Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985

User:Rjwilmsi's userpage appears to have been duplicated by another user, User:Barstern

The following discussion is closed. 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 may be some problem here - A newly registered user by the name of Barstern has copy-pasted Rjwilmsi's userpage word for word. If they were a returning user, which they are saying they are I would say that they declare it on their user page, but I'm not seeing it. Any admins about to help, I am not well versed in these types of policies/guidelines. Thanks Nightfury 14:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in the process of doing this. Regards. --Barstern (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with User:Barstern, so if they are a returning user that is unrelated to me. Rjwilmsi 15:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Lihaas and vandalism in Arkady Babchenko

I am astonished to see such edits [1] [2] from an established user, but this is, well, vandalism. Previously in the same article they removed info that the subject got a literary prize and took it to AfD as non-notable (the article was speedy kept in several hours). Could we do smth with this pls? Given my past ANI experience, I do not expect to get them blocked, but this disruption must be stopped ASAP. Not going to AIV for obvious reasons.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand his argument, that these sources are so out of date that even the titles are known to be false. Whether that renders the entire article unusable is a matter for discussion. So I wouldn't call that vandalism, but certainly his insistence that his version should stand during the discussion is very very problematic. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am absolutely astonished that such a established user would resort to WP:NPA in accusations of vandalism.

While I am having a very civil discussion at User_talk:Lopifalko#Arkady_Babchenko regarding the content, I have also asserted the right to WP:BOLDly add content, while others also have rights to dispute per WP:BRD. The WP:ONUS is then on getting consensus through discussion not accusing people or coming here without even attempting a discussion on the talk page (of which I told him to do so). Secondly, despite the fact that there is a right revert and seek sconsensus, I have still maintained the content on the page AND in the second link above maintained the sources while only hiding them in the interim.

I took it to AFd it was closed (which should have been at least 24 horus if not 7 days), I did not dispute that. If you look at my first edit of mine on the page, you can see how I took the BOLD steps to organize and clean the article up. (no idea what relevance the Afd has to do with this, particularly in light of how I initiated the cleaning up of the article).

I am merely asking, both on the OP's talk page and here, to discuss and gain consensus first, nor am I seeking to remvoe the content (while keeping the disputed sources hidden). Why the ego to have it up as one wants and not attempt to discuss as ive requested? In fact the point of a fact tag IS to improve on sources, or at the very least have a second source.Lihaas (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: How is "my version" to stand the issue? If it was "my version" I would keep the content out, and upon that revert, even the source. On the contrary, I have kept the content and even the source n the editing box as an accomodation. (the latter being hidden from readership in the interim). I have also praised the editor of the civil discussion for his valuable additions. Is that problematic? Who is being "problamtic" w/ NPAs (both in summary and this section title (after notifying him on his talk page and he replied that h e would come here instead of discussing, or even for tht matter apologizing)) and spurning requests for discussion to resolve the issue amicably? Did I sulk when the AFd was closed?Lihaas (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring is a problem, whether you are adding content, removing content, or hiding content. But the problem I am referring to is your insistence that you get to decide what the article looks like while the discussion is taking place. But if you are done edit warring, then that is no longer an issue for the time being. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, one of the sources was BBC, and it was not outdated for the facts it sourced. I do not see how this is good-faith behavior. What better quality sources do you want if you do not accept BBC?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The discussion had not been initiated even. See the civil discussion where I encouraged him to tag to get more people to the discussion. Then I was the one who took the initiative to add the tags. I was not reverting back. I was trying to initiate discussion by doing so on user talk page, altering the content so as to both encourage constructive change 'and appease them with the content. As you can see on the links above, I initially removed, was reverted, then kept content, then added tags...all in an attempt to resolve disputes. The LAST thig I did was to have it my way.

@ymblanter, is this not a case that yu could have discussed on the talk page? I have issued my concerns with thison the far more civil Lopifalko's talk page w/o either of us resorting to attacks. Why the ego? As for what do you want that is a discussion for the talk page...not ANI, which is what I was seeking.

If the facts are reliable then one can easily find another source that is not outdated. Hence the fact tag. So prove, then, that sources can verify the facts with articles that are reliable (even if the the same source, as I mentiond in discussion link above). Not a damn hard thing to do iat all. I'm out. That's all I sought and was easy to resolve w/o this. Good night/good morning, where you are.Lihaas (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You have seven reverts on that article, today. 1234567. That last one is you hiding content, but that doesn't make it magically not part of an edit war. You were also removing some of this same content yesterday. Dude, you've been blocked enough times, you know how this works. I don't care which part of BRD you're on, whether the other two guys are editing the talk page, or how unreliable you think the sources are. Any admin could block you right now. If you don't get that, you're going to have a bad time. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring, stop removing properly sourced material and start discussing at the talk page then. The article was created three days ago, you have already triesd to apply BRD to it by nominating it for deletion - and failed badly. Now you trying instead to remove sentence by sentence does not matter whether they are well-sourced or badly sourced. Just stop it. If you have issue with some sources, raise them at the talk page, there are enough people watching the article, and you will have a swift response.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Good, hopefully we can close this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri revert at Peter Wilby

User:Kashmiri (talk) has performed a revert here on the article about the British journalist Peter Wilby. He claims of my edits: "Rv tendentious editing. Minor incident in an editor's career, no need to make it into 75% of the article". In fact he has reverted my expansion of Wilby's period as editor of the New Statesman (1998–2005), a significant part of his career. For reasons which are easily ascertained (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#George Galloway) I do not believe merely discussing this issue on the talk page will resolve this issue. Not only because of the above case, but because of the low level of editing which the Peter Wilby article receives.

While there are probably more sources which could be used to expand an outline of Peter Wilby's career before 1998, User:Kashmiri's revert is a unilateral decision which which was taken without any discussion. The sourcing for Wilby's article was significantly expanded in my series of edits. Philip Cross (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Unless anyone has failed to notice, this contributor Philip Cross is under arbitration discussion for related isses. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure why this content dispute is here rather than at the talk page (where two editors have expressed concern with PC's edits, and PC has not responded) or WP:BLPN. The most likely administrative outcome is a WP:BOOMERANG against Philip Cross. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I raised it here because it is more a case of blanking a substantial part of a properly sourced article rather than a content dispute. Admittedly I was not clear enough above. Philip Cross (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Philip Cross: I disagreed with your "expansion" of the article with so much of he-said-she-said material, nearly all of which actually potrayed the article subject in a negative light (the allegations of the subject's "row" with Odone that both parties denied it ever existed, a CHERRYPICKED quote that the subject is "either dull or silly", ad nauseam focus on the cover incident, etc.). In my view, it displayed a WP:BIAS, which incidentally is also being discussed at AN and, likely, ArbCom; was below the quality required for Wikipedia; and so reverting it did not put me in the wrong. I encourage you to read WP:BRD. Also, you did not engage in the discussion on the article's Talk page nor you tried to reach out to me directly but are posting straight at ANI. No further comment. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Philip, are you aware that extensive use of primary sources is problematic in most situations? Report what the secondary sources say; primary sources, like news reports, necessarily lack a sense of what is long-term important. Since encyclopedia articles are based on what secondary sources say, if you can't provide evidence that the subject has been covered (or solid evidence that it will be covered) by secondary sources, you're making an original assertion that it has or will be covered — no adding things based on your own opinions or research, please. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• There is certainly something going on - User: Kashmiri has now reverted the entire addition 3 times, using different arguments each time, including some of the most specious edit summaries I've seen. Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Count again please. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

