sneaky vandalism. I don't think that what he did rises to that, which is why I marked it as "close" and not "sound." The feast date is close, but not exactly the death day. The feast day would be the death day if it was known usually. Maybe I should mark that is close as well. Still, it is a question of was he sloppy or doing it intentionally, I think you have to come down on the sloppy side of things and not the intentional vandalism. -Obsidi (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Uninvolved admin review: This is getting wordy. As I understand it, it seems clear now that User:Mill 1 has been taking the source allegedly used to "confirm" a date from the article, and using it as a source on the DOY page, without independently confirming that it actually supports the date. Mill 1 is not the original creator of these bad references. That's bad practice and needs to stop, but attributing it to "sneaky vandalism" - an actual desire to damage the encyclopedia - is unjustifiable. Perhaps that characterization is the result of frustration, tho.
  • @Toddst1:, is there any other behavior besides this that you're alleging? On reflection, do you really believe that this is being done intentionally?
  • @Mill 1:, I assume you agree to not do this anymore? (That's phrased as a question to be polite, but for the sake of clarity, what I really mean is: Mill 1, you must stop doing this.)

I agree to stop using sources directly from the bio's since it now clear they cannot be trusted. I also apologize for this practise (again, no malevolence intended) but am happy that via this discussion a deeper rooted problem regarding DOY has been identified.Mill 1 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

So if that's the only problem, and if Mill 1 agrees to stop, I think the only remaining things to discuss here, and what we should re-focus on, are:

• How much of this is still in the DOY articles? How easy would it be to identify edits where this was done, and revert them? Should we just revert all of Mill 1's edits where they blindly copied a reference from an article?
• Assuming Mill 1 wasn't actively looking for incorrect references to copy over to DOY pages, the rate that their references were wrong roughly approximates the rate that errors in the main articles were wrong. That's pretty disturbing. We should aim to identify those cases and fix them in the articles too. Maybe as a subpage of WP:DOY? I don't know the best way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You will find that the number entries is quite limited since I only recently refocused my efforts on DOY. In all I added 34 entries:

• September 30: 6 entries
• October 2: 3 entries
• October 6: 16 entries
• October 7: 9 entries

11 of them have already been reverted by my nemesis.Mill 1 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• It would seem to me more profitable to just check the references that are present in DOY articles (still a tiny minority) and add reliable references where we find wrong ones. Where we can't find a reference, we remove that entry. Deb (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Just a general comment on dates & history, for general reference. Although people involved in this thread probably know more than me about this subject.

• Birth dates are always problematic, & the further back in time the more they need to have a reference. People tended to ignore this information, & even in contemporary third-world societies adults sometime don't know the year of their birth. We lack this information for many people, even famous ones; so having a date of birth for someone before, say AD 1000, is unusual & needs a citation. Sometimes we have to settle for the next best thing, such as date of baptism.
• Death dates are less problematic, because people tend to notice when other people die. The same problem exists: the further back in time a death is placed, the more problematic its reliability. For some deaths, there is an anchor that helps us to determine when the subject died (e.g., a battle, a natural disaster, or an astronomical event); for others, any date is based on a lot of surmise or inference, so experts may disagree on the date. (So WP:NPOV matters here.)
• Other events vary in difficulty, but the further back in time they are the less certain we are about the date. In some cases, this is because of literary convention: many Greek historians purposely omit mentioning the date of any battle or other significant event. In others it is due to lack of information. From my experience, for Europe we only have information about dates on a regular basis from the time of the Roman Empire forward; for Japan, from about AD 900 forward; for Ethiopia, much later, from about AD 1400 forward; for China, the period may be as early as 200 BC. (The Chinese kept very good records, & managed to avoid much of the destruction that plagued Europe & Ethiopia.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Broome, Western Australia

Would someone mind imposing a block on The Drover's Wife for hoaxing and personal attacks? She's persistently adding a claim that slavery existed in the Broome article in the late 19th century, despite the cited source never making such a statement; and when I've reverted, all I've gotten is personal attacks.

Background: the article states that slavery and slavery-like conditions existed in this place in the 1880s, but as slavery was ended in 1833, I removed the statement. To my surprise, I was reverted with a fierce response, and while giving a warning at her talk, I noted that the cited source never said that slavery existed at this site. (The source's only uses of the string slav are a bit about slavery-like conditions and a note about the 1833 action, page 45; a note that "reports" of slavery were made, page 110; and a citation to a work with slaves in the title, page 217.) She re-reverted, which I again reverted and accompanied with a stern warning about hoaxing, and all that happened was a re-re-revert. [I'm at 2RR, but I'm not going to 3RR (as she already has), let alone surpassing it.] Moreover, I've been given repeated baseless allegations: I'm "misrepresenting both the detail and character of sources", I'm "flagrantly misrepresenting a source", and I'm trying to "play unsupportable ideological games".

Adding a claim of X with a citation is a claim that the cited source says X: if it does not, you've added a hoax. (Moreover, remember that WP:V demands a citation that directly supports anything that's been challenged, and I've demonstrated that the citation does not support the challenged content.) There's room for lenience the first time (typos, misunderstanding the source, etc.), but when you're repeatedly reverted with warnings and yet you restore the hoax and respond as I note above, it's beyond time for lenience. Moreover, WP:WIAPA provides that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are a kind of personal attacks, and she's presented no evidence for source misrepresentation or doing something for any reason other than enforcing compliance with the sources. [Hint: I've never heard of Broome before, and I wasn't aware that there was a dispute on this subject; I couldn't have had an opinion on the question.] There's no room for tolerating the combination of hoaxing and personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User Nyttend seems not to have any knowledge of Blackbirding in Australia, and appears to be involved in an edit war. Another uninvolved editor has suggested that the discussion be moved to the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for improvements to this article, and I've added a couple other related articles to that discussion that also need better references. Bahudhara (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is surreal. Nyttend has a very strong point-of-view (that slavery in Australia definitively never existed because of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 and because of his own opinion as to the definition of slavery (which differs from the statutory definition of slavery in both the UK and Australia). Neither of these points of view are well supported in reliable sources. I reinserted content that was supported by the cited source. These are obviously complex issues, and I am very open to different wording - all I'm definitively opposed to is Nyttend's blanket POV. Nyttend's entire response to this issue has been to repeatedly accuse me of "hoaxing" for not sharing his POV, threaten to have me blocked and revert without explanation.

Considering Nyttend has repeatedly accused me of "hoaxing" for insisting on a mainstream interpretation of Australian history, it is a bit rich to claim that I'm the one making personal attacks. He claimed a source published by the Australian Heritage Commission was written by "environment specialists" and not historians in a false attempt to dismiss it. He suggests that the source did not support a reference to "slavery", when it plainly does in context - again, happy to workshop language as to exactly what one says about the disputed section (again, this stuff is obviously nuanced and complex), just opposed to the attempt to remove any reference to slavery in any context. Nyttend's behaviour has been ridiculously aggressive from the get-go and is blocking what seems to be a reasonably easy issue to resolve if one focuses on sources instead of his established and overtly-stated point of view. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

An editor I've never come across just posted this link from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on my talk page, which is another brilliant example of the sort of mainstream history that Jyttend has threatened to have me banned for including because it differs from his personal POV. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I requested the two editors to note the issue is better in the Australian project - to try to lose the personal point making. As what happens when it gets lost in the interpersonal unnecessarily. Please see Australian the notice board to see why I suggested as such. Please also see the article itself to see why I believe there are some apologies required, and the term 'hoaxing' dropped. JarrahTree 02:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved editor, looks like a content dispute that shouldn't have escalated to the point where an WP:ANI report was necessary, it's definitely not a hoax, I posted some references at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board to illustrate it is the mainstream view of Australian history. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nyttend claims slavery could not exist because slavery was illegal and the first sentence of Wikipedia's Slavery article defines slavery as de jure.[17] Yes, the UK parliament did pass the Slavery Abolition Act 1833; it also passed the Modern Slavery Act 2015 because slavery has persisted. That is not a hoax. Experienced Wikipedia editors should know that the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is not always perfect. 92.19.29.177 (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This item needs closing as resolved. Neither of the main protagonists in this argument seem the slightest interested in closing the issues specifically here. The placement of further information at WP:AWNB sidesteps the conflict here, but places further evidence suggesting that there is no hoax on the part of well intentioned writers on the subject.JarrahTree 23:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The content dispute is pretty obviously solved at this point, yes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I do note that Nyttend's only response to the various responses here and at WP:AWNB has been to post on his talk page accusing everyone who replied of "defending abuse of sources" and complaining that the responses were "patronising comments with no basis in reality" for not sharing his opinion. This is unbelievable behaviour for an administrator. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved administrator: I see some initial edit warring by several parties. I also find much of the participation by The Drover's Wife tends to increase tension and ill-will; a certain abrasiveness there is not helping. All this said, after 3 reverts from either side the dispute moved onto the talk page. It has remained there. Suggest no action. AGK ■ 11:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Unhelpful behaviour on both sides, an obnoxious collaborator versus this excessive response, I prefer to avoid the first and am dismayed that the second, an admin fwiw, appears to be disparaging other users and drama mongering to serve a reactionary pov (I hope that is wrong). I think a respected peer should remind other admins of what we are doing here. — cygnis insignis 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment by another uninvolved administrator: I'm seeing here symptoms of another long-term Wikipedian heading towards terminal burnout. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment it does on the face of things looks like another Wikipedian burnout but it appears to be building to something more unsightly that will require a response from ANI or possibly ARBCOM in the future. The reference to slavery like conditions existing in Broome is itself accurate and continued to some extent across the region until the Noonkanbah dispute of 1970's. Gnangarra 23:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Lachlb and time zone 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.

---

This new editor arrived on the scene today, and immediately made a number of incorrect changes to several time zone related articles, and only such articles. Nothing else. No Edit summaries. Nothing in Talk pages. The first ones I noticed involved Australian time zones (I'm an Aussie, so I noticed), so I reverted, and eventually asked him to stop, on hs Talk page. This achieved nothing. No response. The edits continued. I eventually reverted quite a few, but was unsure about a few others, so haven't touched them. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the area can do so. These can be seen on his User contributions page.

His appearance lasted a little over an hour. He has done nothing since. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That appears to be User:Lachlb, not User:Lachb as raised. HiLo48, I'm pretty sure of that (so I've updated the section heading) but can you confirm that it's now correct? Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You are quite correct. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that some of their contributions at least are still unreverted as I write. [18] If it's a vandalism-only account of course it's a simple and immediate indef.

That particular contribution does perhaps contain some valid content... adding Malé to the time zone UTC+5 is correct. [19] Except they've added it as Male which is not. Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I've mass reverted all edits whilst we discuss further. On the face of it all the edits seems poor. GiantSnowman 09:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

He's at it again. See List of UTC time offsets. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours to give them an opportunity to respond on their talk page to the concerns raised about their editing. Should a satisfactory response be provided, any admin please feel free to unblock without checking with me. Should one not be provided and they resume the crappy editing, I would imagine an indefinite block will be imposed. Fish+Karate 09:37, 10 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.

Note they've decided to evade their block and edit from an IP address. IP is now blocked, I recommend indeffing the main account. Canterbury Tail talk 02:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories - Deep state section

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

---

User Slatersteven and I have been in continues disagreement, to me seemingly cause he does not want to read sources and cause he has inherent bias. We took it to Talk section of page, then to personal talk pages I accused him of incompetency (which he displays in my mind without a question and he tried to spin it as PA and even threatened me on my talk page). I would like Administrators and preferably persons without emotional investment in politics to look it up. I feel like entire section defining term is a blatant cop-out with left wing bias and entire section is pretty much attack on Donald Trump (person I dont really care about) instead on focusing on issues and facts and even reading sources with understanding. I would like to point out I mentioned turkish 2016 coup and Steven started with whatabouthery and mentioning Greek coup which is not issue at hand and does not apply to our subject (deep state). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

In two days from being a new user to filing an ANI-case... That escalated pretty damn fast. There's major WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL issues here, but not on Slatersteven part. The appropriate reaction to someone disagreeing with you is not calling them incompetent (more than once). Since you are new here, I recommend a firm WP:TROUTing. If you weren't, I'd recommend a WP:BOOMERANG Kleuske (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Besides... You are obliged to notify Slatersteven on his talk-page. See the big red banner at the top of this page. Kleuske (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

By continuously he means since he first stated editing about 24 hours ago, on the only article he has edited.

Here is his first edit in the article talk page [[20]], which he claims is proof there is a deep state. Here is his second (and last post to that thread [[21]]. I asked him not to make PA's here [[22]], and his response to it. It is clear the user is wp:nothere. Now I know about do not bite newbies, but I have tried to tell them not to make PA's to read our polices on OR and synthesis. They have not listensed and have instead fallen back on attacking me.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I am pretty passionate about topic and I know what I am talking about. Also how can he ask me numerous times to quote him source, thought it is given he have all read the sources with understanding already.. I will do my post to oblige by wikipedia rules, but lets focus on topic here - editor does not read sources with understanding and tries to avoid facts. Also Steven, I did talk about other topics, notably modern architecture and Art Deco, Art Nouveau. This is yet another ad hominem attack to sidestep issue at hand.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, lets make this easy. Provide one source here that says the deep state exists in all the instances we list in the article. Sorry I should have said, on the only article we have both edited. But as far as I can tell you have only edited on two articles, the conspiracy article and one about visas.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You have opinions, but it's not clear that you "know what you're talking about", at least in the context of writing a Wikipedia article. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, Steven you cant use and hijacked term well know and used beforehand. Term did not originate in USA, it did not originate in contemporary time and if some theorist are trying to hijack term that needs to put to an end, not to play along with them. Deep State is not Power elite that is literally made up. It always referred to entrenched bureaucrats usually in military and intelligence community as provided in sources. If you want to argue unique usage of term by Donald Trump thats on you, but term Deep State needs to be left alone along with its definition that I repeat is provided in sources and consensus is clear. MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, it's not accurate that MrStefanWolf has only edited one article. First, they didn't edit any article, only talk pages. Second and more importantly, their first edit outside of creating their user page was this [23] to Talk:H-1B visa. Later [24] to the same page. It's true most of their edits were concerning that list until albeit ignoring stuff postdating this ANI, only two edits to the article talk page and a whole host of edits concerning the article on their talk page and SlaterSteven's talk page and this ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have already accepted this is not the case (well the part about this being the only article they have edited).Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@MrStefanWolf: I'll cut you some slack since you're new but this isn't the purpose of ANI. If you have a content dispute which you can't resolve, you should use some form of WP:Dispute resolution, none of which should need ANI. Note that before you do so, you really need to take onboard what others have told you and make sure you aren't simply wrong, otherwise you may simply end up wasting everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 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.

Somebody's harassing me on French Wikipedia?

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

---

I don't speak French so I can't raise the issue on the French equivalent of ANI. They've made one contribution on the French Wikipedia, which is harassing me (in English): [25]. And their username doesn't appear to exist on the English Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. --ChiveFungi (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@ChiveFungi: Despite everything I heard about French people, I'm pretty sure fr-wiki admins, at least some of them, speak English. I'd just post it to fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs and ask them to please handle this as they see fit. Regards SoWhy 16:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, we do happen to have some English speakers on the French wiki, actually quite many since a good proportion of our articles are translated from en:wiki :) Also not everyone on the French wiki is French, app. 70% the rest being Belgians, Swiss, Quebecois... Anyway, I blocked the troll. Best regards From the French Wiki :) --Kimdime (talk) 16:52, 11 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.

Somebody claiming to be the same person is back (and of course claiming victimhood, lol). Now on MetaWiki: [26]. Again, no idea how to report the issue there. Any way to block their IP address from registering new accounts across Wikimedia projects? Presumably they were banned on English Wikipedia (at my request, perhaps?) and have resorted to harassing me through the other Wikimedia wikis. Thanks. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Reported at m:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#Vandal on Meta. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

user:Kishor salvi india

The following discussion is closed. 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:Kishor salvi india is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Few days ago, he kept adding himself to caste of Tujhyat Jeev Rangala, and added his name to a few lists, and even one category. He was warned appropriately every time. After one similar edit, I gave him "final warning". Few hours after that warning, he created an article about himself. By the time i saw it, the user was inactive, and I thought he stopped editing. But he did it again a few hours ago from now. I think its time for a block. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. Clearly NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 12 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.

70.178.127.37

An anon user has started off removing talk page posts against talk page rules, sourced content, and adding incorrect information to a page. After reverted, I was contacted by the anon, who is clearly trying to edit war and OWN the pages. I reverted again with edit summaries only to be reverted again and this post added to my talk page asking me to "recuse myself" (OK?). Anyway, the anon has went into my edit history and began editing pages I have edited before with snarky edit summaries trying to get a rise out of me, as well as continuing to add incorrect information to pages. So, I bring this to you all.

Personally, I think a complete revert of all edits, a 3RR warning, and a strongly written warning regarding this type of behavior from an admin would be a good start. But those are just my suggestions, you can tell me to, as my Brit friends say, "bugger off" and do whatever you like. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:14 on October 9, 2018 (UTC)

I just rolled back an edit where the IP blanked an entire talk page here, as well as some other edits. The user is stating in their edit summaries with their reverts on WGLI that the source provided doesn't support that the content is describing. Apart from the disruptive edits, there appears to be edits over content that should be discussed. Other than your response here, have you tried to communicate and kindly explain why he may be incorrect with his edits at WGLI? Have you attempted to collaborate with the user and work with them to resolve things? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

NeutralHomer seems to regard himself as an authority on these topics. Yet he posts incorrect information. He insists on misrepresenting the coverage of a radio station that is not supported by his own maps and using incorrect information in other articles. When made aware of his undoing of my proper edits, I read some of his other articles and became aware that he is a far from neutral and rather neurotic person who wants to change correct information posted by those who may know more about the subject in question than he does. He needs to prove his assertions of signal coverage and slogans/format names, or accept the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.127.37 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the WPJX page, when I added multiple sources to all reliable sources per RS, the anon came through and manually reverted the changes against the sources. Apparently he thinks Arbitron is the end all, be all. For the record, Arbitron (now owned by Nielsen) shows the station still carrying a Spanish Contemporary format (which is previously did).

While I was writing this, the anon reverted the WPJX page, YET AGAIN, against sources, and blanked his talk page. Clearly he is not interested in conversation and more interested in OWNing an article and slinging insults. A block is needed for the anon, I will not make any further edits to the anon's edits, regardless of how incorrect they are. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36 on October 9, 2018 (UTC)

Neutralhomer - Don't worry about his/her user talk page. Users are allowed to blank their own talk page and remove comments and discussions from them if they wish. You notified them properly of this discussion; their removal acknowledges that they saw it. No need to worry about their talk page beyond that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What the station programmers call the format isn't relevant. The station doesn't program a "metal" format. The industry nomenclature is proper and used to categorize stations on Wikipedia. No commercial radio station in North America programs a purely "heavy metal" format. Heavy Metal is a musical genre. Active Rock is a radio format that includes heavy metal and other forms of hard music - his own sources admit the station has a Punk show, for example. You are not on Wikipedia to serve as PR mouthpiece for radio programmers. If you are so biased, recuse yourself from the topic. Numerous people have called you out on errors that you keep reverting to in radio articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.127.37 (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted on WPJX. They have an 'about us' page where it is literally spelled out 'Rebel Radio has been cranking out hard rock and heavy metal over the air waves since July 10, 1994'. They likely give little to no care about Nielsen and their ratings at all and the station is run as an enthusiast project rather than a pure commercial effort (and I'm 99% certain they don't subscribe to Nielsen ratings, so basically they would likely reject whatever format box Nielsen puts them in anyways and probably laugh at the 'industry'; honestly they'd probably laugh at us trying to also categorize them within an article). We go with that. At the very least, a radio station is allowed to say what their format is. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

70.178.127.37, if you read what the Active Rock format is, you would know you are wrong. In it's most watered down form, it's new commercial-based rock, ie: Halestorm, Breaking Benjamin, Metallica, Bad Wolves, Five Finger Death Punch, Shinedown, etc. What WPJX plays is Broken Hope, EyeHateGod, Jinjer, Sunflo’er, Kyuss, etc. Clearly neither are the same. There is no crossover between Active Rock and Heavy Metal. WPJX and Rebel Radio plays a Heavy Metal format, not an Active Rock one found on stations like WNOR, KRZN, WIIL, and other stations nationwide. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:03 on October 10, 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I never really got to discuss anything with the anon (especially WGLI) and when the user began blanking his talk page, which I do know is his/her choice, I saw no reason for it until the user calmed down. I would be interested in talking with the user, but until they calm down and are more open to discussion with me, I see no reason. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:06 on October 10, 2018 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, have you actually read WP:OR? 86.147.197.124 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you two have at least opened a dialogue of communication to one another here, which is a great first step. I encourage you both to relax, agree that you plan to discuss things with one another and try and work things out, and be completely civil to each other when you do so... agree to consider this as a "we started on the wrong foot" moment, "sorry" - and go from there. Work issues out one-at-a-time; don't go off about a bunch of things in one response. A big part of the dispute is whether or not the map in the source actually represents that radio frequency coverage exists in certain areas. Start with this disagreement and just this one, go to Talk:WPJX, start over and with a new discussion - wipe the slate clean and shake hands, and explain your thoughts thoroughly, calmly, and respectfully. One one issue is worked out, move on to another. I'm here should either of you have questions or concerns for me. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I considered talking with the anon, but after he/she continued to blank his/her comments from my talk page, along with my entire talk page, and this nonsense on the WELY page including the "proper tense" of the station's branding over the one used. WELY uses the branding "End of the Radio Radio", while the anon insists it's "Radio at the End of the Road" even though the station's website and social media contradict this. Perhaps he/she is going an extreme form of proper English? Whatever the reasoning, it showed me that he/she was not interested in discussing anything and was still being disruptive. If the anon is willing to calm down what is clearly disruptive behavior, I will be more than happy to discuss the WPJX article, the WELY article, the WGLI article, whatever. But with his/her behavior as it is, it's not worth my time.

That said, I do believe that something needs to be done, as the anon's behavior has verged into the disruptive as evidenced by his/her edits to my talk page (after warnings) and to the WELY page. A stern warning might help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:40 on October 11, 2018 (UTC)

Now he's blanked the entire section regarding the station's branding. Anyone like to step in? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:30 on October 12, 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The anon has now back-tracked one of my edits and reverted it, no comment, just a revert. I'm tired of playing (and this board's inactivity on this matter) and have issued a Warn4IM warning for vandalism. Would one of you like to do something about this or should we allow an anon to vandalize other articles? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:14 on October 13, 2018 (UTC)

IP 180.94.140.233

I just blocked IP 180.94.140.233 for a week on graphic image vandalism. This is not their only recent block for the same behavior. Is there a more effective long-term way to handle this IP? The pattern is that they will keep doing it, no matter how many blocks are applied. — Maile (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Block them for a lot longer, and block the 180.94.128.0/18 range if necessary. The last block on that range was 21 days, with no significant collateral damage. I recommend at least 60 days. Also, add the image to the BADIMAGES file (I've already done so) and revdel the diffs so they can't just be reverted and so people don't get a NSFW surprise when checking history. I'm working my way through the revdels. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

They appear to have been trying to do this for a long time, and I see no harm in a rangeblock of six months to a year. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked 180.94.128.0/18 for six months, as I see little collateral damage. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd support an edit filter that prevents changes to images or addition of new images in TFA by IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts - that would take care of much of this shock image trouble on TFAs. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, it wasn't TFA, just sticking porn into articles. I also support a filter preventing IPs from doing this. — Maile (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it did involve TFA: Camille Saint-Saëns, and there's a discussion about TFA edit filters over at AN. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a globally locked account that is behind this and I've asked the stewards to evaluate this range on other projects. As far as collateral, there are two uninvolved accounts that will probably be affected but they can request IPBE.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Are open proxies being used for this? The IP above seems to host a website [27] which is a login page copyrighted by Hikvision Digital Technology suggesting to me a compromised IP camera may have been used Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I don't believe that it is a compromised device, either. SQL^{Query me!} 23:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this will get people to revisit the age-old debate that articles should be semi-protected while they are on the main page? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

U5 CSD

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

---

I have tagged User:Katherine Scruz J/sandbox as U5 3 times now and the creator keeps removing the tag. I have warned them but could someone delete the page Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gbawden: When you created this ANI report, you must have noticed the big yellow box at the top of the edit page that tells you that you must notify the user being complained about that you have complained. But fear not, for I have done it for you. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:44, 12 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.

Hateful comments directed at individual and group

The following discussion is closed. 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 in question: Special:Contributions/46.188.125.12

They have left several extremely hateful comments directed both at an individual, and at a group they belong to as a whole (obviously they're referring to trans people). I think at least two of their comments deserve a REVDEL (for advocating murder: [28], for using "it" to refer to a person: [29]), if not the third comment as well ([30]).

Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't post requests for revision deletion here (as it says in the big pink box when you edit this page), but I've revision deleted two of the edits and have blocked the IP. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 12 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.

Ref desk troll

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

---

It is time for the daily cleanup on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This is the only one being hit currently but that may change. MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

For the moment taken care of. Page protected, IPs blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks RickinBaltimore. Thanks as well to Favonian for the R/D. MarnetteD|Talk 16:14, 12 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.

188.137.40.75

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor is still vandalizing Wiki. Look at what he’s down to Top Wing. I think we need to block him for 3 months so he’ll learn his lesson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B06D:6643:6951:D62C:9376:E0D9 (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a separate noticeboard for vandalism.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That, and it isn't "Wiki". ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really vandalism. Unsourced. Blocked-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

And no, three months isn't needed. Use a talk page. The link to it is right next to the IP. Also, if you are who I think you are (and I won't divulge), you have a blocked account with a WP:SO hopefully still open, but you haven't learned anything from your absence. Stop acting unkind and lashing out at IPs. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

1 week.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have also blocked the OP as a long-term block evader (and wannabe anti-IP police enforcer). They were eligible for a WP:SO unblock request, but their recent edits (from this and another IP) show they're not ready to return yet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 12 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.

Suspicious mass creation

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed earlier that roughly 30+ accounts were created, en-masse in roughly the same 3-5 minutes followed by the bulk of these accounts creating identical userpages in the same minute. SQL threw together a list (though it's missing a few) you can see here: User:SQL/Creationbot. There are two or three sets of text they've used which are all variations of each other. My first thought was a class or edit-a-thon but this doesn't seem to be remotely similar to any that I've seen and the fact that all the accounts were created at roughly the same time with identical text seems too bot-like. Can we get an admin or functionary to take a look and assess? And here is a quick plain url list I grabbed. I also am unsure if I need to notify all 40 accounts, so if that's a problem, let me know. Praxidicae (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

They appear to be students from (Redacted).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 Thanks. Sorry to worry anyone, just seemed to be suspicious given the rapid creation. Praxidicae (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Would be great if we could collectively welcome all of them. I will take now 3-4 users, but I do not want to take all of them, this would create an impression that I am either a bot or have some special function.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I welcomed some more users Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: is that appearance based on CU data? If these were all from the same address we could have a throttle malfunction going on with account creation. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Different IPs in the same range.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

xaosflux That's actually why I was suspicious, because there was no throttle. Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 11 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.

Hamburger button / Menu icon

• Hamburger button (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Menu icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few issues. First, there appears to have been a copy-paste merge. Second, both @Kpgjhpjm and Matt14451: should be trout-ed for re-listing the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menu icon where nobody was advocating deletion. Third, comparing the old version to the current version, Ericnoel's changes are likely not an improvement, perhaps this should just be reverted. Courtesy ping to @Xevus11: who has tried to clean this up but gotten no assistance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I am not defending myself , but I think the first relist with only the speedy keep vote by Enterprisey and comments by Ericnoel . But the second relist by Matt14451 with two keep votes seems a bit weird to me . For more information, I am on a break from relisting AFDs for a week . Waiting for your comments. Thanks . Kpgjhpjm 01:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: The first relist was inappropriate because the nominator failed to advance any argument for deletion or redirection, so the discussion should have been closed as "speedy keep" instead per WP:SK#1. The nominator only suggested that the article be moved back to a different title, and there were no editors who thought the article should be deleted or redirected. Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Histmerged. Alright, I've completed a history merge from Menu icon → Hamburger button. I think this should fix the copy-paste move that the AfD was about. Editors who want to rename the page should make a request via WP:RM. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've given the article a quick and dirty but well imperfect makeover just now ... hopefully its an improvement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

WP: Battleground Accusation by IP

Hi, An IP has responded to an RfC in a aggressive manner towards another user and accused them of creating a battleground. They have also commented on another opinion dismissing it. Could someone please intervene as it's harming the discussion?

Diff:[31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

Thanks, RhinosF1 (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The accusation of battleground is definitely unfounded, but these diffs (or the discussion for that matter) would be easier to read if they weren't mobile diffs since mobile diffs only show the difference between edits and not the actual discussion itself.—Mythdon 06:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not harming the discussion. The discussion has barely started and this ANI is doing its best to stifle it.

"accused them of creating a battleground"

Given the editor's contributions to a previous discussion on the subject, his repeated failure to provide sources that support his claims, his enthusiasm to change the article based a new source that similarly fails to support his claims and his general attitude to the subject, what am I supposed to think? For example, in this edit dated 13 September, he makes it quite clear that in future he will declare a discussion closed at a time of his choosing regardless of the state of the discussion, and by extension use that declaration to enforce whichever changes he chooses. WP:BATTLEGROUND exists for a reason: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." I think the editor in question is holding a grudge—he wanted to make a change, but the community disagreed with him and formed a consensus, and now that someone else has raised the issue he has latched onto it in the hopes of forming a new consensus because it's a point of pride.

"They have also commented on another opinion dismissing it."

That's a misrepresentation. The issue in question has been discussed extensively and a consensus formed. All I did was outline what that consensus was and why it was formed and that's "dismissing an opinion"? How are we supposed to have a meaningful discussion if editors involved in previous, relevant and related discussions cannot give details of those discussions? Especially considering that RhinosF1 supports the proposed change and is thus opposed to the existing consensus. If RhinosF1 had his way, the previous discussion would go unaddressed in the current discussion despite its relevance, and hence this ANI is stifling the discussion. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've looked over your collection of diffs and reviewed some of the talk page discussion. Honestly, I don't see that the IP editor has done anything actionable. The worst they could conceivably be accused of is being a little blunt in getting their point across, as well as a singular assumption of bad faith, which clearly came from a place of frustration after spending over a month trying to explain that a memorandum of understanding between two businesses does not mean that a contract has been signed. (I say "over a month" because although there have been multiple IP addresses participating in that discussion since August, they all appear to be the same editor.) None of the sources being suggested on the article's talk page adequately verify the claim that Honda and Red Bull have officially agreed to a partnership, so I ultimately side with the IP on this one and can empathize with their exasperation. However, that is a content dispute and falls outside the scope of ANI, which deals pretty exclusively with behavioral issues. My assessment of the situation as a non-administrator is that the IP has done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing worthy of a sanction. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kurtis:

    "I say "over a month" because although there have been multiple IP addresses participating in that discussion since August, they all appear to be the same editor."

  • Yes, it's all me. I have no idea why my IP address keeps changing. 1.144.107.224 (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries. You probably just have a dynamic IP address. They're pretty much the norm these days. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@1.144.107.224: They've most likely rejected the idea by this point, but the IP user could register for an account to avoid the dynamic IP problem. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 11:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This seems to be more of a dispute over sourcing, so I have to agree with Kurtis (after reading the discussions) that this isn't an issue for ANI. Even assumptions of bad faith (the battleground comment) aren't actionable unless they become a regularity. So this thread should probably be closed since neither side has provided substantial evidence of behavioral issues that would require the intervention of an administrator. But if issues start to escalate, then it should be brought back here.—Mythdon 08:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) As "another user", I've no interest in an ANI discussion over this. OZOO (t) (c) 09:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Demolytionman420

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

---

Demolytionman420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been here over 4 years. Since he's never deleted anything from, nor archived his talk, everything is there. Excepting a few edits at the beginning, he's strictly a SPA on articles associated with Juggalo culture. He's been repeatedly warned about adding unsourced content, but continues to do it. I do not recall ever seeing a talk page with so many warnings for copyright issues, including three in the last two days. I'm not sure whether it's CIR, NOTHERE or UPE, but whatever it is, it needs to stop. Was blocked for disruptive editing in the last couple months. If the user cannot explain why he continues to do things he's been repeatedly warned not to do, I think an Indeff may be in order. As I said, I think his talk paints a very clear picture. If you want diffs, just ask. John from Idegon (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I have given this editor an indefinite block. I welcome any administrator to lift the block if the editor agrees to comply with policies and guidelines, and to communicate with editors who express concerns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that about covers it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• To save people clicking, a Juggalo is not (as one might imagine) a competitor to Hooters, but a fan of the group Insane Clown Posse or any other Psychopathic Records hip hop group. EEng 05:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oh, I might have confused it with the subject of a David Lee Roth song.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:04, 12 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.

Cleanup time

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

---

184.68.241.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) R/D of these needed. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 20:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

And now this one as well 181.123.6.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) MarnetteD|Talk 20:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their actions. MarnetteD|Talk 20:44, 13 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.

I think User:Lachlb may be back, attacking time zone articles again, using an IP address this time.

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

---

See my report on this from three days ago up above. Have a look at the edits today by 110.22.118.144. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: I think WP:SPI is a better venue for this. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 02:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a huge backlog at SPI, and I think in cases like this when it's obvious, the ol' block hammer should come crashing down. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:50, 13 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.

Copy-violating sock again

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

---

• Sachingharat289 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sachingharat289 is very likey to be a sock of JustinJohnsonBagPack and AkshayKadamSwag, uploading logo duplicates as own work, then replacing valid fair use images with his, throwing severe disruption because that orphans fair-use images. Only this time he's uploading on commons instead of locally. Pinging Courcelles as the person who handled that last time (back in April). L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

For the future, please use SPI. I've blocked the user. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated his Commons uploads for deletion on commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sachingharat289 and did the same to some of the previous socks' local files. Now need to clean up this account's edits... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we have been treading on each other's toes cleaning this up. However, I did discover that while removing the 'not in use' tags from the original images that some are in fact copyright violations where the uploader has claimed to release the image on the share-alike license even though the logo is clearly the copyright of the organisation in question. <Didn't spot that the uploaders are the likely copyright owners.> 86.170.110.98 (talk) 09:05, 13 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.

Korean re-directs

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

---

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

Kakanaja is creating a series of redirects in the Korean language including redirects to a Thai redirect which in turn targets Bangkok. I can understand that it might be appropriate to have occasional redirects in the native language of the topic, but here we have redirects to a Canadian singer and a small New Zealand hill amongst other topics. I could speedy them all which seems an unstructured way of dealing with the issues, especially so since CSD does not have an appropriate category. Any views on how this should be handled?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Velella: Didn't you read the editnotice saying When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.? I put a notice on for you, but could you please do it in the future? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, my oversight.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:24, 13 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:COMPETENCE with user Demarco200415

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

---

Demarco200415 (talk · contribs) seems to be suffering from a severe lack of WP:COMPETENCE, as proven in edits such as the following:

• Unexplained reversion of pages, removing sourced content, and restoration of unsourced content: [36]

• Improper formatting of disambiguation page content [37]

• Improper formatting on discographies [38]

• Citing articles largely or entirely to social media and primary sources [39]

Their talk page, going back to 2016, is nothing but a minefield of improperly licensed images, prods, warnings of disambiguation links, use of social media as a source, warnings of content removal, and the like, and I have seen no improvement in editing quality whatsoever since 2016. I have also seen no attempt whatsoever by this user to talk to other users about their edits, so it seems that the incessant warnings aren't getting through. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The evidence is convincing so I have given this editor an indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 14 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.

Blocked user Inswoon needs their talk page access removed

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

---

The user has been indefinitely blocked a while ago and decided that posting personal attacks at their talk page is the best way to proceed ([40], [41] - note that in the second diff they attack me, and I did not revert them). They probably need talk page access removed since this is clearly not a legitimate way of using a talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK I did it, for you, but I don't see much of a point to it. Ignore? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• The user has had their talk page access removed. Recommend Close. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 04:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• endorse block and removal of TPA.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• I certainly don't object but I guess that I am involved since Inswoon called me a fascist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 14 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.

Threat? Prophesy? Vandalism?

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

---

In (this edit), the user 2607:fea8:30e0:be6:4d8b:5e9:1307:d76e (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted content that is at best disruptive; at worst a potential threat (or prophesizing) against someone. The name given doesn't appear to be a username on Wikipedia, so appears to be targeted to someone off-wiki. Thoughts? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My thought is that the strange edit is clearly disruptive and possibly a threat. I have blocked the IP editor on that basis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 14 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.

FaustoLG is 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.

---

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

This user is simply NOTHERE. Please see these diffs and edit summaries: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. User appears to just use wikipedia to vent and troll. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. This has been going on for quite a while, it seems. GAB^gab 18:26, 14 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.

repeat vandalism, removing criticism to create 100% positive promotional page

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zainab_Chaudry — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDM551 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not vandalism, the only problem I can see here is you adding masses of unsourced information to the article that are nothing to do with the subject at all. I have removed all of that, and I am about to delete the SPI that you just started. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you, Black Kite--I see this editor is at it again, as is an IP editor who is turning the article into fluff; I'm thinking of blocking. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• OK, User:MDM551 is blocked indefinitely per NOTHERE, basically--their edits contain blackballing, unverified hearsay and chatter, serious BLP violations, and in general it's pretty clear that their only purpose is to defame the subject of the article. Now for those IPs. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Drmies, Black Kite: Is this thread ready to be closed, or does the IP situation need additional action (such as page semi-protection)? Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 15 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.

Francis Schonken STILL edit-warring on issue he was just blocked six weeks for

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

---

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

Returning from his six-week block for continuing to ram through his unanimously opposed merge (see ANI thread 20 August 2018, and ANI thread 13 August 2018), Francis has recreated the unanimously opposed merge: [53], [54].

Since Francis Schonken has by now over the span of several years proved himself a deliberately disruptive editor (particularly in his vicious long-term harassment of Mathsci, to which this current disruptive edit-warring is unrelated), I think it is time to talk about an indef block.

Pinging: Nikkimaria, Kudpung, Alex Shih, Courcelles. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I kind of understand the frustration here, as Francis went to a lot of effort to make his case for a merge but the discussion got stuck at three participants with no one to tip the scales. Still, trying to hammer it through by edit-warring now in the face of no consensus seems amazingly unwise. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion didn't get "stuck at three participants". There was zero support for the merge, and opposition from everyone except the proposer (Francis Schonken). That's a clear consensus against the merge. If wider input had been sought, it easily could have been via neutral project-talk notifications. Instead, FS edit-warred against consensus, even after two ANI threads on his behavior and being blocked for six weeks because of it. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Elmidae, as to why there weren't more participating there, I know from long experience that participating or even witnessing any talk page discussion with FS is so futile and exhausting that most editors in the classical music area now simply avoid talk page discussions involving him. His chief weapons in content and personal disputes are festooning the article with maintenance tags or parking merge or split templates at the top.

His behaviour on Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 and its talk page in April–May 2016 is a particularly egregious example, but not an isolated one. Gerda Arendt and another editor brought the article to Featured status in March 2016. One month after its promotion FS showed up and started making swingeing changes to the content with no prior discussion [55]. This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title [56] and edit-warring [57], [58] to keep it there. Gerda objected to the page move and participated in the post hoc discussion on the talk page but Francis refused to participate any further in that discussion and unilaterally closed it after less than a day. Instead of initiating a proper requested move discussion with wider participation, he festooned the article with maintenance tags and said he was taking it to FAR with the intent of getting it demoted because it was "unstable" [59]. The FAR was closed as out of process but he continued his bulldozing. On the talk page he copied editors' comments on other talk pages with their signatures, misleadingly refactoring them as he saw fit, and failing to provide links to the original context [60]. By 20 May the article was still festooned with tags and virtually all of its previous editors, including its main editor had been driven away. Its talk page became an unreadable mess and a place where FS talked only to himself. It finally came to an end when one of the TFA coordinators archived the discussions and removed all the maintenance tags from the article [61].

It was a similar tactic FS used at the DYK nomination for An Wasserflüssen Babylon in June of this year. It was stalled for 3 and a half months before it finally passed. It led to the withdrawal of the original reviewer from the God-awful melee and an IBAN between FS and another of the discussants [62]. Nothing so far has worked—not the recent lengthy discussion resulting in the IBAN, not a community-imposed 6 month restriction to one revert per page in any calendar month in 2016 [63], and not the seven blocks for edit-warring prior to today's 1-year block by Fram which I whole-heartedly support. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Cripes! I just noticed that he even edit-warred on the talk page of the current article in dispute to remove a comment by Nikkimaria with a completely spurious "justification" [64], [65]. See what I mean about his talk page behaviour? Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Particularly in light of his recent six-week block, which was imposed upon him for doing more or less the same thing. I'm inclined to support an indefinite block in this case, with an appeal being available to him in six months time. He seems unwilling or unable to learn from his mistakes, which would unfortunately mean that he is not suited for a collaborative environment such as this. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Blocked for one year. The sheer stupidity or stubbornness of starting the same behaviour that earned them their previous block immediately again is not acceptable. While I don't agree with the statements by Softlavender about the Mathsci situation, which was bad from both sides, not one-sided harassment but two-sided unacceptable behaviour, I fully agree that their actions here are just beyond the pale. I gave one year to offer them one final chance, but if discussion here decides otherwise (more lenient or harsher), feel free to change it of course. Fram (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Responding to the ping. Although I am on a Wikileave, I am not retired. I concur with the block. I have myself experienced Francis Schonken's uncollaborative behaviour first-hand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Pinged as well, good block. Courcelles (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block to me, and I'm not exactly block-happy. Coming back to edit-war over the very same thing that you got blocked for 60 days for is quite enough to show that an editor isn't here to collaborate. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Endorse seeing as it's clear that after many blocks, it hasn't been sinking in. User can always be indeffed next time if they go back to this behavior after their one year block is up. I know from experience as a formerly banned user that oftentimes it's the longer/indef blocks that actually convince someone to participate in a collaborative manner. It took me an indefinite block (three years) before I realized what being part of a collaborative project really meant, so I'm inclined to agree with the above that Francis doesn't have the temperament to participate in a collaborative project (at least not at this time).—Mythdon 21:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"It took me an indefinite block (three years) before I realized what being part of a collaborative project really meant" – That, and I think you just matured in general. Hopefully the same will happen with Francis over time. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• endorse block User needs some time away to h=gain fresh perspective.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:03, 12 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.