page swap of portals

Resolved

A few moments ago, I closed an RM discussion regarding portals. I have included the screenshot of the error that I received. How should this move be performed? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

pinging Amakuru, and BD2412. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I haven't seen that one before, but I suspect it's because you're trying to move 477 subpages all in one go. Do you know what it means by a "swap"? What operation are you doing exactly? (Also, I'm not sure WP:ANI is the correct venue for this dicussion... perhaps WT:MOVE or somewhere like that)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would have guessed VPT, myself. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that before, either. bd2412 T 22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's an error message from the script, not an error message with moving. Admins will still be able to do G6s, and pagemovers should still be able to do manual round-robins. I would talk to the maintainer of the pageswap script about why that is the case first, though. There might be a good reason.​ TonyBallioni (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• @TonyBallioni: Yes, the script can handle only 100 subpages i think. Once I moved around 42 subpages when DYSK had moved a an entire wikiproject. During that incident, I had communication with Andy (creator/maintainer of the script), the script cant handle a lot of subpages. @Amakuru: Yes, basically it is like A to tempA, B to A, and then tempA to B. Even with the increased page move rates for page movers, I think that would be a lot of pages to move (semi)automatically. —usernamekiran(talk)

@Amakuru, TonyBallioni, and BD2412: We cant use the script (neither page movers nor sysops) for such a huge number, not sure about the sysops though. Thats why I came here originally: how should we handle these moves? Is there any work-around? any tips-tricks? —usernamekiran(talk) 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no workaround. Admins can use AWB to move the pages, but for non-admins the pages just have to be moved individually with Special:MovePage if there are more than 100 subpages. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I take that back, there is a workaround but only if you think about it beforehand and don't cock it up. Specifically by suppressing redirects, then you can recreate the original page after the move, move it to the new location (moving 100 subpages as you go) ad infinitum until you're done. Of course, you'll then have to restore the original (now-deleted) page at the final target, but it would save someone potentially having to move 450 gorram subpages (even with AWB it's tedious as hell). Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Miss Kyrgyzstan at Miss Universe 2018

Hello.

I am in a dispute with the User:NewYorkActuary due to the editions made by me in the article Miss Universe 2018.

The user insists that the references used by him to argue that Miss Bergimay Karybekova will represent Kyrgyzstan in Miss Universe 2018 are valid and clear; the references do not even agree on whether the girl won a contest or was designated. The user, even, brought a fake Facebook page of the Miss Universe Organization (of course, by mistake). In my case, I have given arguments to maintain that this information is a possible hoax, and I have erased that information, arguing and asking for patience, because if the information is true, it will come to light. I have tired of explaining why we should not take the inclusion of references so lightly, but the user seems to be infatuated with the inclusion of this delegate.

This has caused the user to report me under rule 3RR, instead of seeking a third opinion. The editor who answered your complaint is User:EdJohnston who has only threatened to block me, and has not been able to intervene in the conflict; he discuss with me on his own page, without resorting to mine.

Both insist that there is a consensus to keep the delegate of Kyrgyzstan on the list of contestants, when, from any perspective, a discussion of two people does not form a consensus.

On the other hand, I have warned both of them that I do not have a domain of the English language, but both ignore it and do not really explain to me what I am doing wrong.

Any wrong action on my part, I accept it, as soon as I am really told what I did; but it is clear that the other two users have proceeded in a partial and capricious manner.

I need someone to intervene to clarify all this. --Alex Duilius (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alex Duilius reported by User:NewYorkActuary (Result: Alex Duilius Warned) is in order. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Here are some more links on the prior history of this dispute:

• Alex Duilius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miss Universe 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AN3 complaint
• Warning I left for Alex Duilius
• Discussion on my user talk with Alex Duilius about how to resolve the dispute

• Alex wants to remove the entry for Miss Kyrgyzstan from the list of entrants for Miss Universe 2018, apparently because he doesn't believe the sources. They include a web site called angelopedia.com and the India Times. People on the talk page who are familiar with the Miss Universe contest claim that these sites are reliable. Alex was reported at AN3 because he was warring to remove the entry for Kyrgyzstan. The punch lins is probably this message I left for Alex: "..Your arguments at Talk:Miss_Universe 2018#Kyrgyzstan indicate you are either not familiar with Wikipedia policy, or that you disagree with it. If you plan to edit here, you are expected to follow our policy regarding sources..."

• User:NeilN closed the AN3 as 'warned' based on the message I left for Alex. This ANI post appears to be an appeal of the AN3 closure, but on grounds which are not clear to me. I am guessing that he wants an admin to make a 'content ruling' that the Kyrgyzstan entry should be removed from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment from NewYorkActuary. Alex Duilius has an unusual edit history -- edits take place in only a few months each year and they are almost always to the article on the then-current edition of Miss Universe. This suggests to me that the topic is of singular interest to Alex and that he has likely developed a good personal knowledge of it. And this, in turn, leads me to think that Alex truly has a good-faith belief that he is right and that everyone else is wrong. But this good-faith belief will not be sufficient to overcome some of Wikipedia's peculiar rules and processes. Of foremost relevance is our notion of "verifiability, not truth". If at any point in this disagreement, Alex came up with a reliable source that contradicted the existing identifications of Kyrgyzstan's delegate, the discussion would have proceeded along a very different line. But no such source has been forthcoming. Another of Wikipedia's peculiarities is its distaste for resolving disagreements via edit-warring. I continue to encourage Alex to resolve this matter via one of Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures (perhaps WP:DRN). I hope that he will take that route. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Related but unrelated - that whole section is a minefield and year-in-year-out subject to sourcing issues, crystal ballery, edit warring etc. Getting rid of the whole section may be an even better approach but that's not a subject for ANI ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  03:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Can we just please drop all beauty pageant coverage, please? EEng 19:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Moral support to drop pageant coverage. Blackmane (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If we can now get the immoral support we may actually achieve something. EEng 00:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Governor Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking person!" "That is not enough, madam, we need a majority." --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User Monsore

Hi, Monsore is edit warring in the Al-Biruni article, trying to change the ethnicity of this scholar while a consensus has been reached on the relevant talk page. I spent hours explaining them why, but they keep trying to edit the article according to their POV : [3], [4]. I warned them and took the time to welcome them (as a new user) and explained them some Wiki rules : [5], but with no positive result. Our discussion ended up with this comment of Monsore : [6] which is, according to me, an obvious case of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. Then i asked Wario-Man for an insight : [7]. Could please an admin deal with this case ? Thank you very much. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, consensus was not reached here and the content of the article is still under dispute as far as I am concerned. Relevant sources have been cited and changes are still being refused to be made. As such, an admin should take a look at this and make the proper corrections or categorize this as a disputed article that future readers should take caution on when reading. ThanksMonsore (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no discussion between you two on the articles talk page at all. Neither of you have even made an attempt! Take this content dispute back there and hash it out. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP user, thanks for your comment, but please take a look at the diffs i posted above, the user Monsore is a very new user and he started the discussion on his own talk page instead of Talk:Al-Biruni. Do you think it's possible to discuss anymore with someone who says : "You personal feelings have nothing to do with reality and facts. I've provided relevant reliable sources, multiple actually and you still refuse to make the change. Noted. Yes, they were "failed" Iranian attempts. Just because maps show pretty colors that include certain areas in those pretty colors doesn't mean the region was "invaded" and "conquered". It is also a possibility that the Pashtuns in the region didn't care what you want to write in your delusional history books and just keep doing what they want, while Iranian historians lie about reality, because it seems like Iranians like to draw all sorts of delusional colors and maps and history books. Noted. If corrections are not made, I will attempt to mark this and other articles as "disputed" or something. Thanks bud." to you ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Monsore: The content of article is not disputed (his origin and background are well-sourced). Your first edit[8] is clear POV and disruptive changes. Your 2nd attempt[9] is ignoring this discussion: Talk:Al-Biruni/Archive_4#Consensus_for_the_lead_section:_older_revision_(his_ethnicity). You are free to open a new section on Talk:Al-Biruni and discuss your concerns there. But your comments on your talk page show signs of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:POV stuff. Also it seems you have never clicked on that Iranian link. Did you read it or not? It's an ethno-linguistic term and it's not about being from Iran. Before opening a new section on article talk page, read all previous discussions and cited sources. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely what i said them on their talk page : [10] ... but the user ignored my comment and kept going on with his POV.---Wikaviani (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be good if an admin clarifies some basic WP rules and guidelines for him. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I was welcomed and then confused with inconsistent jargon on how things get edited on Wikipedia. One minute wikipedia is not a reliable source of information when I provide references from it to prove my points. The next minute others are providing me links from wikipedia to prove their points. This is inconsistent non-sense [11]. If it were consistent I wouldn't have any issues. I stated this, I read through all references provided. I don't feel that my edits are POV, my references are being ignored and the majority of the references discussing Al-Biruni's origins refer to him as PERSIAN, not Iranian. There is a difference. Keeping it as Iranian is misleading to the reader. If these changes are not made, than the article is under dispute as far as I am concerned. As such, he should be referred to as a Persian scholar, not an Iranian scholar, because that is what the current references on his page refer to him as (completely ignoring all other sources I've provided). I've read the references, I question whether you guys have though.Monsore (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I reopen that discussion on his page? What is the proper channel or source code etc?Monsore (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, you missed the part where you blatantly insult Iranian academics and deny historical facts : [12], let alone the fact that since you're a new user, you should listen to more experienced users instead of edit warring with them, Wario-Man, me and other contributors edited the article with "Iranian" and i explained you patiently and politely some Wiki rules and the fact that being an ethnic Persian Pashtun, Tajik, etc... implies being an ethnic Iranian (and also Wario-Man did so above). As to Wikipedia, i already explained you that you cannot use Wikipedia to source Wikipedia but for our readers, Wikipedia is a great Encyclopedia and is widely used worldwide.Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain to me if being an ethnic Kurd implies being an ethnic Iraqi, an ethnic Iranian, and ethnic Syrian or an ethnic Turk? So that we can apply this reasoning to Pashtuns and Tajiks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, take a look there : Iranian peoples, to spare you the trouble of reading the whole article, i quote : " Modern Iranian peoples include the Baloch, Gilaks, Kurds, Lurs, Mazanderanis, Ossetians, Pashtuns, Pamiris, Persians, Tajiks, the Talysh, Wakhis and Yaghnobis". Also, FYI, "Iraqi" is not an ethnicity, it's a citizenship. You're welcome if you have any other question.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, as i already told you on your talk page ((see [13]), the right place for a thread about an article is the article's talk page, i.e Talk:Al-Biruni, but again, as Wario-Man explained you above, Biruni's ethnicity is not disputed.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP addresses registered to the University Of South Florida

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

---

Greetings all. I've just filed a WP:RFPP report for an article (Judy Genshaft) and I noticed that the incoming vandalism all seems to be coming from IP addresses registered to the University of South Florida, specifically the 2607:FE50:0:8209:*.*.*.* range and 131.247.226.34. I don't know who deals with school blocks so I was unsure where to raise this query. If I'm in the wrong place, please redirect me. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• The page is protected, unless there's additional issues there's no need to try and rangeblock the entire school, but individual violations can be reported at WP:AIV, where we commonly issue longer-term {{schoolblock}}s as needed. Swarm ♠ 22:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

IBAN 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.