Repeated harassment or threats by a person involved in ANI

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

---

After I filed a complaint against someone else, a user involved in this ANI has repeatedly made accusations or threats against me, even if I justified myself.

Excerpt from one of the initial discussions:

...Leo1pard, that is simply not true. BhagyaMani did not address you or respond to you; he simply !voted in an AfD. I'm advising you again: Stay off of usertalk pages. Stop pinging people on articletalk pages. Stop using numerous references on articletalk -- that should be necessary only very rarely. If you have a cited edit you would like to make, make it, with the citation. If it gets reverted, then discuss on articletalk; make sure you follow WP:BRD rather than simply replacing your desired edit. Lastly, stop inserting your idiosyncratic POV into articles as you have repeatedly done on Maia (nurse); Wikipedia is not a place for that. If you continue to operate in the way you have been, you will likely be blocked for lack of competence to edit Wikipedia, or topic banned completely from the subject of large cats, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Abuse, what 'idiosyncratic' POV are you talking about? I have read plenty of sources, including these,[snip] and I would use them to improve content, discussing it in talk-pages when necessary, and when other users are there to give misleading or WP:biased comments or content, I can't always improve them even if I want to, so I have to use the talk-pages quite a lot to try to improve those articles, and for your information, BhagyaMani only voted on that AfD after seeing that I was involved in there, but after I reminded him of his earlier desire to have a disengagement, he did not make another comment, but otherwise, it's not like he doesn't respond. Nevertheless, I afterwards welcomed him to talk to me in case he had anything to say, not to continue the issue of opposing what certain references may say to present a biased picture of topics like what I mentioned here. Leo1pard (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard your bizarre, rambling reply makes it more and more likely that you will be blocked for incompetence and/or disruptive editing, or topic banned completely from large cats. If I were you I would take the good-faith advice of highly experienced uninvolved editors and administrators here as a word to the wise. As it is, you are on pretty thin ice. And what does "I can't always improve them even if I want to" mean? If you don't know how Wikipedia works after all of this time, that's another very bad sign. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You have made an allegation that I have an 'idiosyncratic' POV. I asked you to clarify what you meant by that. Regarding "I can't always improve them even if I want to", what I mean is that users have made WP:biased edits in articles like that, ignoring a number of WP:reliable sources to fit their POV, and they may oppose my efforts to correct those errors. Leo1pard (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not an allegation regarding your edit-war to insert an WP:EGG on that article (the only edits you have made to it, as you well know); it's a fact. On other articles, if consensus is against you, then follow the instructions I gave here: [66]. Do not hide behind claims of "bias" or "systemic bias". Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In Maia (nurse), I have made changes like deleting unreferenced material, which is WP:acceptable according to the rules, and as per WP:EGG, it would have been a problem if I inserted a link that would have surprised the reader, or doesn't help the reader to understand what the issue is about, but that is not the case, because the issue surrounding Maia is actually mentioned in the link which I have provided, rather than the link which he provided, and as of the time that we are speaking, the consensus is not against me but against him. He has ignored the consensuses or discussions to fit his POV into articles, as mentioned above, whereas I take care to justify what I do in discussions or consensuses, or use relevant sources to respond to questions or comments asked by others there, like here. Leo1pard (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I said inserting, not deleting. Your WP:EGG is indeed an WP:EGG, and it is your idiosyncratic POV-pushing. The only way for it not to be an WP:EGG is to use the article title itself rather than linking to it under an WP:EGG. If your edit is reverted, which it has been three times, the consensus is for the status quo ante; so the current consensus is against your EGG. So you should not keep edit-warring against the current consensus; you'll need to establish a different consensus on the talkpage (which is unlikely since WP:EGGs are against MOS:LINK). If consensus remains against you, then see/follow the instructions I gave above. You can also check WP:DISCUSSFAIL, but you must read it very very carefully. If you continue to edit war, you will be reported to administrators and likely blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

— [[User:Leo1pard (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)]]

Firstly, this user said that the only edits that I made in a particular article were inserting WP:EGGs ("to insert an WP:EGG on that article (the only edits you have made to it, as you well know); it's a fact"), even though I have shown that [that is not the case, and then later contradicts herself by saying "I said inserting, not deleting." Secondly, she has alleged that I have been "idiosyncratic POV-pushing", even though I have backed up my edits or comments with relevant sources or links, and when I provided some to support what I said, she accused me of "bizarre, rambling reply ..." Thirdly, as of the time we are speaking, there is no consensus against what I have done in a particular case that was discussed, but she keeps acting as if it is the case, such has by saying "if consensus is against you, then follow the instructions I gave here ... Do not hide behind claims of "bias" or "systemic bias" (rather than for another person whom I have shown to be acting against discussions, but I don't want this discussion to be about that person, but against the person who has repeatedly thrown accusations or threats against me), has mocked me by saying things like "And what does "I can't always improve them even if I want to" mean? If you don't know how Wikipedia works after all of this time, that's another very bad sign", after I said "when other users are there to give misleading or WP:biased comments or content, I can't always improve them even if I want to, so I have to use the talk-pages quite a lot to try to improve those articles," and repeatedly threatened to report me or block me from editing, ignoring what I had to tell her. Leo1pard (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

HUGE WP:BOOMERANG required. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The thread in question is this one: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trying to talk to a user who is often abusive. I tried to warn Leo1pard several times that he was heading for sanctions, but it didn't take. Now that it's spread into yet more time-wasting and epic WP:IDHT, I think it's time to consider: (A) A block for WP:DE and WP:CIR, and/or (B) A topic ban from big cats, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Boomerang One spurious AN/I thread in a week is certainly enough. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• I see no "accusations" or "threats" of any kind in the wall of text above. Leo1pard, as far as I'm concerned the onus is on you to explain why we shouldn't be enacting sanctions against you, given that it's clear that you're involved with multiple arguments with multiple editors on multiple topics (your talk page at the time of writing looks like you're playing a game of bingo on how many different forms of complaint you can receive). If you do feel you can give such an explanation, do so succinctly and without using references on a talk thread; posting unnecessarily long comments and refusing to adhere to Wikipedia conventions on what we do and don't include on ANI threads is itself evidence of disruptive editing, since it demonstrates that you're refusing to follow the instructions at the top of this page. ‑ Iridescent 14:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Per Iridescent / Simonm223. ANI is not your personal court-martial to direct as you see fit, Leo1pard, and opening another massive thread, while another is still live, seems tendentious at best, trolling at worst. Any reason you can give as to why the community should not remove technically your ability to waste other editors' time on an hourly basis? ——SerialNumber54129 14:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly, I edit articles like Lion using WP:reliable sources, but there are others who may do WP:biased edits on those articles, and oppose my attempts to correct such edits, as I have told Softlander already. Secondly, when an issue like this arises, I make use of talk-pages like here and here to try to talk to the opposing user(s) about what they have done, but a trouble is that the opposing user(s) don't always want to listen, and may ignore the consensus, as demonstrated by edits like this, and they may show a lack of respect, like here. Thirdly, it is after repeated attempts to try to talk to the opposing user(s) that I would make a complaint like here. Fourthly, after coming here, Softlander comes here to make accusations like that I made "idiosyncratic POVs", and then when I give her evidence to the contrary, by showing her some of the references to show that I did not do what she alleged, she accused me of giving a "bizarre, rambling reply". I have references to disprove what she alleged about me, if you don't want them here, then I have no intention to bring them here, but if you ask for the references to show what I mean, then I may give them. Leo1pard (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

What happened to Thirdly? But I think "your bizarre, rambling reply" is not an unfair appraisal. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Corrected the error, and I have relevant material to challenge allegations like about me pushing a "idiosyncratic POV", in case you ask for them. Leo1pard (talk) 16:35, 14 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 editor 103.60.175.15

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

---

This IP is a prolific editor, but I don't know if it's a case of WP:CIR or simple disruption. Their talkpage is full of warning messages (several from myself) about various issues that have been encountered with their editing. The last one I added was specifically around BLPs, asking them to respond to the concerns raised on their talkpage. There are several such requests to acknowledge the problems raised, all going unanswered. Today, they're are still continuing with unsourced BLP additions (one, two). IMO, this account should be indef'd, with the proviso of the block being lifted if/when the IP actually responds to the issues raised. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a year since we don't usually do indef blocks on IPs but it looks like this one hasn't understood sourcing policies already in 2017. I also couldn't find any obvious sources for the edits in question, and some looked like name confusion to me, i.e a given person was born in a given place but the article is about a different person with the same name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 14 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.

More Sugar Bear disruption -- 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.

---

User:Sugar Bear was blocked eight years ago for socking, edit warring and disruption in music and film articles. As may be observed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear/Archive, a great many IPs and socks have been blocked since, including a rangeblock on 166.182.80.0/21. The latest IP is 166.181.243.218. Can we get a rangeblock on the disruptive range Special:Contributions/166.181.241.155/21? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

166.181.240.0/21 range blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Good block. I'll watch the articles of interest to see what happens. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 14 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.

Whitewashing of Aziz Ahmed (general)

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

---

• Aziz Ahmed (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are about five new accounts sequentially whitewashing Aziz Ahmed (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) It would be nice to get more eyes on this. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Also whitewashing of Lucky Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Jim1138 (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the SPAs Peresh Joshi and Psykedinc (likely only one person) who have repeatedly removed sourced content from Lucky Ali per WP:NOTHERE. I believe similar blocks for similar shenanigans at Aziz Ahmed (general) would be appropriate, but have left those socks alone, for now, since an admin (Anarchyte) has interpreted the removal of negative sourced content as a content dispute and has protected the article for a couple of days. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC).

Someone else raised an AN3 case about one of the other socks resulting in the article being protected for 3 months. For info: I have opened an SPI case for the obvious sock farm. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I closed the AN3 complaint with three months of extended confirmed protection due to the steady procession of new IPs and new accounts. User:TheVicarsCat has opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Promoter of noted people. Since the apparent socks usually confine their attention to this one article and they are now unable to edit, we may hope that the EC protection will stop most of the abuse. The material that the socks keep deleting is about Aziz Ahmed's brother, Joseph, who has spent a lot of time in jail. Relevance of his brother's misdeeds to the article on Aziz Ahmed is a possible topic for the talk page, though not for edit warring. Regarding the problem at Lucky Ali it seems independent of this one and has been handled with blocks by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 16 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.

Trying to talk to a user who is often abusive

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

---

I have trouble with a user who is quite disrespectful, even though often I try to talk to him about his conduct.

Excerpt from one of the initial discussions:

In Talk:Maia (nurse):

There is controversy regarding whether or not lions in Egypt were Barbary lions, considering that Egypt has part of the Nubian region with Sudan, and Sudanese lions aren't Barbary lions, but definitely an African lion, and the topics are linked. Leo1pard (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

BhagyaMani Please don't try it again, you've seen what happens when you try to bully others around, like what you did recently even though I wanted to talk to you. Leo1pard (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

BhagyaMani I have reasons to do what I do, and I have invited you to talk to me in case you wanted anything. I'm not tolerating this disrespectful behaviour. Don't continue. Leo1pard (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

BhagyaMani I am trying to talk to you. Please be respectful and talk to me. Leo1pard (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
— [[User:Leo1pard (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)]]

Despite trying to talk to him several times, either in his his talk-page or talk-pages of articles which we edit, the user has a habit of talking rudely to me, such as by saying "I don't need a personal teaching by an amateur!!" implying that I'm a school kid, or doing edits which ignore what I try to talk to him about in talk-pages. For example, despite talking to him since last year, using WP:reliable sources like these, that a number of Central African lions are of the southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita), and that others are of the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), he ignored what I said to him, and ignored certain reliable sources to say that Central African lions are P. l. leo and not P. l. melanochaita, which I have told him is WP:bias, and ignored my request to have a conversation with him in the page of the excerpt above to do what he wanted like this. Leo1pard (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as BhagyaMani appears to spend a substantial proportion of his editing time in cleaning up after you in Panthera articles, I personally can't fault them for getting a little short at times. Just saying. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A little short? I have tried many times to talk to him about topics in which we had disagreements, or where he has shown contempt of relevant content or what others may have to say, but he has again and again been abusive. Leo1pard (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I scanned over the last hundred odd edits by BhagyaMani and found absolutely no indication of even borderline abusive behaviour. And WP:AN/I is not an appropriate venue to try and force another editor to engage with you at article talk.Simonm223 (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you not checked the links that I have provided to show where he has been abusive, such as where he said "I don't need a personal teaching by an amateur!" after I tried to talk to him about errors that he made? An issue here is his abusive behaviour. I try to talk to him about errors that he makes, but he is abusive.Leo1pard (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Leo1pard, here are the procedures that will serve you the best on Wikipedia: (1) Stay off of usertalk pages. (2) Only discuss edits and content. Do not discuss or mention or name other editors. (3) On article talk pages, stick to improving the article, and to arriving at a WP:CONSENSUS when disagreements arise. (4) If after good-faith discussion of the pros and cons of any edit or content, a consensus seemingly cannot be reached, consider engaging in some form of dispute resolution. (5) If in fact it is important that one particular editor respond to you (this is usually not the case, but it sometimes is), read and follow the instructions at WP:DISCUSSFAIL. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I hope that BhagyaMani will take care to see what is going on in talk-pages, because he has often ignored what has been mentioned in relevant talk-pages, and I have had to talk a lot to get relevant material backed up by the relevant references to be published in articles, or to correct pieces of information that WP:don't always reflect what is in relevant sources, because of opposition from people like him. Leo1pard (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is required to engage with you on talkpages. If you want an edit to be made, make it, with the proper citations. It's that simple. If it is reverted, then go to the talkpage and clearly make your case for the edit, providing clear reasoning and sources, and try to achieve consensus. If the consensus does not go your way, you have three options: Accept that consensus is against you; continue to politely provide additional clear reasoning; and/or engage in some form of WP:DR such as an WP:RFC. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And what if a WP:biased edit has been made, and there was already a discussion on that, and the editor who made that edit ignores the discussion, which is why I've had to complain? Leo1pard (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If consensus is against you, then follow the instructions I gave above. Do not hide behind claims of "bias" or "systemic bias". Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

As of the time that we are speaking, the consensus is not against me but against him. He has ignored the consensuses or discussions to fit his POV into articles, as mentioned above. Leo1pard (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

If the consensus is for your desired version, you must demonstrate that on the talkpage of the article, naming and summarizing the editors who are in favor of your desired version. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• BhagyaMani, these types of comments are unacceptable on Wikipedia:
  • "Which school class are you going to, if I may ask?".
  • "You ain't telling me any news kid. I read Barnett et al. (2006) long before you joined wikipedia."
  • "I don't need a personal teaching by an amateur!!"

They violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, which are Wikipedia policies. Please do not engage in this sort of behavior in the future. Discuss content, not other editors, and remember to always assume good faith. Softlavender (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments and advice! Jena Fi’s comment, supposedly hinting at WP:Boomerang (?) fits: user Leo1pard was adviced on 16 Sept to disengage from discussions with me, but despite a reminder has since repeatedly u’d and pinged me on several talk pages, often with extensive {{reflist talk}}s and repeating content of pages. Most previous discussions went circular, so that I was not at all interested to continue such talks. In this respect, I agree with this comment by cygnis insignis. Some u’s even indicate that s/he followed up on my talks with other wikipedians and edits, cautioning me to be ‘careful’, as if my contributions to mainspace pages were usually careless. For these reasons, I consider it best to not respond to such u's and pings, the more so as I much prefer to contribute and improve mainspace pages. Happy editing to all! – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

After you said this to me about disengagement, I decided to avoid engaging you in any argument or discussion, before you changed your mind and decided to engage me in an argument later, forcing me to make replies. Leo1pard (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard, that is simply not true. BhagyaMani did not address you or respond to you; he simply !voted in an AfD. I'm advising you again: Stay off of usertalk pages. Stop pinging people on articletalk pages. Stop using numerous references on articletalk -- that should be necessary only very rarely. If you have a cited edit you would like to make, make it, with the citation. If it gets reverted, then discuss on articletalk; make sure you follow WP:BRD rather than simply replacing your desired edit. Lastly, stop inserting your idiosyncratic POV into articles as you have repeatedly done on Maia (nurse); Wikipedia is not a place for that. If you continue to operate in the way you have been, you will likely be blocked for lack of competence to edit Wikipedia, or topic banned completely from the subject of large cats, broadly construed. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Abuse, what 'idiosyncratic' POV are you talking about? I have read plenty of sources, including these, and I would use them to improve content, discussing it in talk-pages when necessary, and when other users are there to give misleading or WP:biased comments or content, I can't always improve them even if I want to, so I have to use the talk-pages quite a lot to try to improve those articles, and for your information, BhagyaMani only voted on that AfD after seeing that I was involved in there, but after I reminded him of his earlier desire to have a disengagement, he did not make another comment, but otherwise, it's not like he doesn't respond. Nevertheless, I afterwards welcomed him to talk to me in case he had anything to say, not to continue the issue of opposing what certain references may say to present a biased picture of topics like what I mentioned here. Leo1pard (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard your bizarre, rambling reply makes it more and more likely that you will be blocked for incompetence and/or disruptive editing, or topic banned completely from large cats. If I were you I would take the good-faith advice of highly experienced uninvolved editors and administrators here as a word to the wise. As it is, you are on pretty thin ice. And what does "I can't always improve them even if I want to" mean? If you don't know how Wikipedia works after all of this time, that's another very bad sign. Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You have made an allegation that I have an 'idiosyncratic' POV. I asked you to clarify what you meant by that. Regarding "I can't always improve them even if I want to", what I mean is that users have made WP:biased edits in articles like that, ignoring a number of WP:reliable sources to fit their POV, and they may oppose my efforts to correct those errors. Leo1pard (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not an allegation regarding your edit-war to insert an WP:EGG on that article (the only edits you have made to it, as you well know); it's a fact. On other articles, if consensus is against you, then follow the instructions I gave here: [67]. Do not hide behind claims of "bias" or "systemic bias". Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In Maia (nurse), I have made changes like deleting unreferenced material, which is WP:acceptable according to the rules, and as per WP:EGG, it would have been a problem if I inserted a link that would have surprised the reader, or doesn't help the reader to understand what the issue is about, but that is not the case, because the issue surrounding Maia is actually mentioned in the link which I have provided, rather than the link which he provided, and as of the time that we are speaking, the consensus is not against me but against him. He has ignored the consensuses or discussions to fit his POV into articles, as mentioned above, whereas I take care to justify what I do in discussions or consensuses, or use relevant sources to respond to questions or comments asked by others there, like here. Leo1pard (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I said inserting, not deleting. Your WP:EGG is indeed an WP:EGG, and it is your idiosyncratic POV-pushing. The only way for it not to be an WP:EGG is to use the article title itself rather than linking to it under an WP:EGG. If your edit is reverted, which it has been three times, the consensus is for the status quo ante; so the current consensus is against your EGG. So you should not keep edit-warring against the current consensus; you'll need to establish a different consensus on the talkpage (which is unlikely since WP:EGGs are against MOS:LINK). If consensus remains against you, then see/follow the instructions I gave above. You can also check WP:DISCUSSFAIL, but you must read it very very carefully. If you continue to edit war, you will be reported to administrators and likely blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, you said "insert an WP:EGG on that article (the only edits you have made to it, as you well know)", so you were saying that the only edits that I made there were inserting WP:EGGS. Secondly, you have alleged that I have a "idiosyncratic POV-pushing", even though I have backed up my edits or comments with relevant sources or links, and have asked you to clarify what you meant. Thirdly, as of the time we are speaking, there is no consensus against what I have done, but what he has done was against the discussions, so the way in which you treated me here was not right. Leo1pard (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you haven't taken in a single thing I've said. Well, I (and others here) tried my/our best, over and over, to help you. Now you've gone and filed an ANI thread on me for my trouble. This is yet another example of your WP:CIR and WP:DE issues, and is not going to turn out well for you. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Making different allegations like "insert an WP:EGG on that article (the only edits you have made to it, as you well know)" and then "I said inserting, not deleting. Your WP:EGG ..." despite evidence to the contrary is not a case of helping. I have tried to talk to you about this, but if you don't want to listen to what I have to say, such as if I provide relevant references to disprove your allegation of me having an "idiosyncratic POV", then this isn't right. Leo1pard (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, although that is generally well known advice that is easy to forget and somewhat difficult to adhere to. I had observed some efforts by all parties to restore a civil discussion, so that is possible it seems?! While I am here, a couple of remarks of what people might prefer: 1) recognition of their contributions to solutions in content creation, nice, however, consideration may be given to 2) receiving a notification, "you have been mentioned at AN/I … :) — cygnis insignis 15:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• My comment above was in reply to another user, and not for the first time, I notice that discussions with this account, Leo1pard, see comments and replies rapidly displaced and confounded in a flurry of edits and refs. Not good. The contributions are indistinguishable from masterful trolling, the motive, sincerity and intent is irrelevant because there is a demonstrable net loss to the project. Worse. Those who have viewed the actual changes in mainspace, including myself, report OR, synth, and blatant misrepresentation of sources. This doesn't seem to bother the user, that is cause for the greatest concern at this forum. My recommendation is that the account be banned from the articles and talk pages in question immediately, and ask that I be pinged to any further discussion of censoring this account (and the individual operating it, who I would request does not contact me). I don't have anything to add to this report. — cygnis insignis 08:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, you are making more allegations that I have already tackled. For example, as I have said already, I have read plenty of WP:reliable sources, and I edit articles using them to show what they say, not to make OR, SYNTH or "blatant misrepresentation of sources". For example, I have used these sources ([68], [69]) to help explain why it is the case that the size ratio of the elephant to the lion is significant as mentioned, or what they said about lions hunting elephants, but there are others who may do WP:biased edits on those articles, and oppose my attempts to correct such edits, which is why I make use of talk-pages like here to try to talk to the opposing user(s) about what they have done, but the opposing user(s) don't always want to listen, and may ignore the consensus, amongst other things, and after repeated attempts to try to talk to the opposing user(s) that I would make a complaint like here. Leo1pard (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC); edited 13:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender:, have you followed the editing history of Maia (nurse)? Also the talk page of lion? Leo1pard has strong views on subpopulations of lions, despite many not being recognised as genetically distinct anymore. It has made work in the lion article heavy-going and now we have a plethora of lion subarticles to look at. Also see [70] as to some of the other articles the user has worked on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Casliber, I cannot see the last link you presented (permissions-only). In terms of the other links: (1) My advice to Leo1pard on the Maia (nurse) article has gone completely unheeded, as you can see up above. (2) In terms of Talk:Lion, I notice that he has made an average of 11 posts per month over the past 14 months, and generally speaking there is only one editor that sometimes agrees with some of his apparent points. Do you think his participation on that article and talkpages, and on other big cat articles and talkpages, rise to the level of a sanction (topic ban, etc.)? I certainly think on this ANI thread he has demonstrated a massive and intractable case of IDHT and DE bordering on or equaling CIR level, which would merit a block of uncertain length. If you believe any of these sanctions, or others, are merited, let me know, and I will start a proposal(s). Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because you have made accusations against me which I have warned that I can disprove, which is WP:IDHT or against WP:CIR, even though I came here to talk about someone who repeatedly ignores discussions or relevant material to establish his POV, so in the hope that he would stop this disruptive behaviour, and instead talks to me about concerns that he has. Leo1pard (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOOMERANG. Softlavender (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar versus leopard and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards. It is certainly draining. The editor is keen but they are making things difficult to wade through with the walls of text....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber, the editor does not seem to be taking in any of the concerns and advice on this thread. That could be because he is simply on the defensive, but the fact that he deliberately opened a retaliatory ANI thread about me suggests otherwise. Do you think he has the competence, going forward, to edit Wikipedia without disruption? Alternatively, do you think he should be given an administrative warning that if he continues as he has, an ANI thread will likely be opened up specifically about him, calling for sanctions? Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Dunno what to say really...I am not uninvolved and would recommend uninvolved users opining what action needs to be done here. I am tired and after a long day I am losing the threads in this wall of text...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The thread has become a wall of text because of Leo1pard's intractable WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, and WP:DE behaviors. I'm just noting that for any uninvolved admin who comes along and wants to put a stop to this endless nonsense. If his behavior on this thread and the other ANI thread he opened yesterday are any indication of his behavior on articles and talkpages (and we've some indication that they are), I think he is due for some increasingly incremental sanctions, or at least official administrative warning of such. Softlavender (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it is your fault for making allegations even if I have provided evidence to the contrary, or those who like to ignore discussions or references to make biased or misleading edits or comments. For example, I have references to counter allegations of "SYNTH" or "idiosyncratic POVs", other people like you ignore it and repeat the allegation. As for myself, I have made edits like using the five tildes where necessary, after you mentioned them, and have backed up my comments or edits with relevant material, so no more accusations against which evidence cane be provided. It is because of disrespectful people trying to disruptively edit articles that I have had to use talk-pages a lot, and according to the rules, it is acceptable to do that when a situation like that arises. Leo1pard (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that you have credibly refuted anything I have mentioned, or any evidence you have taken on board the advice given you regarding how to edit articles or how to behave on article talkpages. Instead, you have doubled down on your attacks on those trying to advise you or work with you, including this absurd and spurious attack thread about me, and spurious claims that I have been "warned here not to treat relevant sources as invalid by DIYeditor and Thucydides411" [71], and other such nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I do see where I have refuted things that you have said. For example, this shows that your comment that DIYeditor and Thucydides411 "have not even posted on this thread or indeed said anything about or to" you is wrong. Leo1pard (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

They certainly haven't posted on this thread. The fact that they said something to me on a completely unrelated article talkpage more than six months ago has nothing to do with this thread or anything I have brought to your attention regarding how you should operate on article talk or articles or what problematical behaviors you have been engaging in. It does however point up your repetitive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of attempting to deflect attention from your own edits by accusing others of absolutely unrelated trivia. Softlavender (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, they were talking about the way you treated a reference by saying that it was "provably wrong", and that is similar to the way you have been treating reliable sources that I have used to show what is wrong with what you have said. You have used your POV against material backed by references, which is what WP:BATTLEGROUND is about, whereas I have backed up my edits or comments with references. Your POV is not more relevant than the reliable sources, so you have been unfair to pick up a personal conflict against me, making accusations without fully considering the facts or reliable sources in the first place, so stop your accusations and arguments. Leo1pard (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of users who were previously uninvolved, before getting involved here, seem to have a lack of understanding or personal bias regarding what is going on. For example, if I provide reliable sources, and mention what they say, others may say that it is 'SYNTH', and if I provide a link to show what has happened, some may deny what is in there. Leo1pard (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You have edited someone else's comment, and I have said I edit articles using WP:reliable sources, but there are others who may do WP:biased edits on those articles, and oppose my attempts to correct such edits. For this reason, I make use of talk-pages like here and here to try to talk to the opposing user(s) about what they have done, but the opposing user(s) don't always want to listen, and may ignore the consensus, as demonstrated by edits like this, and they may show a lack of respect, like here. It is after repeated attempts to try to talk to the opposing user(s) that I would make a complaint like here, but then you make accusations like that I made "idiosyncratic POVs", and then when I give you evidence to the contrary, you responded negatively, as if your POV is more valid than material backed up by relevant sources, and you have already been warned here not to treat relevant sources as invalid by @DIYeditor and Thucydides411:. Leo1pard (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

My question was to Cas Liber, not to you; and your repeated accusations against me are simply adding more fuel and more evidence to the case against you. Especially since DIYeditor and Thucydides411 have not even posted on this thread or indeed said anything about or to me anywhere that I am aware of. At this point you should read The First Law of Holes. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You were talking to Casliber about me, when I am involved here, and I have proof against your comment that DIYeditor and Thucydides411 "have not even posted on this thread or indeed said anything about or to" you. Leo1pard (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm, no you don't. The thread that you linked to does not contain any edits by yourself, DIYeditor, Thucydides411, Casliber nor Softlavender. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean that this thread was about me, but about what she was warned. Leo1pard (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, none of the editors you mentioned in this post were involved in any way in that thread. You had better start posting some diffs to back up your allegations or you'll find yourself in more trouble than the early settlers. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, in here, DIYeditor said "If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong" I don't see anything new on Talk:Useful idiot that proves the OED is wrong ..." and Thucydides411: "For the last time, please stop saying the OED is provably wrong. It's not ... You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false ..." Leo1pard (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

So on this usertalk message on my talk page from over 6 months ago, how does DIYeditor's comment equate to me having "been warned here not to treat relevant sources as invalid"? Please be very specific. And please pray tell where has Thucydides411 "warned [me] here not to treat relevant sources as invalid"? Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

After you criticised an OED and talked about venerable sources being "provably wrong", DIYeditor and Thucydides411 criticised you for saying that, and Thucydides411 said "please stop saying the OED is provably wrong" and "You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false ..." Leo1pard (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This was after you said this about the OED. Leo1pard (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

How does DIYeditor saying "What you quoted seems to be saying what I'm saying. You don't embody or represent something that only exists after the embodiment or representation."[72] equate to DIYeditor and Thucydides411 having "warned [me] here not to treat relevant sources as invalid"? Softlavender (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As for your question, I am referring to the following statements by DIYeditor and Thucydides411: "If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong" I don't see anything new on Talk:Useful idiot that proves the OED is wrong ..." and "For the last time, please stop saying the OED is provably wrong. It's not ... You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false ..." Leo1pard (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs, please. Softlavender (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

For example, this was after you said this about the OED. Leo1pard (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

How does Thucydides411 saying "You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false (complete with the relevant passage from the original Washington Post article that the OED got its snippet from)"[73] equate to DIYeditor and Thucydides411 having "warned [me] here not to treat relevant sources as invalid"? Softlavender (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

After you said "the OED is not an authority on Russian or Russian usage or the USSR. It cannot be used as an authority on Wikipedia as such." and "If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong," DIYeditor and Thucydides411 respectively said "If a source, even a venerable one, is provably wrong" I don't see anything new on Talk:Useful idiot that proves the OED is wrong ..." and "For the last time, please stop saying the OED is provably wrong. It's not ... You can't keep making this claim, after I've shown it to be false ..." for example. Leo1pard (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC); edited 13:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs, please. Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Already provided for you to see. Leo1pard (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Casliber Did you remember what I also said about the fact that the Cat Specialist Group had trouble with their recognition of subspecies of lions, and that they continued to recognise the different populations or subpopulations as populations or subpopulations, even if not as subspecies, before involving someone else in an issue which I showed was more complicated than others may gave expected? Leo1pard (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Those pages are divided into geographical areas first, with relevant felids then listed. It doesn't mean we have to follow them on that basis. Looking at https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/32616/A_revised_Felidae_Taxonomy_CatNews.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y this] the group is pretty clear on the (non) validity of all but two subspecies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

With the exception that lion genetics has proven to be more complicated than the mere classification of 2 subspecies, as signified by the use of a question mark in their map on subspecies of lions in Page 72, and the lion is not the only species for which they used a question mark to express uncertainty over taxonomic classifications. Leo1pard (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You want them to remain split into as many distinctive subspecies as possible and are seizing on any uncertainty to support that view. This is bordering on OR and is certainly not an accurate way of reading the material Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I already said that I don't want to create articles for every described subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Leo1pard, please stop outdenting so much. It interrupts the flow of conversation and makes this already overlong thread very difficult to read and follow. I have redone your last two outdents. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  You can request me to make a change to my comment, but not edit my comment, which is against WP:Editing others' comments. Leo1pard (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC); edited 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Leo1pard, please read the page you linked to. It is perfectly okay to edit someone else's comment when Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels... Nihlus 10:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPO allows for correcting or improving the layout of a thread. See "Fixing format errors". Your last two outdents in particular rose to the level of needing to be changed to fix the readability of the thread. Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Leo1pard, you have been making a number of changes to posts of yours that have already been replied to. When you do that, you need to indicate that the post has been edited and when, by adding ; edited ~~~~~ (the five tildes create a timestamp) after your signature; see WP:REDACT. Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

References

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

• Isn't this the second silly thread opened by the OP in, like, as many days? EEng 00:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Slow edit warring from Phenix City, Alabama

The following discussion is closed. 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 slow form of edit warring has been underway from various IPs geolocating to Phenix City, Alabama, US, with part of the problem being the addition of unreferenced birth dates, while another large chunk is the addition of unreferenced recording dates.[74] At the Eisuke Asakura] biography, the first such disruption was on January 13,[75]], followed by a repeat on March 23,[76] April 1,[77] April 5,[78] April 24,[79] May 9,[80] May 28,[81] June 5,[82] July 3,[83] July 9,[84] July 27,[85] August 4,[86] August 9,[87] August 10,[88] August 11,[89] September 14,[90] and September 18.[91] The same sort of slow edit warring can be seen at many other articles, for instance the Brian McKnight album where Phenix City IPs warred over the recording dates on March 5, June 8, September 14 and September 18. One further type of disruption is the removal of birth date and age templates, replacing them with plain text,[92] which loses the benefit of the automatic age change every year.

As far as I can tell, this person has never communicated by edit summary or talk page. What can be done to stop this person's disruption? One or two rangeblocks, plus a few individual IP blocks? Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Phenix City IPs

• Oct 13 Special:Contributions/72.145.167.21
• Sep 23 Special:Contributions/72.145.166.146
• Sep 22–26 Special:Contributions/2602:304:891A:6929:0:0:0:0/64
• Sep 13–21 Special:Contributions/72.145.167.139
• Sep 9–11 Special:Contributions/72.145.167.177
• Sep 1–9 Special:Contributions/72.145.168.46
• Aug 24–28 Special:Contributions/72.145.166.85
• Aug 16–19 Special:Contributions/72.145.168.153
• Aug 4–7 Special:Contributions/72.145.168.126
• Jul 27–30 Special:Contributions/184.47.185.136
• Jul 9 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:9679:0:0:0:0/64
• May 28 – Jun 9 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:C489:0:0:0:0/64
• May 13–21 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:B8A9:0:0:0:0/64
• Apr 27 – May 11 Special:Contributions/184.47.187.129
• Apr 13 – May 12 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:B819:0:0:0:0/64
• Apr 12–13 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:B149:0:0:0:0/64
• Mar 10 – Apr 11 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:C4B9:0:0:0:0/64
• Mar 1–9 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:CBD9:0:0:0:0/64
• Feb 23–26 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:C4E9:0:0:0:0/64
• Feb 19–21 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:CA19:0:0:0:0/64
• Feb 7–19 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:95A9:0:0:0:0/64
• Feb 2–5 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:C4E9:0:0:0:0/64
• Jan 11–28 Special:Contributions/2602:30B:82FB:B159:0:0:0:0/64

• The IPv6 address range is obviously shifting, so I have blocked the latest one, which is different from most of the previous ones, for a month. I have rangeblocked the 72.145 IPv4 addresses for six months. If they come back on the 2602:30B:82FB:XXXX or 184.47.XXX ranges, let me know, and I'll block them as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Right on. I'll be sure to keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 14 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:Zozr789

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

---

Zozr789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Violation of community sanctions at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The following two reverts were made in the same 24 hour period:

• Revision as of 12:50, 14 October 2018
• Revision as of 18:01, 14 October 2018

I alerted the user on their talk page, but they immediately reverted my post and took no action. (I am assuming this is the right place to report this?) Endymion.12 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The user has now self-reverted, presumably in response to this post, so this can now be closed. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted my changes in the page anything else????? Zozr789 (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: c:COM:ANU#Zozr789. Good times. Not directly relevant for enwiki, but provides a little insight. User may have trouble understanding English. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Endymion.12: Zozr789 has been blocked, so this can now indeed be closed. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:41, 15 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.

Ongoing disruptive editing from KaijuFan4000

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

---

KaijuFan4000 (talk · contribs) has been continually on and off disrupting various sections of the project with POINTed edits. Most recently, this includes editing a number of pages to discuss how various concepts were ripped off from the Power Rangers. Before that, it included such things as adding info on Bill Cosby's sexual assaults to various pages tangentially related to him as well as edit warring over various other things related to kaijus, with a small number of constructive edits sprinkled in (hence why I'm not taking this directly to AIV). Some level of action needs to be taken, as continued talk page warnings and short-term blocks have not helped. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) After reviewing some of their contributions, definitely WP:NOTHERE. The user appears to have an agenda and after many warnings and a block and still not showing that their here to contribute to this project's aims, I'd fully support an indefinite block.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ultraman and mechagodzilla are power rangers rip-offs tho --KaijuFan4000 (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

^ I mean, this response pretty much proves my point for me. Not much else to say. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ultraman sucks and he ripped off the power rangers. mechagodzilla is a dragonzord wannabe. --KaijuFan4000 (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oh for the love of Pete. endorse block. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:04, 15 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.

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.

---

Would a sysop consider rangeblocking Special:Contributions/108.163.64.0/19, which appears to belong to an education center. Nothing useful coming from the range, and they seem to have an issue with Altura, New Jersey today. Home Lander (talk) 15:30, 16 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.

Edit war at City Rail Link

The following discussion is closed. 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, who has changed ip address at least once, began a slow edit war on 29 August. Tonight he/she is continuing at a rapid pace. I left an explanation about the term "car" in one of my earliest edit summaries, and have tonight left an explanation at the ip's talk page, to no avail. The edit war has continued. The editor either has serious competence or language difficulties, or is deliberately being disruptive. Either way, a block is needed. Due to the time zone I cannot find any New Zealand admin online (it's 3:25 am as I write this). Requesting a block.

No doubt someone here will say that I should have reported this at the 3RR page. Let me tell you that that page is very user-unfriendly for those like me who use iPads. The amount of copying and pasting required is almost impossible on an iPad. Akld guy (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The only issue here (as this is clearly a content dispute) is that both editors are currently in violation of WP:3RR in that both have 8 reverts to the article within 24 hours so Akld guy may wish to duck for the WP:BOOMERANG.

This is clearly a WP:ENGVAR issue because trains are made up of 'cars' in US English and 'carriages' in British English. Since the article is about a New Zealand railway, it should be whatever term is used by NZ railways (most likely the same as Australian railways which I believe is 'car'). The only other observation is that AG has attempted to WP:COMMUNICATE whereas the IP has made no such attempt in any of his incarnations. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not an ENGVAR dispute. As I pointed out in the edit summary of one of my earliest reverts, the term "car" is used in the reference. Australian usage has nothing to do with the topic. New Zealand is not part of Australia, and does many, many things differently. The term used in NZ for Auckland's electric train sets (which are self-propelled) is "car". Akld guy (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm highly annoyed that TheVicarsCat has attempted to turn this into an ENGVAR issue and has forced me to respond on that side issue. Please look at Tangiwai disaster and scroll down to the "Public inquiry" section. Notice that the official investigation in 1954 used the term "car" in reference to the carriages. NZ does not necessarily follow UK practice. Akld guy (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In a dispute like this the winner is the first one who stops. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I've protected teh page for two weeks. Now the two have no choice but to argue/debate someplace other than in the article. Have fun with that... TomStar81 (Talk) 17:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I requested to TomStar81 to remove an edit on the article but I probably should have come here first. I had also participated in the article editing, removing one of the users edits while Akld guy removed the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is an WP:ENGVAR issue. Certain English variants use 'car', and others use 'carriage'. If New Zealand used 'car' for self propelled vehicles and 'carriage' for non self propelled, then it is unique in the English speaking world. Further, the words used by the source are irrelevant. One expects words used in a source to be translated into the language in which the article is written (if different). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I came here to complain and will never do so again. It would have been better to have waited until the NZ admins, who have better appreciation of NZ terminology, got out of bed and then complained to them. Or, I could have continued the edit war on a slow basis, probably dragging on for months until the ip lost interest. My attempt, knowing that the term "car" was correct and used in the reference, to bring the matter to a head by exceeding 3RR and getting quick action here from overseas admins, has backfired and very nearly resulted in my own blocking. I will never again risk a boomerang by coming here. Meanwhile, the ip who caused all this and has uttered not a single word anywhere, gets off scot free. Akld guy (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Akld guy, edit warring is never an acceptable solution to such a problem. Never, ever, ever. So please change your attitude about that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to tell that to the ip too? The ip who, thanks to page protection and the fact that I quit first, has actually won for the next two weeks so that the article now uses the wrong term. Akld guy (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed that unregistered user edits (with no history) appear to have just as much weighting over those of a regular and active registered user. Ajf773 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ajf773: IP editors have as much right to edit Wikipedia as registered editors. As in: "Wikipedia - the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit." I have observed in the past, that any editor who tries to 'discourage' IP editors ends up being blocked. When you say the IP has no edit history, how do you know this? The IP is a dynamic IP which means that it changes every time he logs onto the internet so may well have a long edit history (whatismyipaddress.com is wrong on this point, but then what it reports is based on user submitted data). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

As a registered user my history is all there for everyone to see, whereas an IP hopping non-reg user does not have a history without using the fancy IP searching tools as you describe. In my experience of editing non-regs quite often are disruptive users primarily because they are either newbies who don't understand how WP works or they are previous banned users. In this case, those edits were definitely disruptive and Akld guy and I were right to revert those edits. Ajf773 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ajf773: In every case, a user who uses a dynamic IP address has no control over their IP address. They get a different one every time they log on and there is nothing that they can do about it. There are many IP editors who do not fall into the categories that you list (and in my experience: probably the majority). I myself was an IP editor for many years without problems until I had to create an account to raise an SPI complaint (as IPs cannot create new records). That they appear to have a short edit history is not their fault and purely a knock on effect of the way things work (Wikipedia has no problem as long as the differing IPs are not used to !vote stack or support each other - though it is usually very obvious when this happens). The usually touted position that they should create an account is not, as of this time, a requirement of Wikipedia and therefore cannot be a requirement of you or anyone else. Another oft touted claim is that, "IPs cause more disruption than registered editors". A check of this page on any day invariably shows more complaints against registered editors than IPs (as of this time 15 for registered editors but only 6 for IPs).

Your categorisation of the IP's edits as disruptive is irrelevant, and a poor defence of your own equally disruptive behaviour. You and Akld guy had no right to serially revert the IP in the way that you did. You were edit warring just as much as the IP was. The nature of the IP's edit was not an accepted exemption to the three revert rule. The fact that many English variants use 'carriage' for railway vehicles means that the IP's edit must be assumed to be good faith in the absence of any other evidence (possibly mis-guided but certainly good faith). TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

When pages are protected, the admins are not endorsing any particular version over another. They protect the page at whatever version it was at merely to force the combatants to discuss the matter on the talk page and come to a consensus. That is what you now have to do to get the article changed. Though to be fair, it was the IP editor's responsibility to initiate the talk page discussion after your first revert (per WP:BRD). TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

These are the units involved. For those on this board who have no comprehension of rail systems and have probably never taken a train ride in recent times, they are self-propelled units, not pulled or pushed by a locomotive. Notice that the article uses the term "car" throughout, which is the common New Zealand term for self-propelled units. Akld guy (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Akld guy, what's with the note that you left on the ip's talk page? Namely, "Please note that you are not anonymous - look here". Quite ominous, without explanation. Moriori (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is clearly an ENGVAR issue, and I'm not really sure why Akld guy is so upset at that notion. Part of ENGVAR is WP:RETAIN, which prohibits the sort of arbitrary wording changes the IP was performing. To be clear, AG should have opened a discussion on the talk page explaining his reverts, and then reported it to WP:AN3 if the IP didn't engage there (it's hard to communicate with someone without a stable user talk space). You could have and should have done things differently. That said, it's pretty apparent that AG is willing and able to communicate and the IP is not, the IP is making unexplained ENGVAR changes contrary to MOS, and the IP is willing to edit war to a degree that seems like trolling, so I don't think locking AG out of the article for a significant period of time is beneficial to the project. I've converted the full protection to semi-protection, and you can restore your version, since you have a legitimate reason and the IP did not have one, but please only do so after you have made a section on the talk page explaining why "car" is correct and "carriage" is wrong, and refer to it in your edit summary. If the IP really wants to contribute in good faith, they can start by using the talk page.  Swarm  talk  20:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Swarm. Exactly my reasoning as I was trying to convince some of the other editor here. Ajf773 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, thank you @Swarm:. Someone sensible at last who recognises disruption. What a stupid nightmare this page is. Akld guy (talk) 21:00, 16 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.

Potential socking on Lethal Weapon TV series 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 everyone. There's a small issue on the Lethal Weapon TV series page that I would like to bring to your attention.

Long story short one of the shows stars earlier this month announced that he was leaving the show when the shows filming wraps in December. However recently the series received a two episode additional backorder and according to the source [93] the stars concerns were addressed and that he would feature in these episodes and potentially further seasons if the show is renewed.

However a user called Dibol is adding (seasons 1-3) to the credits of Damon Wayans despite being told that this is factually incorrect. When I reverted him the first time an IP address appeared within half an hour and restored his edits, see [94]. When another user reverted, Dibol appeared to revert them [95]. Now today this same IP has appeared to restore Dibols edits [96].

I'm fairly sure this editor is using his IP as a sock and is attempting to force their changes through without discussion. Could an administrator please take a look at the Lethal Weapon (TV series) page history and take action. They're clearly the same person. Esuka323 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My statement below about empty talk pages not withstanding, I'd note that in this case that Dibol appears to have broken 3RR if this is true, but no one else reverted more than twice, but the socking means I'm not sure if this would be easily dealt with on WP:AN/EW if it really did occur. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou, It appears the issue has calmed down from when I first made this report. It also doesn't look like Dibol/IP will participate in this discussion. I wouldn't be against this discussion being closed, but if an admin could suggest where I report this user should they become a problem again before doing so that would be greatly appreciated. Esuka323 (talk) 12:03, 16 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.

Repeatedly remove and add non-sense without explanation

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

---

• 101.13.165.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.216.135.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.219.147.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.82.66.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.15.218.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.217.6.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.204.195.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.9.131.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.218.8.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.15.133.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.216.129.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Han Xinyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems the same person who changes his IP every day to make vandalism. And I found surprisingly he has made vandalism for a long time. He likes to remove Chinese in the article and distort the content including ranking time and again.

Here are his vandalism: [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108].

Could the article be protected and the vandal be banned? 14.220.230.65 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

given the almost complete lack of sources in that article, how is anyone supposed to know what is or isn't vandalism? 86.147.197.124 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A lot of the IPs you listed appear to be stale so I'm not sure they are actionable. Just checked the page itself, and the amount of disruptive editing doesn't appear to high either. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:26, 14 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.

I hope making transphobic comments isn't the cool thing to do 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.

---

This and this right here are some examples of this "exceptional" user making the extremely transphobic claim that being trans amounts to surgery. The whole verifiability issue is a whole separate thing that I've been discussing with another editor, and have come to understand. On the other hand, I don't plan on being okay with someone saying "[she's] not trans because [she] hasn't had surgery!" any time soon, thank you very much. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that user making the statement "[she's] not trans because [she] hasn't had surgery!", nor anything else I would characterize as transphobic or bigoted. He has simply stated that the the surgery has not been performed. Otherwise, this looks like a normal editing dispute. Saying this is not saying that his intended edits are factually correct (they may very well not be, I haven't looked into it), but I don't see any evidence of bigoted comments. Maybe there are other, more explicitly transphobic comments, if so, can you link to them as well? --Jayron32 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"he was not operated" is literally right there. Your editor friend used the wrong pronouns and the fact that Kublbock was "not operated" was his rationale. What more do you need? An actual biological woman (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes, you did revert war which, as you acknowledge below, was not the best action to take, but that comment was as explicit as it gets. (I am not familiar with the case, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender_identity is clear on the use of pronouns and other linguistic expressions of gender identity.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledged that. However, Serols does not, anywhere state "[she's] not trans because [she] hasn't had surgery!" which you claimed. Can you link to that? At no time did he say the person was not trans in the comment you linked. --Jayron32 15:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: That's exactly what he said when he used the wrong pronouns. Splitting hairs won't make you cool. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cool. I'm trying to assume good faith on the part of all people involved in the dispute while I extract more information from both to understand what the nature of the dispute is. --Jayron32 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you were(it was more of a "that's not cool/that's messed up" statement). What I was implying is that you've been going to great lengths to cape for someone who made a transphobic comment. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, when you said "Splitting hairs won't make you cool" what I thought you meant was "Splitting hairs won't make you cool". I apologize for reading your words exactly as you wrote them. --Jayron32 16:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, nice! You've outed yourself as someone who resorts to condescension once they realize they've probably screwed up! An actual biological woman (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I've done nothing of the sort. Look, insulting each other is not a productive way to move this discussion forward. I apologize for carrying this side discussion too far. I think we've gotten off to a bad start here, and gotten lost in the weeds. I don't believe I have screwed up in extending good faith to both sides of this dispute, though I do generally agree that if Serols is justifying his edits by claiming that if the person has not had an operation, they could not be transgender, then that would be 100% wrong. Based on the background provided below by others, I am leaning more-and-more to agree with that characterization. Otherwise, I am sorry for insulting you above. It was wrong of me, and I apologize without reservation for doing so. --Jayron32 16:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologize for the insults too. It's just that trans issues are something I care very much about and have much respect for(and personal experience with), and therefore want to get right. Also, just as a headsup, "transgendered" isn't a word. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So corrected. --Jayron32 16:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

An actual biological woman, you broke 3RR. Your political/personal beliefs don’t matter in edit warring; someone disagreeing with you in good faith isn’t an exception to 3RR. Vermont (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with beliefs. The user was not acting in good faith. Forgive me for not taking a cis man's opinions on trans subjects as gospel(!) I'll freely admit to reverting too much though. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That might depend on if we count her as dead for the purposes of WP:BLP - BLP edits are exempt from WP:3RR and this could easily be considered a BLP issue as in her home jurisdiction, she can't be declared dead until she's been missing at sea for six months. So no. It isn't an unambiguous WP:3RR violation. It is a content dispute. In which some comments that at least border transphobic were made. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the purposes of the policy people are to be presumed living absent confirmation of their death in reliable sources. Missing =/= dead. But even if they are confirmed dead, WP:BDP very likely applies here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:An_actual_biological_woman_reported_by_User:Jake_Brockman_(Result:_Page_protected). Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Err forgive me if I'm missing something but I can't actually see any reliable sources confirming this person was transgender? GiantSnowman 15:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment So far I'm not seeing any source in the usual places, including Pink News - but that doesn't mean that An actual biological woman is wrong. Especially considering how fraught gender transition can be for somebody in a position of celebrity. And honestly, whether they identify / identified as male, female, or genderqueer, doesn't change that some of the statements from Serols regarding whether they'd had surgery are borderline at best. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: It was mentioned in reflist 7, 16, and 17. Could we possibly find better, clearer sources? Yeah, probably. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to quibble about what technically defines "living"--BLP covers recently deceased people as well, so BLP can certainly apply to this page (though to which side, I don't know).

Regardless of the charge of edit-warring and the BLP considerations, though, I don't think we should dismiss AABW's concerns so readily. I think "transphobic" might be too harsh a word, but it is certainly misguided to only classify post-op trans people as trans people, and that is definitely the implication behind this edit (that AABW links to above), where Serols reverts pronoun changes with the edit summary "he was not operated" as justification. Weak sourcing is not a bad reason to revert pronoun change, but "he was not operated" definitely is a bad reason. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If Serols were stating that we "only classify post-op trans people as trans people", then I would be right with you there. He never said that. Now, as I noted above, his edits may or may not be correct for various other reasons that need to be examined, but I have not seen any overtly bigoted or transphobic comments. I agree that if his edits are incorrect, they should be open to scrutiny for reasons of being, well, wrong. If the sourcing does not support his edits, for example, or whatever, that should be examined. However on the narrow charge of being "transphobic", I'm just not seeing that here. --Jayron32 15:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Quick question, how much experience do you actually have with anything trans-related? An actual biological woman (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, I think the main point is that Serols used "he was not operated" as the justification for reverting from Dana to Daniel. That would be a nonsequitor if they didn't mean that Küblböck couldn't be Dana if they hadn't had surgery. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why Serols wrote what they did. I was looking at the content. You may be right there, and if you are I would agree that Serols is not correct; but until they respond, I don't know what they meant; the comment itself contains no text I would characterize as "extremely transphobic" as initially characterized. --Jayron32 15:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• (e/c) Perhaps "trans-uninformed" rather than "transphobic" would achieve the same results with less pushback. @Serols: as several people have told you now, having/wanting surgery is not the same as gender ID. Also, please don't report good faith editors at AIV. Regarding what state the article should be in while this is discussed on the talk page: This is a more complicated case than is typical; there is apparently some question of what was going on during the last days of their life, and what Küblböck's actual desired self-identity was. Each editor could make a case that they are trying to enforce BLP. Based on what I've seen so far, I'd suggest reverting back to the reliably sourced "Daniel" for now as the status quo ante. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: If editor person was just uninformed, the rationale would be different. I think it's pretty clear what Serols thinks about trans people based on the rationale provided. But I do mostly agree with what you've said so far. An actual biological woman (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know; I can imagine myself saying something like that 10 years ago, not out of malice but out of a complete lack of understanding. You've had to deal with this crap and I haven't, so maybe you have a better ear for it than I do, but FWIW it struck me as more clueless than mean-spirited. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not familiar with the article subject we're talking about, but no, transphobic commentary is not welcomed here. Deliberately misgendering someone is transphobic bigotry, and the surgery comment could easily be interpreted that way. However it's also policy to assume good faith, and the comment could just as easily come from a place of good-faith ignorance and misunderstanding as being a deliberate hateful action. Nevertheless, one editor's opinion of a person's transgender status is 100% irrelevant; what matters is reliable sources, and as such this is a content dispute and should be settled by discussion on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any of these comments as transphobic in this context; rather there's a dispute over whether this person was transgender (I'm not sure if any of the sources make any claims beyond this person identifying privately as "Dana" for a few days before jumping off a boat in an apparent suicide). That content issue can be discussed on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you don't see it. An actual biological woman (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is that supposed to mean? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I meant I'm not surprised you don't see Serols' comment as transphobic. although Serols literally said "he was not operated". An actual biological woman (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverting the article to use he/him pronouns with the summary "he was not operated" is at best ignorance about transgender people. Serols has not yet responded to this discussion so it's hard to know if it's ignorance or transphobia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ignorance or malice, is there really an excuse in an environment like this? An actual biological woman (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse, no, not really. But it's a distinction worth making because it should affect the outcome of this discussion. If it was ignorance, hopefully Serols can read a little bit about transgender people and understand that it was a flawed argument to make. If it's malice, then a topic ban should be considered. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, "he was not operated" was in the article, not the talk page? I missed that detail. That's much more concerning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in the edit summary: [109] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The Edit summary is not in the article. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood—I thought power was asking if Serols had used that argument in the articlespace (which he did, with that edit summary) rather than just on An actual biological woman's talk page. You're correct that he did not insert that text into the article, if that's what power actually meant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

my bad power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@An actual biological woman: if you don't stop these personal attacks [110] [111], I'm going to ask for you to be blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC) @Power~enwiki: I just don't think it's right that when it comes to things like race and gender, some people want to WP:LAWYER and think problematic comments need to be cartoonishly overt in order to be taken seriously. If some of the things I said were taken as personal attacks, then I apologize for that. Is there any need for threats? An actual biological woman (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Apology accepted, and I apologize for being a bit on-edge. This whole thread has too many comments. I'm not sure escalating this with block threats is productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC) OK, maybe somebody else can hat even more of this (basically everything except the first comment about Serols is unnecessary). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Küblböck was in Germany only known as Daniel, not as Dana. Please note the German Wikipedia and his offizielle homepage http://www.daniel-kueblboeck.de/. Regards--Serols (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Serols: Did Küblböck ever identify as a woman or as trans? Do you believe it's possible for a person assigned male at birth to identify (and be identified) as something other than male even if they never had reassignment surgery? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:453A:6CA3:45E8:F907 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Checkuser note I blocked An actual biological woman indefinitely as a sock account prior to being aware of the hullabaloo raised here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I see the OP has muddied the water by being a sock of a blocked user. While there is always the risk of getting sucked into a dispute by a troll, there's also the risk in letting something slide because it was pointed out by a blocked user. I'm pretty dissatisifed with Serol's answer. @Serol: could you go back thru this ANI thread and re-read it? I think you missed the entire main thrust of the concerns. The problem is not that you changed it back to "Daniel". The problem is:

• You said that they couldn't be "Dana" because they had not had surgery. You said that. Please address that comment.
• I also notice you edit warred on their talk page to leave the exact same vandalism template 3 times. Then you reported them at WP:AIV when it is clear they were not vandalizing. Please address this.

I'd hate to think that this will all blow over because the OP was socking. There is still some learning and/or explaining that needs to happen here, whether or not the other editor was socking, in fact, even whether or not they were concern trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Can I just say for a second that anyone with a user name like OP is probably trolling or not here to build an encyclopedia? It's needlessly confrontational. --Tarage (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tarage. I've been waiting for someone to point out that OP's username sure looks like a transphobic statement itself, but I guess that's a moot point now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

They are also refactoring their block decline notices - maybe time for talk page access to be revoked?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Second comment from the peanut gallery. I don't think Serols's first language is English. Perhaps this is a translation issue. Can we close this block now that OP has been blocked and have one of our German speaking editors go and talk to them? I think that's going to be a lot more fruitful than continuing this here. --Tarage (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• He may not have known MOS:GENDERID, additionally there are very few sources that present an actual self-description of her gender ID (many talk about how she posted pictures in women's clothing, but that isn't sufficient for MOS:GENDERID). The only one I could find was this which describes herself as having introduced herself as a woman to other passengers. That would seem to qualify, but it is also something that would be easy to miss. -Obsidi (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think we should close this, as regardless of who brought the complaint up, the merits of the complaint (that Serols is misgendering a person based on his own, incorrect criteria, for how we should refer to someone's gender) has not been directly addressed as yet. Enough good-faith editors have raised that concern that I'd like to see Serols himself unambiguously address the point. His only comment (regarding the Dana/Daniel issue) has been evasive so far. --Jayron32 18:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I think language is the issue here. You're going to get a much better result talking to this editor one on one as opposed to dogpiling them on ANI based on a filing from a blocked user. But who am I to stop a dogpiling... --Tarage (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, anyone can make a mistake. Have we heard back from Serols? If they could refrain from reverting gender on pages like this, that would be great. For the most part, I think they do good work. I don't think they were pushing a POV, just made a mistake. Probably needs to slow down a bit. And I had to read that edit summary three times before I got it. (derp on me) I stay off those pages unless I'm protecting 'cause someone is violating the MOS.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, definitely needs education and to refrain from that sort of misconception.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

If the user wasn't being actively transphobic but presented that way because of language constraints, perhaps they should familiarize themselves with the language before they participate in this particularly fraught topic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

By no means am I an expert in the language, but it does not appear that the "transgender = has undergone reassignment surgery" misunderstanding is a German vs. English thing, but it may simply be a misinformed editor. I think Serols does owe us an acknowledgement that they understand that one's identity as cisgender or transgender has nothing to do with surgical operations, or else should be topic banned from gender-related discussions so as to avoid this sort of conflict. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Unless there's a backstory that I'm unaware of, this should have been discussed directly with Serols before being brought to ANI. A good-faith editor would acknowledge and correct their error when it was pointed out. This is a complex issue that should be hashed out at article talk, and if Serols chooses to participate in that discussion it will quickly become clear whether or not they are willing to follow consensus and adhere to our behavior expectations. Let's wait and see if the behavior continues now that it has been called out and discussed. –dlthewave ☎ 19:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• The OP was blocked as a sock. Why are we falling over ourselves to investigate the veracity of a sock's complaint?--WaltCip (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, agree this thread should be closed. The sock name of "An actual biological woman" was clearly chosen to be disruptive, let's not throw more fireworks into the crowd. --Fæ (talk) 12:01, 16 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:Braxton C. Womack

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

---

Braxton C. Womack became a rollbacker on October 10, but the user used his rollback rights on 2018 Atlantic hurricane season. In my opinion, User:PatriotsFOREVER126 just count the deaths from Spain as the fatalities of Leslie, see Special:Diff/864168319. This is not an obvious vandalism, and it is inappropriate to use rollback rights. --B dash (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see where, on User talk:Braxton C. Womack, you asked them to elaborate on their use of rollback in that single instance. It looks to me like you made no attempt to converse with the person or resolve the problem before coming to ANI. Generally, ANI should be a place of last resort, not first, when you have a concern or a dispute. --Jayron32 16:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like they've used rollback exactly twice since being granted the permission ([112] [113]). I would not call either edit unambiguous vandalism. @Braxton C. Womack: as a reminder: WP:ROLLBACK is only to be used to revert edits that are clearly and unmistakably vandalism. In all other cases you are expected to provide an edit summary explaining why you are reverting, such as "these are false names" or "these numbers do not match the source given". Continuing to use rollback to revert edits which are not clearly vandalism can result in your access to rollback being revoked. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for that revert. It was my mistake, I will make sure the information is accurate before coming to a conclusion in the future. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 18:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hell, I've made mistakes with power tools. The thing to do is recognize the error, apologize to the injured, and glue any parts back on. Hopefully the user will wield the tools more proficiently in the future.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Thanks for trying to learn to be a better editor, and use rollback correctly. I think we have reached an amicable conclusion. --Jayron32 18:19, 15 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.

Louise Bourgeois' page is a mess

The following discussion is closed. 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 ton of grammar errors, random quotes dropped in as if they weren't quotes, poor citation, and a bunch of personal analysis of her work. This analysis is shallow, out of place, and entirely devoid of explication or clarification. Random claims with big art words are made out of nowhere. The page kinda sucks right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.70.253.22 (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

...So fix it? --Tarage (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, I left them a message explaining this at their talk page. Home Lander (talk) 19:48, 15 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.

Clubintermiamifan moving article is problematic

The following discussion is closed. 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 appreciate WP:BOLD edits, but I would have thought after the mess Clubintermiamifan (talk · contribs) made with Miami MLS team (see Talk:Inter Miami CF#Why the move?) the editor would have discussed before moving Chicago Fire Soccer Club. The fact that there were two moves shows that there was no forethought and the editor doesn't really know or have a source for the team's common name. The editor does not seem to have the competence to edit. Either a block or removal for the editor to move articles would be appropriate. As for adding team initials to the infobox, I'll point out Template talk:Infobox football club#Nickname, short name and other parameters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I've moved the page back to Chicago Fire Soccer Club, and will probably nominate the two leftover redirects for deletion. Home Lander (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there any merit to me contention that Clubintermiamifan is either in-line with point four of Wikipedia:Competence is required, or possibly WP:NOTHERE (Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 9), or should I just drop my WP:STICK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You could try talking politely with this new user on their user talk page instead of issuing a warning template and coming to ANI to imply they need to be blocked. Fish+Karate 09:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 has blocked Clubintermiamifan as a sock of User:Charles lindberg. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:04, 16 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.

Helomer

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

---

Has Helomer (talk · contribs) been allowed to return as Helomer3 (talk · contribs)? Celia Homeford (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted. Main account is actually Anonymus 88. GiantSnowman 09:54, 16 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.

Urgent help needed

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

---

Could someone please review User:Sakaimover's recent edits? They are restoring vandalism and BLP violations across multiple articles. I've blocked for now but am very late for an appointment and can't review further. Kittens and pints for everyone that helps out!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I have done a few reverts of edits, but I have stuff to do, so I can't do them all. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted many of these edits, based on edit summeries is appears that Sakaimover is responding to his editing abilities being insulted by making POINTy reverts of all his good anti-vandal edits, but I do not know of anyone who insulted him. However, concerns were raised on his talk page that he was adding false refs, and some of his self reverts are removing refs he added, so I am not reverting these.

My only interaction with this user was to revert and nicely warn him about unreliable sources, in this discussion [114] he seemed like a good faith editor, so not sure what went wrong (edit conflict as I was expanding my comment). Tornado chaser (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It may have been triggered by this message on his talk page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Has anyone checked the validity ofa ny ref's restored by reverting their reverts?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I just self-reverted one of the edits I restored. Based on a quick search on Google Scholar, it does not appear that the reference I restored (purportedly to an article in Ecology) actually exists. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Did a little more digging -- the referenced article definitely doesn't exist. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Aoi: Oh, I might have reverted the removal of fake refs. Could somebody revert them for me? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: I'm taking a look at them now. As much as possible, I'm checking each reference individually to ensure that it is false before reverting back. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am incredibly frustrated that this happened, but I support the block. I don't know why they are incapable of staying away from reverting and vandalism hunting. I asked them several times not to, and to focus on ref work which they were very good at! Ugh... I'd support an unblock if and only if they accept an indef ban from vandalism hunting and reverting. It should not have reached this point and I'm pissed that my attempts to stave this off were in vain. I look away for 5 fucking minutes... --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to point people here for some context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328#Sakaimover

I'm also going to @Cullen328: because he has context as well. God damn I am frustrated right now. Taking a break. --Tarage (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

All that I will say is that I preceived this editor's contributions to be problematic from the beginning. I tried to steer them in the right direction, and ended up getting chastised a bit for being too tough on a person who says that they are on the autism spectrum. Have a cup of nice warm tea, Tarage, and thank you for helping to keep track of this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps User:ItsLassieTime? Compare to User:RandNetter96 and the LTA page. ansh666 01:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Ansh666: I've filed an SPI report. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  ...that might be a bit premature, but ok. We'll see. ansh666 01:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed sock of Architect 134. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:50, 16 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.

Kudpung

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

---

Please see this thread on Kudpung's talk page. The short version is that I brought up what I thought was an an out-of-line comment that Kudpung made at an AfD (mentioned in the thread), and asked him to strike it. Rather than a simple "okay" or "no, I think you're totally wrong", I was met with a pointer to my own previous bad behavior (including a well-deserved block), and finally, "I don't believe you are qualified to be commenting Deacon or even evoking AGF."

The longer version is that, frankly, this is just fucked up (I apologize for the crudeness, but I know of no other way to put it that indicates the visceral reaction that I've had). I'm very reluctant to bring this here, because as mentioned, Kudpung has more edits to his talk page than I have total. Indeed, I feel that I've almost been dared to bring this up here in hopes of a WP:BOOMERANG. And if others feel that's warranted, then so be it. But people need to be willing to bring up stuff like this without getting intimidated by being reminded how much seniority someone has (and tag-teamed about it to boot). Oh, and how dare someone who was once blocked dare question the actions of someone so highly respected and with so many edits, and don't you know that I'm an admin and have had to deal with harassment far worse than yours?

This was a simple complaint that shouldn't have ever wound up here, but here we are. I think my original complaint (the out-of-line comment at AfD) could do with a warning from someone who's not me, so it will actually be listened to (or maybe not, people might disagree with me, and that's okay). But the seniority-based intimidation stuff shouldn't be tolerated, and I'm asking for a short block to deter this kind of behavior in the future. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Whatever Kudpung said at an AfD is not really important. The chances of getting such a well respected Admin blocked are less than zero. I suggest taking a walk away from the computer and thinking about why you are so uptight about Wikipedia that you are posting at ANi trying to get an Admin blocked. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Kudpung has given up the bit due to illness, but I really don't see what you is complaining about. I see nothing wrong with Kudpung's AFD comment, and I see nothing wrong with that thread except you venting you "visceral response". I think that Kudpung's recommendation that you chill was not only spot on but very patient as well. I see nothing requiring admin action here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• See WP:UNBLOCKABLES. But it's true, this is not ANI-worthy. I concur in the prescription of . EEng 17:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  @EEng: I was going to recommend a cooldownbock, but thought better of it. I'm a Guinness man myself.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  The uninitiated may wish to take a look at WP:COOLDOWNBOCK. EEng 17:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with Kudpungs comment and actually I would go as far as to say he was rather nice and polite!, This was Eli355s RFA question to Sir Sputnik .... If you're going to make dumbass comments at RFA such as the above link then you should expect to be treated like a troll or an idiot,
  

Deacon Vorbis should be warned not to template the regulars and E (or whatever his name is!) should be indeffed for CIR. –Davey2010^Talk 17:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Oh for the days when you could have joke questions at RfA. So much less stodgy then.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've never minded people having at a laugh at RFA, Infact I've joined in on them especially around April Fools..... but the question was done in a way that actually made it simply look like they're trolling ...... If I went to Sir Sputniks RFA and asked "What's the meaning of life?" I would expect nothing more than a telling off essentially .... guess it's a time and place in some ways. –Davey2010^Talk 17:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. If I squint, I can sort-of see how you could interpret Kudpung's AFD comment as mildly biting towards the creator of the article. However, it's not your place to be insulted on someone else's behalf, especially over something so minor. Please just drop this. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  @ONUnicorn: It was a molehill when I started, and like I pointed out above, had he simply said something along the lines of "no, what I said was fine", I likely would have just dropped it, but his response was the mountain, and it shouldn't be tolerated, and that's why I started this thread here. The constant stream of Oh-it's-Kudpung-everybody-likes-Kudpung-he-can't-be-wrong is pretty worrisome and sets a bad precedent. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Where has anyone said or implied "Oh-it's-Kudpung-everybody-likes-Kudpung-he-can't-be-wrong"? Softlavender (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  TBH, think it was Legaypac-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  No, that was one comment, 40 minutes ago, and it did not say or imply that Kudpung couldn't be wrong. Deacon Vorbis said there was a "constant stream" of "Oh-it's-Kudpung-everybody-likes-Kudpung-he-can't-be-wrong". Softlavender (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, fair enough, struck. I think it's more the overall tone that I was going for and is hard to explain like that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Deacon Vorbis, who has "intimidated" you? Softlavender (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: May I point out that on Kudpung's talkpage, the OP told Kudpung to "stop acting like a jerk" [115]; and violated WP:TPO by hiding one of my posts: [116]. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Softlavender: I guess they realized how uncollegeal <sic> that was in the one instance and trying to quash you in the other.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, that was a very deliberate personal attack, struck at the same time as it was posted so it would perhaps be unsanctionable but at the same time be noticed and emphasized because of the strike. Softlavender (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Deacon Vorbis: We deal with a lot of problems here, and this just isn't one that requires anything adminny.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Dlohcierekim: I realize people around here seem to like Kudpung, but try to take a step back for a second and look at this from another angle. If someone hasn't been around here nearly as long as someone else, and goes to their talk page to voice a concern (which, by the way, is what we're supposed to do first), and the veteran's (admin or not) response is of the Don't-you-know-who-I-am? variety, then how is the relative newbie going to react to that? It sends a pretty horrible message to new contributors when that sort of response is tolerated. This feels to me like it's exactly something that needs something adminny. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Deacon Vorbis, it's not that people like Kudpung (many certainly don't, and many violently disagree with him about some things), it's that you used a template on a regular instead of just talking to them politely. Admins and longterm regulars know the rules; it is highly inappropriate to use a template on them (except for required edit-warring notices). If you had gone to his talkpage with a polite header and a polite request to reconsider his AfD comment, and possibly strike it if he agreed with you that it was over-the-top, you would have gotten a different response. As it was, you got exactly the response you deserved for templating an admin for a fairly typical AfD comment. Re-read WP:DTTR and don't repeat your mistake. Softlavender (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Propose WP:Trout for OP, bent slightly into a boomerang shape but soft enough not to hurt, then close this and all walk away quietly. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  I'll second that. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 18:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I was unaware that there was an exemption from being civil for long-time contributors. It's not going to hurt anything except Kudpung's pride to remove the offending remark from the AfD discussion, so why shouldn't he just go and remove it, and let the article go to its certain demise? Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I don't see anything remotely actionable. Commenting about an editor's editing pattern is certainly not an WP:AGF violation. Templating a regular and then talking about blocks on their talk page could reasonably be seen as Harassment. I think a {{Trout}} is a bit soft, try a {{Whale}}. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:27, 17 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.

Outstanding at Sockpuppet Investigations

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

---

File:Breaking concrete.jpg

Sock for block

-EEng

Block for sock

I have an outstanding sockpuppet investigation that was opened 6 days ago with no action. The editor in question has just admitted that it was their previous accounts.[117] —Farix (t | c) 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the sock. GAB^gab 17:14, 17 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.

Being pestered at my user talk

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

---

@Sparktorn: is a user who made some controversial edits to Fascism. Such as this. Subsequently they left this comment on my user talk page.

I advised them I would not self-revert and suggested they discuss at article talk.

I didn't hear back from them until some time later when they deleted their comments and mine.

I keep an archive of talk page discussions. My interest in current politics means I often end up involved in contentious areas of Wikipedia, and I prefer to be able to refer back to past incidents; so I restored the deleted content and went to their talk page where I advised them not to do that again.

Four days later, an IP, which I believe to be Sparktorn editing while not logged in posted this: a request which I bluntly declined.

Today Sparktorn replied to my repeated refusal to delete their comments from my user talk archive with this statement: [118] - and while it's not entirely inaccurate (I am, in fact, something of a communist; a socialist at the very least) I still considered it to be intended as a personal attack in contravention of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

I replied by asking Sparktorn not to contact me in the future unless it was for a required notice (IE: an AN/I or ARB/E notice or similar.)

Their response was to double down on the personal attack and to reiterate their demand that I delete their statements due to a misguided sense of ownership.

When I went to their talk page to notify them of this WP:AN/I thread I noticed that this user had posted that they were deceased - and I would suggest that Sparktorn has been very spry for a dead editor. I would like to request a one-way iBan preventing them from pestering me further, and, considering their use of ip addresses to contact me, and their attempt to get their account deleted under a false premise I'd also like to bring that to admin attention. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left Spartorn a note regarding ownership. Tiderolls 12:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the {{deceased}} note from the user's page. For one thing they're clearly not deceased, two there was no content to "preserve in their memory", and five I find the deliberate misuse of this template distasteful and disrespectful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 17 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.

Perspex03: SPA STILL adding trivia about "white genocide theory" to dozens of BLPs

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

---

• Perspex03 (talk · contribs)

Perspex03 is a newbie (2 months, 800 edits) and is obsessed with White genocide conspiracy theory: [119]. He is currently adding trivia on anyone who has ever even mentioned the conspiracy to their BLPs. Refuting a blatantly false conspiracy theory is not encyclopedicly noteworthy (no matter what Donald Trump tweets), but Perspex03 does not understand that, so he's spamming trivia into dozens of articles, using primary sources (examples: [120], [121], [122], [123]; for more see his contribs link above), particularly in the wake of Donald Trump's false claims. He is edit-warring to preserve his spamming.

We've already had one ANI thread about this three weeks ago, but it did not result in any restriction on the user.

We need some sort of restriction on the user, up to a possible topic-ban on White genocide conspiracy theory or block for disruptive editing and NOTHERE. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging: @Jeppiz, Iridescent, and Power~enwiki:. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother pinging those users, power~enwiki originally tried to delete the whole white genocide conspiracy theory page, the result was a speedy keep. He/she also tried to claim people criticizing the conspiracy theory, was a BLP issue, which again was dispelled with and disproved by the majority of editors. Most notable people mentioning the conspiracy theory now are included on the article again. It was a giant false alarm, and proved to be so by editors' consensus. I'm not trying to be provocative or rude, but I've recently had a similar issue with I believe, Jeppiz, who was insisting that The Great Replacement conspiracy theory was not a conspiracy theory. It was later proved indeed to be a reliable sourced conspiracy theory. Softlavender, what you are attempting to do is flex your muscle to delete information you basically seem to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I am using reliable sources. You are hysterically shrieking that they must be deleted. Again, you are attempting to put a restriction on me, when I'm actually just adding prose based on reliable sources. Do you actually understand that that's how Wikipedia works? Perspex03 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You're missing at least part of the point. Part of the definition of a conspiracy theory is that most people don't believe it, so it is not notable if someone says they don't believe it. Yet you're adding "they don't believe in it" to lots of articles. This is irrelevant, even if you have a reference for it. Zaian (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. If a reliable source covers something explicitly, then they have lent credence to the notability of it. It's not for you to personally hold an opinion afterwards that it is trivial and execute your opinion over that of the reliable source. Trust reliable sources, not yourself. That's how it tends to work. Perspex03 (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No Perspex03, you are using WP:PRIMARY sources. Unless you can find several independent reliable third-party sources that note that the individual in question is a noted refuter of this conspiracy theory, the information does not belong in Wikipedia, any more than someone randomly disputing Holocaust denial is encyclopedically noteworthy. Softlavender (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am sorry to comment after closure, but other than tendentious editing/edit warring, there is some socking that needs to be untangled; SPI request filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carpatho. Alex Shih (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  I remember I indefblocked one more user a month or two ago. They were creating categories related to white genocide and added genocide perpetrator category to California governors, but I will not be able now to remember / check who that user was.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  ​That user was Leavemydaughteralone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks, this is indeed them. It might be the sock of the same user.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:40, 17 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.

Disruptive Editing and Edit Warring by User:68.193.153.95

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

---

• List of Nvidia graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 68.193.153.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After streamlining some tables in this article, the user started an edit war. I'm not sure, but I think they did the edits that bloated them in the first place. I got a lot of positive replies about my edits on my user talk page; the issue of the table originally being "ruined" was also discussed on the article's talk page. The last revert from an anonymous user restoring my changes is here: [124] (notice the contribution message again..). It's the 5th revert for the offender in just a few days now.

The other issue is the strong hostility and disruptiveness this user has shown. I strongly recommend to take a look at the user's contribution messages and also the comments they left on User:Elk_Salmon's and User:Aedazan's talk pages. They generally seem to think they own the respective article and need to be honored for their contributions. There's also an issues with them making unsourced, wrong edits. I posted a more complete write-up of the issues on the mentioned article's talk page and partly on my user talk page. I highlighted the user there too to get them to discuss it, but they never responded. IonPike (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@IonPike: The personal attack directed at you by the IP in one of their edit sums is completely unacceptable, and I've notified the IP accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised if the IP was blocked just on that alone. The WP:EW and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior being exhibited by the IP is also not helpful, but this kind of thing is something you occasionally see when you're dealing with editors focusing on a single article who aren’t aware of WP:OWN. I'm not saying that to make excusses for the IP’s behavior, but rather only just to point out that this is likely not the last time you're going come across this type of thing since you seem to be a fairly new editor yourself. Moreover, while it's good you started a discussion about this on Talk:List of Nvidia graphics processing units, I don't think your choice of a section heading was a very good one. I can understand how you might be frustrated, but that section heading is likely going to only further exacerbate the situation. The article talk page should really be for discussing content, and mixing in comments about specific editors is generally not a good idea since it doesn't really help facilitate constructive discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The anon responded to Marchjuly's intervention with a WP:RANT-y wall of text. Based on the edit warring, personal attacks in edit summaries and this response, I have applied a 3 day block. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks for spending your time on this. I changed the section heading now as per your suggestion and on second thought removed the whole more personal part of my comment there. It should no longer be harmful in discussion, albeit from their past behaviour and what you had to experience I doubt it will happen. I also reverted the article again, which is OK now as far as I understand, and added a disclaimer that issues should be brought to the talk page. -- IonPike (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@IonPike: If the edit warring resumes under a new IP, please let me know ASAP. Thanks, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:57, 17 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.

Creeperdude356

The following discussion is closed. 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

Special:Contributions/Creeperdude356

Based on their two edits to Susan Wojcicki today, very obviously WP:NOTHERE (I'm guessing they had an old account that they decided to use for the raid on Susan Wojcicki). Also WP:DISRUPTNAME. --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh, also they just left this threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kahoot!&diff=prev&oldid=864415598&diffmode=source --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Definitely WP:NOTHERE. They've been around long enough and have already been directed to our policies/guidelines to have some awareness of what not to do here, so the purpose of final warning has definitely been fulfilled.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Indefblocked per WP:AIV report. Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 17 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.

70.178.127.37

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

---

Since this ANI thread was archived with no resolution, the anon has continued his mean streak. Reverting correct information, edit-warring on that, repeatedly. I made an attempt to show the anon where they were wrong on the WAZR page, for example, and was accused of "stretching market definitions" (whatever that means).

The anon has ignored logical information, for example, WELY uses the branding "End of the Road Radio". It is listed on the station's website, it is listed on their Facebook page, on their Twitter page, and of course they use it on their live stream (which is a simulcast of their broadcast transmission). The anon claims all of this "unsubstantiated AND out of date", "outdated website and a stream". The anon does not explain, though, how the website and stream is outdate. Perhaps he was thrown by the "2013 MN Twins Radio Affiliate of the Year!" in the lower left.

The anon has also repeatedly removed any instance that the station's signal can be picked up across Lake Superior] in Cook County, Minnesota and Thunder Bay, Ontario. WGLI is located on Michigan's Western UP. Their is a source for this, but the anon ignores it because he claims it doesn't show the information. Ignoring the fact that stations can and do exceed their broadcast coverage areas and go past their 40dBu signals into a 30dBu signal (which does exist).

It is abundantly clear, especially from this post, that the anon is not interested in communicating, working with others, but only OWNing articles and putting information that is correct only to him. I would be greatful for any help that I could get. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:01 on October 15, 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not going to say anything regarding the content dispute itself, except to say it's highly inappropriate to issue a 3RR warning to someone that you yourself are engaged in an edit war with. Also, as per this discussion, there's no evidence that either of you have heeded User:Marchjuly's suggestion by taking the discussion to Talk:WAZR to get a consensus from a wider array of editors. Even if the IP didn't want to discuss things, you still didn't try to discuss things with anyone else as suggested by User:Marchjuly. Without saying who's right one way or the other, I'm just going to say that this ANI thread is evidence that you failed to take whatever course of action that was recommended to you, so you can expect others to look at not just the IP's behavior but your behavior as well.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Mythdon here. As I've often said, the article talk page being empty is never a good sign when you're trying to get someone blocked for edit warring or not discussing (barring simple 3RR which don't generally belong here). Getting into semantic over who should discuss first per WP:BRD and other policies and guidelines generally misses the point. And while it's helpful to try and engage an editor on their talk page, especially a new or possibly new editor, people respond to such attempts in various ways and discussion over article content ultimately belongs on article talk pages. The best way you can demonstrate that the other editor is the problem tends to be by ensuring people can easily see you made a good faith effort on the article talk page and received no response. Nil Einne (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And I think there is good evidence here for why it's quite helpful to at least attempt discussion on the talk page. While we don't rule on content disputes, in one of the disputes cited above namely that relating to coverage having looked into it I'm currently siding with the IP. I don't see where the map shows the claimed coverage as I've pointed out in the article talk page Talk:WGLI#Coverage. I assume the OP isn't saying we should ignore what the source actually says because we should know from our own OR that coverage is often wider than that given in the sources we use. Instead I assume what's being said above is that the info is somewhere on the source, simply less obvious but I haven't yet figured out where the source shows this info. If this was already explained on the talk page, I wouldn't be so perplexed, but it's not. Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking into this more, it seems the IP has raised similar concerns on the OP's talk page although then decided to remove their post (doing it poorly at first) [125]. While this discussion should have been in the article talk page, since the initial discussion begun on user talk pages it's hard to completely blame the IP for the mess. And while the IP for whatever reason decided to remove their comments, so they could not be directly responded to, the simplest solution was simply to explain on the article talk page where the source actually shows this coverage in the claimed areas so that all of us would know that instead of staring at a map which does not seem to show what is being claimed. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon: Sorry for the delays in response, work plus 495/66 traffic. I never really considered the "consensus" thing because FCC coverage maps don't require consensus. The FCC, part of the United State Federal Government, is one of the most highly reliable sources we have. So establishing consensus on a highly reliable source seems rather redundant. I decided to "cut out of the middleman" (ie: the WAZR talk page) and talk to the anon directly. We see how that went. I have also tried to talk to the anon on Osawah's talk page as well, that turned out just as well.

@Nil Einne: In the case of WGLI, apparently it was missed, "that stations can and do exceed their broadcast coverage areas and go past their 40dBu signals into a 30dBu signal (which does exist)". A station's coverage area doesn't make a dead STOP at the end of their 40dBu coverage. It keeps going until another signal on the same frequency stops it or it just statics out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:15 on October 15, 2018 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: It really comes down to how you're both interpreting these sources. For example, while you're probably correct that "WGLI's signal can also be picked up across Lake Superior in Cook County, Minnesota and Thunder Bay, Ontario.", this coverage map doesn't show it's signal touching Thunder Bay at all meaning "A station's coverage area doesn't make a dead STOP at the end of their 40dBu coverage" is your own interpretation of the source which requires consensus. While some stations do reach outlying areas, you'll have to provide a specific source (that explicitly states WGLI can be seen in Thunder Bay) that doesn't require someone with specialized knowledge to interpret how far that signal reaches. "A station's coverage area doesn't make a dead STOP at the end of their 40dBu coverage" is your own specialized knowledge/interpretation/whichever and cannot be inferred by just anyone taking a look at the coverage map, so it's not about the reliability but rather the interpretation of the source. You have to consider how other readers will interpret the coverage map and not just basing it on your own specialized knowledge of radio stations, if this adds to my point as to why I say you should seek outside input on the talk pages as others suggested. You could even start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations and see what they say.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, "specialized knowledge" (I like that) and 12 years of Wikipedia experience is how I can say this. We could do consensus here. All of us (US and Canada members, I can't speak for how radio stations "behave" in other countries) have that one station (or many) that we aren't really suppose to get. I will give you an example, this station, WIYY in Baltimore, is receivable at my home with no real issues (unless I park in front of a building blocking the signal). I live in what would be considered the 20 to 30dBu coverage area. I technically should not be able to receive this station according to this map, but I can. So, does it serve my area (I live in the Northern Shenandoah Valley) or is it an illusion?