---

I gladly accepted an IBAN with User:Godsy because of their persistent stalking of my edits and antagonism toward me. With this series of edits [14] they alerted another editor to 4 Drafts handled by me (and 3 handled by User:Hasteur) with the clear intent of overturning my actions, then summoned a third editor to also edit for them. Does stalking edits, making a list and editing by meat puppet violate an IBAN? I'd like this to stop either way. Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Related to this - I was not impressed at all with the way Godsy pinged every editor previously either neutral or in favor of his position at WT:CSD#Request for comment: Promising drafts but omitted the one editor (Legacypac) who explicitly opposed it. This stinks of deliberate weaponization of the interaction ban. —Cryptic 19:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cryptic: What else was I supposed to do? I am not allowed to ping them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Not ping everybody else. —Cryptic 20:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It was necessary, and appropriate per WP:APPNOTE. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis: it was WP:CANVASS. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• WP:IBAN Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to: undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means Seems like it would be a violation of the IBAN. "by other means" would be getting another editor to undo someone's edits. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: "Editors should not remove [Template:Promising draft] unless they placed it themselves or the page creator placed it" per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts. I update User:Godsy/Promising drafts to match Category:Promising draft articles almost daily. I identified the missing pages, confirmed the templates were no longer present on them, then notified the user who placed them. No interaction with Legacypac occurred. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I monitor all pages tagged with {{promising draft}} at User:Godsy/Promising drafts. "Editors should not remove [Template:Promising draft] unless they placed it themselves or the page creator placed it" per Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts. I did not revert or mention Legacypac's actions (i.e. I did not break the interaction ban). Calliopejen1 was due a notification that the templates they placed were no longer present and Uanfala was already largely aware. However, this edit by Legacypac is clearly a direct response to the question I put forth at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Request for comment: Promising drafts (this other edit by them was in the section I started; both are especially inappropriate by their own standards if this complaint they made at xaosflux's talk page is taken into account). Suggest boomerang for any of those reasons. A draftspace and userspace case at arbcom may be due because of all the continued squabbling (which is ridiculous). Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts was only started because various editors refuse to respect community consensus (on a side note, I merely started it as a discussion, another editor converted it into a request for comment). Lastly, I would like to reaffirm that I have never stalked or harassed Legacypac and the community has never come to that conclusion (I am also not, and have never been, the antagonizer).— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the only way to resolve this dispute is to have a wide-ranging, well-publicized discussion that determines the rules for draftspace, and to ban either or both of Godsy and Legacypac if they act to subvert that consensus. My recommendation is to TBAN both of them from further participation in the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm finding the current system of dealing with drafts pretty counterproductive and in many ways contrary to the principles of the rest of wikipedia, so a big discussion to change or specify the rules is definitely needed. Still, part of the problem is the unusually acrimonious editing atmosphere, so the suggestion made above for and ArbCom case is probably not in the wrong direction. – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

04:17, 31 May 2017 Nyttend (talk | contribs) blocked Godsy (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or harassment: WP:HOUND) Which was a direct response to hounding of me. This is a long term problem. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I have only been hastily blocked once and it was a bad block (because of Legacypac's continued false allegations against me whenever they think they can get away with it). Tavix (another administrator) and others shared that belief. The related community (not a unilateral decision by one administrator as my block was) discussion boomerang resulted in: The consensus is to indefinitely topic ban Legacypac from moving "any type of draft content into the mainspace". This would be broadly interpreted as moving articles that were created by anyone, including themselves, from Draft:, User: or any other space, to main space. Legacypac is restricted to using WP:AFC for their own articles. No community action was taken against me at that time. Legacypac's block log is a different story than mine. Legacypac needs to quit rehashing the past and WP:DROPTHESTICK. They have a miniscule amount of respect for process and community rules as is exemplified by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban between Legacypac and Baseball Bugs proposed (see this comment in particular by NinjaRobotPirate) and a plethora of examples that can be shown from the past (I will not lower myself and push the community's patience by listing them all here). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I was planning on staying out of this, and I don't think I'll comment more beyond this, but given the context, you may want to rethink the snark and passive aggression of I will not lower myself and push the community's patience by listing them all here. That's not a good look. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Point taken, thanks. I have removed that part from my comment above. I just find this thread very... frustrating. I will try not to let that bleed into my comments anymore. Warmest regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Godsy: thanks for that. Just a minor quibble: typically it'd be better to strike it rather than remove so people can see what I'm referencing. I think that'd be the best case here, but I do appreciate your trying to fix it :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:  Done — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 and BLP violations across several related 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.

---

• Cathy Areu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Catalina (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Association of Latina Leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be a back and forth between competing accounts, attempting to promote or discredit the subjects. In the last few hours the bio has included unsourced claims of a mental breakdown, as well as names of relatives and contact information. Most all of this is inadequately sourced. Several questions: do these need to be locked; do users need to be warned or blocked; and are any of these clearly notable subjects? I'm wondering whether an AfD is appropriate to include all three. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:859E:8EBD:BD49:DFD3 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: another discussion about this issue was recently started at WP:BLPN#Cathy Areu. Woodroar (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Terrific. Thank you, Woodroar. 2601:188:180:11F0:859E:8EBD:BD49:DFD3 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Cluebot NG keeps making out i am vandalising peoples working 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.

---

Cluebot NG keeps on saying I am vandalising work when I am entirely innocent of this, and keeps reverting the work to its original state could someone correct this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcs ylz (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just reviewed all of your account's edits. None have been reverted by Cluebot, but most have been reverted by other editors, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of sources, original research, and readibility (none of the reverters have alleged vandalism, however). If you object to any of these reversions, either take it up with the reverting editor on their talkpages, or discuss it on the article talk page. Steve Smith (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was mistaken–there was one reversion by Cluebot here. That does appear to have been a false positive by Cluebot. But it's a single instance. Steve Smith (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Two have been reverted by Cluebot, actually. Ya missed this one, Steve. But that would have been likely reverted by, or at least edited by, another user, for a number of reasons. Lcs, I would caution you about editing the grammar here, as your attempts seem to introduce more problems than improvements. (Folks can check his user page to see what I'm talking about.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, actually read his talk page. There was also this, and Eggishorn decided this was vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I blew that one. I agree that the reverts were probably all justifiable, but not on the basis of vandalism. I've reported the false positives to ClueBot. Steve Smith (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think a bunch of people need to read WP:BITE. No one has welcomed OP, no one has explained the actual issues with his edits with real messages on his talk page (templates don't count), no one ha stried to explain any important site policies and guidelines. I'll go do that now. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson - I respectfully disagree with your criticism of the participating editors, although that may not matter, because I happen to have the eccentric view that Do not bite, while a good guideline, should not be considered a dogma, and that judgment should be used about it, and I further think that some (not all) experienced editors tie themselves into knots to avoid being bitey. In this case, what happened is that a new editor started out by biting a bot, and then got a lot of reasoned commentary about their edits, which was the proper response to their biting the bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Flagged User:Eggishorn's attention: [15]. Steve Smith (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging in Cobi - think it's only fair as it is his bot after all.

Lcs ylz I'm sorry if ClueBot NG's warnings offended or scared you - that isn't the intention. ClueBot NG is not human, it is a computer program, therefore it is unable to check edits. If something sets off one of its filters, it will revert that edit as possible vandalism. If it's wrong, please report the edit here. You may also remove ClueBot NG's warnings from your talk page.

If ClueBot NG does this to you in the future, please report it here, not ANI or ClueBot NG's talk page. That way we can train the Bot.

Any questions, just ask :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

LooneyTunerIan

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

---

• LooneyTunerIan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User has a long history of disrespect towards other users with insults and derogatory remarks frequently found in their edit summaries. Their edits are frequently reverted and they do not seem willing to work with other users. Hoping for some adminstrative assistance here. See their most recent edit summary on the The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle page where they said, "Chapters have sub-titles too, ya bum! I've decided to put them into the summary box. And if you don't like it, you can report me to the admins! 'Cause one thing is for certain: you don't know how to secure these articles any better." – BoogerD (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User does have a long tem history of not working well with others. Here's an unblock request from July 2015, and I quote, " If you're gonna block me for 6 months, you'd better make it forever with a notice saying: You are hereby banned from Wikipedia forever! And that means no more editing! Now go find your own wiki to edit all you like and never come back! Ever! " That was the only block though. Talk page is littered with concerns about user's incivility. Ordinarily, I'd refer to dispute resolution, but I don't know.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 01:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I remember this editor. Probably should have been indeffed as NOTHERE way back in 2015. If the disruption and general battleground attitude hasn’t gone away, I’d still support that now. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support block per either CIR or NOTHERE- There's a difference between making a sarky comment or telling someone in less polite terms to do one .... and then being incivil 24/7 365 - Their reply to the ANI notice is enough for an indef imho, If an editor doesn't want to discuss issues in a civilised manner without calling people "jerks" then they should be shown the door. –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR. This editor seems to be incapable of collaborating with others in a civil manner. -- Dane ^talk 02:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. Had to agree, this appears to be a long time coming, and surprised it wasn't done so in 2015. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Pjl u2 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.

---

The edit warrior Pjl u2 has stated that my father is the Devil [16] and that I am a godless communist [17]. I suggest indeffing per WP:NOTHERE. He/she also stated There NEVER was "A Bible" until The Catholic Church decided by Proper Authority what The Bible IS. benji nyet&yahoo is an R1a Y-DNA Haplogroup ARYAN descendant. Those ARYAN Antichrists have No SAY, and the Godless TROLL Tgeorgescu shall Eternally regret it's wikipedia Trollings [18]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Broter continues to push an Islamophobic POV -- time for a topic ban

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

---

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

See also: previous ANI thread.

Two years ago, I started another ANI thread about Broter after he edit warred to insert ridiculously Islamophobic WP:OR, citing cherry-picked misquotes from obviously sectarian and non-academic sources.

Since that incident, he has:

• Added gratuitous praise for anti-Islamic author Robert Spencer ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]), even completely neutering critical sources
• Tried to prove that Muslims want to take over Europe
• Edit warred to link to image hosting sites to share images for Everybody Draw Muhammad Day at that article and at Depictions of Muhammad (with no independent sources to establish that they're noteworthy examples) - [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]
• Added an image of Tommy Robinson (activist) to the Islam article as an excuse to post Islamophobic material (he didn't respond my more thoroughly sourced suggestion to link to Mark Twain to the Book of Mormon article for some reason)
• created a (now-deleted) user box advocating a Muslim ban
• Promoted a self-published Islamophobic work by Tommy Robinson in the Islam and Islamic terrorism articles
• Replacing the standard Quran and Hadith links to link to Quranx.Com, a Quran and Hadith resource created and used by Islamophobes - [33], [34], [35]
• Engaged in a slow and long term edit war to promote the views of authors who claim that Islam is fundamentally a terrorist religion ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52])

The reason I started this thread is that if we look at Portal:Right-wing populism, we'll see that he's restored a deleted section of quotes that contains material like:

• "We have to stop pretending that Islam is merely a religion—it is primarily a totalitarian ideology that aims to conquer the West."
• "Islam is the problem."
• A cherry-picked hadith with Broter's personal emphasis on the words "I have been made victorious with terror."

Now, the first two examples, if done by another user, could be construed as examples of how some right-wing populists use Islamophobia to rally their base. However, the last example has nothing to do with modern politics, its inclusion is just modern Islamophobia. The last example removes any possibility that Broter made all the previous edits I've cited from any perspective but Islamophobia.

If he wants to believe that Islam is only a terrorist's religion, he's free to believe that. But WP:NPOV obligates us to not entertain his beliefs as fact on any project space.

He does other work relating to Mormonism and the Republican party that may be useful to the site, so I'm only going to suggest Broter be topic banned from Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see that between me saying that the quotes are exactly why I'm going to start this thread and me actually starting this thread, Broter removed the quotes, perhaps so he can beg to not be "punished" like he did last time. This is far from the only issue, and his slow edit war at Islamic terrorism and puffery at Robert Spencer (author) are proof that he's not interested in editing Islamic topics neutrally. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Response: I have removed the quotes section in this Portal because I think it makes it more neutral. All edits with the exception of the edits for the Robert Spencer (author) article were not accepted. The edits for the Robert Spencer (author) article were correct to make the article more neutral. The Spencer-article had problems with being to biased against Spencer.--Broter (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edits went well beyond WP:GEVAL into WP:UNDUE worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment @Broter: What's the meaning behind {{User The pen is mightier than the sword of Islam}}? Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cesdeva: Look at Charlie Hebdo shooting. We should not be afraid of death threats.--Broter (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for further proving you cannot distinguish between Islam and Islamic terrorism. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cesdeva: You should not denounce a wikipedian because of his userboxes. All my edits on this topic with the exception of the Spencer-article were reverted. But the edits on the Spencer-article are correct.--Broter (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

They were all reverted -- and yet you kept trying and trying and trying to add the same or similar material. The userboxes in isolation are not why you would be topic banned, but they do provide a Islamophobic context to your edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, if almost all of your edits in a topic were reverted, that generally means that your editing in that topic is misguided and/or disruptive, and that you really shouldn't be editing in that topic. Also, please indent your talk page comments, please. ansh666 17:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• (uninvolved comment) You're wrong, Ian.thomson. WP:NPOV obligates representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Broter's edits seem to be in-line with a viewpoint which is significantly held, and though some of the sources are not reliable, he is at least consistently sourcing his edits. Some of these diffs are truly dusty - going back over 2 years to provide only meager pickings. In particular, Ian.thomson misleadingly mentions a "slow edit war at Islamic terrorism" but Broter hasn't edited it since 18 June 2017‎ and "puffery at Robert Spencer (author)" but Broters last edit was on 27 November 2017‎. A time-wasting report which lacks credibility and seems designed more for character assassination than out of concern for the encyclopedia, and coming from an editor who recently thought it was OK to call someone else a "crank" in an edit summary. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I called a user who was recently blocked under WP:NOTHERE for promoting a book on a fringe theory while insisting that he's the only person who knows anything about the topic and that academia knows nothing about the topic -- that last part is the definition of crankhood. Now why would you downplay that when trying to turn this on me?

And how, exactly, would one demonstrate a long term problem without citing past behavior? These are the majority of his edits to Islamic focused topics. He admits that they were largely reverted -- indicating that his edits were against consensus.