Here's another, and a more perfect example of what I was talking about that a signal "keeps going until another signal on the same frequency stops it or it just statics out". WVSB-FM 104.1 out of Romney, WV is heard clearly in my area (I would be in the station's 30 dBu coverage area) over Washington, DC's WPRS-FM, also on 104.1. WPRS has no issues in a neighboring county, but here (just 15 miles away), you get WVSB.

This is where knowledge of distant radio stations, knowledge of how radio waves "play" with mountains, valleys, and other land formations, and knowledge of stations themselves come into play. Not just blindly looking at the data and acknowledging that it is correct, but expanding on that with the knowledge that you have. The anon clearly doesn't have that and I am not tooting my own horn here. Radio stations and all about them is what I know.

I can "establish consensus" of a 30dBu signal until the cows come home, but it will not satisfy the anon and to be honest, I don't see it as a colossal waste of time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29 on October 16, 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) When you post things like I never really considered the "consensus" thing because FCC coverage maps don't require consensus, We could do consensus here. or This is where knowledge of distant radio stations, knowledge of how radio waves "play" with mountains, valleys, and other land formations, and knowledge of stations themselves come into play. Not just blindly looking at the data and acknowledging that it is correct, but expanding on that with the knowledge that you have. The anon clearly doesn't have that and I am not tooting my own horn here. Radio stations and all about them is what I know., it gives off the impression that you are arguing that content be included just because you're a (self-proclaimed) WP:EXPERT. Your opinion would be given much more weight if you can show that reliable sources generally consider you to be an authority on source matters; otherwise, it's just going to be considered WP:OR in a Wikipedia sense. I think the point Mythdon is making is that an FCC map doesn't require consensus that it's an FCC map, but how an editor interprets the map is WP:SYN unless reliable sources can be cited to show the map is interpreted in such a way. I'm not trying to insult you or claim you're not knowlegable about radio stations, but that's just basically how Wikipedia treats such personal knowledge and experiences. Moreover, a comment like I can "establish consensus" of a 30dBu signal until the cows come home, but it will not satisfy the anon and to be honest, I don't see it as a colossal waste of time. (I think you meant "I do (not don't) see it as a colossal waste of time") seems to be a bit of WP:BADFAITH with respect to the IP and kinda missing the point of WP:CONSENSUS. If you make the same arguments on the article talk page and others agree with you, then the IP will be expected to honor that consensus; if they don't. they run the rist of being seen as WP:IDHT or WP:NOTHERE. At the same time, if the consensus turns out to be in support of the IP, then you would similarly be expected to honor the consensus.

Finally, continuing to engage the IP at User talk:Oshwah#70.178.127.37 is not going to help resolve things one way or another. Either discuss the IPs behavior here or discuss article content on the article's talk page, but at this point there's nothing gained by responding tit-for-tat everywhere the IP posts.

Just so it doesn't seem as if I'm singling you out, everything I posted above pretty much applies to the IP as well. They should discuss any issues they have with your behavior here, and any issues with article content on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC);[Post edited by Marchjuly to change "a FCC" to "an FCC". -- 06:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)]

(Non-administrator comment) "I think the point Mythdon is making is that a FCC map doesn't require consensus that it's an FCC map, but how an editor interprets the map is WP:SYN unless reliable sources can be cited to show the map is interpreted in such a way" - Precisely my point and I also agree with Marchjuly that continuing to engage eachother in this manner is only going to complicate things further. Although I'm not a completely neutral party (as I'm part of sister project WP:TVS), I'll say that escalating to ANI without prior attempts at discussion/dispute resolution is central to the reason no administrator has bothered to action anything involving this.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I read what you said when I wrote my initial reply. It sounded a lot like you were saying we should ignore sources because of our own OR. I was initially going to say that it sounded like what you were saying. But I've seen your name around enough before so assumed you were an experienced editor so I AGFed that I must have been wrong and the source did somehow support the claim (although left a little of the original sarcasm intact).

I am astounded that you are instead confirming you think it's okay to apply WP:OR and misuse use a source claiming it supports something it does not. I don't know and frankly no longer care what else the IP has done. This is a major WP:Boomerang to me. Since you're experienced and should know better by now, it sounds like we have a major case of WP:CIR.

I'm very close to calling for a topic ban for you from anything to do with broadcast coverage if you don't undertake to follow our WP:RS requirements and stop all WP:OR. (I mean at a minimum, if you are going to do OR, don't claim sources say something they don't. Leave your OR uncited, or better yet, tag it as OR.)

As others have said, if you really are an expert, feel free to publish you coverage maps/areas elsewhere. If the community agrees you are a subject matter expert, we may then choose to use your published information. What you cannot do is publish your info here based entirely on your own additions to the map and expect it to be okay because you are an expert. I can't say again how disturbing it is that an experienced wikipedian thinks that's okay.

(By additions I mean even accepting a 30dBu range, how did you determine what areas receive a 30dBu signal considering the terrain etc? To be fair, in this example it may be fairly flat. But there are surely other examples where it would not be and so 30dBu is way more complicated than simply a wider area outside the 40dBu coverage. I'm not asking for an explanation BTW, rather pointing out why as an uninformed outsider I can easily see why it's not a a simple thing and would indeed require a subject matter expert or alternatively testing. As I said perhaps you are that expert, if so publish your research somewhere and let the community decide if your research is reliable and cite it.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Straight-forward question: Is the Federal Communications Commission a reliable source under WP:RS? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:47 on October 16, 2018 (UTC)

• Christ, everyone stop it. Seriously, this is not the place to discuss content. The above exchanges are absolutely ridiculous distractions. Whether or not we personally know content to be "true" is completely irrelevant as a matter of policy. Content must be verifiable, unsourced content can be removed, and it can only be added back with a source, even if it's confirmed to be true by an editor. That's just policy. So any complaints about the IP removing content that may be "true" but isn't actually directly supported by a reliable source can go out the window. It's not even worth discussing, and certainly not here. Furthermore, the personal attacks are way over the top. NH appears to be an experienced and highly established editor, and casually throwing around terms like BOOMERANG and CIR without serious cause is not okay. There are legitimate complaints being made that should be examined, and that's what this board is for. Neutralhomer please boil this down for us a bit. On which articles is the IP currently removing sourced content?  Swarm  talk  00:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Swarm here. What it boils down to is that content-related discussions need to be held on the talk pages of the articles that they directly involve. Neither user is engaging in vandalism, and it's uncivil behavior to state that the other is doing so and to report them to AIV even after other editors have said otherwise, including the admin who declined the AIV report stating the same thing. As stated by Marchjuly in the discussion between you two on my user talk page here, it looks like you two are going in circles over these disputes and your discussions, as well as back-and-fourth repeatedly on the articles directly involved (which is edit warring and something you both have been repeatedly warned about). It looks like the best solution to these disputes is to have other uninvolved editors weigh in on them to come to a consensus. The back-and-fourth arguing in your dispute discussion is obviously going nowhere, and the repeated back-and-fourth reverting on the affected articles is becoming very disruptive. You both have received more than your fair share of warnings regarding edit warring; engaging in further edits like this will result in being blocked without any further notice. I would fully protect these pages, but because the ones I looked at haven't been edited for over two days, I'm going to hold off. Please take the input and recommendations that have been given to you both, don't edit or revert these articles any further until a consensus has been reached via discussion, and be respectful to one another at all times. Thank you, and good luck. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:45, 17 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.

Unsourced

The following discussion is closed. 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 keeps recording unsourced info (Redacted) ([126]).GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I warned the IP, in the future, please don't post links to BLP violations on ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella - Thank you for reporting the edits; they were definitely BLP violations that could be considered libelous. I'll echo Tornado chaser's response above: please report blatant and serious violations of BLP like this to an administrator privately by emailing them. Don't report such things publicly on Wikipedia such as in a noticeboard discussion here - it creates a risk of the Streisand effect taking place and it will only increase the number of people who will read such content - both things that we do not want to have happen. You're welcome to email these BLP violations to me in the future and I'll be happy to take care of them. Just visit my user page and click on "email this user" located on the left-hand side :-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:20, 18 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.

BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog

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

---

• Iwog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwog today expressed that "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over regarding an issue on False accusation of rape ([127]). This user has edited solely on this article and its associated talk page. They made a few edits initially over the presentation of percentages in the article's lead and later adding a sentence to the lead that, to me, appeared to be a tendentious edits to try to comment about the "flip" of the topic ([128], [129]). This user has repeatedly opined about the "bias", "lies", and "dishonesty" in the article and that the lead is "written intentionally to deceive".

I am requesting admins and/or the community review this user's behavior. To me, this user's behavior seems very disruptive. I know I have stronger-than-average feelings about this topic, so I'm also asking for a "reality check" that this user is indeed being a problem and that it is not my own stances on the issue making me view their behavior as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. It seems like this editor is more interested in pushing their POV rather than interest in verifiability. In fact, this editor mentions "accuracy" multiple times in edit summaries [130] [131] [132] [133] [134]. In the third diff, the editor engages in the fallacy that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle". Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it's clear that this editor isn't here to contribute to the project but to crusade against perceived underreporting of false rape. The editor even says they're "going to war", which is good evidence that they're viewing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not engaging with the project in good faith. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The main complaint against me seems to be one of semantics. Since I'm new here, I was not aware that "going to war for truth" made my contributions into a battleground and you will find the rest of the subject is treated objectively. Although links were given for my use of the word "accuracy", no links nor any quotes were given that in any way indicated I was insisting "the truth is in the middle". I am well aware that this topic is rife with strong emotions on both sides which makes it vitally important that it is treated coldly and objectively. IMO the article is far from objective and contains much bias which I have detailed in great length. The accusation that I am not here to contribute is false. I am only here to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing my actual quote, "The actual number lies somewhere in the middle", I will clarify that my intention was to say the true number can lie anywhere within the data set bracketed by both known ends of the spectrum. I can see how this was misinterpreted. At no time did I ever intend to claim a number was half way in between or located anywhere within the set of unknowns. This is not a fallacy, in fact it's a statement of mathematical fact. Iwog (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up on WP:V. Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again I have to take issue with your use of semantics here. I am not using the term "accuracy" to indicate anything other than adherence to the citations being presented. In short, the way I am using the term is ONLY about statements on the page being verifiable.Iwog (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added: This is the first instance you cited: [135] It is clear that I am arguing for the inclusion of a large set of unknowns which is present in every single study being referenced. It's obvious that "accuracy" here means adherence to facts that can be verified. Iwog (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We've actually already explained to you that including the conviction rate with the fully intended implication of "any report that doesn't result in a conviction is or could be false" is a WP:OR violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes you've explained it but you are wrong. Currently the implication is "any report that cannot be prove false is true". Please explain how this isn't a WP:OR violation since every study admits unknowns exceeding 80%? Iwog (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That implication is also present in virtually all of the published research on this and every other kind of crime victimization: crime stats are usually based reported crimes, and these victimizations presumed true unless there is evidence that an assault did not happen. To be clear, "evidence" is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - the figures reported in the research don't represent "proven" false allegations at all, they represent allegations where there was a good reason to believe the accusation was false. Perhaps you think we should record crime victimizations differently, but Wikipedia adheres to reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are not correct and the implication that you are stating is completely absent from any study cited on that page. In most cases, allegations are only deemed false when law enforcement deems an allegation as unfounded or provably false. Considering the liability taken on by law enforcement when they make a wrong determination, the VAST majority of cases where there is any question of legitimacy will be kicked further down the line for investigation and/or referred to a prosecutor. In fact we can cite RAINN itself to see how rare this is. RAINN reports that a mere 3% of all cases have enough legitimacy to be sent to a prosecutor. This citation proves, by itself, that the presumption CANNOT be 5% in any study. How in any conceivable universe can an actual 5% false allegation rate co-exist in the world with a real 3% prosecution rate ASSUMING POLICE ARE THE ONES MAKING THE DETERMINATION IN ALL OF THE STUDIES?? I'm sorry but the preface in this section is grossly misrepresenting the data. Iwog (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Iwog, in this revert that you describe as "far more accurate," you add text reading Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true. This asserts, without evidence, that "conviction by a court of law" and "can be presumed to be true" are synonymous... yet a failure to convict can occur because the jury thinks an accusation is true but is not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. It can occur when 11 jurors are utterly convinced and one hold-out is being stubborn for reasons unrelated to the case. It can occur because the evidence relating to sexual assaults can be thin as such crimes often happen in private locations without witnesses and as victims may not immediately report, resulting in a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Convictions can also occur when the evidence is thin and the jury is biased - look at the number of unsafe convictions that have occurred due to racial prejudice, as one example. Do you maintain that a jury conviction is needed for a victim's statement that s/he was raped to be presumed to be true? EdChem (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No I'm maintaining that it is absolutely absurd to claim 5% of all rape allegations are false, a conviction rate (including a citation) is 1%, and the remaining 94% of all cases can be assumed to be true. It is outrageous that this implication is made in the preface considering no study used as a source is claiming to contain the actual false accusation rate, only those deemed false by law enforcement. Furthermore I've laid out how the opening paragraph wrongly connects two completely different concepts and makes it appear to be talking about the same thing. I've had no response at all to that specific and provable claim. At the very least, it fails high school grammar and I'm not being hyperbolic. Name the subject of the second sentence if you don't believe me. Iwog (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Iwog is a pure WP:SPA and obviously came into WP hot; this is pretty obvious subtweeting of the Kavanaugh matter. I propose a TBAN for anything related to gender-relations under the gamergate DS; any admin can do this. This person needs to stay away from this topic that is too-charged for them, and try to learn what we do here and how we do it, on non-controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support this. Iwog's userpage suggests a pretty close connection to the Men's Rights Movement - I don't think this necessarily precludes them from ever editing productively on gender issues, but they clearly have more passion than knowledge and they need time to learn the ropes elsewhere. Nblund ^talk 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe men's rights activists can ever productively edit on gender topics unless they show proof that they're genuinely remorseful and denounce it. Men's rights activism is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree++. Suggest topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, per the GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions--Jorm (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Misguided, misinformed, and sometimes-to-frequently used as cover for sexist beliefs and language, but "hate speech" is an overkill claim, as is the notion that people who don't share your beliefs should be barred from editing certain topics. That's really not how WP is supposed to work, unless such people are bringing disruption with them, which should be decided on an individual basis. Statements like this just serve as fodder for the "left is out to get us" conspiracy theories, anyway. Grandpallama (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unfriendly enough to women and other minorities as it is. If you want Wikipedia to offer safe haven to misogynists on gender topics, then by all means, advocate for misogyny. It's my personal opinion that hatred has no place here. And no, I don't want to ban people that disagree with me, or I'd be asking for bans against everyone who voted differently from me on WP:AFD. Please don't mischaracterize my opinion as "ban people who disagree with me". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Characterizing people on the conservative end of the sociopolitical spectrum as engaging in hate speech is not appropriate, unless they engage in actual hate speech. Implying that I'm advocating for misogyny is dangerously close to a personal attack and also not appropriate. Pointing out that you are suggesting you'd like to ban people from editing on this topic who disagree with you is a perfectly accurate characterization of the extreme position you laid out, including the expectation that there should be public apologies that demonstrate "genuine" remorse. Wikipedia should be a safe place for everyone who edits it, and those who engage in any unacceptable behavior should be immediately addressed, but expanding the definition of that behavior to include positions you dislike by trying to classify them in a new way while also expecting displays of contrition in order to earn the right to edit again is misguided. And, as I said, it feeds the trolls who seize upon such statements as proof that Wikipedia is some sort of weird leftist hotbed, which it is not. Anyway, this is tangential to the specific behavioral question that was brought here. Grandpallama (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world? You realize I'm not saying "ban all conservatives from Wikipedia for being misogynists", right? Mens rights activism was specifically identified by the SPLC as a hate group. It is not controversial to suggest that hate groups like white supremacists, male supremacists, and Nazis should not be allowed to edit in areas where they have an agenda of hate to push, and I would like you to reconsider the difference between advocating that hate be restricted from certain areas on Wikipedia and restricting people I disagree with from talking. There's a world of difference between the two. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world is right, as I think we're not exactly so far apart. As I said, hate speech should be restricted, but it should also be recognized that the SPLC (and even our own page on the so-called MRM) draws some distinctions between "male supremacy" (which is what it categorizes as hate groups/speech/activity and what I now think you were specifically saying you'd like to see outed as such) and the men's rights silliness, and acknowledges (as I did) that there are some legitimate voices in the latter that don't necessarily fall into the former. Every male supremacist is into men's rights activism, but not all of the goofy men's rights activists are male supremacists. Most of the ones I encounter on a daily basis who describe themselves as men's rights activists are just anti-feminists or traditionalists who exhibit some ignorance or poorly thought-out positions, and say largely stupid (but not really hateful) things, rather than seek to advance some sort of actual ideological creed. I actually think we're on the same page and just disagreeing over a point of semantics. If you are saying that male supremacy is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia, then we're simpatico. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing the MRM has had even a remotely valid point to make about since the mid 1990's is that father's are more frequently given the short end of the stick in family court and that some feminists occasionally say hysterical things. Literally everything else they go on about is pure misogyny, and misogyny is absolutely "hate speech". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And if we see something hateful said, misogynistic or otherwise, we should respond accordingly. But there are a lot of people who self-identify as men's rights activists who are really just highly conservative. I'm not advocating giving any room for hate speech. Grandpallama (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, @MjolnirPants: I was waiting in line for the toilet the other day, and I was thinking "Man, if that thing with Chandler seeing a woman walking out of the men's room and she said that there was someone in the ladies' room and she just couldn't wait actually happened, she'd totally get away with it, but if a guy did the same thing and tried to use the women's bathroom he'd be immediately tagged as a prevert, even though men who would want to go into the ladies' room for a reason like that are probably a much smaller minority of men than men who legitimately really needed to go". :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Bah, I used to go into the ladies rooms all the time and never got much more than a curious look. Of course, at the time, I was pushing one of my sons around in a stroller that carried a certain malodorous aura that any parent would recognize, and there was no changing table in the men's room. But, to be fair, I'm 6 feet tall, was around 230lbs at the time and had a beard, two arms full of ink and just all around looked about as scummy as I am. If I didn't have the kid with me, I might as well have tattooed "convicted rapist (and occasional drug dealer)" on my forehead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support any and all sanctions that are on the table I've gone on record as rejecting the usefulness of TBANning SPAs, so I would support a community indef block, or a block with a broad TBAN set as the unblock condition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to just block the NOTHERE sock-abusing troll. Nothing more needs to be said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly related: although Iwog has largely gone silent, a MugyuToChu (talk · contribs) was created this morning sided with Iwog in her first and only edit about 20 minute later. I'm not crazy for thinking this seems like a very hamhanded attempt at trolling or concealing sock puppetry, right? Nblund ^talk 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Nblund for pointing this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this notification at the top of the page. I am a feminist and one of the first articles I looked at was this one because of the Kavanaugh issue going on right now. I'm surprised at the rude reception I'm getting. If I understand what the BATTLEGROUND law means, then Jijiri88, Roscolese, and Nblund definitely seem to be violating it with how they're treating me. It's a shame, because looking at their edits all three also appear to be feminists. Can't we all get along? MugyuToChu (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock/troll/joe job blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Here's Iwog on their hobby horse: "Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true." One step at a time: there is no "likewise". One source, this source, cannot establish "generally agreed upon". Where is the "1-5%" on this page? "Total rape allegations"--the source provides data from the US; globalize, Iwog. Finally, "and can be presumed to be true" is complete BS: it's original research, POV commentary. Iwog will have us believe that 95 to 99% of rape allegations are likely false? And all this in the lede (or lead, whatever...). So, we have here a toxic soup of SPA, POV, OR, and possibly CIR (every step I laid out involves incompetence of some sort--rhetorical, logical, situational). Place a topic ban, or (someone) impose something useful via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for gender-related topics under the Gamergate DS. A clear SPA for the area, with continued disruption and a lack of a learning curve. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So, when is somebody gonna block this guy?

Sorry to paraphrase the worst extra ever, but the above-cited WP:DUCK behaviour is grounds for immediate indefinite block of both accounts. @Yunshui: Sorry to ping you, but you're kinda my go-to for sockpuppetry issues, and buried at the bottom of a relatively stale ANI thread this ran the risk of not being noticed before getting archived. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but it's not going to be me (nor Drmies, who has also run an inconclusive CU with regards to this). There's no technical evidence linking the two accounts, and as yet I don't think the behavioural evidence is sufficient (suspicious, yes; suspicious enough to warrant the check - but not enough to warrant a block in the absence of anything else). No comment on the rest of the above. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The sock that turned up the other day, was CU'd to be User:Architect 134, a notorious false-flag trouble maker in the Nsmutte vein. This could be similar, although it's quacking loudly - who spells the first paragraph of an article "lede" with their very first edit? Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui is correct--that is, there is no support for a CU block. And while some editors deserve to be blocked for one single edit, this is not yet the case. Black Kite, I believe you are correct too: this is a troublemaker, and it certainly quacks, but given the repetitive nature of trolling, who knows. At any rate, if this ever turns into an RfC or a more formal discussion, an admin/seasoned editor will know how to weigh such drive-by comments... Drmies (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding on to the WP:DUCK, there's this diff [136] that Simonvino immediately tried to undo when they realized they'd given themselves away as Iwog. Pretty sure the "talk page discussion" and "dragged to ANI by agenda motivated editors" is Iwog forgetting that they're on on the Simonvino account. Not to mention this really silly edit on User:MugyuToChu's user page [137]. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Er no - Simonvino wasn't Iwog, they were User:Architect 134, that was proved by a CU. It's actually pretty typical joe-jobbing by A134 - writing something that "gives them away", then immediately reverting it as if they've suddenly reaslised what they've done. User:Nsmutte has been known to pull the same trick. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well, that's weird. I guess I should've known better. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• This person has not edited since Sept 28, per their contribs. Gone to ground, or gone? I still think an indef is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that nothing I have ever written is as personally slanderous or as indicative of a battleground violation than many things contained on this very page. I wonder how the rules are applied these days? Iwog (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• ah it was gone to ground. They are back in the same battering style as before. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any indication that this will stop on it's own. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I note that Iwog has posted a response above to my question. As far as I can see, Iwog is not stepping away from the edit / revert (described as "far more accurate") that conviction by a court of law means a rape "can be presumed to be true" – implying that the absence of a conviction raises doubt about whether a rape actually happened or suggests that an accusation may be / is false. An editor who can't see why this is a problem should not be editing an article like false accusation of rape. The latest Iwog edits on that article's talk page are also not encouraging. Some action is needed. EdChem (talk) 13:42, 12 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.

Legal threats by IP 1.42.39.16

The following discussion is closed. 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:1.42.39.16 has recently posted some legal threats on their talk page (replacing several warning templates, including a final warning, if that's pertinent). Not sure what to do about it, not even sure if anything needs doing, but figured I should report it here. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih reverted them without fueling the fire. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:00, 15 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: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.

---

I suppose I am more than likely as versed as I need to be on your vandalism rule. I made some really great edits on the Fort Mill High School page. I adjusted the alumni, giving them accurate links to wikipedia pages as well as creating more understandable definitions to why they were "notable". I also helped out the achievements section by removing confusing verbiage and unneeded words, making it more of a list rather than a paragraph summarising all the achievements. What am I not getting here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCPrivilegeChecker (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@PCPrivilegeChecker: You may want to check out User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives for stuff like this. In the mean time, I reverted ClueBot NG's edit for you. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

...Anyone else concerned about that user name? --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look at all like a POV-pushing sock at all to me. Natureium (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I just gave them a username warning[138]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:06, 15 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.

Wombles vandal from Texas -- 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.

---

There's a long-term abuse person from Texas who has been disrupting articles about The Wombles (band), Lily's Driftwood Bay, Huey Lewis and the News, Poppy Cat (TV series), and many other music, TV and radio articles. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2603:300C:182D:4600:0:0:0:0/64? A common connection is the identical edit summary, present much of the time. Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sep–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/108.244.219.139
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/50.197.217.214
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/Verone66 (indeffed)
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/172.58.99.57
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/107.77.173.4 (blocked six months)
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/96.68.90.41
• Aug–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/76.30.25.202 (blocked one year)
• Aug–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/4.16.216.194
• Aug–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/96.64.46.166
• Aug 2018: Special:Contributions/73.232.193.116
• Aug 2018: Special:Contributions/76.31.1.219
• Jun–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/2600:1700:C370:7A00:0:0:0:0/64
• Jun–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/2603:300C:182D:4600:0:0:0:0/64
• Jun–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/2603:300C:1806:1200:0:0:0:0/64
• May–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/96.91.42.38 (blocked two weeks)
• Nov 2017 – Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1260:BD40:0:0:0:0/64
• Aug 2017 – Jun 2018: Special:Contributions/107.77.169.7 (blocked one year)
• May 2017 – Mar 2018: Special:Contributions/99.23.39.93 (blocked one year)
• May–Nov 2017: Special:Contributions/2602:306:3740:AEF0:0:0:0:0/64
• Oct 2014 – Mar 2016: Special:Contributions/98.198.137.139 (blocked 12 hours)

@Binksternet: I've blocked the two active IPv6 ranges (2603:300C:1806:1200:0:0:0:0/64 and 2603:300C:182D:4600:0:0:0:0/64) for three months each.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks good. I will watch the articles of interest for future disruption. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 17 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:Xayahrainie43

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

---

• Xayahrainie43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has drawn concerned attention throughout their short career here. Of the current WT:WPM discussions, four concern Xayahrainie's edits (the two on which Xayahrainie is named explicitly, and also List of polygons and n-ary). Many edits tend towards large-scale, systematic changes to some article or sets of articles, with no discussion; often, against an existing consensus. So far there have been several clean-up efforts following their edits; here is the most recent one, but earlier there was this (there are four or five relevant discussions on that page; all the "-ary" discussions and also Hyper6) as well as some AfDs. The user's talk page is full of good-faith, non-templated advice and encouragement to discuss; so far this has generated no success. One can see in some of the RfD and AfD discussions their real lack of understanding of what it means to discuss notability or policy, and to reach consensus; see here for the most sustained example.

So far all warnings and attempts at discussion have failed to make an impression, so I request a short block (with possibility of escalation if there is no change in behavior). I do not watchlist ANI, please ping. --JBL (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think a block is needed yet, but would support a short TBAN against this user creating redirects. They should not be creating more redirects similar to those being discussed at deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not just about redirects; check out this recent article creation (currently at AfD). Or creating hatnotes for non-redirects for special characters (dealt with by me eventually). --JBL (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • To add: I do not understand the idea that a short block is more invasive than a topic ban. This user's problem is failure to communicate and to appreciate existing consensus -- this leads to disruption wherever they work, and needs to be solved by a method that will convince them of the seriousness of discussion in the WP process. I would not support a T-ban for this user (even in the absence of a block), it will not solve anything. --JBL (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• The disruptive edits of this editor are far not limited to redirect creations. Many are aimed to name or list, as far as possible possible, objects that are indexed by integers, such as n-gons, n-ary. In this sequence of edits, they tried to extend from 8 to 12 the explicit examples for low n. I have reverted these edits because they add nothing from an encyclopedic point of view, and also because they contained some mathematical errors. Fortunately, they do not tried starting an edit war, and I considered the subject as closed. However, it is useful to mention it here, for having a global view of the problem. D.Lazard (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• The deleted version of this user's user page (if you can see it) will give you a very clear and typical idea of this user's contributions (I believe also as an IP before creating this user account): piles and piles of original research, both as walls of text and big tables of numbers, added to articles with zero references (or with only OEIS as reference), and with a special emphasis on base-12 notation. Or for a non-deleted example, see Special:Diff/863227170 and scroll down to the part starting "searched up to 1048576". Also note the complete lack of usable edit summaries. If this junk is removed by other editors, the same editor will come back days or weeks later to re-add it. I think WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE are in play. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal illustrates the fascination with base 12. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Links: Xayahrainie43 (talk · contribs)

  Something drastic is needed because enthusiasm can waste a lot of time. I explained a problem at the user's talk here but got no response. That talk has been edited 72 times—three of those were by Xayahrainie43. That level of collaboration is not satisfactory. The suggestion above about a topic ban against creating redirects is not sufficient because other problems exist (see my "here" link for example). Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnuniq (and others above): A block is necessary. An indefinite block. Lifted only when he agrees to stop the problematic edits and to actually respond to talkpage notices. It's unclear whether he can be rehabilitated, but at the very least his editing (50+ edits per day!), which is highly problematical, has got to stop. Softlavender (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Is it possible to permanently disable write access (including creation and move rights) to article space (including redirects), but not to article and redirect talk pages and to draft pages?

If so, this might be a solution to the problem, so that s/he can still participate in the project by proposing changes on article talk pages (and thereby will be forced to learn to motivate/discuss changes so that others will accept them), but cannot cause disruption by changing article contents, mass-creating undesired redirects, etc. This way, noboby would have to monitor and cleanup after this editor, and still the project could benefit from the editor's knowledge. The editor's particular dedication (obsession?) with certain topics might even help us to round out some topic areas with aspects overlooked by editors without this dedication. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

They're working on that feature, but it's not available yet. A straight indef is the only option. All they'd have to do to get unblocked is start communicating though, so it's really not the end of the world. They have not edited since another admin has asked them to respond here, but if they fail to do so in a timely manner, or if they make any edit that isn't responding here, I am going to block them.  Swarm  talk  19:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a new 17 October edit by Xayahrainie (later than the above statements) so I think User:Swarm's criterion for issuing an indef block is now met. Xayahrainie has made no response to my last-chance advice from 16 October that they might respond to this ANI to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Swarm has administered an indefinite block, with further encouragement to engage. --JBL (talk) 23:57, 17 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.

RefDesk header urgent

Nasty vandalism affecting the RefDesk header. Look at the desks or at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/headercfg. I can't work out where the vandalism actually is. DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Found it - this edit by User:Seckroots. Please can they be blocked forthwith? DuncanHill (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone really needs to block this editor now and carry out appropriate revdel.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist mere seconds before I could.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Great Land o' Goshen!. I'm at work and won't have the opportunity to revdel this mess.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a very weird account history Special:Log/Seckroots. I thought it had been created ~104 days ago to get around the RD protection but it seems it was actually in 2009. The edits for autoconfirmed happened just before the spree. I'm not really sure what happened but I'm assuming that means a CU to look for sleepers will definitely be useless. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If someone is using for this purpose an account created in 2009, it is quite likely that this individual has been actively disrupting Wikipedia in many ways for a long time, including currently operating multiple accounts. I therefore wouldn't rule out the possibility that a checkuser will be able to find something. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be another sleeper, created in 2010 (now blocked) Mirroringelements (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think it's almost certain that this user has other accounts, including "good hand" ones. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm about 95% certain this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll. They haven't otherwise mentioned Nazi-ism, but everything else about the nature and ferocity of this attack matches him quite well. Using registerred sleeper accounts, deep familiarity with various ref-desk regulars, and repeatedly hammering the desks to force protection all match perfectly. --Jayron32 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See also Special:Permalink/864011166#Reference desk protection. One of the "disallow" filters was modified on Sunday afternoon. This is a public filter and it's not stopping Soft skin. A private filter was modified last night which disallows phone numbers but it's not stopping him either. This is unsurprising since he's adding fictitious Los Angeles numbers whereas Medeis lived in New York. Another private filter was modified yesterday afternoon and another on Sunday afternoon. We now have desks protected for a month. This is unnecessary. Soft skin has apparently encountered a filter which stops him writing "Medeis" in edit summaries. So he writes "M E D E I S" instead. Might I suggest unprotection combined with the following filter modifications:

• Stop IPs inserting "M E D E I S" into edit summaries in project space
• Stop IPs inserting Medeis' fictitious Los Angeles postal address into edit summaries in project space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7986:D200:D81B:21A3:5CE2:CA75 (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't deal with edit filters, but it seems fairly obvious that the edit filter is going to have to stop more than simply spaces, surely including substituted letters etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was any chance the editor had somehow acquired a bunch of old accounts created by someone else e.g. on the dark web or whatever. But the other account actually asked a (fairly innocuous) question on the RD around creation time so I suspect they must have been created by by the abuser themselves for possible future use and/or for existing minor disruption. Although I haven't seen as much as admins and those dealing with this, the connection with the stated LTA seems likely. An interesting point is that 2009 or even 2010 AFAIK predates the first signs of this editor that I know of, I think that was in 2013 or maybe 2012 or 2011 at the earliest so there was obviously something going on before the later problems. If CU finds something that would be great. Main reason I was wondering is because at least for their anonymous edits, the editor seems to use a lot of VPNs or proxies or whatever & thought they would be careful not contaminate their old accounts. But I forgot how many sleepers the editor tends to have. Given the age, let's hope they don't manage to get any account through to EC status. BTW, with the VPNs or whatever there's probably not much they can do, but is the foundation aware of the recent problems? Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Daweibj

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

---

• Daweibj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StarTimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Access to Satellite TV for 10,000 African Villages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user has mainly edited these two articles, and I couldn't find any single sentence of criticism against both subjects. If the user is somehow related to the StarTimes company, I'd like to declare it's against WP:COI, but I couldn't find any sufficient evidence. (I do believe these articles need to be retouched, however.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 19:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

JSH-alive, I haven't looked into this yet, but I'm just letting you know (if you don't already) that there is also the WP:COIN, which investigates these matters, if you get no traction here. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't really do much here if there's no clear evidence of wrongdoing. For further investigation into whether the editor has a COI, WP:COIN is the proper place, and for further consideration of POV concerns, WP:NPOVN is the place for that. If you come across any clear evidence of bias or POV, we can certainly do something about it here, but if you need help digging into the users articles and edits, you'll probably have more luck at one of the other noticeboards.  Swarm  talk  21:11, 16 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:2405:3800::/32

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

---

• 2405:3800::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (ISP: U Mobile)

The whole ip range was mostly nationality hoax, such as he did in Fernando Muslera, Rodrigo Bentancur. Block on single ip today was resulted in using another ip to vandal within hours. Despite it may had potential high collateral damage to other user that using the same ISP, most of the edits in that range currently are related to the same vandal pattern.

Those exception (not related to nationality), such as this one (Special:Diff/864265524) on Environmental engineering, is a vandal

While this edit : Special:Diff/861837676 still a vandal.

Only very small amount of edit, such as Special:Diff/861914724 and Special:Diff/861914641. So, would a range block is more appropriate to the matter? Matthew_hk tc 12:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional note:

He used at lease three ip today and yesterday:

• 2405:3800:82:E7FB:144C:A94F:7C94:7E2A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:3800:481:569C:B5FF:6E7:37FC:4E8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:3800:82:FDB:408:3167:ACBF:B3CB (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While on 1 October and 30 September he used

• 2405:3800:402:78:70FC:E51:2831:E8F9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• ‎2405:3800:200:f931:51cf:a251:d5cb:a052 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• ‎2405:3800:400:81a8:f806:34ae:10ea:437e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:3800:401:240:9417:eef2:fce9:90bd (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

--Matthew_hk tc 12:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Second additional note:

Based on the page history of Sporting Kansas City, he also used those ipv4 ips

• • 123.136.116.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 123.136.117.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While the range 123.136.96.0/19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had more unrelated ip (even Special:Contributions/123.136.116.* and Special:Contributions/123.136.117.*), those ip were still involved in nationality vandals.

• • 123.136.116.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While this ip from the second range of the ISP, performed different kind of vandal.

• • 123.136.116.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

––Matthew_hk tc 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The latest is 2405:3800:380:E6A5:ACE2:E809:1AFE:5DAA (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is becoming a real chore. Given the similarity of IPs (v4 and v6), is there a 'safe' rangeblock that could be implemented? Nzd (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Using the 4 ips of this week alone in {{IP range calculator}}, the range would be 2405:3800::/37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), affecting 128M /64 addresses. Had collateral damage on 2405:3800:281:40e5:d4cd:f955:bebf:f06a (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2405:3800:502:2cda:edf7:d142:9028:3b53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which were last edited in late September). Matthew_hk tc 20:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew hk - I looked through your report here and calculated the same range as you did just above: 2405:3800::/37. I've blocked this IP range for one month for continued vandalism and disruptive editing. I note that you also included "Special:Contributions/123.136.116.* and Special:Contributions/123.136.117.*" above (which is 123.136.116.0/23 in CIDR notation); do I need to look into this range as well? Please let me know if I need to review any other ranges and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I had not decided on ip4 range as there are more unrelated edit (unrelated to nationality vandal) Matthew_hk tc 11:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew hk - Okay, cool deal. I noticed the same thing, which is why I asked about it here ;-). I think we should keep an eye on it for further disruption, but as of right now I'm going to hold off on taking action against the range or any sub-range of it until it's really necessary. Are there any other ranges that I should take a look at? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So far the Hungarian and Korean vandal which limit to football only article had been deal with, for this Malaysian ip which also vandalize singer and actor, it seem this is the range so far. Matthew_hk tc 12:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just ping me or message me on my user talk page if I need to look at any more ranges and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:12, 18 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.

Ahmedadan1951

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

---

Ahmedadan1951 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Ahmedadan1951 (not pinging)

See his talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barawa_District&diff=863587274&oldid=861918419 adds a link that I do not believe is real. As he seems to learn from my cues, I'm not going to publicly say why. But if you look at my history and his talk page, you probably know who to trust. And I'm not even interested in Somalia. I only got caught up in this shitstorm because he uploaded an image that I mass-tagged with a template without even looking at it, putting it on my watchlist.

For clarity, either the user is real (which I highly doubt) and it's some rebel leader in Somalia who shouldn't edit anything due to COI, or, more likely, we are dealing with a bored teenager. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, he just restored his unsourced crap on some articles like Barawa (and added unsourced crap to others). Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Please notify subject that you have posted here about them, as per instructions at the top of the page when you post here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: can/should I post somewhere else where that is not required? Any information he gets just helps him evade detection. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

How exactly? At any rate, they edit so sporadically, they won't even notice a short block. They've had a couple for (wait for it) making unsourced edits. I'm a little trigger happy, but leave it to the regulars for now. We aren't in a hurry.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: When I look at your history, it looks like you follow them around.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: not exactly. After his messing around with made-up flags a few months ago, Barawa and some related pages ended up on my watchlist. But it wasn't until now when he made an edit to Barawa that I noticed he woke up again. So I just undid his unsourced September edits. FYI, Ahmedadan1951 (or someone extremely close to him) operates the websites for which he adds links to articles about Somalia. https://www.parliament.gov.so/ is the real website of the Somali government and I doubt they would consider any of this very funny. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What I meant with my history is: I'm a decade+ contributor who is obnoxious, rude, likes MjolnirPants and burns things. But I've never screwed you over. Ahmedadan1951 registered 9 months ago and gave us nothing but unsourced homemade crap with a sauce of edit war. Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

As there's no discussion here and the only answer I see is to indef Ahmedadan1951 until they respond to issues, I plan to do so if no one objects. They have not edited since before this is posted. Short term blocks have not had an impact.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Sounds reasonable. This is pretty bizarre behavior.  Swarm  talk  00:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

TBH, I forgot aboutt his. Will deal with it tomorrow is no one beats me to it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I don't think anyone has. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked him with instructions to address the issues. Please feel free to unblock if you disagree.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:50, 19 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.

Uncivil aspersions, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

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

---

• Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The AR-15 article is under this restriction, editor Simon223 has made unfounded aspersions against me [139],[140],[141]. These remarks "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," I initially tried ignoring it and collapse the comment as it was off topic and uncivil [142]. That did not work and he just went on to make more of these unfounded aspersions [143] "I wouldn't characterize me pointing out that you in fact said the thing that I asserted you said as abusive. It's just making a factual statement.".

He claims[144] this link supports his assertion's [145]. The edit of mine was just one minor edit to this [146]. In it I am asking uninvolved editors at the NPOV noticeboard about including this from James Alan Fox a highly regarded professor of criminology (most noted for his studies) on C-SPAN[147]. There view there was that reliable sourced compiled data with expert analysis should hold more weight than just journalist speculation. I am in no way implying the AR article needs to remove mass shootings content from the article, in fact I am doing the opposite.