And the issue is not that he's properly giving WP:DUE weight to level-headed criticism of Islam, it's that his activity in Islamic related articles continually presents undue weight on the perspective that there is no difference between Islam and Islamic terrorism -- a bigoted position that no mainstream academic would defend. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Personal attacks in edit summaries are particularly heinous, and in any case, WP:NPA doesn't give you the right to use an attack even you're "right". Keep some self-control, and, if you make a mistake and use an attack, definitely don't double down on justification like you're doing here. I believe it relates because it might show a pattern of disrespect for editors that hold what you believe to be contradictory beliefs to your own, such as may be evidence in this poor report. -- Netoholic @ 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If we (by which I mean you) are going to start making accusations without evidence, that opens the door to the prospect of suggesting that you're opposed to this topic ban because you believe that Wikipedia isn't far-right enough. Do you really want to go down that road? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think you missed the part where I did provide evidence (see diff above). I don't have a particular opinion as to Wikipedia being anything "enough" other than it being eternally incomplete, per its mission. Are you saying that "right" political beliefs are not "significantly held" viewpoints worthy of fair inclusion? -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You cited a case where the community concurred with my identification of a user as WP:NOTHERE, as evidence that for a claim that I start threads to use topic bans on anyone I personally disagree with. Now, if that was the case and it wasn't that I bring to attention any user I see who is not helping the project, then you'd have no trouble finding largely ignored or dismissed threads where I call for topic bans against users with particular view points. Instead, you're going to find that most of the threads I start focus on disruptive behavior and the community (like now) usually agrees with my findings.

And if you're going to twist my words, then you're not arguing with enough good faith to make it worth my while to continue discussing things with you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support tban from Islam and topics affecting it, broadly construed Ian.thomson , I've copied the deleted code to the userbox in question here that Broter created here so that others can see it. A picture really is worth a thousand words in this case (cc. CambridgeBayWeather as deleting admin). Anyone who creates the userbox below and then sources edits in articles to FoxNews.com insiders (they tend to allow fringe viewpoints free reign in that particular part of their website), added Xenophobic fear mongering to articles, and even was kind enough to grace us with his own hand drawn image of Muhammad which he added to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day for us is clearly not here to promote a neutral picture of Islam. Heck, I might support an indefinite block here, but I'm willing to try a Tban. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, to clarify my last sentence, I also support a site ban in this case, but have equal preference with a TBAN. My support of the lesser sanction should not be considered opposition to the greater one. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• There's an entire Gallery on that article - should we TBAN every uploader? Are you implying that the personal support for or against immigration is by itself bannable? Then why is the exact opposite view not also bannable? -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• You will note that every single other picture was taken on 19 or 20 May 2010, the day of the actual event the article is covering, and was transferred from Flickr for depections of the event itself. There was only one that was upload by a Wikipedian 7 years after the fact and not even on the anniversary of the day with the intent [...] to send a message to the islamic terrorists. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• It does say "to the islamic terrorists" right? Not simply "to islam"? Is it an unusual belief to be opposed to terrorism? -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• You're aware, right, that millions of people around the world would find it offensive? The drawing clearly implies Muhammad is a terrorist, and given the context of his other actions, it's not a stretch to say that he views Islam as a whole in a pretty negative light and is here to promote that POV. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is a discussion about his edits, not what you estimate his views are nor your estimate of hypothetical "offense" (after all, WP:NOTCENSORED applies). I also note you don't seem to be overly concerned about avoiding "offense" in that you've reproduced his content below. -- Netoholic @ 18:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well, the offense isn't hypothetical, and NOTCENSORED does not mean that you are able to use Wikipedia as a political soapbox to promote views that could rightly be considered prejudiced. It means that if there is a legitimate topic to cover, we don't delete it if it is within our scope. A hand drawn picture of Muhammad by some random guy on the internet 7 years after an event is a WP:NOTSOAPBOX violation and shows an intent to push a certain POV. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• If Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a political soapbox then please explain Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics. I am sure that people of opposing views to any of those take offense or might feel they are prejudiced. There is no recent evidence of pushing a POV, and that image was done over a year ago, so what is the urgency now to support a ban? What has he done lately? No evidence presented of recent problems other than one self-reverted edit. -- Netoholic @ 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I hope that it exists only to separate the weed from the plants. byteflush _Talk 05:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This user supports a Ban on Muslim immigration.

File:My Muhammad.png

Broter's freely licensed contribution to Wikipedia for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day [He] drew Muhammad with the programm paint. This is the result. [He] decided to upload it, to send a message to the islamic terrorists.