Extended content

This editor came to the article removing reliable sourced content from Dr. Fox [148] claiming "illegible" (policy states fixing grammatical errors) needing improvement sure but as clearly seen far from illegible. He then went on to make grossly uncivil personal attacks on my intelligence [149], [150]. Admin Drmies pointed out "Simonm223, this is really not cool. I know you're talking about content, but I also know that you're really not."[151] After he stated this there at NPOV "I'll note I'm not strongly anti-gun, although I do think firearms that are designed specifically for killing groups of humans should not be available for sale." It was pointed out he made these comments"This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk), 27 September 2018"[152]. A uninvolved editor wrote "Ok, so you are anti-AR-15... Rather than balance between pro- and anti- editors on a topic, I think Wikipedia would be better off if we called that a variety of WP:COI. Let people who are removed from the controversy do the editing. At the least, one should be suspicious in reflection on one's own behavior when one's POVs on political topics persistently line up with what benefits those POVs in articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 4:25 pm, 2 October 2018, Tuesday (15 days ago) (UTC−4)"

I feel I should not have to suffer this abuse. -72bikers (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of this seems to be a heated content dispute. And, the original edit in question was, indeed, slightly incomprehensible (e.g. the use of past continuous conjugation of the verb "say" here - Professor Fox saying "most mass murderers don't use assault weapons". or the absence of definitive articles in a few sentences like this one Rifles have been used 25 percent of time in mass shootings ...[153]). However, sourced content that does not meet a minimum threshold of comprehensibility should probably be copy-edited rather than simply reverted or removed and invoking words like "illiterate" is likely to enflame tensions. Chetsford (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion has been going on pretty civilly between most editors when I look at "the big picture" of things, but I do believe that 72bikers was simply asking about the inclusion of the content in the article with his response here at NPOV/N, not explicitly stating that the content should be removed entirely. 72bikers has asked Simonm223 repeatedly to stop stating or implying that he said that he wanted this content removed. The edits here and here don't make the situation better, either. I agree with the response that Drmies made here (not just to Simonm223 directly, but to everyone in general with a reminder to "try and get along"). Ivanvector also responded to 72bikers's message to him with this, which shows that both Drmies and Ivanvector didn't feel that Simonm223's comments or responses were at the point of being actionable - even with the active arbitration remedies in effect for the article and related talk pages or discussions. Apart from maybe talking to Simonm223 directly and asking him nicely to keep in mind how his words may translate to others as being uncivil toward them and to let the NPOV/N thing go, I think Drmies already said it perfectly: "try and get along". :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure looks like forum shopping to me. --Tarage (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my point, 72bikers has already talked to two admins, not gotten the desired result they wanted, and ran here trying to get someone else involved. Not amused. --Tarage (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The more I read the more I am convinced a topic ban is needed for 72bikers. This is ridiculous. --Tarage (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers involvement with gun topics has been problematic for months. They edit from a very clear bias position pushing against any info that paints guns in a bad light. This spilled over from a 3RR report. [154] where I warned 72bikers we may vote them a guns topic ban, amd they filed this anyway. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Like I said I'd support a topic ban if nominated. --Tarage (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, Legacypac - Speaking as a completely neutral and uninvolved editor here: I'm not aware of the problematic issues that you describe have been occurring, but if you feel that a topic ban is necessary, needed, and the best solution - it's completely within your prerogative and your right to propose such if that's how you truly feel. Just make sure that any proposal made also includes a strong explanation and necessary details that show a pattern of long-term issues, as well as diffs that support each detail or reason stated. Else, it'll have a very little chance of being successful per community consensus. Any uninvolved administrator can apply this sanction unilaterally due to the active discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom (that's not an implication or invitation to go "admin shopping" to have this happen, obviously... haha). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It is strange that Legacypac would come here because I do not see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation of WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [155] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [156] by editor Legacypac.

Take it to ANi 72bikers. 3RR is not designed to deal with this kind of dispute. There we can vote on a "guns" topic ban for 72bikers. Legacypac (talk) 2:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)[157]

Legacypac has repeatedly threatened me, he stated if I brought editors simons223 behavior of casting unfounded aspersions to a noticeboard he would get me topic banned. He has also been extremely uncivil. As to Tarage I have never had any interaction with him and I am not forum shopping, I also am not looking for any action to be taken on Simon223 previous misbehavior nor am I looking to use this as debating any content inclusion or exclusion, all of that is just context. Editor simmon223 recently made numerous unfounded personal attacks, he made these with what he claimed made them facts but as everyone can clearly see they were unfounded and thereby violations of the articles "civility restriction".- 72bikers (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Look it is abundantly clear with all of the hostility and personal attacks on my intelligence present here "semi-illiterate walls of text", "the fact it was also borderline gibberish just made it more...insulting (and yes I think it was a calculated dig" and this is just a sample of what I have to bear. Surely I should not have to suffer this type of abuse.-72bikers (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So are you really saying you did not see that edit as so poorly written it was difficult to follow what it was actually trying to say? This is why we are here now, it is why some users took to being more strongly worded then was needed, your refusal to accept that your editing style has any issues (And it is not just me who has said this, even in this current kerfuffle you have been told some of your posts are nonsensical). Look at how much effort it took to just get you to indent properly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I appreciate your feeling about 72biker's strong POV in this subject area. However, you also have a very strong POV on the subject and have shown a willingness to bend editorial rules/guidelines to support your opposing views on the subject. I've been on the receiving end of your less than civil editor interactions. Given you weren't involved with any of these recent edits your comments strike me as motivated by a desire to vote the opposition off the island. Springee (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Springee do not come to ANi and throw mud and tell lies about me. You are just proving that you and 72bikers have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality where anyone that challenges your highly POV edits is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Your block log and ANI history shows that you don't play nicely with others. Your insistence here [[158]], [[159]] on defending blatant OR material (added by you) suggests that 72biker's isn't the only one with a strong POV on the subject of firearms. I bring this up here because you are discussing your personal interactions with and opinions with respect to 72biker's objectivity. When people read that it's helpful if they know where you are coming from. Springee (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

With this [[160]], it is clear that 72bikers is not listening, he quotes a rule about what admins can do to justify his action. As to the material under dispute here, yes it could have been copy edited, except that many of us also did not see why it should have been included, the fact it was also borderline gibberish just made it more...insulting (and yes I think it was a calculated dig).Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In this latest spat he moved (well actually moved his, the effect is the same) his comments (and even seemed to use this new sequence in his complaint about Simon) [[161]], nor is this the first time [[162]]. This is (as far as I know) a breach of policy, not just DS. It also makes it very hard to follow threads (and he does this often). He had repeatedly cast assertions as to double standards as well as calling out users standards of literacy. Moreover his semi-illiterate walls of text are not new either. I would also point out that in a number of situations we had seemed to be working towards a compromise in a spirit if cooperation until he showed up and basically posted some non sequitur wall of text that derailed a thread.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers is still upset that some sharp comments I made in August with regard to one of their edits at AR-15 style rifle were not deemed actionable. But their claims that my recent statement constituted abusive language is absurd.

Their participation at user talk makes it hard to follow often heated discussions as they move their comments, repeatedly edit comments after they've been replied to and write in opaque text walls.

Furthermore, this complaint is mostly retaliatory for my complaint to WP:3RR/N yesterday, where they were warned for breaching the 1RR restriction at AR-15 style rifle. It is worth noting that 72bikers has been blocked twice this year for edit warring; so this is part of a pattern of behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

One final note; on the NPOV/N thread which was the starting-point for this particular go-around, I in fact asked 72bikers for clarification [163] considering their POV, the statement, on any inclusion seemed like soliciting feedback to exclude but I wanted clarification. Their next edit was this: [164] - an edit to a comment that I'd already read - and as it's a high-traffic page I literally never saw that they'd made that statement until just now when I went back to check. They never provided me with a clearer response to my question. So I was acting in good faith when I assumed they wanted to remove that material from the page - when I'd asked them if this is what they were trying to say, I never saw them say that it wasn't and I had grounds to believe, based on their statement and my past interaction with them, that it was. On the talk page, when I addressed that position, in the context of suggesting that if two other users on opposite sides of a content dispute came to a compromise I'd support them, 72bikers still didn't clarify their position. They just told me to shut up and then hatted my comments. After that, yes, I got snippy and argued with them a bit. Because, from my perspective, they'd leveled an unfounded claim against me and then, when I provided evidence it was unfounded, they moved their comment to make it look like I was addressing somebody else, (a position I came to when they said to Slatersteven It appears he is referring to your comments on denying mass shooting content regarding this exchange) and then hid my comment altogether. Considering Slatersteven and I get along, trying to stir up drama between us is rather the opposite of WP:AGF so it's a bit rich that 72bikers is coming here to complain that I haven't given them sufficient good faith. Simonm223 (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes he made the comment on my talk page, but I am having trouble figuring out what he meant by it. I cannot figure out what comment of yours he thinks was referring to my comments on denying mass shooting content.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I assumed in my reply that 72bikers meant the comment they'd hatted; since when they moved their comment, yours was immediately above mine. But honestly, I could be wrong about that. I don't think we've really come down on opposite sides of this particular edit conflict - we both think gun control information is relevant and should be drawn from reliable sources, we both consider mainstream journalistic sources reliable for this topic, even if we've occasionally disagreed about specifics, I don't think ever enough to engender any sort of content dispute between us, so honestly? I just don't know. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, 72bikers, which comment of mine do you think Simonm223 was replying to? This needs clearing up as at this time it looks like you moved a comment to give the appearance it was a reply to user A, and then made just that claim, that it was a reply to user A (when it was a reply to you). Now I have asked you before to have more care in how you reply, as you tend to have a very poor indenting style which makes it (along with your walls of badly written text) difficult to follow what you are saying and who you are saying it to. So can you just provide the diffs to my comment and the point at which Simonm223 replies to it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've been more or less following this since the August incident because it led itself into an entirely unrelated conflict for me, but that's neither here nor there. Here's some history of noticeboard discussion on this topic:

• AN3 2 April: User:72bikers reported by User:Dlthewave (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
• ANI 17 May: 72bikers talk page issues (on 72bikers banning editors from their talk page and deleting messages)
• ANI 6 July: User:72bikers (evidently a content dispute)
• AN3 28 August: User:72bikers reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
• AN3 18 September: User:Slatersteven reported by User:72bikers (Result: Stale)
• AN3 22 September: User:72bikers reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Withdrawn) (withdrawn after 72bikers self-reverted)
• ANI 3 October: 72bikers accusations of harassment (72bikers accusing editors of harassment who post on their talk page)
• AN3 17 October: User:72bikers reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned user(s)) (72bikers self-reverted after an admin [me] reminded them they had made 3 reverts on a page they knew was under a 1RR restriction, had they not I would have banned them from the topic under the gun control DS)
• Also of note: the discussion on Drmies' talk page about Simonm223's poor choice of wording took place when 72bikers raised the point a full month after the fact, completely out of context; I replied here. The note about it here is another full month later, after two admins (myself twice) have told 72bikers that this was not a personal attack but a fair comment on their messy edit.

This is an editor with a history of being unable to "try and get along" as Oshwah quoted, further hampered by less-than-optimal command of English, and themselves assuming bad faith in everyone else's intentions. They've been blocked twice this year for edit warring on gun-control-related pages and escaped with a warning or a self-revert several other times. As several other editors have pointed out here, they needlessly inflame discussions on controversial topics by editing and moving comments, posting walls of text which are frequently incomprehensible, and insisting on derailing discussions into fights about other editors' conduct towards them, all while everyone else editing these pages does seem reasonably capable of the "try and get along" approach even though they clearly have opposing viewpoints. This has continued right up to this current incident, where Simonm223's benign agreement with consensus was interpreted by 72bikers as a directed personal attack, and a discussion that was very close to improving an article is now here as another "everyone is out to get me" diatribe. I agree that 72bikers' conduct is the problem here, and so I support banning them from the topics covered by WP:ARBGC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, I certainly agree that frequently the comments aren't written well enough--it's not just typos or whatever, it's that references are vague, antecedents are missing, that sort of thing, and that becomes counterproductive in its own right (which helps make for these interminable talk page discussions). I think once or twice I've suggested to 72bikers that they need to be more careful in their comments and responses. I also think, and I say this generally since I haven't wanted to nitpick their article edits, that they don't yet have the analytical skills to edit in this difficult topic area, by which I mean the capability of carefully weighing sources, their reliability, and what precisely the arguments are. We've seen this before in the gun debate cases. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, "not well written" is precisely what I meant when I (I thought charitably) said "less-than-optimal command of English", but it's not just that they write poorly. We could coach that, and/or copyedit, if they would respond to reasonable questions clarifying their intent. But instead, when editors have asked in good faith, 72bikers has interpreted these as attacks on their intelligence or just outright harassment and personal attacks, and responds by banning editors from their talk page, threatening people under the civility restrictions, and starting noticeboard discussions like this one. Slatersteven's comment directly above my links shows two of the involved editors trying to get 72bikers to clarify a confusing link they posted; as of my edit they have not responded but have put up another wall of text paragraph about harassment and suffering abuse. As it happens this was the same link I asked 72bikers to clarify after they posted it twice on my talk page yesterday. Rather than post a coherent response, they replied with exactly the same text they randomly posted above about it being "strange that Legacypac would post here", repeated the quotes from Simonm223's edits which they've also posted here, and followed that later with the "civility restriction" bullet they copy-pasted to open this thread, and closed all of that off with their comment (also duplicated here multiple times) about not suffering this abuse. They haven't listened to a damn thing anyone has said to them about Simonm223's comments not being personal attacks, they're just repeating the same things over and over. I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be trying to work on a controversy-loaded topic with an editor who behaves like this, and I commend everyone involved for being as civil as they have been. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the past discussions, I do remember this ANI and trying to work with 72bikers and the other editors he banned from his talk page in order to get 72bikers to agree to unban them. I repeatedly tried to explain why their warnings and edits weren't attempts to attack or harass him and that what they were doing were actually for his benefit, not necessarily theirs - and to open a dialogue of communication where he can let them edit his user talk page and he can discuss issues with them civilly and respectfully, and work the issues out with them in a positive way. Unfortunately, he wouldn't see past the thoughts of harassment that he put in his own mind and this didn't happen and the discussion ended up closing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban: However, 72biker needs to not assume others are acting in bad faith. We all know it can be frustrating working with editors who are certain they are right (and of course they never are). But I also understand how editors who are involved in these areas, particularly editors who are personally knowledgeable about the subject, get frustrated. Suggest warning to not jump the gun (no pun intended) when filing warnings. Simonm223's comments weren't baseless. I also would STRONGLY suggest 72biker engage in user talk page discussions with editors FIRST. Perhaps the appropriate response here is a ban on bringing people to ANI until they can show a good faith effort to discuss the problem on their talk page first. Springee (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be quite difficult to impose such a restriction on an editor who responds to just about any notice left for them by banning the poster from their talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This is my take on it, I had this just for asking them to indent correctly (as a courtesy to us so we would know who they were replying to). What (in effect) we have now is we cannot ask him (or tell him) on his talk page until it gets to the stage of an actual violation. So we end up here all the time (well and and at other boards) precisely because he cannot be asked (or told) to act in accordance with the MOS (let alone policy). BY the way he did "engage in user talk page discussions with editors FIRST", and when he did not get his way he launched this (despite being told he was wrong). I am not sure I want a topic ban, but think it must be stronger then just another slap on the wrist. This ANI proves he is not listening.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Two weeks ago (to the day), when we were last here about 72bikers, I said this: [165] - and since then, 72bikers edit-warred on page talk to hide a comment from me rather than clarifying to me that I'd misunderstood their statement - even though I'd asked for clarification - and then they posted this retaliatory filing here at WP:AN/I against me. While I will concede my statement about WP:NOTHERE may have been off-base, there's a combination of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and WP:CIR going on here that makes 72bikers a constant distraction from the work of hammering out a consensus on a contentious issue. Perhaps they're editing more constructively in articles about motorcycles, but we've been going in circles with them on article talk, at WP:3RR/N and here for at least two months now. I honestly am neutral whether 72bikers is given a topic ban or a block at this point but I would like to see a Boomerang of some type for this incident of retaliatory forum shopping. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Springee is attached at the hip with 72bikers in pro-gun/anti-anything negative about guns viewpoint. I'm not an American and don't have strong feelings on gun control. I just want to see the topic properly covered and disruption minimized. 72bikere banned me from their talkpage back in April while they were blocked and several other editors were attempting to discuss a way forward. See [166] where he was removing my comments from the middle of a discussion, after they were replied to. Look at the rest of the discussion for even more context. I recall a gun topic ban was under consideration in addition to the block. Removing 72bikers from the topic will significantly reduce the talkpage amd editing battles around guns. I agree with most of the analysis posted above. Attempts to discuss anything with this editor makes me want to smack my head. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have asked editors to not post on my talk page. I simply did not want there hostily (as Legacypac comments show) there constantly badgering me, as policy allows WP:HUSH and WP:NOBAN. I received the first ban because the admin said I did not respond on the noticeboard fast enough. But as I was preparing there was a pile on of editor badgering me on my talk page. I should have just ignored, but got caught up in the hostility. I would also point out one of them actually started a discussion proposing to have these policies removed, but all the admins felt they were needed policies

The second was a editor that openly stated he was adding overly detailed content about a gun in a non gun article until he was allowed to include the content he wanted. I miss counted and as stated there. "I agree, it's 4 vs 5. Also, it should be noted that WW's own behavior on this article and the related AR-15 article has been less than helpful. Some of 72biker's recent reverts are restoration of material that WW removed without edit comment and in ways that were guaranteed to cause ill will. That said, this is a slow edit war that WW in which WW has been a very active participant"

To be clear the "72bikers accusations of harassment" was a editor trying to get me sanctioned for asking them once again to not post on my page, on something that was not even a policy violation. I stated to them that not following this request "could be perceived as harassment", and most claims have been unfounded like this. they have shown at drop of a hat, they file reports. Comment there "they're a decent editor and, unlike 72bikers," Simonm223 (talk) 4 October 2018 and there were repeat calls for or topic ban on the bases I ask a editor once again to not post on my talk page. Other comments there brough up "The question here is why do people feel that they need to post warnings on their page?", "and yes, it's generally expected that the user's wish is honored when such a request is given.", "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".

As to the discussion with Drmies editor slatersteven tried to get me sanctioned on a frivallish claim. At that time I was not looking to get Simon sanctioned, but used his uncivilty as a example to show actual violation. Then editor Ivanvector showed up which I though was odd and tried to defend "I reverted a literally illiterate" Simonm223 [167]. There is only one way to interpret that, as Drmies supported. He then made acusations "and 72bikers was later blocked for their activity on that page" as if to paint me in a bad light, does not seem very impartial, and "At any rate, it does seem very off the mark to drop this comment out of context on an admin's page almost a full month after the fact, it kind of seems like score-settling". In what context is "I reverted a literally illiterate" ok? Does anyone really feel "have told 72bikers that this was not a personal attack but a fair comment on their messy edit." that is a legitimate statement? This does not reflect a impartial editor "further hampered by less-than-optimal command of English,", " are frequently incomprehensible," when truly not, and smells a bit uncivil and hostile. All the while painting the conduct shown above as completely acceptable. All I have done at the article is after very long time of denial (by the editors here that would try and get me topic banned, seems a bit self serving) of inclusion of reliable sourced compiled data and expert analysis and to keep out shown incorrect content based on sensationalized journalist speculation, or at the very least to just put it in perspective.

As to the last one all I did was collapse simons (as shown unfounded) aspersions, being off topic and a personal attack. As on the talk page and being of a policy violation I did not see any revert of the collapse as a violation. But was it not a violation to restore them? As such a violation of the civility restriction and this is what this complaint here is about. Being the 3RR board was not the right place nor was Ivanvectoris as shown here not impartial.

What I have suffered has been far greater than any of there perceived slights, as the sample above shows. -72bikers (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Guns topic ban [for 72bikers]

• Fine and with the above...I vote for a topic ban. Sorry but it is clear they are not getting it and have (in effect) rejected Springee's suggestion. The above sums up very nicely many of the issues... about the nicest thing I can say about it is that it is hard to follow at times.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support As I've stated above, a guns topic ban for 72bikers is the best path to better functioning of this topic. His posts claiming everyone else is harrassing him proves he can't be a positive contributor to the guns topic. Falsely saying another editor is harrassing you is itself a serious breach of our expected standards of conduct. I added a header above the post by Slatersteven. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban from guns, broadly construed This has gone on long enough and it needs to stop. For such an antisocial editor to hold this topic hostage for this long is unacceptable. --Tarage (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban from topics covered by WP:ARBGC broadly construed, per myself above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The principles at the ArbComm case are being breached including Making allegations against other editors, NPOV, Advocacy, and more. Clear cut case. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Pull the trigger EEng 18:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban from gun topics, broadly construed, as per my rationale above. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per pretty much everyone above.--Jorm (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban 72Bikers has been given plenty of reminders, warnings and second chances to improve their conduct. We're here to build an encyclopedia and this editor is not a positive, competent contributor to this topic area. –dlthewave ☎ 18:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I regret that it has come to this but I get why people are saying this and I think 72biker's last post did them no favors. I would suggest a 3 month ban with an understanding that they risk an indef if things continue after the ban is lifted. Springee (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic ban from WP:ARBGC-connected pages, broadly construed. Unfortunately, it seems clear that the user is too difficult to work with to be a net positive on these pages. If people haven't specified a time period, I believe they should be assumed to mean an indefinite ban. Please clarify if you meant something else, people. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

I'm of the opinion that all bans should be indefinite, i.e. may be lifted at any time the banned user demonstrates reform and successfully appeals, whether that's next Tuesday or the day after 20 years from now. No difference here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Ivanvector. I used to give time-limited topic bans, but I've seen too many people simply sit them out, edit nothing else, and then immediately return to their old ways. No, let the user appeal and show good editing in other areas and improved intentions for editing in the topic in question, and then we can talk. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

• Not this crap again. Can we just tban everyone? Support this as a first step. Not sure about duration, though, since from my prior experience, 72bikers is hardly the only disruptive editor in this topic area. ansh666 19:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support That last wall of text exemplifies everything other editors have been saying about the range of issues, as Slatersteven points out. The repeated cries about having "suffered" various insults and injuries are such nonsensical histrionics that they showcase there is no interest in listening and/or changing at all. Grandpallama (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support From the outside looking in, their editing in this topic seems almost geared towards engendering conflict. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support I've seen 72bikers on this board regarding the AR-15 page far too often. Looking at their edits they just don't get it and don't want to get it. They're right and that's the end of it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban from WP:ARBGC-connected pages, broadly construed. There's clearly sufficient evidence for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. Sufficient evidence to make it apparent that they aren't listening. I'm more pro-gun than the average person, but this needs to stop. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC) edited 19:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support T-Ban(g) per the above. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I think 72bikers can probably be a very valuable editor for articles relating to motorcycles, but as far as guns are concerned, he is too emotionally vested and would benefit from some time away. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I see some areas for improvement but it looks like 72bikers has been harassed and our response is to blame the victim. A topic ban is a last resort and I don't see where others have been tried responsibly. D.Creish (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for 72bikers. The original post in this thread is vexatious, and the more you look at the edits in quesiton the more it seems that 72bikers is engaged in tendentious editing, stonewalling and a variety of other problematic behaviours. Tetchiness in the face of obduracy is no the same as harassment. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from gun topics per above. I looked at some of the diffs presented by 72bikers claiming various problems but they showed nothing warranting the amount of time already wasted in various discussions. Wikipedia cannot satisfy everyone. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per Bishonen and others. This editor, editing on this topic, is a timesink. Miniapolis 22:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Really the very editors who wish to POV push and remove opposition that has only countered there sensationalized speculation views with reliable sources data and recognized experts, determine (who were running out of reasons to exclude) I get topic blocked. For what because they filed a bunch of unsupported claims. Really though?

And what of the actions to a editor who violated the articles restrictions? Its just hay look at this shinny object (topic block) and never mind the actual sanctionable behavior.

• Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

• I would also point this editor who made this comment "This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk), 27 September 2018"[168] He is openly stating guns are evil and finds it illogical that any honorable person would defend them based on his thinking as if any honorable or person of character would make statement like these "I reverted a literally illiterate" Simonm223[169]. I would point out a actual univolved edtor stated "Ok, so you are anti-AR-15... Rather than balance between pro- and anti- editors on a topic, I think Wikipedia would be better off if we called that a variety of WP:COI. Let people who are removed from the controversy do the editing. At the least, one should be suspicious in reflection on one's own behavior when one's POVs on political topics persistently line up with what benefits those POVs in articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 4:25 pm, 2 October 2018, Tuesday (15 days ago) (UTC−4)"

~Oshwah your are just the tool being used to fulfill the open threat made against me, if i pursued actions be taken for simons violations. "Take it to ANi 72bikers. 3RR is not designed to deal with this kind of dispute. There we can vote on a "guns" topic ban for 72bikers. Legacypac (talk) 2:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"[170]

Reads a little more like not the person but there views being removed. But hey what do i know i'm just literally illiterate.:) -72bikers (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Starting to think you ARE illiterate considering you think I'm a "POV pusher". You may notice that I have never edited any article you have. But gosh, I must just be one of those sheeple chasing "shiny objects". Frankly I'm tempted to switch my vote to indef block on the grounds that you are very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but I will assume good faith and offer you one more chance to edit outside of guns and be productive. Maybe if you had also assumed good faith you wouldn't be in this mess. Oh and don't be surprised if you get blocked for calling an admin a tool out of turn. --Tarage (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers isn't helping themselves but they didn't call anyone a tool. They said "tool of" starting they feel the admin is being used by others. Springee (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Either way I'm not a fan of the verbage, nor am I amused that they seem to be ignoring the fact that three other admins have also commented and are also voicing support for a topic ban. That's not illiterate, that's just... oblivious? --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from WP:ARBGC pages, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:29, 18 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:FilFootyGuy

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

---

• FilFootyGuy (talk · contribs)
• 2018 Bangabandhu Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:2018 Bangabandhu Cup

I don't see any hope he will stop his disruptive editing. Refuse to read the consensus in the talk page of the article, refuse to leave any word in Dispute resolution noticeboard. After the expiry of the temp block, disruptive edit the article again (Special:Diff/863577825, Special:Diff/863990580). Please let us know how to deal with the issue. Matthew_hk tc 01:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Das cray. I don't know what to do about the problem, I only know what to do with the editor--a week-long block. I don't if there is an iron-clad consensus on the issue; that talk page section isn't perfectly clear. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Just a heads up: This guy smells like the banned User:Banana Fingers. Can anyone with the right tools check on this? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies can, actually.  Swarm  talk  00:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm the last confirmed Banana sock is from 2014, so don't get your hopes up. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK, here is the thing. Howard the Duck, the Footy dude has a double, User:InternacionalFutbolista. They are a perfect match, they overlap, they will both be blocked. I have a strong feeling that this is your Banana, but I am going to leave that final determination to whoever will finish the job (and I hope that's you, or maybe User:Matthew_hk), by adding to the SPI and making the case. When that is done, and a determination is made (on behavioral grounds) that Footy is Banana, they can all be tagged appropriately, and there's "fresh" CU information for what seems to be a regular socker. Do NOT ask for CU at the SPI--there is nothing more to see, no older accounts, etc.--so a regular admin can handle it, and maybe that speeds things up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Filing SPI with behavioural ground need exact diff comparison. Since I haven't encountered the user exactly. (Unlike Antony or the Belgian weather box vandal), I don't know where to start to look for , which went to look like witch hunting job. Matthew_hk tc 09:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is noted, and I'll do the bureaucracy when this user causes ruckus again. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Howard the Duck, Drmies, and Matthew hk: Can this thread be closed now? Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Since the user was block, if he reappear with exact edit, it can go SPI route, so this ANI can be closed i think. Matthew_hk tc 09:36, 19 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.

Block or not block this Georgia Dept. Education range?

A lot of vandalism at [171]but it's not all vandalism. I think. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at everything from the last two months, and found two constructive edits, very minor ones, in a great river of typical school vandalism. I say block the range for at least three months, Doug. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

This is obviously a middle school's media lab range. I mean, who could make a coherent argument that this edit was not made by a 12 year old boy (who was giggling while writing it)? I say block away: teachers who want to teach kids this young to edit WP can also teach them to create accounts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Blocked 3 months. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse my pedantry, but no not quite exactly. The Georgia Dept. range (it's a /14 range) spans the whole state and multiple, multiple institutions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

But a /14 range block is larger than what is allowed, since the max range (is this because of the MediaWiki software, on all MediaWiki wikis, or is it just Wikipedia or all Wikimedia wikis) is /16. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The /16s have all been blocked before, meaning they can be range blocked. My point however is not to encourage a /14 block, but to point out that this is not a "middle school's media lab range". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the/14 range constructive at all. It's a silly rule if it allows vandalism to go unchecked. Soft block and allow legit users to create user names?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Arguing against obvious hyperbole is generally not advised. I was not speaking literally. That being said, big institutions (like school boards) absolutely do block out IPs to whole districts earmarked usages like "media labs", giving more IPs to each school than it needs (I'll bet you can find large groups of consecutive IPs in that range that never have nor will edit). I don't know that GA does exactly that, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. You could have just changed my "a middle school's media lab" to "some middle schools' media labs" and taken it from hyperbolic to literally true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't mean the first sentence to sound as dickish as it sounds, so please excuse me not including the link I'm giving it in this edit right off the bat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Панн

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

User:Панн is not grasping some basics about formatting. I have tried to help several times on the user's talk page, but have gotten little reply, and no actual discussion. It looks like this is an ongoing problem, per other messages on the talk page. My current concern is Protests in Armenia (2018), which is 100% unreadable as of this edit. If there is a better place to ask about this, please let me know. Thank you for your time. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Unreadable doesn't do justice to this exemplary trainwreck. EEng 04:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Jessicapierce, I see that you have left some messages on the user's talk page about these issues but your most recent message was 2-1/2 weeks ago. Why come to ANI now instead of trying their talk page again? More talk page messages is better in such cases. If the main problem with the user's edits is minor technical things like an extra space in a ref tag, then maybe the best thing would be to correct the minor errors yourself, and leave a friendly explanatory note for the editor. Also useful in cases like this is to end your user talk page posts with friendly questions like "do you understand now why this was an error?" and "will you try to do better?" Such questions may draw a shy or insecure editor into discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

They broke the html, but I don;t see where/how.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is at least in part an uncredited translation of hy:Բողոքի ցույցեր ՀՀ ԱԺ ցրման պահանջով. (Having found it via the other uses of the image, I checked the infobox and Background paragraph via Google translate). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"maybe the best thing would be to correct the minor errors yourself, and leave a friendly explanatory note for the editor" - That's exactly what I did, as you can see in the "Broken formatting" section of the user's Talk page. I went to great pains to show the difference in spacing (</ref> vs. </ ref>) which can result in format errors (this particular error is the merest part of the problem). I received no reply, and the problem has persisted in the user's more recent edits. I'll try posting to the Talk page again, but I don't think I'm going to get anywhere, so it felt like time to ask for help. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I made a pass and left a "copy edit" on it. Now we can see how truly bad it is.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What language Wiki is that?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::I edit conflicted with you. I'll look into it some more. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Armenia. I left a cite to the Armenian page on the article, but probably did it wrong. As to the user, I've just come from their talk page where I left yet another message. This is an ongoing WP:CIR issue as the user keeps creating messes in article space that are being moved to draft space, which I nearly did with this article. They need to not create in main space till they are better at formatting and citing, and I said as much.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone speak Armenian?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Or is it беларускі?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed the remaining cites and such, enough that it's not a morass of broken html and cite tags. Blackmane (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a machine translation, with the reference-breaking spaces introduced by the process. A tell-tale is that ref titles are translated. I fixed a couple of references where the URL had been interrupted, and in the process used the title= and trans-title= parameters correctly. Панн has linked them on Wikidata; Dlohcierekim, I replaced your in-article attribution with the template we use on the article talk page, and I have now added the "rough translation" template and added the article to the woefully long list of bad translations at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I'm afraid I am very much unable to read Armenian. But if this article is to be kept—and it does seem to be a notable topic judging by international press coverage—I note that we already have 2018 Armenian protests, redirecting to 2018 Armenian Velvet Revolution, so something needs to be moved to avoid confusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Well done. It does mention Velvet Revolution. Is this an article that already exists or is that other article something else? Mergeable? MOve to better title?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(I just got up, someone may have done something already): This article is still incomprehensible, but it's about events in early October. 2018 Armenian Velvet Revolution is about events earlier this year, March and April if I remember correctly. So if this article gets kept, I would suggest changing the titles of both articles and making the 2018 Armenian protests article a DAB page; however, a merger might be better; I am not competent to assess the sources in the new article and look for later ones to see whether the events this month are better treated as a continuation or as distinct. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie of York

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

---

Sorry, guys, BUT: Way to lie about a BLP! This is bogus! Welcome to the wonderful world of needing to be big kids!2605:8D80:403:F5D9:2911:88D4:2E93:72EE (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This user is linking to a thread in which they (on a different IP) made personal attacks, and were blocked for it. The original block has not expired yet. Looks like the stick will be bent into a boomerang. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"This user" is pointing out that a BLP has been changed without any proof whatsoever and Wikipedia requires a valid, third-party source for any and all changes. I'm sorry "this user" is following policy.2605:8D80:403:F5D9:2911:88D4:2E93:72EE (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP keeps popping up under different variants of the v6 IP address. What started out as a naming dispute and edit war seems to have turned into personal attacks and general disruptiveness.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an indeffed editor. I range blocked the newest IP range for a few days. I think that should resolve it for now. Let me know if it doesn't. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: As info, this is continued on new IPs after I reblocked 2001:569:77E2:3900:0:0:0:0/64 which had previous block expire on Sept 25, 2018. I also blocked 2605:8D80:403:51DA:0:0:0:0/64 earlier today/yesterday. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while since I dealt with this ISP, but the 2605:8D80 ranges typically require a /48 (or slightly wider) to stop the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: The title of the article isn't dictated by WP:BLP, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people makes no mention of requiring any honourifics for article titles. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

True, but there's a bit of a local convention at WP:NCROY that leads us to bypass the usual rules of WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME for certain members of the royal family. I don't entirely agree with that, but it's stuck for some time now. (Also this isn't really the place to be discussing the content issue!)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left an oppose !vote on the talk page in question. I know it may seem out of place, but I'm just trying to establish consensus (not that I care). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: BLP does absolutely and specifically apply to titles, see WP:BLP#Applicability of the policy. The most obvious case would be transgender people. I do agree that in this specific case, it's probably a non sequitur, but as a blanket statement, that's incorrect. ansh666 23:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I see nothing in the linked policy about article titles, which is what I'm referring to (not the title of the person, that's a whole different matter) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's right there, in the first sentence of the section I linked to. BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. (emphasis mine) ansh666 23:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Thank you for the clarification. Struck above accordingly. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, although the above mentions talk pages, probably the key take away is anywhere. If it's on wikipedia then BLP applies. Stuff outside wikipedia is not directly our concern, but linking or inferring it could be a problem. Wikidata and Commons while technically not hosted here obviously have even more extreme issues since they can directly appear here. This doesn't mean that the same standards everywhere, there's generally slightly more tolerance on user talk pages and sub pages although precisely how far this goes is often disputed, and in fact was just recently disputed. Incidentally while transgender people may be a decent common real example, it's trivial to think of more extreme cases. E.g. it should be obvious an article title John Smith (murderer) or John Smith (paedophile) could be a serious BLP problem. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 18 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.

Violation

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

---

• Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The AR-15 article is under this restriction, editor Simon223 has made unfounded aspersions against me [172],[173],[174]. These remarks "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," I initially tried ignoring it and collapse the comment as it was off topic and uncivil [175]. That did not work and he just went on to make more of these unfounded aspersions [176] "I wouldn't characterize me pointing out that you in fact said the thing that I asserted you said as abusive. It's just making a factual statement.".

He claims[177] this link supports his assertion's [178]. The edit of mine was just one minor edit to this [179]. In it I am asking uninvolved editors at the NPOV noticeboard about including this from James Alan Fox a highly regarded professor of criminology (most noted for his studies) on C-SPAN[180]. I am in no way implying the AR article needs to remove mass shootings content from the article, in fact I am doing the opposite.-72bikers (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

How can you possibly not understand that this is a violation of your 12-hour old topic ban?! --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? This is the exact same complaint 72bikers was topic banned for yesterday. At this point I'm half tempted to ask for a indefinite block, but if they immediately withdraw this complaint I'm willing to pretend this never happened. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Enough. OP blocked for one month as arbitration enforcement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 19 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.

NOTHERE block needed

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

---

• Thatsnotyellow (talk · contribs)

Two contributions, this being extremely offensive to an editor. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Gone. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 20 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.

Captainjackster disruptively adding categories

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

---

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

Captainjackster (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding categories to articles which are already in appropriate subcategories and thus should not have the additional categorization applied. As their contributions page will make clear, they are doing this to such a degree that it's impossible (for me, at least) to do any reasonable checking of their work. I asked them to desist in this conduct multiple times in the past[181][182][183] to no apparent avail. I am therefore forced to request that they either be topic-banned from applying categories (if that's possible), or blocked until such time as they indicate a recognizance of the fact that their behavior is disruptive. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I stopped after you asked me to just now, when I added a category to Trading Places.Captainjackster (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

After making how many category edits? Which of my prior messages on your Talk page was unclear? DonIago (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Captainjackster - Let's not worry about the past. You're obviously aware that you've been asked to stop adding categories to articles until they can be reviewed and any issues resolved first. Can you hold off on adding any more categories for the time being and work with DonIago to make sure that what you're adding is correct? So long as you two agree to work with one another and that you don't add any more categories for now, we can consider this ANI discussion resolved and I won't have to be the "bad guy" and consider any action - which makes things easy for me, for you, and for DonIago. It's a win/win/win! :-) Do you agree to do this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. Captainjackster (talk) 21:08, 19 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.

Vogiahuy2001

The following discussion is closed. 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

• Vogiahuy2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.2.18.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Vogiahuy2001's recent actions evidently shows he's not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. He has moved Action Dad to User:Action Dad, in an already vandalized state where an IP, 117.2.18.159, has hijacked an article, changing from a Cartoon Network article to this. Seeing his user log, he has created articles such as Ffango-Zone Entertainment, which is basically a copied/changed version of Image Entertainment Corporation, and Infinity Crossover Legendary/Doraemon (2016 anime), both of them have been redirected by Tree-and-tree as a hoax (Doraemon was later restored and moved to user space).

Overall, this looks like to be an attempt at making Korean hoax articles based on Japanese/American media. Please block and cleanup whatever he has done on his contributions. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC) edited 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

See also Vogiahuy2005. TeraTIX 01:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, these articles are blatant hoaxes. Can't find anything apart from Wikipedia, WP:RS or otherwise, which even mentions Ffango-Zone Entertainment. TeraTIX 02:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The Spanish Article on Action Dad mentions it. Is it a hoax? It was added in this edit by the aforementioned IP. Adam9007 (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And is this user a sock? Adam9007 (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked all. The socking string is very long, investigating .. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 20 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.

Expert help needed—personality rights in images

The following discussion is closed. 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

• Paige Williams (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paleofacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is holding themselves out as an agent of Paige Williams and claiming that the photograph in the article was taken on private property, so that personality rights were infringed and the image is unusable. The uploader asserts that the photograph was taken in a public setting, which would put it in compliance with WP guidance on personality rights. Images are tricky, so can I get some more input on this one? —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

We have reached out to C.Fred to resolve this by adding the author's dedicated photo for use. This is for copyright and personal purposes regarding privacy/safety. You may use the photo submitted moments ago to C.Fred but the original image is not permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleofacts (talk • contribs) 03:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Paleofacts: I think you may be violating WP:COI and WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 04:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Any Thelma, Dick or Harriet can come to Wikipedia and claim to be a representative of the subject of an article, so @Paleofacts: must go to WP:OTRS and verify their identity and their relationship to the subject. However, once they do so, they cannot then edit the article, as they have a clear and obvious WP:COI in regard to the subject. They can only make suggestions on the talk page and allow other editors to evaluate them and put them into the article if they choose.
  Further, the idea that because a photo was taken in a book store, which is private property, it is not a freely usable image is completely incorrect. If the event at which Paige Williams was speaking was an open and public event at which photography was allowed, then she -- a public figure -- has no personality rights concerning the photo, and no right to control the photographs taken of her at that event.
  For these reasons, I have restored the photograph to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that several edit summaries are also legal threats: "You do NOT have permission to use this photo. Cease and desist immediately." and "You're flirting with a lawsuit.". Isa (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked Paleofacts for making legal threats. Materialscientist (talk) 05:32, 20 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.

• I love it when they're stupid. EEng 12:32 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Personal attacks by User ScienceApe

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

---

ScienceApe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been topic-banned from from Elizabeth Warren following this ANI report.

I've very little time for faux civility on-wiki, so I don't normally worry about CIV. I also do understand the likelihood that a sanctioned editor will vent their feelings. But these comments:

• "You cry like a little bitch ... Fuck off you imbecile" (before the topic ban) and
• "corrupt individuals"
• "go fuck yourself"

seem to be excessive, even by my relaxed standards.

I'd like to see some administrative action taken against ScienceApe to make the point that there are limits. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

He also apparently believes that the topic ban doesn't cover the Elizabeth Warren Talk page, which, given the notice of the topic ban's comments, is hard to believe.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See User_talk:Bishonen#ScienceApe for more diffs on TBAN vios and such too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Was just about to impose a block on this user, but Bishonen beat me to it. Since the account is indef'd, there's not much else that needs to be done here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Not speculating: But it's odd though. I mean, 10 years' tenure, ~3000 edits and 1 24-hour block over five years ago—and then all this in quick succession? ——SerialNumber54129 18:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Bishonen, I apologize for a fellow human being thinking that they could talk to you that way. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 21 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:Stanleyjenkings

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

---

This user has made questionable edits and has now started insulting people[184][185]. I would like an admin to look into whether this editor is WP:HERE. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a disruption only account to me here. I've started to revert any edits they make. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 22:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 21 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.

Hoax articles/information

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

---

AlandAhmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has done nothing but recreate the article Mustafa Nawpirdani and add information about this person on the page Balak tribe (obviously hoaxes). Have already submitted the page for creation protection and reverted his edits but he keeps going. JZCL 14:02, 20 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.

Ongoing COI concerns, WP:SPAs

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

---

The article Ethan Tobman has been targeted by edits with a definite WP:COI feel since I created it [186], by three accounts that have edited nothing else. They've been transforming it into more of a CV filled willed with glowing reviews and incorrect formatting, over the last 2 years [187]. The latest SPA actually claimed to be working on behalf of the subject, [188] with more glowing reviews and incorrect formatting (removing the italics on Room for some reason) and a flood of unreliable sources, particularly to IMDb. I already reached out to the first SPA; I think some administrative intervention might be needed here. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ribbet32 - Looking at the recent edits made to the article, I definitely understand the concerns regarding Alloy Gibson and their edit summaries that clearly state that they're editing under the direction of the article subject. I've added semi-protection to the article and I'll leave Alloy Gibson a notice on their user talk page and warn them about conflict of interest. Apart from doing this, there's not much that I can really do. The edits made previously are too far in the past for me to justify any kind of action outside of simply encouraging you to remove the problematic content added and moving on from there. The semi-protection should hopefully allow you to go through and trim out all that promotional and POV fluff and get it back on track. If you have any questions or concerns, or if you need more help with anything, please message me on my user talk page and let me know and I'll be more than happy to lend a hand. I wish you well, and I hope that my actions will help to resolve or at least mitigate the issue. Good luck and happy editing to you - :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:03, 20 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.

Unsubstantiated accusations of being part of a "sockfarm"

The following discussion is closed. 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 users @SpacemanSpiff: and @Jakichandan: are making baseless allegations against me on Sitush (talk · contribs) talk page about me being part of a sock farm. Whats more, these discussions are ongoing without my knowledge. I am more than happy for the admins to investigate me however I find it strange that anybody who edits on a specific area is automatically assumed to be a sock account. I am from the state of Bihar and my interest lies in that particular area. Why should I be grouped with previous banned editors? It is slightly offensive as I have barely 10 edits. Good Puppy Heaven (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Good Puppy Heaven: I am sorry if you felt offended, but since you left the message on @Sitush:'s talk page regarding a topic (a source Bihar Puravid...) and have edited in the same topic areas sockfarm has shown interest in, and since@SpacemanSpiff:, who is an experienced admin himself, talked about a "Puppy from below" (similar to your account name) or something like that, I felt this suspision. I will be more than happy if you are not proven to be a sock. Thanks.—Jakichandan (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Editing in the same areas that other socks have edited in should not be an automatic reason to suspect that I myself am a sock account. In any case, next time you are discussing accusations against me, please notify me so that I have the opportunity to defend myself.Good Puppy Heaven (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • Good Puppy Heaven (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Glory2Suriname (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Michael Curnow (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • MADHEPURA2018 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The thinking by SpacemanSpiff and other editors is that at least two of the accounts are socks of Burbak (talk · contribs · count). Burbak and previously blocked socks are  Stale. Therefore I've blocked the newer accounts without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thank you. —Jakichandan (talk) 15:02, 20 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.

• I love it when they're stupid. EEng 16:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

At least three years of unrepentant, unsourced content

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

---

• 66.102.157.201 (talk · contribs)

...and a ton of original research and personal opinion. The balance of responses to warnings and blocks has been along the lines of 'I don't care, I'll just IP hop and continue.' 2601:188:180:1481:E08B:61B7:5650:EA7E (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, judging by your geolocation, are you Special:Contributions/2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes! 2601:188:180:1481:E08B:61B7:5650:EA7E (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Examples of the attitude, dating back three years: [189]; [190]; [191]. 2601:188:180:1481:E08B:61B7:5650:EA7E (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

And more recently [192]. The old, I'll add whatever I want to, wherever I like, and you won't stop me. 2601:188:180:1481:E08B:61B7:5650:EA7E (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, there's this... I'm blocking. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

In spite of his threats to IP hop by 'recycling his modem' he is, in fact, editing from a static IP address. Recycling his modem will achieve nothing. He will just get the same IP address. Just thought I would mention it. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, TheVicarsCat, but there's probably no real necessity in telling them on their own page; they'd find out soon enough, and there's this thing too. And BEANS.——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, Serial Number 54129, I never saw that. Great Wikipedia esoterica. By the way, I didn't much buy the claims of being an aged college professor who would encourage his students to disrupt Wikipedia on his orders. Then again, I have known some interesting academics. 2601:188:180:1481:E08B:61B7:5650:EA7E (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@'99, I hope he wasn't talking about Drmies ;) ——SerialNumber54129 18:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No, no. This bilge [193]. 2601:188:180:1481:E08B:61B7:5650:EA7E (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

And thank you, Drmies. We're left with a history of problematic edits. 2601:188:180:1481:E08B:61B7:5650:EA7E (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to have to leave that to you, I'm afraid--lunch time. Lobster rolls! I wish... Drmies (talk) 18:09, 21 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.

The return of User:Daniel C. Boyer

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

---

Because of a pretty good edit filter we haven't had much trouble recently from frustrated unknown artist and LTA self-promoter Daniel C. Boyer, who was community banned last year [194]. But he's reappeared recently as Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E860:5500:30CE:29B1:3721:C3C9 with some edits that escape the filter [195] and insertion of a "work" of his own that resides at Commons [196].

We need a block (or range block -- experience shows he'll keep coming back once he's found away around the filter). If someone wants to tinker with the filer, take a look at User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer#Oct_2018_socking. Pinging John from Idegon, Beyond My Ken. EEng 02:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, is he still about? He was spouting garbage right back at the very dawn of Wikipedia; you'd think he'd have got bored by now. ‑ Iridescent 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the ip for a week. I guess for a range block we need an evidence that they have used more than one IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My vague understanding is that there are some low-order bits that are almost always a block of addresses for a single customer or whathaveyou. Anyway, let's leave this thread open a few days to see if he comes back in another guise. Any edit filter wizard who has a minute might want to follow the link a gave earlier to get an idea of what's needed as far as extending the filter. EEng 04:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, he's nothing if not persistent. Revert and block on sight, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know I was dealing with a celebrity. Just thought it ludicrous that we are supposed to accept that there is a new form of surrealism that involves cutting holes in photographs without a source. John from Idegon (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that thing has been marked {{cn}} since 2009, and the only "sources" I could find which defined it were just copies of what the Wikipedia article said. Nice to see it's finally been expunged, but it's a shame it's been there long enough to taint so many other sites. I also see it was added to Ted Joans in 2003 (where is has also always been unsourced) with the edit summary "(adding from outagraph)". Outagraph, which was deleted in 2005, was created by Daniel C. Boyer in 2003. I've also removed the claim from Ted Joans now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Portraits of the artist as a pretentious dork: [197][198][199]. His latest work is "The Green Woman with the Tiara Does Not Elope but Marries the Man with the Seventy-Dollar Ears". So deep! So avant-garde! So boundary-challenging! It's even acrylic and gauche! EEng 05:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• à chacun son goût -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think they used to call it "the disease of kings" -- Henry VIII and so on.. EEng 07:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I just noticed that the current version of the Consensus reality article he created way back in 2002 includes An Analysis of the Metapragmatic and Therapeutic Dimensions of Vampiric Live Action Role-playing as a 'source'. Someone should probably look through those pages he created over the years and see how problematic the rest of them are, regardless of whether or not they're direct spam for him. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I can't face the thought of that today, but here's a list of his page creations in case someone wants to formulate a plan for dividing up the work. [200] EEng 21:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I checked the A's and the B's and didn't find anything. EEng 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I did a randomish dip sample—there's a lot of drivel like Fax art and Arsenal/Surrealist Subversion, but I'm not seeing much that's problematic. Because his main burst of activity was over a decade ago, it looks like for once Wikipedia's model has functioned as it's supposed to, and the garbage like Mattila Square, Quad-ruled paper and J. Karl Bogartte has been removed by Wikipedia's natural processes of article patrolling. ‑ Iridescent 01:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Arid desiccant, I've been meaning to ask you for some time: what's the difference between a dip sample and a just plain sample? EEng 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Dip sample

Dim sample

Are not all desiccants, by nature, arid?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. It is the natural destiny of desiccants to lose their aridity in the performance of their duty. EEng 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

très tragique-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@EEng For a dip sample, you take the whole list and select entries from it at random; for a representative sample, you divide the list into chunks and sample one entry from each chunk. Usually when people on Wikipedia say they've checked a sample, they mean a representative sample as the way contribution histories are displayed makes it easier to keep clicking "older" and sample one entry from each 50-entry page of results, but in this case I genuinely did pull up the whole list and click on it at random, which IMO is a fairer method when you're looking to see if there's a pattern of problems (representative sampling top-loads your results towards either the oldest or newest edits depending on which way you're working through the list, as even if one starts out with the intention of checking the entire history one tends to abandon the checks once a pattern becomes apparent). ‑ Iridescent 12:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, I had completely forgotten about this guy. I tangled with him a few times years ago when he was attempting to promote himself as a Surrealist. Then I actually met him at a Surrealist event in Chicago in which he was attempting to promote himself as the greatest living Surrealist artist. He's really insufferable and utterly boring. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It's tough picking the simultaneously stupidest and most pretentious of his edits, but for personal reasons my favorite is [201] No, he's not a Harvard alumnus -- he took some summer school classes. And "Japanese politician" -- what a dumbfuck. EEng 08:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wow! That's a good one!

The true beauty is "poltician", which I imagine is the Harvard spelling. - Nunh-huh 22:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Watch your mouth, plebian. You're thinking of Yale. EEng 23:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. #1: Life at Yale; P.S. #2: Whose job was it to make the determination that led to the statement that, "A Saybrook master’s aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed to the News that the Friday incident involved chocolate instead of feces."

• User:Cyberpower678 has helpfully augmented the edit filter, and since then no new Daniel C. Boyer infestations have been reported. Editors might use the next 24 hours to reminisce about this poseur's most pathetic attempts at promoting his sorry talentless self here, after which we should archive this thread and go back to our usual bland diet of legal threats and genre warring. In the meantime, let us all stand in awe of the vacuity of "The Year the Sky Collapsed". (Click that link – you'll thank me later.) EEng 04:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Precisely what the hell is an "emergency excuse pen"? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

    See [202]. Using it to execute a work of art forces the viewer to come to grips with fundamental question of the relationship of each of us as individuals to the social compact we implicitly subscribe to in the consensus reality imposed on us by our use of words and symbols as words and symbols. Dada. Googoo. Derrida. EEng 04:58, 21 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.

Mhvp2012

• Mhvp2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mhvp2012 (talk · contribs) is a disruptive editor who has been given many warnings about adding unsourced content. However, he blanks his talk page regularly, making it difficult to see how disruptive he's been. In 2016, he created a biography at Max Hechtman. It was deleted at AfD. He recreated it again now. It's full of unsourced claims. He has been reverting any attempt to add cleanup templates or the removal of the unsourced content. He's also blanking the article's talk page. I think it's about time this editor was indefinitely blocked, but I'm probably too "involved" at this point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Investigating... Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Looking at his user talk page over 2018, most edits made to it have been by bots notifying him/her of orphaned files and non-free rationale uses of files. I see that you added a copyright warning to this user earlier this year, as well as a final warning recently regarding the addition of unreferenced content, but I'm not finding any warnings left by others. I spot-checked his recent edits, and many do appear to reference sources (though they might not be the best ones and better sources probably exist). I do share your concerns regarding the user's creation and expansion of Max Hechtman, a BLP article that included a lot of unreferenced content, rumors, other things that should have sources - and I also note your edit removing much of it. The latest deleted revision of the article compared to its current revision now don't appear much different (taking the unreferenced content out of the equation); it doesn't appear that notability has changed for this article subject and G4 appears justified here. Instead of indefinitely blocking this user now, we should perhaps monitor the user's edits and add escalating warnings for edits that lack any references or citations that clearly need them. This will have many benefits: it will document the issue and help show that this is a long-term and serious problem with the warnings left, it'll start a "paper trail" and give the user the opportunity to correct the problematic edits and behavior, and will help justify a block if the issues continue despite the warnings left... as we'll have documentation to show that we gave this user a fair number of chances and opportunities to seek help and correct the problem and to no avail. Are there any other edits, warnings, pages, or other concerns that I may have missed? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

He's been blocked in 2017 twice for disruptive editing. He knows what the rules are. He's gotten escalated warnings: warning for unsourced addition; warning for blanking sourced content; warning for unsourced content. What more do you want me to do? He's gotten all the warnings that he needs. His behavior has not changed in years, and a block is already justified. There has already have been disruptive editing despite warnings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted their blanking of the article talk page. It's pretty obvious they're writing an autobiography here, and given their history of ignoring warnings I think a WP:NOTHERE/WP:PROMO block is well justified. But I'll try leaving them another note. NRP, I'd suggest that your removing inappropriate content from a BLP and tagging it with maintenance notices would not make you WP:INVOLVED, but I've also been frequently challenged on my interpretation of the guideline so take that with a grain of salt. Best to play it safe in any case. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've boldly tagged G4 on the page. In looking at his references, notability has not been achieved. I have never seen the page nor edited it before now but it does certainly appear that the page as it stands is substantially similar to the one that was previously deleted. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on the G4 flag, I had a quick Google but only came up with one reasonably detailed write-up in a local paper which he could have written himself. I'm not going to delete it myself since I already suggested the user should find better references, but I'm sure someone else will get it shortly enough. In about as polite a voice as I could manage I suggested that they should not edit articles about themselves but welcomed them to edit elsewhere, they do seem to be able to write well enough. We'll see what happens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I like to think about people like this as knowing just enough to get into trouble. But who knows, perhaps he will learn from this experience and become a productive editor. But we only have so much patience. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• You can't find better sources to support a narritive of what he videotaped in high school and some film school projects. Page needs to be deleted and SALTed and this editor blocked for SPAMing Wikipedia with his non-notable autobio. Legacypac (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have deleted the self-promotional article and warned the editor that another attempt will result in a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You know, it really fucking pisses me off when I go to the effort of trying to explain things to a newbie editor in a reasonably polite tone, with advice and links to the relevant guidelines and everything, and say stuff like "hey, you can ask questions whenever you want", and that gets followed up by a bunch of cowboys running in plastering the page with template notices and aggressive threats and final warnings and "get the fuck out" type posturing. Yeah, we have a problem with coordinated spammers, but that doesn't mean that every account that makes a conflict-of-interest edit needs to be run off the project like this. Some people just don't know any better, and if you put in the effort to explain, you get a good editor out of the deal. Sometimes not, but what the fuck happened to assume good faith? I hope you're all fucking pleased with yourselves. God dammit I need a beer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You should definitely get your beer, because this is one of those cases where good faith has sailed long ago as it was never reciprocated for two years. Granted folks needs to take it easy with template notices (and be more considerate when someone else just went out of their way to write a long paragraph to the user), but this user has apparently never responded to a single message, and quite deliberately removed every message manually for the longest time. Generally speaking, I think when a new editor, with conflict-of-interest or not, shows just a little bit sign of willingness to communicate, even the most "aggressive" editors would probably respond in kindness accordingly. I think good faith should be a two-way street. Alex Shih (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing and edit warring by User:Dragao2004

• Dragao2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rise of Macedon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At Rise of Macedon, User:Dragao2004 began pushing a pro-Greek POV. After a request for page protection on 9 October, the page was protected here. Discussions on the Talk Page were initiated here (prior to the page protection) and here (after the page protection). User:Dragao2004 participated in neither discussion, but initiated a third discussion here. During the course of this third discussion while the page was locked, it became clear that the majority of editors opposed User:Dragao2004's proposed changes and preferred keeping the long-term stable consensus wording. The main issue against the new wording is that it constituted WP:POINTy nationalist editing and didn't fit well with the overall tone and content of the article. A survey of involved editors was initiated as the page lock drew to a close here. User:Dragao2004 was clearly not being supported in his proposed change. Then, when he noticed that the page lock template had been removed, he reinserted his opposed edit here. His edit summary, "Greekness must be emphasized", clearly illustrates his nationalist POV-pushing attitude during discussions. A notice of this discussion was posted on his Talk Page here. A notice of this discussion was also posted at Talk:Rise of Macedon. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems like User:Dragao2004's edit was inappropriate. But I also see a lot of stuff written by you in the comments that doesn't seem correct either. (1) Yes, there was consensus on this sentence, but WP:Consensus can change. If the consensus was from a long time ago (it wasn't discussed recently), and/or if there is new information not previously considered, then we re-open discussion on the topic. He is free to boldly edit what he thinks is appropriate, and then be reverted if you have problems with it, and then discuss it on the talk page regardless of what the long time ago consensus was. (And the modern discussion should be focused on policy, not that there was a consensus a long time ago, which is irrelevant for a new discussion.) (2) You are wrong that all primary sources are not reliable sources. It is true that we strongly prefer secondary sources, and primary sources have to be used carefully, but they can still be reliable sources (And used if there isn't a secondary source). Original research occurs more often with primary sources (given how much more tricky they are to use properly), but it depends on how close the match is between the text and what the source says. (I haven't looked to see if these primary sources are actually reliable.) (3) It doesn't seem like his first edits were WP:POINTY to me (and you keep accusing him of that).

As to User:Dragao2004's actions (1) On the merits of the dispute, the real source of the policy problems for what User:Dragao2004 is proposing seems to be a potential violation of WP:LEAD in that it should summarize the article's contents. If there is a dispute on if it was properly considered part of Greece or not at that time, the summary shouldn't say either side is correct, and then later on should describe both points of view. Periphery seems an appropriate word that neither says it is inside or outside, but on the edge. (as you wrote once, I suspect his problem is that he is not a native speaker, and translated it has a different meaning) (2) These edits: 1 and 2, 3 looks like canvassing to me. (Although I would want to hear if there was some neutral method by which he picked which editors to alert.) (3) He should have known that for this edit there were substantial reasonable disagreements about if this was appropriate from a policy standpoint (as expressed in talk) and that there was no consensus on these points in his favor, and therefore should not have pushed this into the article. Doing that was POV pushing. -Obsidi (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with all of this. Yes, Dragao's conduct was not appropriate, but that's entirely forgivable seeing as Dragao is a newbie; someone you're supposed to make an effort to help, encourage, teach, and be civil towards, and instead you chose to bite their head off immediately. Blocking incompetent or disruptive newbies is cheap, if good faith efforts to guide them in the right direction are proving ineffective. But how can we expect someone to have a grasp on Wikipedia's behavioral norms, policies and guidelines when all you're doing is constantly personally attacking them, being aggressive and combative, misrepresenting policies or falsely telling them they're violating policies, telling them their conduct is "illegal" or "POINTy", failing to seek or inform them about dispute resolution, falsely implying that "longstanding versions" cannot be changed, or that discussions from the 2000's cannot be relitigated, bludeoning them with walls of text, closing discussions that you're involved in, and reporting them to administrators. It's really disappointing to see this coming from a highly experienced editor, particularly because there was plenty of other input there and everyone else's conduct was calm and reasonable. There was no need for any of it.  Swarm  talk  20:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the time that you both took to review the situation and accept your criticisms of my own behavior. I make no excuses for it and will try to be more gentle with newbies. The one thing I do expect from newbies is that they listen to the voices of other editors, even when they might disagree with me or when I'm being harsh or when they're ignoring me because of my tone. User:Dragao2004 did not. As far as the issue of WP:POINT, there is a long history of pointy editing in articles surrounding the borderlands, both ancient and modern, between Greece and Macedonia because of the Macedonian naming dispute and the articles surrounding ancient Macedonia are especially sensitive. There is a very long history in the "Ancient Macedonia" cluster of articles of treating the imposition of the word "Greek" before the word "kingdom" in the first sentence as pointy editing. It's also very suspicious when a new editor shows up making this very edit within a week of some real world event or stress in that dispute. At the time that I filed this action, User:Dragao2004 had edited the text within just a few hours of the page being unlocked and without any consensus emerging in his favor on the Talk Page. I was hoping simply to draw the gaze of some admins on the obvious problem, not for any real punitive action against him based on what he had already done. Fortunately, he hasn't proceeded any further at this time. --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That isn't WP:POINTY editing, per WP:NOTPOINTy However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". What you are describing is closer to WP:Advocacy. -Obsidi (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean. I think that the use of WP:POINT in Balkans articles has taken on a slightly different meaning--raising a national flag just to make a political statement. I will adjust my usage. --Taivo (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

---

(Apologies if this isn't the correct forum for this. Feel free to move or delete if it shouldn't be here.)

There's a user saying they "may look into possible legal recourse against Wikipedia" here. The context is that this user has repeatedly been reverted for edits to the 9/11 Truth movement article and has been warned on their talk page for vandalism and edit-warring. I know this isn't exactly the most strongly worded legal threat ever (and I have no idea why it's on the XLinkBot talk page), but I know legal threats are taken seriously here, so I thought it was worth getting some admin eyes on it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The user is Andrewcameronmorris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Making a legal threat to a bot is probably unfair, but others will be able to respond. Leaving a ping for User:Acroterion since they warned the user earlier today. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left a message on the user's talk page asking them to retract the statement and clarify that they're not taking legal action. I also noted that if we don't hear back from him, we'll have to make a decision based on the information that we have. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Although the threat was not strongly worded, I evaluated it in the context of the fact that this editor is here to promote 9/11 conspiracy theories, and gave an indefinite block on that basis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Fine by me. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Good block, of course. It's hard to type while laughing at that threat. "Give me my way, or else". I gave them some educational material to read in their spare time.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:18, 21 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.

Prathamndsl

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

---

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

Link spammer.

• Final warning: [203]
• Addition of spam link after final warning: [204]

Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I've indefblocked the account. -- The Anome (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

{{abot}} The OP misrepresented the complaint. Prathamndsl reverted his own addition of the spam link here almost immediately which (assuming good faith) must be construed as an acceptance that he was wrong to add it. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the block, TVC. A very new user adding (unfortunately inappropriate) external links they don't know are wrong to articles about things they like, then reverting them. OK, we've identified the problem, now let's look for a solution. The place to start would that user's talk page. I see that user has not yet asked for an unblock or explained their edits. Re-closing. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 23 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.

Rant by Unregistered Editor at Talk:Deflategate

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

---

There has been some sort of dispute at Talk:Deflategate, which, as can be seen, consists largely of a rant by an unregistered editor. The unregistered editor requested dispute resolution at DRN on 6 October 2018. I closed that dispute because two of the named editors said that there was no material dispute, and declined to take part in moderated discussion, and discussion at DRN is voluntary. I also commented that discussion was unlikely to be productive when the unregistered editor was being uncivil. The unregistered editor has now responded, again at Talk:Deflategate, with this diatribe: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deflategate&type=revision&diff=865154577&oldid=862822368&diffmode=source

I am not entirely sure why the unregistered editor has made this into a personal attack on me, which is also an “impersonal attack” on the entire Wikipedia community. I suggest that at least one of two actions be taken. Either block the IP address for a few days for the personal attack and for general incivility, or semi-protect the talk page for a few weeks to lock out the unregistered editor, who isn’t contributing anything useful to the topic.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have figured out what the unregistered editor is saying. They wanted to use DRN as the editorial review board to engage in fact-finding and approve their proposed version of the article, and they are angry at me because I was acting in accord with the way that DRN currently works rather than the way that they wanted DRN to work. Some editors have suggested that we need editorial review boards to decide content disputes, but the English Wikipedia doesn't work like that. It is still true that the unregistered editor isn't contributing anything useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I hereby admit to being intellectually, morally, and spiritually bankrupt, but I do apologize. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It can happen to the best of us. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone take action either against the unregistered editor or about the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor was blocked a few hours ago; does something else need to happen? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:53, 22 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:David Englander

The following discussion is closed. 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; the last edit [[205]] accompanied by abusive and threatening edit summary. . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That is an entirely unacceptable edit summary. Blocked 72 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 22 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.

Special:Contributions/99.116.44.154

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

---

Believe this IP is needing a longer-term block as they're repeating the same behavior that appears to have gotten them blocked three times already, adding unsourced info and removing with no explanation. It tripped the "end date present" vandal filter though I'm not sure if that's accurate or not. Home Lander (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

According to User:EvergreenFir/socks#End date show vandal - Southwest, CA this appears to be long-term abuse. Home Lander (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

lol it's already blocked for a year... why does it need to be longer? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

---

@Oshwah: Looks like L235 blocked it in response to my thread here but just didn't reply here. Home Lander (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Home Lander - Heh, that works ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:02, 23 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.

Legal threats from User:Nocturnaldazeband

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

---

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

See edit summaries. PamD 07:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, and semi-protected the page for a little bit as the same threat is coming from different accounts. Alex Shih (talk) 07:40, 23 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.

Supervision requested at WP:BLPN

The following discussion is closed. 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:BLPN usually works pretty well, but Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Milo_Yiannopoulos is getting a bit testy. I think it would help if a few admins would simply make their presence known. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Boris. I warned the editor. A block would have been justified as well, I know. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: While I don't disagree with the original action, I would suggest a block now. The editor is claiming they seriously believed the blocked socks with offensive names that User:MjolnirPants mentioned on their user page as something they are proud of were created by User:MjolnirPants and that they count as self identification as a communist (and I presume all the other things I mentioned on their talk page which I won't repeat here). This was after they made some lame comments in response to my use of the singular they. Maybe they were once a good editor, but it seems they are clearly just trolling now. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh I realised because of the way this thread was started, DigbyDalton was never given notification. I've done so now. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: seconding Nil Einne. ——SerialNumber54129 11:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• P.S. Yes we are referring to the same socks for which MjolnirPants says amongst other things "I didn't even know they existed until I tried to look myself up on an off-wiki tool and these popped up as suggestions" Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Alex Shih blocked the OP (of the thread in question, not this thread) for 48 hours for "blatant trolling comments". I'm not doing an NAC because I'm certainly involved, and because I suspect this will resume in 48 hours, and this is as good a thread as any. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you Alex. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 23 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.

Vandalism reported by 67.70.247.171

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

---

I've just spotted a lot of vandalism. it might be good if someone can block the idiot doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.247.171 (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Name the articles, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's related to this, Cullen. Otherwise, I have no idea. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

Earlier was a false alarm, the vandals have already been blocked. Sorry also for blanking the entire page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.247.171 (talk) 04:31, 23 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.

Disruptive editor at reza shah

The following discussion is closed. 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, how can LissanX be prevented from editing the reza shah article with some poor sources and even misrepresent these sources ? he has reverted five times 3 editors today, me included. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AF8:4700:B240:1:0:0:4F7 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

he just reverted again, pfff... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AF8:4700:B240:1:0:0:4F7 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AF8:4700:B240:1:0:0:4F7 (talk) 21:49, 21 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.

Trouble at Talk:Kiev

The following discussion is closed. 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 any administrator would care to serve as meditator vis-a-vis a current dispute over an RM at Talk:Kiev, it would be appreciated. Look at the edit history, and you'll see what I mean. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the demand for a non-participant to close it, and given the obviously correct close by TaivoLinguist, I've just replaced his signature with mine in the close statement. WP:BURO, this obviously isn't necessary (the demand says while I do not see consensus to move, so what's the point?), but hopefully it will silence the complaint; if not, it will be time for WP:RBI. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 21 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.

Proposed topic ban for StreetSign (moved from AN)

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Proposed topic ban for StreetSign

StreetSign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been busy promoting a murder-related conspiracy theory without any reliable sources to back up his claims (A lot of his claims can be traced to articles/videos on Infowars and The Daily Mail). He is most active at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, but has touched upon Mark Hausknecht and Lee Harvey Oswald.

He has received a DS alert.[206] Didn't change the behavior.

I propose a topic ban from all articles related to deaths or murders. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Unless I'm missing something, the editor clutters talk pages with their conspiracy theories and tries to get their own Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht turned into an article (They've been turned down at least 3 times.) I see only four article edits in the eight months they've been here, [207] one to Murder of Seth Rich and three to Robot navigation (?). They seem like someone who is essentially WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, but to push their dingbat ideas. A topic ban as proposed seems like a good first step toward determining if they are here for the right reasons or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note to closer: If consensus is in favor of an indef block or site ban, please count this as a vote in support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose in favor of an indefinite block - Seeing as they've made just 4 mainspace edits and after reading this discussion, the editor seems more interested in pushing their POV and adding irrelevant fluff that has no business being in an encyclopedia article. If the editor were productive in other areas (that is, by actually contributing to the encyclopedia), a topic ban would be sufficient, but seeing as they've already demonstrated they're a SPA, chasing the problem from one area to another isn't the answer. They can always be unblocked if they demonstrate they'll begin editing in mainspace and cease this radical behavior.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'll admit I thought about an indef block as well - and I wouldn't oppose one if that's the way consensus points -- but after thinking about it a bit, I thought that it would be better to start off with the topic ban suggested by Guy Macon and see where that leads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I almost always favor a topic ban first rather than starting with an indef. For some users that is the push that moves them towards being a productive editor. For others it shuts down their "I wasn't violating any rules because I was right" arguments because now the rule they got indeffed for breaking was violating their topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• In this case, it's important to consider an editor's contributions when sanctioning them. I think lesser sanctions are only appropriate if they've already shown to be productive editors. Of course they can always be blocked if they violate their topic ban, but nipping the problem in the bud is a much better solution (I think) than likely going through multiple threads before saying 'enough is enough'. I don't foresee StreetSign contributing constructively to the project in the near future, but if consensus goes the way of a topic ban, so be it. I just don't think it'll have the desired effect and I would've normally supported a topic ban if it weren't for what StreetSign has already shown.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• You present a compelling argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Meta-discussion concerning the proper venue for this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment Generally it's useful to provide edit differences to show a pattern of behavior. Otherwise editors not familiar with them have no way to evaluate it. Also, DS alerts are not warnings to change behavior but advice on how to behave that can been sent to anyone involved in a controversial topic area. This request should usually be taken to ANI. Why is it posted here? TFD (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC) The "I" in ANI reflects the fact that ANI is for specific incidents (which of course should be supported by specific diffs), whereas AN is for patterns of behavior. In this case, anyone who reads Talk:Murder of Seth Rich can see the behavior. Yes, I could make a list of diffs showing each individual post StreetSign has made to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, interspersed with the attempts of other editors to deal with them, buit you can get the same information by simply reading Talk:Murder of Seth Rich and determining whether you see the pattern of behavior or whether I am imagining it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC) No. "This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators." WP:ANI is for BOTH "urgent incidents" AND "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." You should know that because you hatted a request for a topic ban of another user over their pattern of behavior and told them this was the wrong forum and they should file a report at ANI.[208] Note that ANI recommends posting edit differences demonstrating the problem. There is no reason for anyone to respond to this page unless they are an administrator answering a request. By posting here, not posting differences and canvassing on the Seth Rich talk page,[209] you are assuring that few uninvolved editors will weigh in. I a sure that is not your intention and suggest you take the matter to ANI. TFD (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC) I categorically deny "hatting a request for a topic ban of another user over their pattern of behavior". it was clearly about a couple of specific incidents. If you think that a section titled "Proposed topic ban for StreetSign" is the proper place to complain about ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, unhat the comment and see if anyone agrees with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: I was not meaning to suggest ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants should be topic banned from the Murder of Seth Rich article, because that isn't the only article where he's been removing others' talk page posts. A more beneficial sanction would be a restriction against editing or removing others' comments, on all talk pages. 46.243.232.45 (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC) At the top of this page it says, "This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators." At the topic of ANI it says that page is for BOTH "urgent incidents" AND "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Can you explain how you read this to mean that patterns of behavior should be addressed on this page? TFD (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Guy Macon and TFD, these exchanges between y'all are unhelpful because it's only making the thread go off-topic. Sure, it could've been taken to ANI, but since it's already at AN, there's no need to argue semantic over the location of this thread (or any thread for that matter) and y'all should just let it be. If this thread starts going the way of other users conduct on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, again it doesn't matter if it's on AN or ANI, either it has something to do with this complaint or it doesn't, but please try and keep the discussion about StreetSign and everyone else's relevant conduct on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich instead of going back and forth over some technicalities.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC) It's not semantics or technicalities, but whether this forum would attract proper input from the community, especially after canvassing. In any case, the discussion could have been avoided by putting the request in the proper forum and provided edit differences. TFD (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Well, if you think this should be moved to ANI, perhaps you should be WP:BOLD and move it instead of going back and forth on it (something like "discussion moved to ANI"/"discussion moved from AN"). My point is if anyone thinks this is the wrong forum, they should take action instead of wasting their time flooding this discussion arguing over it. As for Guy Macon canvassing I agree his conduct should be looked at, but that's a separate issue and I'm sure that'll be noticed by others as this discussion progresses (whether it was at AN or ANI).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I have no objections to this being moved to ANI with a link. I of course have no objections to an ANI case about my behavior, but I would remind any administrators reading this that I have a longstanding policy that if any administrator (and most users, but the offer is not open to not every troll and first-edit IP) goes to my talk page and warns me not to do something, I immediately stop doing it whether I agree or not -- possibly engaging in further discussion if the warning is not clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I'll go ahead and move it to ANI then (I'm sure nobody will object to my bold action).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I have no objection to the move, however, in point of fact, AN is the correct place for suggestions for bans and blocks, so it was not necessary to move this report. Historically, if a ban or block suggestion arose from an incident report filed at ANI, then it was kept at ANI, but if one was initiated from that start, it is AN that has been considered to be the correct venue. I think that makes a great deal of sense, since ANI tends to be more volatile, while reports at AN get more quality consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: Please feel free to file a report at WP:ANI if you think another user has misbehaved. This is the wrong place for it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In addition to StreetSign, there is another user on this article whose conduct needs to be examined: user:MPants at work, who has been removing others' posts from the article's talk page in violation of WP:TPOC. A month ago, he was warned about this behaviour by user:Ritchie333. [210] [211] However, he has continued to remove others' talk page posts three times in the past week. [212] [213] [214] I previously raised this matter on the article talk page, and Mpants' response was to encourage an AN report about himself, implying that if he were reported for violating the talk page guidelines, the report would result in sanctions for StreetSign instead of himself. If his own conduct and StreetSign's is linked that closely, then it's necessary for the report to cover both users. I have no opinion about whether StreetSign should be topic banned, but the sanctions should not be applied in a lopsided way: either sanction both editors or neither of them. 46.243.232.45 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC) LOL if anyone actually thinks this is worth looking into, I invite them to try to justify not removing the comments I have removed. Note that the warning from Ritchie333 was for edit warring over the removal of straight up trolling. I stand by every talk page removal I've ever made, and the only thing I did wrong that last time was not getting the IP blocked for their trolling in order to head off their edit warring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Let's be clear, here: are you saying that you maintain there's nothing wrong with the behaviour you were warned for, and you intend to continue doing it? 46.243.232.45 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Please feel free to file a report at WP:ANI if you think ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants has misbehaved. This is the wrong place for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Mythdon, this user's barely touched mainspace; if the talk contributions are as nutso as claimed (I've not looked into it), they can be reverted and ignored, and either nothing will happen or the user will be sanctionable for edit-warring. Also, banned from death or murders is really broad; murders are rather specific, but virtually everything touches on death to some extent. The proposed ban is basically saying "you can edit on nuclear physics, mathematics, astronomy, and similar topics", so we might as well siteban if such a broad-ranging sanction is appropriate. No opinion on a siteban. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have no objection to a topic ban on murders only. Could you please point to the specific part of WP:TPOC that supports "if the talk contributions are as nutso as claimed, they can be reverted and ignored"? My reading of that policy is that I may only remove harmful posts such as personal attacks, vandalism, BLP/Copyright violations, etc., but can only TEMPLATE:HAT off-topic or "nutso" comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• If these aren't harmful, why are you trying to get him banned? {{Not a forum}} notes that off-topic comments can be removed or refactored; if they're not harmful and you're not comfortable removing or refactoring them, just ignore them. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Evasion noted. Again I ask, what part of TPOC allows deletion (as opposed to archiving or collapsing) of "nutso" comments (or, more to the point, removal of a persistent attempts to promote pseudoscience)? Last time I checked, Template:Not a forum is not a policy or guideline.

The definition at WP:TPOC of harmful posts is

"Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived."

If it is your opinion that users cannot be topic banned because of disruptive behavior, please point me to a policy or guideline that says that. TPOC is quite clear in saying that not all disruptive behavior may be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Switching to oppose everything because the proposer cannot be trusted to read anything, whether standard templates or statements to which he's replying, and thus his arguments cannot be trusted to reflect reality. Further irrelevant comments will be subjected to the same ignoring that I already suggested. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a (cough) different way of not answering a simple question! If somebody else who doesn't have a stick up his ass thinks I have misinterpreted any policy or guideline, please explain my error. I do make mistakes and welcome corrections.

To review:

• WP:TPOC lists two kinds of talk page behaviors: disruptive and always deletable (harmful), and disruptive but usually not deletable.
• Nyttend appears to say above that disruptive behavior on talk pages should not be reported here because the disruptive comments can always be deleted. (I say "appears to say" because he doesn't seem to be very keen on clarifying his statements if somebody misunderstands them.)
• When asked to resolve the apparent contradiction, Nyttend responded with a bit of minor incivility and "changing" his !vote from Oppose to Oppose. (?)

I am going to WP:IAD and stop responding now, allowing Nyttend to have the last word if he chooses. --Guy Macon (talk)

• Oppose in favor of a siteban or indef block without impunging upon Guy's judgement here at all: a topic ban would stop the disruption, but I think it would either be indistinguishable from a siteban/indef, or else it would result in StreetSign pushing a different conspiracy theory at a different article. Streetsign doesn't like to actually edit articles, which is a huge WP:NOTHERE flag, just to pester other editors to add the conspiracy theory nonsense for them, all while denying believing in the conspiracy theories to begin with. This editor is clearly here to spread word of this conspiracy theory and not for any other reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  impunging upon – I can't even come up with a pictorial pun for that one. EEng 14:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I intended to write "impinging upon" but if you'll ignore some iffy-if-not-entirely-untoward grammar, "impunging upon" still works. I gfuess it's sort of a semi-self-correcting typo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose -- the behavior of his accusers is far more concerning--deleting and hiding talk page comments by StreetSign who is discussing WP:RS like Newsweek, Washington Post, and CNN. A wp:boomerang may be in order. Comments directed to other editors at the talk page like "Untwist your tits." and "You're obviously incapable of understanding that the problems only exist in your head." do not make for a constructive editing environment. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that David here has also been engaging in some drive-by WP:FRINGE POV pushing. See this comment in which he deliberately (and admittedly) cherry picks the only RSes they could find that treat the conspiracy theory as anything other than unmitigated bullshit and try to leverage that into a claim that it's wrong for us to refer to it as "false", despite an overwhelming preponderance of sources describing it as such. Also note that exactly 0 of the "insults" (none of which are actually insults) David provided were written in response to StreetSign, despite the obvious implication otherwise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:POVPUSH: The term 'POV-pushing' is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions. -Obsidi (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

lol WIkilawyer much? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Its not my fault if you don't understand policy/guidelines. -Obsidi (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL God you really can't help yourself, can you? You know that continuing to harp on about me without taking me to ANI is a violation of that policy you thin kyou know so well, right? See WP:HARASS. Put up or shut up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"[E]xactly 0 of the "insults"...were written in response to StreetSign." True. That's why I qualified it with "Comments directed to other editors at the talk page." Streetsign claims s/he was treated similarly, and that seems likely. I did not have the patience to read all the comments. Perhaps, Streetsign will provide the diffs.

"insults" (none of which are actually insults) Are you really going to tell everyone here with a straight face that "Untwist your tits." is not an insult?

As to the final claims, it is not cherry-picking to request inclusion of material that is not represented in the article that is represented in reliable sources, when that purpose is to achieve WP:NPOV. It has been long standing WP:NPOV policy that we do not write what is in the preponderance of sources as WP:TRUTH and declare all else as "false" and leave it out. We include all significant opinions found in WP:RS in proportion to their representation in the WP:RS. WP:NPOV gives examples of what we do leave out entirely of articles: Flat earth or Moon landing conspiracy theories. Theories like those have no WP:RS to support them. The material I mention has WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely IS cherry picking to pick two sources out of dozens to support a particular claim, and we both know this. If you can't engage honestly, you should not be here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Good Lord! I don't know how much time I have to come up with a defense, so this will be hastily prepared, and probably will not cover every point. But here goes. I have never posted anything to an article without gaining a consensus first, with the possible exception of the actual address of the Seth Rich murder (fully documented). For that one I got a "be bold" comment, which I followed, and the addition is still in the article (as it should be). I do not subscribe to any "conspiracy theories" at all. I do believe that MPants and Macon (along with a very few others) are frantic to prevent inclusion of the Job Offer From the Clinton Campaign to Seth Rich Four Days Before Seth Was Murdered in the article. It was Seth Rich's Father who made that statement, and it was published most notably by WashingtonPost and CNN, and even exists in a video of Seth Rich's father looking into a camera and saying it. I have posted links in my previous Talk page comments. I believed that the Talk page was the appropriate place to reach a consensus, so that is where I made my posts. I never engaged in arguing, name calling, or insults, which Pants and Macon did repeatedly. They rolled up, and in some cases actually deleted my posts. Not revisions to the article, posts on the Talk page. If I can find the time, and if you can be patient enough, I will make a concise posting of what was written. I have repeatedly tried to reach a consensus. Some of the items that I listed for consideration were there to prompt them to discuss the relative merits of each documented fact. Almost all that they describe as "conspiracy theories" were published facts. The job offer to Seth Rich is the center of the storm of all this. That is where the insults and accusations began. It has been ugly. I have resisted the temptation to engage in such behavior. I have been patient and persistent in seeking a consensus and compromise. I will need time to assemble a record of their behavior, and then you may compare it to my behavior. They repeatedly hide or delete the facts (even on the Talk page) before any support for including the facts can be reached. It is terrible behavior. These are the articles I posted on the Talk page about: Discussions on this Talk page to include the factual and well documented statements by Seth's father (Washington Post, CNN, and Seth Rich's father on video) about the Clinton campaign job offer to Seth Rich four days before he was murdered is not pointless trivia. "WashingtonPost" "CNN source. Video of Seth Rich's father. Please help. My intentions and my actions are good. StreetSign (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Look at the outright lies in this request for proposed ban, "StreetSign (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) has been busy promoting a murder-related conspiracy theory without any reliable sources to back up his claims (A lot of his claims can be traced to articles/videos on Infowars and The Daily Mail). He is most active at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, but has touched upon Mark Hausknecht and Lee Harvey Oswald." Blatant lies by Macon. I primarily post quotes with references, almost all are from Washington Post and CNN. The video is only found on Daily Mail (probably copyright). I created a Mark Hausknecht article. It was factual and sourced. These are terrible lies. StreetSign (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I note that in your posting to the Oswald talk page you pointed out that a letter mentioned in the article was found to be a forgery and is no longer in the article. In the case of Dr. Mark Hausknecht, you wrote a draft article which was rejected as non-notable. Hausknecht was apparently murdered as revenge for an operation he had performed decades before. I don' know why these are mentioned above since there is absolutely nothing wrong with how you approached either one. TFD (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone implied anything either way about those edits (I certainly didn't; I have not examined them). So why are they mentioned at all? It may turn out that the consensus is for a topic ban (currently in second place behind an indef block, with pretty much everyone who says "do nothing" also being of the opinion that the conspiracy theories in question are true). That raises the question of the scope of the topic ban (Just Seth Rich, all murders, or all conspiracy theories?), and for making that decision StreetSign's interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark Hausknecht are relevant. Again, I don't accuse someone of something when I have not looked at the evidence, and in this case I have only looked at the Seth Rich edits, which clearly promote the exact same conspiracy theory that Infowars and The Daily Mail have been promoting, insisting that we include the exact same irrelevant trivia that those sources say are the key to establishing that Rich was the source of the DNC emails at WikiLeaks (no evidence of that) and that he was killed because of his involvement (no evidence of that either). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You stated when you opened this discussion thread that Streetsign has "has touched upon Mark Hausknecht and Lee Harvey Oswald."[215] I assume you mentioned them because you proposed "a topic ban from all articles related to deaths or murders." Now you say that you never looked at those edits. Then why did you mention them? I feel irritated that I took the time to read Streetsign's edits on those articles when you now tell me they are wholly irrelevant to the case you are presenting. TFD (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Asked and answered. And please don't stuff words in my mouth. "Wholly irrelevant" and "relevant to the question of the scope of the proposed topic ban" are not the same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Trying again

There's too much bickering and not enough simple discussion above. So here's the reason Guy (and I, and more than a few others) have gotten sick of StreetSign's commentary at this article:

• This is Streetsign's talk space contributions. ~88% are about the topic of Seth Rich, with an additional ~11% about different murder-related conspiracy theories and only 2 edits about anything else. That StreetSign is an SPA is inarguable.
• Here is StreetSign's first thread on this subject. Note that a clear consensus was reached, and yet StreetSign continued to bludgeon the discussion until it was collapsed, multiple times.
• Here is StreetSign's very next thread. Note the dates: as soon as they were shot down at one article, they went to another. This is clear evidence that StreetSign's concern is this particular claim, not improving the project in general.
• Here is their next posting at the page. Note the obvious attempt to try to get their sources declared reliable in order to get back to pushing for the inclusion of this content.
• This actually predated the last link. StreetSign was trying to do the same thing: get their sources declared "reliable" in order to push for the addition of this claim.
• Here's StreetSign posting to the "Streisand Effect" article. I'll give you three guesses what it's about. It sure ain't about Barbara's wings.
• Here's an example of StreetSign jumping in to an existing discussion. I'll give you three guesses what he wants to talk about.
• Here's StreetSign's most recent "main" thread. One wonders why we would need to go into such detail as to name the responding officer. Or rather, one would wonder if one wasn't already aware that StreetSign has been searching for months for an excuse to justify including his bit about the job offer.
• And here he is again! No comment. Just read it for yourself.