• Note that the image described above has been deleted from Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and actually I would be OK with a siteban, his contributions indicate that he is here to advance his POV, not to build a neutral encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support siteban - If anyone created a userbox that said "I support a ban on Jewish immigration," they should be equally banned for anti-Semitism. Wikipedia cannot be a platform for the promotion of religious hatred. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I think this point is spot on and I'd go further. The fact (assuming the box quoted above is accurate) that he linked the text "Muslim immigration" to the article List of Islamist terrorist attacks in any context, never mind that of an already unacceptable userbox, is indicative of wilfully dishonest propaganda. It is not expressing an opinion based on facts. It is asserting a false "fact" on the sly. Anything even half as offensive directed at any religious or ethnic group should merit a indefinite block. I've seen antisemites blocked for less (and quite rightly so). This, in itself, is more than enough to eclipse any other good work he might have done. The obvious dishonesty here is enough to render any other edits untrustworthy. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: I can verify that the quoted userbox is accurate and you're swaying me on the site ban issue (along with Broter's continued unwillingness or inability to answer questions that would require a basic level of self-reflection that should be required of any editor, as well as his continued disingenuous begging and whining with no actual learning on his part). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Only two diffs from the OP are recent (and one of those was a self-revert of the other), the rest are from 6 months to over 2 years old. Whatever problems this user might have had in the past seem to have tempered. His userpage displays several recent barnstars for his work, of which there is no indication given of any problems. His stated personally-held beliefs should not be used as grounds for a ban, since we would never consider banning the oppositely held beliefs either, and especially as there is no recent indications given which show his beliefs affect his approach to editing. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and would certainly support a siteban. Going through those diffs makes it very clear that there is an agenda, and that there is a long-term problem here. Their reiteration above that the Spencer edits were "correct" shows that it is not a problem that has passed, either. --bonadea contributions talk 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite and broadly construed tban from Islam per others and oppose siteban as stale (pointed out by Netoholic) and because of possibly valuable contributions in other areas. Also, it is likely that the user will continue editing under new names in case of a sitewide ban which would make monitoring him more challenging. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Having a "This user supports a ban on Muslim immigration" is absolutely not a reason for a TBan. Many users here have a "This user hates Donald Trump" userbox and are course not TBanned from Donald Trump-related pages. It is a matter of opinion. I even think that the "This user supports a ban on Muslim immigration" userbox is less offensive for others than "This user hates Donald Trump". If a there is a TBan, it will be for POV-pushing and not for this userbox. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it's more complex than that, right? Regardless of my opinions on the political stance behind the userbox, there is a difference between saying "I support a ban on Muslim immigration" and having a template that says that with a picture of a mosque with a no symbol on top of it. We would rightly assume that if someone had a box that said "This user opposes Catholic immigration" and had a picture of the pope with a no symbol through it that they would be promoting a certain point of view that is incompatible with Wikipedia. We'd need to look at their other contributions, but it is not a factor we should just ignore: it provides context. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Why stop at the pope, what about one that strikes through the cross, or that userbox strikes through God or one that strikes through every religion? --Netoholic @ 19:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "I disagree with this particular belief" and "I think that people should be banned from entering a country just because of their religion." That difference is about as big as "I think think bacon is God" and "I don't want to pay Kosher taxes." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support a site ban, or at least a broad, indefinite topic ban - The evidence is quite clear. I am disappointed that Broter is still misusing Wikipedia in this way, even after I warned him more than a year ago: [53]. - MrX 🖋 19:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• support a site ban this person has persistently abused their editing privileges for advocacy for one POV in violation of WP:SOAP, which is policy, and that one thing is hateful, which we do not tolerate either.Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support broad and indefinite topic ban no objection to site-ban. There is a certain nuance which is often missed when discussing believers in any fundamentalist moralizing religion or other belief structure, particularly in relation to "othering" which leads to violence. Wikipedia, and most public discourse, does not generally deal well with such matters nor should they really be expected to.
  Even if there were an arguable systemic NPOV issue in the topic area (I am not saying there is and I doubt there would be. I simply generally do not read Wikipedia on such topics.) Broter is obviously not trying to deal in nuance. Rather, they seem to be trolling based on a sophomoric, in the Greek sense, view of a religion and cultures they are quite obviously clueless about. It is better not to have such contributions here — actually it would be better if we did not have such commentary anywhere but it would also be better if no one of any religion killed innocents for their version of God so… Jbh ^Talk 21:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban, Oppose site ban. Per Netoholic, I don't think it's fair to indef a user for old POV edits when the user also edits outside of that topic. That being said, I disagree with Netoholic in that I support a TBan for Broter over anything to do with Islam, as they clearly have an opinion that they aren't willing to put aside for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Note that I didn't factor the userbox in this decision, as I believe users should have leeway when it comes to userboxes. I have my own beliefs in my userboxes, and I've seen constructive long-time editors with similar userboxes, so I just don't find it right to judge an editor based on what they might have on their userpage. Nanophosis (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Struck per User:Eggishorn mentioning the previous ANI thread, which I made the mistake of not looking at. The disingenuous begging from Broter that they are currently repeating here is very telling, and indicates to me that they don't intend to stop the disruptive behavior that landed them here in the first place. I'm rather sympathetic due to their various improvements and additions to portals, but I think an Indefinite block is in order, and if the block is lifted, a TBan on religion would hopefully prevent further issue. Nanophosis (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have contributed very much to Mormonism and to ban me for my contributions for Islam is very harsh. The edits which you all talked about were all deleted material. To ban someone for things which are not even current content on wikipedia is far too harsh. My contributions in other topics are well accepted and I urge you all not to ban me from wikipedia.--Broter (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone knows that my first interest on wikipedia is Mormonism and all other topics are only subtopics.--Broter (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I promise you all to never edit Islam and related topics again. I only want to improve Mormonism.--Broter (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

All examples of my misbehavour towards islam are so old. I want to only improve Mormonism.--Broter (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)--Broter (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support block or site ban of whatever length admins feel appropriate. On the contrary to the most recent message immediately above, there are examples of misbehavior in this very thread. Complaining of bias against outspoken white supremacists or using a terrorist attack as a excuse for their edits shows they cannot be trusted to understand the most basic and fundamental parts of WP:CCPOL. Bargaining that they be allowed to remain to edit on a different religion is no help to their cause. If they can't remain at least slightly neutral on one religion why would they be any less neutral (although, one presumes, in the opposite direction) towards any other? They apparently previously avoided sanctions through disingenuous begging and stated: "I have learned my lesson and I promise you all to behave better in the future." Here we are in the future and they either forgot or ignored that lesson and are not behaving better on the very same topic. To dip into religious verse myself, Matthew 7:20 seems strangely appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Broter deserves another chance, a ban would be really too harsh because he confessed his mistakes, therefore, we should accept his excuses and give him a second chance. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