Now, I'll happily admit that StreetSign has been somewhat mistreated at that article. Their comments have been dismissed, and they've been generally treated with some condescension and frustration. The reason for this should be obvious. We are all sick and tired of responding to the same bullshit arguments from the same stubborn editor for months. This is literally the definition of "disruption". A topic ban would work, but per this, a topic ban would be virtually indistinguishable from an indef. I really don't know what else to say. I wish Guy has provided some evidence, but I understand why he didn't: The talk page and the most recent archive of it should be evidence enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Tornheim. Really this relatively new editor has been trying to introduce facts cited to RS. And he has been treated horribly by MjolnirPants. He was asking to introduce rather innocuous facts cited to multiple RS, and the other editors seem to have opposed that because they fear adding these well sourced facts would "add support to the conspiracy theory." Facts are facts and shouldn't be excluded because they support or undercut any POV narrative. -Obsidi (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

More off-topic sniping. Can you folks please knock it off? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
LOL You can't even be bothered to read the edits you respond to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC) I did actually read it. Yet one more example of uncivil behavior. -Obsidi (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Ahh, so you read it, and then you made your accusation again, even though your accusation is directly addressed and refuted in my comment. So your response wasn't just ignorant, it was intentionally ignorant. Gotcha. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) No. I just disagreed that your comment refuted anything I said. And please stop the personal attacks of calling those who disagree with you ignorant. -Obsidi (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC) You didn't address a single thing I said. You certainly never disagreed with anything, you just threw bullshit. And it's not a personal attack to point out that your argument is crap. If you can't tell the difference between comments on you personally, and comments on your arguments or claims, then you have no business on this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• The "rather innocuous facts" that StreetSign is pushing for include "The known email accounts, social media accounts, and posts of Seth Rich", "The name and badge number of the responding officer" and "The names and badge numbers of the assisting officers". Totally irrelevant. In an amazing coincidence, these are the exact same facts that the conspiracy theory websites say prove that Seth Rich was killed because he was the source of the DNC emails at WikiLeaks. You have to feel for those poor cops who are suddenly being accused of being part of a murder conspiracy on a bunch of nutjob websites... --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

He proposed like 13 additional facts, some of which were relevant and not included in the article, and others less so. But most of the debate I have seen concerns his being offered a job by the Clinton campaign a few days before he was murdered. -Obsidi (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is relevant...how? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In an article concerning a murder, the location of said murder seems relevant to me. -Obsidi (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Evasion noted. The location of the murder is already in the article, and I asked (and you ignored) how his being offered a job by the Clinton campaign a few days before he was murdered is relevant. On second thought, don't bother answering. We already know where you stand on WP:FRINGE theories:[216][217] I'm done. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The location of the murder is in the article now due to StreetSign [218]. For which he was harangued in the talk page when he proposed it Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#More_Off-Topic_Conspiracy_Theories, including you changing the title of the section from "Some facts that are not yet included, which would improve article significantly" to "More Off-Topic Conspiracy Theories."[219]. That was one of the 13 facts which I was talking about above. And that second cite above by Guy Macon was not from me, here was my reply [220]. -Obsidi (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Mostly off-topic back-and-forth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Forget asking Obsidi to discuss content (I highly doubt their competence to discuss content related to conspiracy theories anyways). Instead, Obsidi, please explain how that section excuses the 8 months of conspiracy theory pushing that preceded it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC) How about we focus on the conduct at issue rather than personally attacking people because you don't like their !vote? I see 8 months of him trying to get facts from RS added to an article and you blocking him every step of the way while being mean and attacking him repeatedly. -Obsidi (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Get your panties unbunched; nobody was personally attacked here. And I've just directly asked you to discuss the conduct issue so... You've seen (or at least had the chance to see) by now that a clear consensus developed against adding this material every single time it was brought up. Your refusal to acknowledge this has been noted, but isn't really what's on my mind right now. Instead, I wanna talk about you repeatedly lying through your fucking teeth about how "mean" I've been to StreetSign. My first response was to tell the other respondents to cut the OP some slack, including a link to show that I'm not entirely there to defend the OP. In my second edit, I agreed with the 4 other editors that this was likely POV pushing, but pointed out that they had a factual claim with an RS, and that we can't just assume they are there for POV pushing; they might just be new to WP and need some help. How fucking "mean" was that? My third comment was a reminder to those other editors to WP:AGF. My god, what kind of asshole would do such a thing?! My next two comments were collegiate engagement with StreetSign, explaining why his argument is getting no traction. Do you know what I got in response? Empty bitching about "bad taste" because I posted a link to WP:STICK. Next came StreetSign's Second thread, which I never even responded to. Damn, that was really mean of me, wasn't it? Then, when StreetSign tried for the third time at WP:RSN, I responded to that with collegiate explanations, again. Explainations which I continued to give without anything even remotely resembling a personal attack or hint if incivility. Of course, StreetSign can't claim the same, as my next edit had to include a warning to them not to engage in personal attacks. I'm gonna stop here. Because I've already proven that your repeated accusation that I've been "mean" to StreetSign throughout this is pure fucking bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC) You publicly doubt my competence to edit and you call that not a personal attack? And you respond by telling me to "Get your panties unbunched"? Do you know what civil behavior is? You said "your thought process about this subject... is so bizarre that you probably have no business writing anything meant to be read by the kind of readership WP has."[221]. When you call someone's work shit and someone on your side of the argument has to respond with It's just MjolnirPants being MjolnirPants [222]. Something is wrong with this behavior. And that is before we get to you not once, but twice editing his talk page comments. -Obsidi (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC) You know what? Open a new ANI thread. Go ahead. Let's ask the community to look into my editing, and while they're at it, they can take a close look at yours, too. Which of us is going to come out ahead, I wonder? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC) What kind of sanction would I be seeking? A site ban? I think we know that isn't going to happen, nor would it happen if you proposed it for me. Seems like an act of futility and just a waste of everyone's time. That doesn't mean these minor uncivil acts are good, and I will continue ask people to be more civil. -Obsidi (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Yeah, but you showing up here, making bullshit accusations is not a waste of time at all? Or, for that matter, you showing up in a thread about AQFK to cast shade on Greyfell? I suppose that's not a waste of time at all, even though there's no chance in hell you accomplish anything there, either. Or your incredibly wrongheaded proposal about how to label conspiracy theories. Yeah, you think we should obfuscate the truth and ignore what RSes say in order to lend false validity to conspiracy theories because it's "unfair" to call them conspiracy theories. Seriously? What makes you think that would ever fly? I suggest you not be so sure you wouldn't get indeffed in an ANI thread with an editing history like yours, and try to do something about it, like fucking off from the drama boards and actually contributing something to this project other than an uninformed opinion. Go fix grammar or something, or write about your favorite TV show. Do whatever else you can, so you can continue to slip under the radar here. Because I promise you that if you keep spending almost 50% of your edits casting shade at ANI the way you have been, you're going to end up shown the door sooner rather than later. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC) I would be happy to talk with you or anyone else about my comments on completely unrelated subjects, no matter how "incredibly wrongheaded" you think they are, but this is not the forum for that. -Obsidi (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban or Block - it's pretty clear that they are here only to push fringe viewpoints and/or get their conspiracy theories included in the talk page/search history.--Jorm (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment StreetSign appears to be a conspiracy enthusiast who is using standard conspiracy enthusiast tactics to dump conspiracy theory hobbyhorses into an article plagued by ... conspiracy theories. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for credulous accounts of supposed conspiracies, but CT-associated article tend to attract editors who post walls of text in support of loads of "innocuous facts" that jive with the POV they're trying to promote - in this case that Rich was murdered by somebody associated with or guided by the DNC, something that his family has resorted to legal action to try to refute, since they feel that Rich's murder has been used for political gain by partisans and conspiracy enthusiasts. This has gone on long enough, and it 's time for some form of editing restriction. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

StreetSign Trying Again

Sorry for any slowness in my response, but I am now one of a small group of caregivers, and sleep is becoming a more significant issue. It is disingenuous for a few editors to repeatedly prompt a vote, declare victory, and roll up a discussion, or in some cases just delete it entirely, when all I ever wanted was continued discussion how to include the fact fairly and impartially. The Talk page guidelines include "Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." Notice that these same few editors are trying to block me from even Talking about the article, and that what I want to talk about is a documented fact, not a conspiracy theory. I would never propose the inclusion of anything that is not a verifiable, published fact. The job offer to Seth Rich from the Clinton campaign, four days before he was shot and killed is a fact. I understand that it is an inconvenient fact, and might be unrelated, but it was significant enough that his own father spoke about it, and described that it was the reason that Seth was walking around in the wee hours of the morning, talking to family and friends on the phone, and "pondering" it. That is what he said, and it is documented. I understand that not everyone believes that it is significant, and that some people do not want it known, but it is a fact. The other facts that I offered for consideration were to encourage comparison and Relative importance. They were there to be provocative, and encourage discussion. But that never happened. What happened was more name calling, more hiding of the proposed topic, which was always for me the job offer fact. I propose a civilized compromise. Let me state the documented fact of the job offer on the Talk page, and allow it to be seen and considered by other editors. If you disagree with the fact I post on the Talk page, make a post there and challenge it, but please do not insult me, curse me, or accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, and close the discussion. I will not make any change to the article itself. I believe that there is a way to include the fact eventually in a neutral manner, and I am serious about finding some neutral ground. If I include anything that is not Verifiable, roll it up, and ban me for life. Seriously, I mean it. I will leave and never come back. I make this offer in complete sincerity. Can we agree to be civilized? StreetSign (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Same basic mental error as before. The statement "A Cockcroft–Walton multiplier steps up relatively low voltages to extremely high values, while at the same time being far lighter and cheaper than transformers" is also verifiable. And it is found in multiple reliable sources. Should we add the statement about the CW multiplier to the Seth Rich article? No, because, while true, it is irrelevant. Verifiability alone is not enough reason for inclusion. You also have to show relevance. This has been explained to you multiple times, but you refused to listen. And that is why so many uninvolved editors have looked at your edits and decided that you should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Demonstrating that you have no idea what you did wrong or why everyone except a few of your fellow conspiracy theorists is is mad at you is not helping your case. You may want to read Law of holes before commenting further.

You have never explained why you think the job offer is relevant to the murder, leaving us to conclude that you want everyone to focus on it for the same reason the conspiracy theory websites are focusing on it -- an unfounded belief that the two are somehow related. Why do we call you a conspiracy theorist? The duck test – "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" – suggests that something can be identified by its habitual characteristics. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have explained why the job offer is relevant, but it is repeatedly rolled up or deleted before very many people can read it. Because Seth Rich's father thought it was relevant. This is what he said in the video: Joel Rich speaking on camera (slightly non-linear, but very real speech): “... he had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered, which was, as you get into politics, he had worked on the Senate campaign, he had worked at the, helping some people running for the House, he had been at the DNC in 2014 for the, that campaign, and the other campaign he had always wanted to work on was the presidential, and he had just found out that he was, that they wanted him, and he was probably going to be moving up to Brooklyn, through the election, and he was really excited about that.” It is Seth's father who explains why Seth was walking around talking on the phone that night. Not me. I am not making it up. Do you need Seth's father to explain to you why it is important? He stated that Seth was probably going to be moving up to Brooklyn, through the election, and was really excited about that." We cannot pretend that we do not know. I am serious about finding a neutral way of including this fact. It will not happen overnight. The Talk page is where this belongs at this point. Not in the article. On the Talk page. Stop rolling it up. Stop deleting it. Stop calling me a conspiracy theorist. 'Don't try to ban me for wanting to discuss a fact on the Talk page.' That would not be a solution. It would be an escalation. Just be reasonable. Let us all be reasonable. What do you object to in the compromise I proposed above? StreetSign (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You clearly fail to understand what you did wrong and why so many people want to either site ban or block you, despite it being explained to you repeatedly. I am done responding to you, and in fact if I see anything else with your signature on it I will skip to the next comment. [ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If you cannot discuss a documented fact without calling for a ban, you should stop responding. I have made a reasonable proposal, which is completely in line with the Wikipedia Talk guidelines, which is "Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." I understand that it is controversial, but it is a fact and it is verifiable. What you are attempting to do is completely wrong. Wikipedia should not ban an editor for attempting to discuss a documented fact on the Talk page. I have not posted it to the article, and I have not reverted anything by anyone. Do not make this worse. I am preparing some alternate proposals. StreetSign (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all articles and talk pages related to deaths or murders, but oppose block. Sometimes people make a start to Wikipedia in the wrong way. Sometimes people get obsessed with things; he/she needs to break the obsession for his/her own good. Because the obsession distorts judgment, the contributions were disruptive. A topic ban would be good for him/her. It would allow him/her to edit on other topics. A block would not be so healthy, as it would encourage him/her to believe that he/she was being victimised (i.e. that Wikipedia was part of the conspiracy).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban it is clear that StreetSign cannot edit on this subject in an objective manner. A topic ban should be tried before a block however.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and if they can't or won't abide by that, a block. Maybe they can learn how editing on Wikipedia works somewhere else where their passions won't be so influential. zchrykng (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I've been keeping an eye on this one (from a distance because I had enough Wikipedia drama of my own last week) and it would appear that StreetSign would benefit from learning how to edit constructively in other areas. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or indef. Note my struck !vote above. As I've said, a topic ban and an indef are functionally the same in this case, and if there's even a slim chance StreetSign can get their act together working on another subject, it's worth it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Is CNN a conspiracy theory site? No. It is not. But CNN published that Seth Rich's father said that Seth received a job offer from the Clinton campaign four days before he was murdered. Is the Washington Post a conspiracy theory site? No it is not. But WaPo published that Seth Rich's father said that Seth received a job offer from the Clinton campaign four days before he was murdered. If you don't want to include it in the article, then don't. But it is absolutely inappropriate to block an editor from wanting to discuss it on the Talk page. Wikipedia guidelines address this situation "New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." If I had posted un-sourced claims in the article, I could understand a ban. But I did not. If I posted verifiable facts in the article, and did more than one revert, I could understand a ban. But I did not. If I posted un-verifiable claims in Talk, I could understand a ban. But I did not. I posted a verifiable, published fact (from completely mainstream publications) only on the Talk page, and I was insulted, accused of being a conspiracy theorist, and had my Talk repeatedly rolled up, and in some cases completely deleted. I am completely unaccustomed to such behavior. It has brought out the worst in everyone. Please consider my compromise proposal. Do not over-react. StreetSign (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• indef I just reviewed this person's edit count and walked through their contribs at the Seth Rich Murder page. I guess they get some points for trying to persuade others on talk pages instead of editing directly in mainspace... (and I do mean that) but a) their understanding of what we do in mainspace here in Wikipedia is not correct, and b) their inability to understand how to drop a stick has made them a timesink for people working on that page. They have been civil, but have been unreasonable in their WP:Civil POV pushing. From their first edit in February 2018 to today, they have been bludgeoning the page pushing primarily to include a detail about a job offer from the clinton campaign, which is important in the conspiracies (see this comment from them). See also here, where they want to include hyper-detail like badge numbers of responding officers. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather has been abusing our open-ness to try to persuade others to turn WP into an anchor for conspiracy theorizing (at least). The quality of sources they have brought is telling. They earnestly brought up a story from Gateway Pundit for pete's sake. Good faith is not a suicide pact and WP is not therapy. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef. I've spent some time reading through their posts, and their inability to listen and understand is quite baffling. Their proposals in this thread (especially the "alternative proposal" below) make it quite clear that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to Tell The Truth (except as befits a conspiracy theorist, it is not exactly the truth). Too many people's time is being wasted on this. --bonadea contributions talk 17:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is my alternate proposal

I will voluntarily refrain from posting on the Murder of Seth Rich Talk page for 365 days if you will allow a post on the Talk page that states the following (or equivalent): "Seth Rich's father publicly stated that Seth received a job from the Clinton campaign four days before he was murdered, and that he was walking, talking to family and friends, and pondering the offer the night he was killed. That fact is documented on CCN and WaPo, but the majority of editors have decided not to include it in the Murder of Seth Rich Article, because it is not relevant. " Allow editors to comment for the 365 days. Do not roll up Talk on the subject. Do not insult me or call me a conspiracy theorist. I will then voluntarily refrain from posting on the Murder of Seth Rich Talk page for 365 days. StreetSign (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Allow editors to comment for the 365 days. Dozens of editors have already commented on this over the course of the 8 months you have been repeating it. Without exception, they have rejected it. This "alternate proposal" is just more of the same stuff that led to this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

We don’t usually leave a topic open for 365 days. How about a RfC on the subject (which will be opened for 30 days usually) and no one slow closes it for a week, and you agree to a 1 year page ban from Murder of Seth Rich. Would that work for you StreetSign? -Obsidi (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Since when do we negotiate topic bans and blocks? Now that I'm here, I certainly won't allow that text to remain on the talk page. No. I think he gets a topic ban, full stop.--Jorm (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Its common for people subjected to a possible ban/block to suggest an alternative that might mitigate the problem and resolve the disagreement. The question is if there is more consensus for his proposal rather than the others currently proposed. Until this thread is closed, it seems appropriate for him to try and get consensus for a preferred alternative. -Obsidi (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Since never. I am currently reviewing this thread, and will be enacting at least a Seth Rich topic ban soon; just reviewing non-Seth Rich edits to see if there are similar problems there in order to come up with a reasonable scope of the topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That was certainly a BOLD request, but I think a perfectly normal topic ban would be more appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm running out of time in real life and don't want to rush thru this and mess something up, so a close isn't imminent. There are pages I'm supposed to log this stuff and I'd have to study and relearn where they were. If this is still unclosed late tonight I'll close it then. FWIW to any other potential closer, I was about to enact a Seth Rich topic ban, for disruptively bludgeoning the same topic over months, but I didn't see sufficient disruption at Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht and Lee Harvey Oswald to extend the topic ban further than that. However, that's technically what people were supporting/opposing, and there's a consenus for "support topic ban", so I would maybe have been supervoting slightly by not expanding it further than Seth Rich. That's still what I plan to do if this isn't closed by this evening, but if someone does a wider topic ban before I get back I wouldn't argue. Also, if this is closed by someone else with a relatively limited topic ban, a warning that similar behavior on other topics will be dealt with much more promptly might be reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If StreetSign start doing the same thing at a different article, we can just do this again, and that would certainly result in an indef. So I wouldn't see an admin taking the lesser of multiple proposed sanctions as any sort of supervote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's give them some WP:ROPE - perhaps StreetSign realizes from a TBan on Seth Rich related topics that tendentious editing is frowned upon and chills out, starts editing productively. Hey, win all around. Perhaps StreetSign finds some other conspiracy to start advocating, and then we can always come back and give them a stricter restriction. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Picking one of the multiple suggested remedies isn't a supervote. I support enacting the remedy described by Floquenbeam, and WP:ROPE certainly applies -- especially if the topic ban notice contains a clear explanation of what kinds of behavior will result in the topic ban being broadened or turned into a block. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Floq, if you haven't caught it, their "thing" is murders connected with presidents, which I imagine is why they are so persistent and frustrated at Seth Rich. "George H.W. Bush" is mentioned three times in Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht; once would be plenty. The murder had nothing to do with the president but about the shooter's mother. Just like what StreetSign is doing has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: That is more seeing monsters under the bed. Most of the sources mentioned that Dr. Mark Hausknecht was George H.W. Bush's doctor. ""Surveillance images show gunman behind George H.W. Bush's former doctor moments before murder"", "'High probability' doctor who treated former President George H.W. Bush was targeted, police say", "New video, images released in slaying of President George H.W. Bush's former doctor", "Suspect identified in murder of George H.W. Bush's former doctor", I was quoting them. That was my first attempt ever to write an article from scratch, and it was clumsy. You guys are just ruthless. I have done absolutely nothing to deserve this. StreetSign (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Your editing solely in an area that has discretionary sanctions for a reason. Not the easist place to learn WP policy. I may be against your topic ban, but that doesn’t mean you have done everything correctly merely that I don’t think it rises to that level yet. -Obsidi (talk) 22:11, 22 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.

Possibly excessive number of PROD nominations by a user on 22 October 2018

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

---

I would suggest the raising of at least 32 PROD nominations on 22 October 2018 Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Article alerts by Piotrus is an excessive number. The raising of that number means insufficient consideration is likely to be given to merge or other improvements. Such nominations are almost effortless to raise at a production scale with a vanilla summary of: The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you. Now the articles raised by Piotrus pretty well all have serious sourcing issues from the article as far as I can see, and a (very?) high proportion are typically for the bin. That said all are a seem to be ... do we check his judgement ... ?. However seemingly obvious merges such at Oracle Office into Oracle Collaboration Suite (and even on to Oracle Beehive) seem to be missed; and I understand it is the onus on prod nominator per WP:PRODNOM to identify these. Someone has already redirected X.29. Other issues are templating a long standing article prior to PROD nomination so it can be improved outside of the deletion process such as at Multi-Purpose Viewer, although this may be a pedantic example as there was already an existing relevant template, albeit no immediate warning of deletion. Prods are supposed to be be non-controversial ... at least some here clearly are not. Perhaps my main concern here is the precedent it sets with large swathes of deletions being raised at once being potentially and actually disruptive. I therefore challenge this level and rate of PROD raising by one person as an incident. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You left a note at User talk:Piotrus a few hours ago, and the editor hasn't edited since then. You are allowed to remove Prods you disagree with. In general, please only raise issues here if either discussion with the editor doesn't get the desired result, or the situation is truly urgent and needs immediate admin intervention. This situation though is neither of those, and bringing it here is premature. Fram (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(watching) First things first, Djm-leighpark: It's good, of course, that you raised your concern on his talkpage; but that was at 09:53. They haven't edited for seven hours, though and are clearly offline; so you thought waiting ~2 hours and then escalating to ANI was the best thing to do? Since they're PRODS, we do have, at least, 168 hours to deal with the matter in. All IMHO of course. ——SerialNumber54129 12:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• in this case yes because of the precedent of the case. The issue is more about this sort of event happening than it is the individual user. I am raising an incident about what has happened not the individual user. I am now involved in trying to work through the PRODs raised. While it can be a simple matter of dePROD in fact before doing so and to avoid an immediate drag to AfD it is best to consider merges first. This takes effort. To some degree any response by Piotrus is fairly independent of bringing the matter here. And a similar but in many ways different event occurred last month. And I may I Wikibreak at any point. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Accusing someone of being productive? Even the ones you point out above seem to be reasonable PRODs - and spot-checking a few others (I didn't do all 32) you did not mention - they also seem reasonable. It's one thing to complain when a user do multiple bad noms - in particular after being called out in previous articles (e.g. - poor AfD judgement). But raising a behavioral issue at AN/I not due to quality but merely volume? Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There has been nothing I have said in that majority of nominations will not be correct. Indeed I have indicated most will have serious sourcing issues. This is a different mass nomination than last months 40 or or so AfD/PROD ... I'd suspect here we may have 5%-10% and (maybe 20% outside tops) that are candidates for merge/redirect and maybe 1 or 2 (if that) worthy of a WP:RESCUE. The issue with this bulkage of PROD nominations the number we are looking for near total accuracy or one nominator can call dispropionate disruption to those trying to fix things that have stood, sometimes unchallenged for a decade. As it happens working through the list Amazon StoryWriter might (only might) be a salvage ... but the current sourcing is not good. Being productive in removing content is not good ... however there is a counter argument removing bad content improves quality. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that admins need to take care of here. If you feel any of the articles shouldn't be deleted DePROD them. You are under no obligation to do it in the manner requested, though it would be a courtesy to do so. If after going through the PRODs a high % of them are obviously articles that should be kept and they don't try to resolve it then there may be admin action. At this point this should be closed down and let the PROD process work and talk page discussion work. ~ GB fan 12:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Effort working through them means the number of imperfect nominations is important given the number nominated. And at what point does this get unmanagable 100/day ... 200/day ... ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What admin response do you want from this? ~ GB fan 14:18, 23 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:Scriptions

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

---

• Scriptions (talk · contribs)
• {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}
• Template:Infobox Chinese/doc

The user sabotaged the template Special:Diff/754773886 to make {{Infobox Chinese}} not working. Which is, when |y= |j= data were filled, using |showflag=j, which was intended to display |j= data from hidden, came up with |y= data was shown from hidden instead. Also |showflag=pj came up with the same result with |showflag=py, display pinyin and Cantonese Yale.

I don't understand his jarbish of reverting my good faith edit on Template:Infobox Chinese/doc (edit summary: not a typo), which @Kanguole: was endorse it seem wrong in Template talk:Infobox Chinese#Showflag broken. As well as his explanation in Template talk:Infobox Chinese#Showflag broken.

All i could say it just seem he just want to vandal the template in order to display his favourite Yale , instead of respecting other user on the input in |showflag=.

Matthew_hk tc 13:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You have a nerve accusing me of vandalism after I've explained exactly how my edits were in good faith. As I've explained, I made the edits favouring Yale because of the objective reason to favour it, not because it's my favourite. Changing what a showflag does has the exact same result as changing every instance of said showflag to another showflag, and as the latter is obviously legitimate, so is the former. Scriptions (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Apart from any of the issues being raised here, that diffs is from December 2016. More recent diffs and evidence will need to be provided if you wish to substantiate your complaint and for your complaint to be considered by other editors and administrators.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scriptions: Before you sabotage. The Previous version such as Special:Diff/752982678 jyp, j and other |showflag= option is worked as intended. It just pure vandalism to permanently disable |j= (Jyutping) data to trigger by |showflag=j for your promotional to Yale. Matthew_hk tc 13:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon: Here is the diff for sabotage in the doc (Special:Diff/754824417), and the recent revert claiming not a typo: Special:Diff/865250513 and Special:Diff/865250565. Matthew_hk tc 13:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Not every edit you strongly disagree with is sabotage and vandalism. These edits are perfectly legitimate, as I've already explained in detail. Scriptions (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Not every edit is sabotage or vandalism, but would you care to explain why you replaced a Hong Kong developed transliteration of Cantonese with an American transliteration of Mandarin? It does seem a little odd considering that Yale and Jyutping were designed for different dialects with vastly divergent pronunciation. Also Yale is rather archaic compared to Jyutping. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Yale for mandarin and Yale for Cantonese are two things. In {{lang-zh}} Yale for Cantonese use |cy= but in {{Infobox Chinese}} use |y= only. Matthew_hk tc 13:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I replaced it with Yale for Cantonese, not Yale for Mandarin! The reason was that Yale is more common than Jyutping in learning materials and therefore better known by non-native speakers of Cantonese, who are the ones who need the transcriptions. If one Cantonese transcription is to be shown outside of the hide area, it should be the one that the most readers will understand. Scriptions (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you Matthew, I was not aware that there was a separate Yale romanization for Cantonese. That resolves some of my concerns here; but I still do prefer to use a more modern transliteration developed in Hong Kong over an American one. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Transcriptions exist to effectively communicate pronunciations, not to represent Hong Kong or the US. A transcription system being more common is relevant; a transcription system being more recent is not. Scriptions (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It should respect the free choice of display by input in |showflag=y and |showflag=j. Not sabotage the template to make an illusion on |showflag=y and |showflag=j, which came up with the same result. It just need to add another line of code in {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}} for |y= if it was not exist before 2016. But you did add lines of code for showing |y= but also sabotage the display code for |j=. Matthew_hk tc 13:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well It seem you just sabotage every code linked to display |j= data to display |y= instead. The true |showflag=y code was added by Littlepenny413 Special:Diff/773048904. Matthew_hk tc 14:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not sabotage; it's called being efficient. There was no illusion created: the doc page said the same thing as the code (until you decided to screw up the doc page, that is). Not respecting another editor's choice on which transcription to show by changing the definition of the showflag is no less legitimate than not respecting it by replacing their showflag with another showflag. By your standards, any edit would constitute not respecting other editors. Scriptions (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The correct way not to be disruptive editing, is . If a template had |a= to say |y=. You added |z=, may be fine given some discussion in the template talk (or just bold). Adding new line of code to display new data |z= from collapsible list of the template , also fine, but not sabotage the code so that |show=a to |show=z are the same, showing data z from collapsible list.

And this you what you did in the infobox and the corresponding doc. Matthew_hk tc 14:10, 23 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.

Doctor Who (series 11)

The following discussion is closed. 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 anyone support me at this article, please? The editor keeps implementing a BRD edit. Matt14451 12:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and needs to be discussed on the article talk page. ~ GB fan 12:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I know, the established version should be in the article until a consensus has been reached, I have only reverted to consensus. Matt14451 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451:If you're waiting on consensus you can't be reverting to consensus. You've been reverted by two editors. Please stop reverting. Tiderolls 13:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to the established version of the article, not one that has been introduced today. See bold. Matt14451 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That's kinda the definition of a content dispute, as GBfan has posted. But I see you've stopped reverting so we should be good here. Tiderolls 13:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I will revert again. The established version of an article should be in place until a consensus is reached. I reverted before a 2nd user contributed so consensus couldn't be assumed. User has a history of a hostile and aggressive attitude, couldn't find where to report him though. Matt14451 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451: This is textbook WP:CANVAS. There are now more editors re-adding and editing the table - you have been told by two uninvolved editors here that you no longer have the consensus, and the discussion was closed by a third. -- Alex^TW 13:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You reverted me before any other editor got involved., what's your excuse for that? What about your hostile and aggressive attitude? Matt14451 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You have three editors here and two more (bar me) at the article opposing you. Please read WP:IDHT. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 13:32, 23 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.

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

---

FWIW, I suspect this might not have been a content dispute, given that the topic area is highly divisive/explosive, prone to edit-warring and uncivil behaviour (see, e.g., this simple technical request for an article move in order to fully disambiguate its title, which quickly devolved into blatant trolling/harassment), and so "Hey, can someone help me here" might look like forum-shopping a content dispute to ANI or even canvassing while actually being a good-faith request for assistance with a user conduct issue, and so I suspect this may have been closed prematurely, but I'll leave that for others to decide. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to second that opinion. It may very well be that the OP is not listening to consensus on the talk page and that his request here represents an ongoing case of IDHT, but from the way the request is framed, that is --not-- a content dispute; if someone is edit warring against the stable version of an article against the clear requirements of WP:BRD, then that is very much a conduct issue, not a content dispute, and it's entirely appropriate for an involved editor to bring the matter to a noticeboard to get an admin's impression (that said, we have an entire board for such requests--WP:ANEW--where this should have been brought). Though I'm sure that SerialNumber's close was a good-faith action, and clearly predicated in the previous comments from other uninvolved editors, I nevertheless feel that it is actually rather inappropriate for an non-admin to do a procedural close for this sort of discussion on a administrative board, where there is an open issue involving edit warring and an admin has not yet evaluated the situation. I'm actually quite tempted to re-open this; I believe the OP deserves to have the substance of their concerns addressed; if they are accurately describing the sequence of edits and the status of consensus, that is a violation of WP:BRD. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, from what I can tell from studying the edit history and the talk page discussion, the OP did have legitimate policy reason for requesting administrative review of the edits at the time that he made his request here. And I do think the NA closure was a bit premature, especially given how quickly it proceeded. That said, Alex has now clearly achieved a consensus on the talk page, so it's now a WP:SNOW matter and there is no purpose to re-opening this discussion to discuss putting a moratorium on further changes. If Matt54129 is dissatisfied with this result and wishes broader community input, he should consider an RfC. That said, I'll be frank that I'm not sure the difference in content between the two proposals warrants that much expenditure of community effort and I would respectfully submit to Matt that this might be a good opportunity to demonstrate ability to let the small stuff go, a trait that I for one believe buys an editor respect in this particular work community. But then again, I may have to own up to a value bias of finding all things Doctor Who exceedingly tedious (present editors who borrow their names from the show excluded, Alex!). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I won't respond to Alex below per User talk:Beeblebrox even though it is tempting. I will not revert now the consensus is clear. I reverted when we were the only editors involved and the only reasons given to support the change were that other articles had similar tables whereas I gave WP:TRIVIA as a reason against during the discussion as al the ratings don't seem relevant to the average reader. The established version of the page should have been kept while a consensus was being formed. I wasn't aware of WP:ANEW. Matt14451 (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think WP:ANEW was the right page. Matt14451 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You said I will revert again[223] an hour after another editor reverted you[224] - stating you'll do it and doing it are just as bad. "Other articles" = a combined total of 500+. You weren't aware of it at the time, but at the same tie didn't think it was the right page at the time? Please elaborate. -- Alex^TW 08:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping when I was being talked about... One revert is barely edit-warring, especially when Matt14451 (rather than Matt54129) is an editor who actually violated WP:3RR on the article by reverting four times within 24 hours ([225][226][227][228]), and then even declared that they were planning to revert yet again![229] But when another editor has the consensus, they clearly think it's best to continue opposing (which is fine) but without a reason?[230] The editor further claims optional essays as policy, and when they do quote policy, they invent sections of it and cannot provide a direct quote and clear their talk page when confronted with this - I think this has happened about three times now... (I'd need to do more history-digging to be sure.) Let's not talk about the talk pages linked, where they gained matching views on what should not be done, and then believing that they can do ahead and do the same edits elsewhere. Now, can anyone tell me if any of this was actual vandalism or not?

As for the content itself... The edit summary for the first revert was Seems like it could be too much detail. Not a fan of the coloured header. Seems like? What does that mean? Is that what you personally think, or is it WP:OWNBEHAVIOR #4, where an editor editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit, and then continuing such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale, which is a strong indicator of ownership behavior? In my revert, I even fixed the "apparent" second issue based on the colour (even though it seemed more like IDONTLIKEIT). I could think that this discussion was started with the intent to gain administrative help with their issue with me, but when they began it as Can anyone support me at this article, please?, I'm inclined to think not. "Support me"? At this "article", not this "talk page"? No, they came here to gain editors to come over and say "I agree with you, Matt", and that's much less "Hey, can someone help me here" and much more canvassing and shopping.

As for harassment, let's not talk about the editor who suddenly appears almost every time that I (or other particular editors) have to respond to a thread at an AN, solely to oppose me (I've lost count on the number this time), and then reopens a thread that was closed twice[231] instead of opening a new thread as they should have done. (And thanks for that last bit Snow Rise, this is actually why I've debated on getting a name change due to other editors making comments on my edits, based solely on my name). -- Alex^TW 06:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to talk about me, then why did you say, completely out of the blue, that I "suddenly appear almost every time that you (or other particular editors) have to respond to a thread at an AN, solely to oppose you"? It's not true, anyway: I am a regular contributor to ANI; it's not like those times you and other users showed up to threads that didn't involve you, just to harass me, since you are not ANI regulars. (And no, being specifically pinged by someone else who wanted you to show up to harass me is not a valid excuse; it's still harassment, even if you have a semi-valid excuse for being aware of it.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it would be pretty funny bringing up "other editors" in the same post as criticizing someone for revert[ing] a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit, if I didn't think it was meant in complete sincerity. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You haven't contributed to ANI for over two weeks, and yet you suddenly make an appearance in a thread that just happens to be about me, in a thread that didn't involve you (quoting you). You have no excuse for it; you are simply in this thread to continue your continued opposition of me. Very funny. -- Alex^TW 08:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't contributed much to Wikipedia in general for two weeks, because I've been busy in real life -- October 2018 is en route to becoming my least active month on Wikipedia since January 2016. I still log on and open the pages I watch, including this noticeboard, and was always going to post if I saw something that concerned me; when Who showed up on the table of contents I had a gut feeling there was some OWN/BATTLEGROUND/edit-warring/harassment/whatever in the same topic area where I experienced the same a few months back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, does anyone have an objection to my re-closing this thread? I don't regret seconding Hijiri's sentiment and commenting on the procedural issue I meant to address, but the consequent discussion is taking a non-productive path now, I feel. Since the underlying issue has been resolved by your effort at consensus, I believe it makes sense to put the matter to rest again rather than engage in vetting suspicions, which will be of dubious value to anyone. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah; I don't think this is resolved, but I can see Alex is not going to stop targeting me as long as this is open, so I'd personally feel better if it were closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the close. Less chance of the continued case of following editors. -- Alex^TW 09:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that their behaviour has been flawlessly above-board; clearly there are issues. And had you not secured a consensus that makes this discussion moot, they might have found they were facing a WP:BOOMERANG as the discussion progressed. Nevertheless, on the narrow issue which they brought here, they have some standing: WP:BRD and WP:ONUS are clear that the long-term stable version of the content is meant to stay in place until the proponent(s) of the change secure a consensus. That doesn't mean that Matt wasn't also edit warring at the same time, however. My comments here were directed at the procedural question, not your conduct; I felt the close here was not entirely appropriate and my comments we're meant to urge future caution in that respect when it comes to NACs of EW issues. In any event, Matt has committed to not reverting further, your consensus now being established, so there is that. I can understand if being brought to ANI makes you less inclined to feel magnanimous now that you've prevailed on the content issue, but presumably you two will be continuing to work on the same article, so maybe it's useful to admit that you both were a little bit more free with the edit button during an ongoing dispute than you maybe should have been and cut each-other some slack. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to closing this thread now, Alex doesn't want to co-operate with a decision made on User talk:Beeblebrox. I only edit-warred to restore the established version of the article while discussions were in progress. The consensus is now shown on the talk page of the article so there's no need to revert to the previous established version. Alex failed to give any reasons for the change other than it's similar to other pages. Matt14451 (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No such decision was made. It was a suggestion. Where was it declared to be final? -- Alex^TW 09:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't declared to be final but a suggestion to prevent future rule-breaking by both of us. You demonstrated a lack of co-operation by not agreeing. Matt14451 (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Declining a suggestion is not a lack of co-operation, I just do not consent to limitations on my editing based solely on one inexperienced editor who knows that there's nothing in WP:EW that states it's acceptable for bold edits. -- Alex^TW 09:41, 24 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.

The Kid Who Would Be King

Can someone take a look at the article for the upcoming film The Kid Who Would Be King, please? An IP-hopping editor (I will refrain from calling him a vandal because some of his edits are actually useful, mixed in with a lot that are not) is simply intent upon having his way, repeatedly removing sourced information, adding information that is not sourced or poorly sourced (using IMDb, for example), and generally editing in an unhelpful manner. He's also resorted to personal attacks when I reverted him again. I'm going to keep my distance – I didn't revert his most recent edits – but some order needs to be restored and the anon. needs to be admonished not to edit war. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the cast list he is changing didn't have a source before he changed it. We don't even have any evidence the old one is better than the new one. What is your source for the old cast list? --Jayron32 16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have one, and don't know what the source is or was when it was created. But, is it an improvement to replace one unsourced cast list with another one? And then to edit war over it? It might be best to remove it altogether until a source can be found. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the IP's cast list sourced in the in-line ref in the lead paragraph? I see every addition to the cast list they added in there. And aren't most of their other corrections either sourced to the sources already there, or minor re-words? (I say "most" because the only thing that looks unsourced is the release date). So yeah, "vandalism" would have been a pretty poor choice of words. Seems like something the article talk page would be well suited for. I hope that if someone repeatedly reverted me for adding sourced edits with the edit summary "unsourced", I'd react better than the IP did, but I'm not 100% sure. Especially when you eventually switched to straight rollback with no edit summary. Two apparently good faith editors who disagree on specifics: take to talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Another issue here, which I neglected to mention above, are edits by a block-evading sock in this same IP range. A look at the edit history bears this out. So, my unexplained reverts were for that reason. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I posed the question of the block-evading sock to NRP, but he thinks they're unrelated. I apologize for my error. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Association of Malayalam Movie Artists

The tone of this article is disputed. A single-purpose user is continuously adding daily news reports under the section controversies, like Wikipedia is a newspaper. Recently an administrator removed many of it, but the user is repeatedly adding news additions per more recent news (comments, opinions, petty points etc). Content added is also one sided and read like an attack page. It is to be noted AMMA is a non-profit charity organisation giving monthly pensions and other donations for social causes, but the article is not written like that and is more into criticism. Women in Cinema Collective is an organization with issues with said organisation. But the same user has written WCC article with a more positive tone (they have also received criticism) and is promotional to some extent with puffery, peacock terms, and non neutral writing. 2405:204:D18B:61C1:E912:258:3EE0:8269 (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oh that one again? Drmies (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• The work of that editor, Putput23, needs BLP scrutiny, but stating that is all I can do right now. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• I notifed the editor in question of this discussion. They are adding unsourced contentious content, some of which I just removed per WP:BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE Block Requested

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

---

User:Ceneezer has created several incomprehensible drafts (Draft:Ceneezer and Draft:Omniverse Theory). He is not responding well to efforts to delete them [232]] claiming this nonsense is his life. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an odd case. Special:Contributions/Ceneezer shows what look to be constructive contributions in late 2016, then a 1.5-2 year gap that ended with a flood of nonsense. Compromised account? A four-quadruple-screwdriver night? Hmm. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Note however that even those half-dozen useful edits a year and half back were actually a POVFORK of an article that already existed, so I would describe them more as apparently good-faith than necesarily constructive. And given those six edits were the only ones that were even in the ballpark of being WP:HERE, I'm inclined to agree with the suggesting course of action; an admin warning would be a nice first stop, but if this user doesn't stop this quasi-vandalism, a block is the best way forward. And frankly, though I'd like to see the warning so that we are being pro forma about this, I don't have much hope that this user is suddenly going to change gear into a useful contributor. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not getting the message [233] Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• User indeffed. Pages deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 24 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.

Calls for executions by firing squad in edit summaries

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

---

• PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) has made some extremely hostile edit summaries:

1. "Which incel put that here?"[234]
2. "Transphobes to the wall"[235]
3. "Antisemites to the wall"[236]

"To the wall" is dogwhistle (or rather, pretty much a straightforward call to be honest) used by the recently quarantined subreddit r/FullCommunism. They themselves explain what "to wall" means here: "Being walled means to be lined up in front of a wall and shot by a firing squad."

I figured it isn't worth it to bring this up with the person on his talkpage if he's calling for executions in the first place and giving sarcastic replies to others.[237] --Pudeo (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not a tankie, I just like Pink Floyd. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The wall" isn't a dogwhistle since there's nothing else it could be used to mean. It's been used to refer to firing squads long before that subreddit existed. The edit summaries are indeed aggressive (even though they're clearly intended as humorous) but it's worth noting that the edits themselves are simply removing vandalism/POV-pushing.
  However, the user did recently make this edit in which they revert the closure of an RfC with the summary "Disagree. No consensus for removing this in RfC." PeterTheFourth didn't try to bring this up with the closer, or even revert the RfC close on the talk page; they simply added the content back. I brought this up on their talk page, to which PeterTheFourth tells me sarcastically "Thanks so much for sharing your valuable opinion" and then throws a temper tantrum on the talk page.
  These behaviours are concerning, and indeed the latter undoing of an RfC closure is one of the most rude things I've seen on my time on Wikipedia (yes, I tend to avoid ANI), but unless there's further problematic behaviour, I don't think action needs to be taken against the user unless they continue to make these sorts of toxic edits. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I never undid an RfC closure. I did undo an edit to the article after the RfC had closed, which removed something. The RfC closure that the person removing the material wrote that there was 'no consensus' as to whether the material should be removed. Perhaps you should revise your comment - no hard feelings. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This is false. The RfC was closed with consensus to reduce the paragraph to a sentence (or two). To reinstate the full paragraph is to edit war against consensus. Pinging the closer (@Feminist:) in case they wish to comment. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have nothing to add. feminist (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the RfC, he has been "cautioned to be more careful when making edits concerning living people" on October 5. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive242#PeterTheFourth --Pudeo (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree that the "to the wall" comments are not just inappropriate and hostile, but indeed have an outright violent cast to them. Peter, it would go a long way to forestalling this discussion heading towards unpleasant territory if you can genuinely say that you understand why these comments are received as unnerving and completely antithetical to a collaborative and respectful work environment, and commit to not using the phrase on-project again. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, though I do have to note that the "antisemite" one was made in response to an obviously antisemitic post (see the edit summary), and the "transphobic" one was reverting a, well, transphobic rant. But yes, some better wording would be more appropriate. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, precisely. Because even given that context, it's just not feasible for this project to allow responses to editorial conflicts that take the form of a threat of violence--for a variety of policy, pragmatic, and even legal reasons. Even if the circumstances seem to suggest the person is just talking histrionically, it's a problem. People have been indefed for it before without there even being enough time to take it to ANI, frankly. That said, I don't want to sell Peter short without his having a chance to respond to concerns. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: the key complaint here is that PeterTheFourth got overly salty with vandals inserting racist, sexist and transphobic statements into contentious articles? Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if taken in the context of alluding to The Wall, it's a poor choice of words given Pink's state of mind in "In The Flesh". Not everyone would recognize the possible self deprecating humor angle. ANd not everyone (sadly) thinks of Pink Floyd. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Having said that-- the irony of the allusion-- it burns.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• What is the point of this thread? Sure, two of those edit summaries (aimed at antisemitic and transphobic vandals) were overly aggressive, but unless he really needs to be punished for his transgressions, or we're seriously worried that Peter is literally calling for the murder of antisemitic and transphobic people, there's nothing for us to do here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The thread is certainly a bit of a trial; I can't decide whether to sit comfortably and watch, leave, or just wait for the climax... ——SerialNumber54129 13:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:NPA: I don't believe there's a real threat of violence, but for the reasons already stated by Snow Rise above, normalizing threats of death or violence is harmful for several reasons, even if directed at vandals/ranters. There's no exception for that in the stated policies, either. But after the Pink Floyd reply I feel like we're just entertaining some trolling, so yes, it might be pointless. --Pudeo (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a real threat of violence Honestly, even if there was, is Peter wrong? Should we tolerate editors who ascribe to belief systems that advocate for the genocide of entire races? Humanity has demonstrated over the past few millennia that killing each other is in our nature, so which is the better channeling of that nature, killing Nazis or killing Jews? And more importantly, does that translate to Peter actually following through?

Go look at my user page. There's some right-wing moron who likes to make accounts whose names are threats against me. I know his ISP, IP range, home town and even some PII about them (thanks to some poorly-worded threats left on my talk page). I know enough to find out more, and I know of multiple ways I could go about putting a stop to it. But I'll never do anything about it, because even though I have no doubt this idiot would like to follow through, I damn well know he couldn't even if he knew where to find me. It's not a credible threat, so instead of treating it like a threat, it's best to treat it like you would any other bit of shit on the internet; just ignore it.

So yeah, from a purely bureaucratic perspective, Peter's comments violated a policy. But I have a hard time working up sympathy for the poor, terrified Nazis, huddled in their basements, frantically trying to figure out if Peter can track them down by their IP addresses and put them up against a wall. Almost as hard a time as I have picturing those edit summaries as anything more than simple venting against the injustice of a system that allows such fucking wastes of humanity as neo-nazis to spread their crap all over the internet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, after the whole "attempted genocide of an entire ethnoreligious group by fascists" thing, there shouldn't really be a debate about whether to "tolerate" anti-Semitism. It's a scourge which should be eradicated from the planet by any means necessary. I didn't think I'd ever see the day when Wikipedians would be debating whether someone was too impolite to a white supremacist in the course of reverting anti-Semitic vandalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

WP's not here to right great wrongs, so while I and most other editors would agree we shouldn't tolerate anti-Semtism, we cannot attack other editors just because they hold anti-Semitism views. Same for a whole host of other extreme positions. Someone may admit to being 100% a white supremacist, but as long as they edit and behave within policy and do not push their POV, we should not care one iota and certainly should not hold the editor to the fire because they say they are a white supremacist. (The leading diffs here of course were not good edits, but still the diff summaries pointed to attacking the editor, not the content). That means other editors have to learn to tolerate these other positions as well, even if it is a diametrically opposed position. As soon as WP starts discriminating on editors only due to what beliefs they hold, that's when the openness of the project breaks down. --Masem (t) 13:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Then you advocate the repeal of existing policy. We already discriminate against editors due to what beliefs they hold. Specifically, as per Wikipedia:Child protection, Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked or banned indefinitely. Wikipedia isn't a debate club, it's not a free speech platform and we don't have to accept the presence of people who believe that abhorrent and depraved conduct should be normalized. That goes for people who advocate pedophilia, and it should go for people who advocate genocide. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Pedophilia is illegal in most of the world, including the US, so obviously yes, we cannot tolerate those that actively promote it. But that's a necessary legal barrier. There is nothing illegal about being a white supremastic yet, or holding most other extreme views. Just because one might think those groups are morally wrong does not give one the right to attack other editors that profess to aligning with those groups and on the basis of no other editing or behavioral problems. --Masem (t) 14:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. In a number of countries, advocating anti-Semitism is illegal. And if you think it's wrong to attack anti-Semites as anti-Semites, well, I think you have a very misguided view of what this project is about. We aren't a debate club or a free speech platform. We're a project to write an Internet encyclopedia, and the participation of people who believe that Jews are subhuman actively damages that project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We really shouldn't be normalizing threats of violence, even if spoken in jest, even if spoken against Fascists or antisemites. It violates the Fourth Pillar of this website as well as ordinary morality to be threatening to line people up against the wall and shoot them, even if intended as a joke. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be normalizing threats of violence, even if spoken in jest, even if spoken against Fascists or antisemites. I disagree wholeheartedly. There are qualifiers that change the fundamental nature of something, and "spoken in jest" and "spoken against fascists or antisemites" are exactly those sorts of qualifiers. I honestly worry about the level of pedantry here: The assumption that ignoring something that is best treated by being ignored is "normalizing" anything is rather ridiculous on it's face.

Threats are already "normalized" on WP. We, as intelligent people, should be able to discern the difference between an editor mouthing off and an editor actually making a threat. Anyone not capable of discerning the difference should not be involved in these discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to dealing with self-professed anti-Semites and transphobes, I think this is one of those situations where WP:IAR applies. No one actually believes this is a credible threat of violence.--WaltCip (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally feel uncomfortable reading these posts. It does nothing to create a welcoming inclusive environment for me or for any other user or editor. The posts could potentially be read by anybody, not just the intended target. People need to feel safe while editing or reading here, and such posts are counter to that aim. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable reading people opining that not doing something here is a dangerous precedent. I'm dead serious, too, not just rhetorically flipping your words. The notion that WP is the place where we blindly follow our structures out of fear of what will happen if we don't is far more disturbing to me than "antisemites up against the wall". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think this is a grey area; our policies specifically prohibit such stuff. There's some sorta-related content at Wikipedia:Community health initiative. I am going to work now, won't be responding here further at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We also have policies specifically telling us not to get worked up over this kind of tripe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work, if the inability to make, even joking, threats of violence or personal attacks prevents them from improving Wikipedia, I would suggest this isn't the right hobby for them. IAR being invoked to justify this is just sad. zchrykng (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I never said anything about Peter being unable to contribute without threatening people. I never even hinted at it. Don't expect me to explain further, because I have better things to do. Hell, the only reason I responded to Diannaa was because I didn't notice the closure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work, seeing as WP:IAR, which you cited, says If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it., I don't know what else you could have meant. zchrykng (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What part of "Don't expect me to explain further, because I have better things to do." was unclear? Stop pinging me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 24 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, hate messages, trolling

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

---

• LAQueens (talk · contribs)

Please block and revert/delete all edits. Thanks. JNW (talk) 17:14, 24 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.

Legal threats

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

---

The user USN007 has repeatedly been making legal threats which can be seen clearly on the law project page (see closed discussion: Objection over definition of the practice of law) [238]. A more concrete threat that was posted to my talk page this morning apparently indicating that such a complaint as previously threatened had been made: [239]. Île flottante (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The comments look to me like discussion of a real-world legal matter, not a threat to take real-world legal action. Simply discussing issues with possible legal implications is not a violation of the no legal threats policy, and if USN007 has a concern about a legal matter concerning the WMF, forwarding that issue to the WMF is the appropriate course of action. By the way, what is UPL? Our UPL redirect is somewhat unhelpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Unauthorized practice of law.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Unauthorized Practice of Law". This seems pretty unambiguous. The editor is making claims that "Wikipedia is not above the law". Frankly I'm not seeing anything except hostility from this user. A topic ban might be helpful but in all honesty, I think we're going to see an indef block sooner rather than later. --Tarage (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, UPL -> Unlicensed practice of law. It is illegal in most, if not all, states in the US. USN007 has a strong opinion of what that means that appears to be completely off-base from everything that I know about how the law works. They have been saying that they are required to report Wikipedia and other editors for UPL violations unless editors submit to the changes they want to make. zchrykng (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Praxidicae, want to comment on what we were discussing earlier? zchrykng (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) To be a little bit more specific, discussing whether or not it may be a violation of a statute to discuss particular issues with possible legal implications is in and of itself not a legal threat. It's something similar to suggesting that writing yellow text on a green background probably violates accessibility statutes. Advising the WMF of the issue is also not a legal threat, it's simply advising them to respond if necessary (and they do address potential legal issues on the project from time to time if you specifically ask them to). On the other hand, saying you're going to report an editor to an enforcement agency because of what they're discussing on Wikipedia is a legal threat sanctionable under our policy, in my opinion. I don't think USN007 has quite crossed that line. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

e/c with 3-4 people who all type faster than me: I'm not really convinced this was a legal threat, and certainly not a legal threat against any individual editor. If anything, it's a misplaced "threat" against WMF. But it's so toothless, it isn't worth fussing over. But thank you, User:Île flottante, for bringing this user to our attention; certainly editing like a bull in a china shop, aren't they? I've added their talk page to my watchlist, and if things get more disruptive maybe we'll need to take some kind of action. But not, IMHO, right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat or not, they're obviously editing logged out (this is only one obvious occurrence, there's a ton more):

• 71.91.178.54 edits Talk:Acceleration (law) following USN's request with: I would agree for the reasons given by USN007. The citations tag is inappropriate in the context in which it was used.
• USN007 edits Talk:Infection_control following the IP's request with this nearly identical comment: I would agree with immediate removal of the content. USN007 (talk) 9:59 pm, 6 October 2018, Saturday (18 days ago) (UTC−4)

Also, Unkownzero might be of interest to everyone and this too ;). Praxidicae (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oh for crying out loud. I don't understand the link to Unknownzero (if there is one, perhaps go to SPI, or ping our resident workhorse checkuser User:Bbb23, who has already commented here and may have already blocked everyone before I hit "save"), but the link between USN007 and 71.91.178.54 is obvious. I'll go block both now. Thanks, User:Praxidicae. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unkownzero (unkown, not unknown). That tripped me up too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::CU isn't going to help for a SPI that hasn't been active for a year and has almost exclusively used proxies. There's a behavioral precedent here. Praxidicae (talk) 19:00, 24 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.

• I love it when they're stupid. EEng 22:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960

Problematic POV pushing. Page blanking against WP:Consensus at Blue Army (Poland). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected. This'll give the users involved an opportunity to discuss everything fully on the article's talk page and work things out. I see back-and-fourth reverting that goes back at least a few days, so this appears to be the right and fair way to stop the disruption at this time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - there is a longer term pattern of abuse here. E-960 has been attempting, against consensus, to excise coverage (in the lede and body) of anti-Semitic attacks by the Blue Army (which reliable academic sources treat at depth, often as the primary subject of their coverage of the Blue Army (or Haller's Army)) for years - e.g. 17:51, 24 November 2015 (shifting blame to Ukrainians along the way), 06:31, 6 March 2017, 15:07, 25 May 2017 (an edit summary full of OR - referencing a PRIMARY contemporary source - which was composed in 1919 - 2 years prior to the peace of Riga in 1921), 15:30, 26 May 2017, 21:37, 20 October 2017, 08:26, 22 September 2018, .... 06:09, 8 October 2018, 17:17, 9 October 2018. All this - against talk page consensus and RfCs - e.g. Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia from May 2017 which discussed the language used in the lede. They have engaged of canvassing of editors involved in WP:EEML - 13:25, 8 October 2018, 13:21, 8 October 2018 (this after - 07:56, 8 October 2018 a highly non-neutral stmt to NPOV/n apparently attracted the wrong sort of editorial attention). An editor that thinks that 200-300 casualties in 3 years of fighting and 200,000 soldiers, that's insignificant, and only confirms my concerns that some editors just want to stack this article with biased one sided statements (again - wrongly referring to Morgenthau's mid-1919 number (the Morgenthau commission did not have a crystal ball) which estimated 200-300 killed through 1919 (casualties - including wounded and abused - would be much larger of course). They have also misrepresented sources - 06:01, 9 October 2018 (not only is Lvov in the Morgenthau report, using David Engel (1987) to rebut a 2005 book is a tad odd - and in this case completely unsupported by Engel (who actually, in his footnote addressing Morgenthau , writesthe opposite). An editor acting against consensus (on the same issue) for years, and who considers widespread antisemitic attack by an organization to be "insignificant" (despite widespread coverage - to the point that some sources primarily cover the Blue Army in the context of antisemitism) - should not be editing the topic area. Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, where you have no arguments and are trying to deflect from your own disruptive behavior then... you bring up "EEML", a ArbCom case from freakin' ten years ago that has nothing to do with this article. You know that's just more evidence that you're not editing in good faith, right? Volunteer Marek 14:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make a critical statement, thought not in an effort to point fingers at anyone and not in bad faith, however a frank dialogue needs to take place. There is a persistent bias on topics related to Polish history, how can any one that is truly for Wikipedia neutraliry say that an article is balanced when it contains 3,100 words 900 (30%) are devoted to just one issue and this also happens to be a contriversial topic. When a few days ago I opened a disscussion on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to see if the disputed text can be condenced, cynically user Icewhiz responded by adding two more paragraphs to disputed section (also pls see user Icewhiz history, as he has been accused of POV pushing on topics related to Polish-Jewish history in the past). Also, the disputed text is almost all exclusivley the work of one editor user Faustian, who over the years blocked any attempt to make the section more neutral or balanced. Now, Wikipedia guidlines clearly state that undue weight can include depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of text and article structue. So, how can anyone argue that one issue taking up 30% of the article is ok. In no other Wikipedia article would that be allowed. Instead you have artificial "consensus" where the same few editors jump in to support each other, and establish "consensus which clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines. I as that sevral admins to actually look at the Blue Army article and say that the text meets Wikipedias neutrality standards, when the article focuses on just one ethnic group which sustained the least casulties in the war as a result of the army's actions (around 500), while other ethnic groups count their casulties in the THOUSANDS and there is just one passing statement devoted to them. --E-960 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It would seem neutral, reliable, secondary academic sources treat the Blue Army's antisemitic atrocities against civilians (abuse, cutting of beards, pillaging and robbing, maiming, and killing) at great length in comparison to their performance on the field of battle. We follow sources - not editorial opinion that such atrocities are "insignificant"(diff - 10:33, 8 October 2018). Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making that statement user Icewhiz because it unmasks your POV pushing, since there are pleanty of sources which say the Blue Army turned the tide of the war and that is the center of their material. However, the sources you champion just focus the the abuse, besides this is not the first article you are trying to impose your POV to the objectin of other editors, no sure what the point of that link was since we are talking about UNDUEWEIGHT.--E-960 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it's pretty clear that if anyone is trying to use Wikipedia to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS", it's not E-960 but you. E-960 is making a straight forward policy based argument about DUE WEIGHT. You can disagree with that (the real question is whether this article should spend 1/3 of its space on this issue even though the subject is notable for other reasons, or whether that info belongs in a different article), but there's no need to attack them or insult them or falsely misrepresent their actions, like you're doing by accusing them of RGW (I don't see ANYTHING in their comment which would suggest that). On the other hand, pretty much everyone familiar with your editing history has a pretty good sense of your WP:ADVOCACY and pattern of POV pushing in this and other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that if E-960 really was concerned about undue weight, he would have taken all that time he spent trying to get this information about atrocities against Jews removed, and instead applied it towards building up other aspects of the history of the Blue Army. Instead he has, for years, just tried to get this information removed. So his actual motive is to remove information he doesn't like, and not make the article weighted as he sees fit. The percentage of the article devoted to these atrocities would have been much smaller had E-960 spent a couple hours in the library doing research and adding other information to the article, rather than spending hours trying to remove information. So let's not pretend that he cares about undue weight. He just wants to remove referenced information that he doesn't like and engages in edit warring and blanking (see here: [240]) while doing so.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Faustian, what you are doing is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, literally no changes have been made to the disputed section in YEARS, because you sit on top of that article and revert all attempts to change the text or even seek a compromise solution (that's not even an exaggeration, the text has been frozen for YEARS due to your stonewalling). --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By "no changed" in the disputed section you mean, your repeated attempts to remove information without consensus. If you are concerned about undue weight, why not build other sections rather than remove reliably sourced info from this one? I doubt you really care about undue weight. You just want information that you don't like to be removed.Faustian (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article does indeed have severe undue weight issues. Interestingly I have also checked the sources used and for example Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books by Blue Army soldiers and explanations of the situation have been cut out by the editors adding the information about killings.I compared this article with the article about West Ukrainian People's Republic that exised in the same time and area which engaged in mass opression of Polish population, up to setting up internment camps for Polish population. It is quite interesting to compare the two articles.While here we have almost half of the page devoted to these events, the mass persecution of Poles in WUPR is passed over and blamed on "Polish sabotage". I can't help but notice the radically different treatement the two articles about similiar events in the same time and area and conflict receive.So to summarize-I do believe there is undue weight here and comparing this to other articles on the conflict with similar events there seems to be bias involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And what matters is not what our articles say, but what RS say. So if there is an imbalance maybe this is due to an imbalance in reliable sources saying something. Again if there is information left out of an article that is relevant and can be sourced add it, do not remove sources material from another article in the name of balance.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• We are back to the theme of trouble in articles on the subject of Polish-Jewish relations. As far as I’m aware there are three editors banned from the area at the moment, and E-960 was editing with them, on the same articles. Whether or not one agrees with this editor on article content, what we're required to do here at ANI is consider conduct. This particular case comes within a context, which I'll start to show some of here.
• For the record, at WP:AE the administrator NeilN has already advised E-960 “to be more careful when reverting” in the conclusion to a WP:AE revert-warring case: [241]
• This came after another WP:AE revert-war case where administrator NeilN asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future: [242]
• MyMoloboaccount has recently asked E-960 to “chill out”. [243] .
• Slatersteven messaged E-960 in May to say their conduct was starting look like WP:TE: [244]
• K.e.coffman messaged E-960 last month to say: Hi, I am leaving a quick note to let you know that I did not find these Talk page comments to be helpful: [245]. Talk pages are for discussion of content, not contributors. I would appreciate it if you did not unnecessarily personalised disputes. This could potentially drive off other editors if they find the atmosphere too unpleasant. Thank you. [246]
• I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with E-960 around 15 months ago, at the Poland article here: [247]
• In December, E-960 by their own account alleged a "Planned POV attack on the Poland article" which goes a long way to explain the perception issue here, which seems to motivate the behavior. User:BytEfLUSh responded by saying "I fail to see how someone saying that they intend to improve the article could be viewed as POV-pushing. Also, regarding 3RR, you might want to check the article history and look at the timestamps of your reverts... " Unable to leave alone an editor who had swam away from the WP:BAIT, E-960 added: "This reminds me of several incidents in the past where an editors/suck-puppet dumped information on unusual topics/minutia (normally not covered in other country articles) such as traffic fatalities in the country." I am the editor who had added road deaths to the Poland article (because no matter how embarrassing to the country, they are notable in reliable sources - including Polish news coverage and political discussion - because they are the highest total in the EU), before leaving it per WP:DISENGAGE. E-960 produced no evidence that I am a "suck-puppet". [248]
• Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE), named Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, in response to an edit by E-960 there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, E-960 reverted [249] my addition of sourced content [250] which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which François Robere had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning E-960 was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; E-960’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if E-960’s knows the universal truth.
• At times E-960's Talk page discussion has been misleading. For example, at the same article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies, their "I agree with Chumchum7... Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to..." is not an agreement at all but a case of putting words into someone else's mouth, because I had made a general statement about how we might be able to build consensus and stability, and I had not taken sides against the editor E-960 happened to disagree with: [251] Similarly misleading communication has been witnessed by Paul Siebert: [252]
• The common theme with all these articles is that E-960 has an axe to grind about Poland’s reputation and Polish-Jewish relations in particular, but they do this with the appearance of trying to intimidate, win and control, and often with projections of bad faith and a personally disrespectful tone, which is at odds with the ethos of our community. While I happen to agree that the allegation of Polish antisemitism is sometimes exaggerated and has led to stereotyping and is an aspect of prejudice against Poles, it is equally true that Polish antisemitism is sometimes downplayed, denied, justified or whitewashed. The solution in Wikipedia is to try to find a consensus solution which represents the sources fairly, because it is a fight which will never be won: those who insist on fighting about it will be stopped.
• This has gone on too long. It’s stealing our time and warnings are not being heeded by the user in question; it may even be that our tolerance is feeding their conduct. This ANI needs to be seen in the wider context. Similar sanctions as those applied to User:Icewhiz, etc, may be worth considering. As far as I recall, veteran administrators on issues such as this are Sandstein and User:EdJohnston, who might be available for consultation as well as NeilN .Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 - I'm sorry but comparable "evidence of misconduct" could be constructed against anyone who edits Wikipedia. I will highlight that you spent over 3 hours (from 5AM until 8AM [253] - [254] [255]) on scanning for and picking anything that may appear to look perhaps actionable, causing otherwise a standard editor look bad.GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you're one of the three aforementioned editors topic-banned from the same subject area of Polish-Jewish relations in WWII (in your case for misrepresenting sources) where E-960 has been editing. This includes the article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, mentioned above. You're very much involved. Please bear in mind the possibility of appealing your ban in December. Your position that the same things here could be said about 'anyone who edits Wikipedia', and your allegation that my use of diffs is 'causing otherwise a standard editor look bad' is understood. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate here and the topics are E-960, WW1, and Blue Army Chumchum7 and thank you for recognizing that similar data could be found in most editors edit history not only E-960. Nothing extraordinary there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not recognize that similar data could be found in most editors' edit history. I said I understood your position, which is a different thing. For the record, that position and your subsequent misrepresentation of what I said indicates that you are not learning from your topic ban, which will be dealt with elsewhere. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Chumchum7 Now I understand what you meant by saying " my position is understood" I would also suggest to assume good faith and restrain yourself from issuing threats.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved, but well... I agree with what Faustian, Slatersteven and Chumchum said, and regret the latter's decision to stop contributing to said article. I just have two things to add:
1) As you can see, this discussion already pulled in a user previously topic-banned from "history of Poland during WWII" for anti-Semitic comments and edits using a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles - [a form of] tendentious editing [that] is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV [256] (the other admins had more harsh words on the matter, but that's the gist of it). The ban, I'm afraid, was ill-defined: The user should've been banned not from "history of Poland during WWII" but from "history of the Jews in Poland", which would've included both world wars. A ban that allows a user to join in on exactly the same kind of discussion because the events took place 25 years earlier is flawed.
2) E-960 tends to assume others have hidden agendas, and too often for my tastes "casts aspersions" (see admin's comment here), and blocks benign changes because they fear they're intended to malign the Polish nation. Some recent examples:

1. [257] A simple CE blocked because it looked like material was removed.
2. [258] A simple CE - accusation of "massive change" and trying to "sanitize" text.
3. [259] A list of reversals with accusations of "POV pushing" and the like. Notice that despite the length of the discussion, little is actually discussed - most of the changes are just blocked without further explanation. They're later joined by two other editors, but those two don't offer explanations (in fact, one of their comments is so out of place it refers to something that wasn't even discussed). Despite further "stonewalling", 3/7 changes were eventually accepted when other editors became involved, and I suspect others will pass in the future.

Bottom line: When simple CEs are blocked because someone, somehow feels they're driven by ideology, they're showing "battleground mentality" that isn't helpful for Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere - I'm assuming good faith, and I will accept that you are unfamiliar with the judgment and why I was topic banned [260] - could you then kindly cross out this false story composed by you above? --> topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII for anti-Semitic comments and edits. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel unease about Chumchum7 using my comment to E-960. To be frank I said to E-960 to chill out, because I have feeling other users are provoking him into making statements that will be used to push for sanctions. Seriously at this moment some users are doing what can only be described as spamming numerous articles with every exaggerated detail about alleged atrocities by Poles, leading to situation where 30-40% of the article lenght is being dedicated to every claim that can be found, no matter how outlandish.I don't mind covering these topics at all, but at the moment it is getting out of hand and seriously is getting non-neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Article was protected. E-960's proposed changes and opinion of the article were discussed here: [261] Two editors supported him, six editors disagreed. So consensus was 3:6 in favor of not implementing E-960's proposed changes. Protection was lifted. E-960 immediately made the changes that were rejected by most editors. I restored it (talk here: [262]). So it goes.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In E-960's revert, not only did he defy consensus, he also introduced WP:OR -- The Jewish Yearbook of 1920 does not support In an effort to curb the abuses- the source says JULY 2. Warsaw: Anti-Jewish riot; fifteen Jews wounded, and one killed.—Warsaw: General Haller publishes proclamation in the Poranna, signed by Polish, English, and French representatives, ordering his troops to stop the cutting of beards of Jews.. - Haller order his troops to stop (before foreign representatives), however nothing in the source says this was an actual effort to effect a stop. Even, worse Soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions. To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press is not supported at all, and is in fact contradicted, by the cited source - page 227 in Carole Fink's book (who scare quotes "immediate investigation" on the Polish government response to reports of violence by the Blue Army, and then describes a Polish publicity/propaganda campaign). Beyond source falsification, attributing such a statement to Fink (via citation) is a rather serious WP:BLP issue vs. Fink. The issue of misrepresentation was clearly conveyed on the talk page and in the edits that modified content attributed to Fink. Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Faustian this text was added by Icewhiz on 05:26, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [263] and 05:59, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [264] in the middle of the edit war, there was NO CONSENSUS on the talk page to include this NEW text in the article — this is NOT long standing material, see last stable article version form 02:19, 9 SEPTEMBER 2018 [265]. --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Incorrect - both on lack of consensus, and regarding the claim of addition. In both cases - as evident in the diffs - [266][267] - this was content that was long standing in the article but which cherrypicked/ORed (the Jewish Yearbook) or grossly misrepresented to the point of being defamatory to the cited author (Carole Fink) - which was corrected to faithfully represent what is actually written in the cited source. I will note that the gross misrepresentation was retorted by E-960 in a blanket revert on 21:31, 13 October 2018. WP:Verifying sources is important.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This sequence - beginning with 10:17, 3 March 2018 is symptomatic of E-960's editing - with the false edit summary of "moved training company photos down" E-960 modified the section title from the long-standing Anti-Jewish violence to Reports of anti-Jewish violence. Subsequent consensus on the article talk page section - is clearly against this title (raising of false doubt and NPOV issue - and one should note - no credible source disputes the Blue Army's widespread violence against Jews - at best some marginal sources dispute the scale). Subsequently, and against consensus - 07:22, 15 October 2018 and mis-marked as a WP:MINOR edit (a personal attack? Seems to be insinuating vandalism) - E-960 restores the title he previously sneaked in with a false edit summary. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Although Icewhiz has a history of conflict with E-960, if their allegations above prove to be accurate, for what it's worth I would support a 3-month topic ban for E-960, based on the precedent of the simultaneous ban for Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek [268]. This is now a matter of (i) helping a disruptive editor to learn, (ii) fairness to previously-banned users, (iii) restoring discipline as well as (iv) the ongoing credibility of the process. If for bureaucratic reasons a filing needs to be done at WP:AE, I would support whoever does it. But I would urge administrators to finish this here and now. If as MyMoloboaccount points out, it is true that E-960 is being goaded, the tormentors need to be rooted out and assessed themselves. But they provide the disruptive editor here with no excuse. Responsibly for behavior is held by the individual who conducts the behavior. One always has the option of WP:BAIT and WP:DENY instead of allowing oneself to be provoked. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To the extent that it takes two to tango, and considering that E-90 is not the only one with a "history" here, and that as has been pointed out, users like Icewhiz are goading him, a similar sanction on Icewhiz - basically an extension of his previous topic ban from Polish-Jewish issues during WW2 to ALL Polish-Jewish issues - would also be in order. Volunteer Marek 06:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented for any such "goading". Ample evidence has been shown for edit warring (over a period of years) by E-960 against consensus, canvassing (e.g. [269]), misrepresenting sources, and using misleading edit summaries. I will also note this personal attack by Volunteer Marek against @Winged Blades of Godric:, and VM's very long "history" in this topic - harking back to WP:EEML and his recent ban as well. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no remote interest in the topic area but I'm all for assuming good faith and that VM, certainly did not intend it to be a personal attack against me.∯WBG^converse 07:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, I would recommend the said topic ban apply to all Poland-related content, not just Polish-Jewish relations. After all the problem appears to be extreme personal attachment to Poland's reputation in general, rather than anti-Semitism or a particular obsession with Jewish matters. This would also be to avert what François Robere identified above: that if the topic ban covers too small an area, the flow of trouble just redirects elsewhere and we all have to go through all this time-wasting again. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. François Robere (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't kindergarten, boys. You don't get cookie points for being "goaded", and you risk getting your cookies taken for falsely accusing someone of being a goad. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think much of this discussion, but read through - one of the editors is pointing out a pattern of modifying maps on Wikipedia such that they under-represent German presence or influence (though at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit). You'll notice this bears some similarity to another discussion from some weeks ago. François Robere (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh... removing an WP:OR map created by a indef banned user [270] - who was indef banned for extensive sock puppetry, long term abuse, and pro-Nazi edits - ... and you, have a problem with this Francois? Care to explain why? Volunteer Marek 05:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, which is why I wrote that at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit. "On that occasion", as later in the thread another case is mentioned which isn't so justified. What bothers me is what's in common for both discussions: the emphasis on ethnicity, misunderstanding census data, and disregarding conflicting sources. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder whether the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY could be helpful reading. Perhaps troublesome editors in the WP:ARBEE area could all get together and agree that they love their grandparents very much, wherever they came from (it could even be an entrance requirement). And that it is high time to get out more [271]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The barnstar for a good sense of humor to you Chumchum7 (lol). GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the issue of the map of German language use, pointed out above by Francois, on enwiki at Talk:German language#E-960's edits ceased after E-960 was blocked at commons on 17 August. Looking through their contributions (and record on various admin boards) at commons, it seems that much of their contributions there involve removing ethnic minorities from maps involving Poland - in the modern era (e.g. German - 1950, or various deletion requests (rejected as in use) - [272][273][274][275], Russian -[276]),, but also at 1 AD. Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960 just blanked more info that he did not like here: [277]. Faustian (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User Faustian, did you not read what I wrote on this false claim in an earlier comment when it was first raised above, and the talk page disscussion, or you just ignore all that? You are talking about text added by user Icewhiz in the middle of an edit war, inserted with NO CONSENSUS. Pls, pls read the relevant disscussions before throwing around accusations of blanking text. --E-960 (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User Icewhiz, it just comes across as if you are tying to get me blocked, showing bad faith towards me in you comments, before you accuse me of "removing minorities" on WikiCommons map pls look at the history of the editor who created this original map user Michael Postmann, who was banned for, quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia (POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia)". So, I'm not sure what you are accusing me of, that I created a new map based of national census data from Poland, Czech Rep. and Slovakia, is this what you identify as removing minorities, using reliable reference sources to back up my material? --E-960 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This may be somewhat unrelated here (and I apologize if this strays too far off topic), but would perhaps imposing a 1RR restriction on Blue Army (Poland) be beneficial here? I'm seeing a lot of back-and-fourth reverting in the article's history, and perhaps this should be considered. Thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Go for it, provided you don't avoid the wider problem and do objectively review E-960's diffs and Talk page comments. Otherwise the problem will arise elsewhere. Your 1RR could help distinguish (i) content disputes from (ii) behavioral issues, which still need to be resolved here. On that note, I happen to agree that there was a WP:OR map added showing German minorities in Poland that do not exist (Poland's only generally recognized German minority is in a small part of Silesia, not where it is dotted in turquoise all over that map of Poland), and that the allegations of E-960's anti-German sentiment (and support for ethnic cleansing of Germans) behind the removal were false if not actionable per WP:ARBEE. But that in no way justifies E-960's aggressive unilateralism and their failure to understand the basics of Wikipedia's civil and collegial consensus-building process, as evidenced above. The German-Polish map incident doesn't contradict E-960's need to change, in fact it provides further evidence of it, and I maintain that at this point they need to be sanctioned in order to learn. When you do the 1RR, please remember that revert-warring is not the article's fault, it's the user's. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User Chumchum, why not restrict user Icewhiz several users in the past complained the he puhes POV on Polish related topics. We opened a talk page discussion on how to condence the disputed section in the Blue Army article, and all of a sudden in comes user Icewhiz trying to add even more text. So, I do feel you are not objective when you just make arguments against me. --E-960 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Complaints or aspersions? François Robere (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record I don't see a huge difference between the editing behavior per se of Icewhiz and E-960. I do see a difference in their civility, in that E-960 tends to combine the aggressive reverting documented above with getting very personal in response to disagreement, as evidenced above. More importantly, and unless I'm mistaken, Icewhiz has already been banned from a large part of the topic area while E-960 has not, and therefore unlike Icewhiz has not yet been provided with the tangible communication of their wrongdoing from our community that is meant to encourage behavioral reform. This said, I have just seen that E-960 is already in fact under a very serious three-month block regardless of topic area at Wikipedia Commons [278] where the administrator Эlcobbola _talk declined their unblock request by stating very clearly, and I bold the last sentence:

"Blocks are preventative rather than punitive. Characterisation as "severe and harsh" suggests you've no understanding of this objective. Further, there is no prescribed block duration, or progression of block durations. Indeed, durations are to be "proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour." (COM:BLOCK) You were previously blocked for edit-warring on 16 July 2018. As of at least 17 August 2018, more than a month later, you were still edit-warring (to say nothing of during that time). Clearly you've not familiarized yourself with our policies or adjusted your behaviour, but have rather demonstrated 1) having learned nothing from that previous block and 2) no improvement in more than a month. This supports at least a 3 month block. Being "right" ("I was informed that I can under WikiCommons rules create a new map since old maps no matter how incorrect should not be changed") is not an excuse. Jonny84's edits were wrong, but not vandalism. In such circumstances, you are to attempt to address the issues on the image talk page. If that fails, you may bring the issue to a notice board and wait for those discussions to produce a result. You do not get to edit war in the meantime. Further, as someone blocked for attacks and failures of good faith, to respond to this block with "This is extremely bias Sebari, it is clear that you have an anit-Polish agenda" [1] only supports the notion that you do not seem capable of adjusting your behaviour during shorter block durations. If the edit-warring and personal attacks continue after this block, the next will be indefinite."

It may be that for one reason or another E-960 is actually attracted to the idea of going out fighting like some mythological hero. Because this is either going to end up as an indefinite block or they immediately make amends, right now, with self-reverts and inviting difference of opinion by meeting their opponents such as Icewhiz on Talk pages to work at consensus in the name of WP:WIKILOVE. Real heroes have done it before [279] -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

user:Chumchum7, I will say this, that perhaps admins are overlooking a very effective tool, inserting a formal WARNING (template) on an editor's talk page with a clearly defined next step/consequence and reason. In the spirit of constructive criticizm, I need to say that the way I was treated on WikiCommons was simply unfair. User:Elcobbola you yourself said that Jonny84 was clearly in the wrong and his edits were disruptive (though not vandalizm), yet you or the other admin involved did not formally warn Jonny84 that his editing was wrong and that he needed to stop re-inserting the reverted material and disscusd instead, you simply smacked a 3 month block on me for reverting those edits. This despite the fact that I raised this issue on the admin noticeboard. You did not formally warn user Jonny84, yet this simple act might have averted an escalation, and prevented any peceived grievances or misunderstandings. In the end I do feel that the action to block me was rather reactionary. --E-960 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This is utterly disingenuous. You have received numerous warnings over many years both here and on the Commons related to personal attacks and edit warring (certain edit warring only: [280], [281], [282], [283], etc) . You've routinely ignored them, and found yourself blocked as a consequence. This is not "simply unfair"; this is shameless obtuseness on your part and a repeated failure to act maturely or to take responsibility for your own actions (edit warring is edit warring and disallowed regardless of who is "right".) Indeed, here, again, you blame Jonny84 and admins for not using warning templates. Why en.wiki hasn't banned you from all Polish topics by now, I'll never know. Эlcobbola _talk 15:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Elcobbola, this is not really the place to discuss past issues form WikiCommons. However, I'll say this, that I'm not sure, why no one reacted when I was called out as a "polnischer Benutzer E-960" (Polish user E-960) and "seine xenophoben Fantasie-Karten so richtig auf die Nerven" (his xenophobic fantasy maps really get on my nerves), by user Jonny84 on a WikiCommons Forum in the German language [284]. Calling me a Polish user and a xenophobe — why? because I challenged the use of maps created by Postmann Michael, a user who was banned for quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia" and you have an editor accusing me of "xenophobic fantasies", when I at least provided some reliable reference sources such as national census data form Poland, Czech Rep, and Slovakia to disprove those maps, those are my fantasies, census data? --E-960 (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Threat? Strange edits and edit summaries on Edit filter request archive

• Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The latest three edits, a removal by an anon, a revert by L293D (talk · contribs), and a removal by an anon.

• The latest ES removing content was: Undid revision 865204250 by L293D (talk) Removing vandalism. Adding another user into criminal suspect accomplices list #893
• Previous ES removing content was: The users implicated in the deletion of content of this subject, evidenced to be involved in assisting suspects performing credit frauds, illegal hacking activities, criminal offenses and infractions. INTERPOL has been notified. International law enforcement agencies will be performing surveillance upon these users, according to international treaties. #45275867700ACA

The latest edit geolocated to Hong Kong, the previous to Singapore. Jim1138 (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some drama about this a while ago in the ANI archives. Looks like a sockfarm that performed similarly ridiculous legal threats got rooted out and blocked. I blocked the latest IP and semi-protected the archive, which should take care of it for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Unjustified level four warning, etc

The following discussion is closed. 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 came very much out of the blue [285], followed by this elaboration [286]. After following up, the response I received was this [287]. An unmerited final warning, followed by an inaccurate interpretation of my edit history as vandalism, hasn't been sufficiently explained; 'sorry for your inconvenience' is what one might expect from a corporate phone message. There may be some competence issues; secondarily, the significance of acknowledging an error, especially when flagging someone mistakenly, could be explained by an uninvolved editor. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The user who left those comments is banned from the site, and their sockpuppet account has been blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user is indeffed by a checkuser. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And here I was WP:AGF. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 25 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.

need help; editor blanking article repeatedly

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

---

the article MasSpec Pen has been blanked more than once by the same user. it pertains to a scientific news item of importance. they are consistently blanking the page and refusing to accept mainstream news sources. please help!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please notify the user. I assume you are talking about Doc James. Also, he is not blanking the whole page, but redirecting it. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You mean an administrator has reviewed the 'article' and found it to be non-notable, problematic, and promotional? I see no problems. If you disagree then raise at WP:RFD. GiantSnowman 14:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article was correctly redirected, as it was making medical claims that were not backed up by sources compliant with WP:MEDRS. Do not edit war to reinstate the disputed and non-compliant content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute. Your first step in resolving this dispute is not this noticeboard. I encourage you to begin a discussion either at Talk:MasSpec Pen or Talk:Cancer. The latter is likely to generate more input from interested parties. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for tips on how to proceed with dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 25 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.