He has "learned" from his mistakes before. He's had a second chance. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he did some mistakes, but who can claim to have never made mistakes, let alone that Broter is far from being a new user. he's also contributed nicely to this encyclopedia.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that he's not a new user and contributes elsewhere is why I've called for a topic ban. He's shown that he cannot neutrally edit topics relating to Islam and that he'll just give empty apologies and pretend to back down whenever he gets in trouble. He admits that the majority of his edits are reverted, which is an indication that he should have learned to stop making those kinds of edits by now. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban/topic ban. Andrevan@ 22:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Islam-related articles, broadly construed. At least. Linking and citing overtly islamophobic works on the main articles regarding Islam and Quran are simply indefensible, and no one who does that should be allowed near the topic again. This is the sort of behavior that could have quickly lead to an indefinite block, so a topic ban is lenient in my opinion. Broter should just accept this and move on - you will still get to edit, just avoid Islam. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban and support TBan. This is clearly not an SPA and many of their contributions are nice. Indef banning would be, IMO, not a good idea. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Ian.thomson: why would you use the term islamophobic instead of say, anti-Islam? For instance, the Associated Press Stylebook stopped using the term in 2012 because they prefer not to be "ascribing a mental disability to someone". It just feels off to use this word for a single editor's actions and then start !voting on bans. --Pudeo (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Islamophobic implies fear, hatred, or prejudice against Muslims in general. "Anti-Islam" could be understood to mean that one is opposed to just the teachings of the religion while still respecting the rights of those who follow the religion (in the same sense I've observed some folks use "anti-Christian" to describe themselves). If "anti-Muslimism" or "Islamoprejudice" were as commonly used as Islamophobia still is commonly used according to the rest of our article on the term, I'd use one of those terms instead. Like Xenophobia, it's generally not seen as a diagnosis. "Phobia" (or "-phobia") has both a technical use and a common colloquial use, and the common use pre-dates and is the origin of the technical. Established non-diagnostic uses of "-phobia" need to be verified by the DSM-5 or ICD-10 about as much as someone writing outside the field of computer science needs to make sure that their use of the word Daemon refers only to a programmed background process. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There are studies that conservatives actually have a stronger disgust reaction to pathogens and outgroups[54] so it's almost never about fear. Disgust or hate maybe. In any case, I still do think it's inappropriate to speculate whether a particular editor is motivated by hate or fear, not least because it's easy to demonstrate a battleground mentality without having to directly use a stigmatizing term. --Pudeo (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Islam, broadly construed. If the editor is using the same kind of garbage sources in articles about Mormonism, then they should be topic banned from religion, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Although I've not picked through their edits on Mormonism, they are why I've only called for a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• The edits on Islamic terrorism alone are worthy of a block, either per POV or per CIR (edit warring over the insertion of a ridiculous source by a non-notable person). They are clearly trying to make Islam look like some essentially terrorist outfit, as if one were to take the...what are those idiots called, who protest at soldiers' funerals and blame their death on America being gay, as if one were to take them as representative of all of Christianity. So sure, I support a topic ban for Islam in the broadest sense, including anything that reeks of immigration and terrorism. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban The diffs provided at the start of this report display extremely problematic agenda pushing behavior, but most of it comes from 2016 and 2017 and I would have supported a ban six months ago. However, there are only a couple of examples from 2018. If this is a ongoing problem on the same scale as it was last year then I have to ask why are there not more diffs from this year? If there is going to be some sort of sanction then it should be a TBAN at most because he's a prolific editor and there is only evidence of problems in one specific area, and even most of that is not particularly recent. A site ban would punitive and not preventive IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That's why I called for a topic ban in the title. I don't know why people are pushing for a site ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban, oppose topic ban As others have noted above, the problems this user may have had with the topic was in the past, with no real instances of the same issues. The userbox at their userspace is a non-starter. Do we topic ban atheists (a great number of them really, really hate Christians and think Christianity should be outlawed) from editing articles related to Christianity? Do we topic ban Democrats (a great number of them really, really hate Republicans and think Liberal/Progressive thought is the only correct political ideology) from editing politically Conservative articles? Topic banning would set a really dangerous precedent. Site banning would be incredibly wrong. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  While you make sound points that we should be careful to heed, we would only have a problem with an atheist who hates Christians if they demonstrated they could not edit neutrally. There is plenty of evidence of non-neutral editing here. I don't think you can justify a site ban based on edits made in the last six months, but sometimes a topic ban can be justified if there is a "loss of confidence" in the editor, and that might be the case here. If it has got to the stage where you have to check every single edit an editor makes in a particular area that places an undue burden on other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban or indefinite block - I obviously support a topic ban from Islamic related articles, but I'm assuming that Broter is useful in articles on Mormonism for the same reason he's problematic in articles on Islam (not a comment on Mormonism in general, this is an issue that can be found among adherents of any worldview). For this reason, I'd oppose a topic ban on religion in general, just specifically Mormonism (and if he becomes problematic in articles on other religions, then we can discuss banning him from all religion articles except Christianity). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

DanielRigal's reasoning, combined with Broter's continued refusal/inability to answer questions that demonstrate enough self-reflection to show that a topic ban would be worthwhile, leave me more open to a site ban, though I'm not !voting that way yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBan and / or indef block: these edits are recent: 23 May 2018 and 31 May 2018 and obviously islamophobic. It also appears that this has been an on-going issue, per prior AN discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The edits are the addition of quotations which can be seen as Islamaphobic (some of the quotes definitely are, but not all of them - more than one is talking about Islamic terrorist acts) - the statements/writings are of others, not the editor in question. How can you say the edits are Islamaphobic when the editor didn't write the words? That's like saying someone who edits the David Duke article and places racist quotes from Duke in the article is a racist. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If someone was spamming David Duke's article with extended racist quotes cited w/o context to Duke's own writings, that could be perceived as an extension of someone's racist beliefs. But we are not deadling not an isolated incident here anyway... K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support broad TBan or Indef block, which ever finds the most support. Not someone we need here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

All my edits to improve the Robert Spencer (author)-article were accepted. My userboxes should be no reason to ban me. I am a valuable contributor to Mormonism.--Broter (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between all edits being accepted, and no one noticing that an article has been filled with puffery. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I got several awards for my work on Portals. Look at my userpage.--Broter (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I find it funny that you're begging to keep something, without addressing, let alone denying, the very point you are being charged with. That alone should give pause to those who are voting against a topic ban. You're not denying you're anti-Muslim, or that you can't tell the difference between Islam and terrorism, or that you have a POV that makes it impossible for you to edit neutrally on that topic. I'm not sure if I should appreciate your honesty or be saddened by this bigotry. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The authors and intellectualls which I promoted do not say that all muslims were terrorists. Furthermore support for Donald Trump does not make someone an islamophobe.--Broter (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No one (except for you, just now) has brought up your politic views, this is entirely about your views on Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed. Based on the initial diffs this is necessary, and Broter appears to have semi-voluntarily agreed to it. It would be useful for an admin to determine whether they added the Islam quotes on May 24, or simply moved them from (now-deleted) subpages such as Portal:Right-wing populism/Selected Quotes. If this is the only concern from the past 3-6 months, I don't feel an indef block is justified. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I took a look and Broter was the creator and sole contributor to Portal:Right-wing populism/Selected Quotes. The page was created in 2016 and updated over the course of two years. ansh666 20:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of the Portal:Right-wing populism/Selected Quotes thing, everything was long ago. Nobody wanted me to be banned. All this stuff was so long ago, I do not think a topic ban is necessary.--Broter (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The "it was a long time ago" argument really doesn't counter "this is a long-term problem." It kinda proves the point. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Islam per all of the above. Not sure about siteban - if TBan doesn't pass, weak oppose to site ban. The editor can be productive in other areas, but only if they remain a fair distance away from Islam-related articles. byteflush _Talk 05:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN, support siteban Frankly, portals are doing well enough that we do not really need to put up with this sort of nonsense, regardless of what contributions this user has made. Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed, but would support any other ban/sanction which has majority support. I am astounded that some people have opposed without even reading the 2015 ANI linked at the outset of this report. What did he say then? "I urge the administrator who deals with this section to show mercy. This is the only incident, I am involved with. I have learned my lesson and I promise you all to behave better in the future". Quite clearly he did not and has been slowly but consistently pushing the envelope ever since. Note that he refused to consider or discuss the highly skewed, Islamophobic nature of the quotes he had installed on Portal:Right-wing populism until he was brought to this ANI, after which he deleted the whole quote section. Trust me, without a topic ban, he'll soon be back with more. He's had his "second chance". The last thing Wikipedia needs is Broter continuing to edit in this area. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

To editor Voceditenore: he refused to consider or discuss the highly skewed, Islamophobic nature of the quotes he had installed on Portal:Right-wing populism until he was brought to this ANI - On this point I believe you are completely wrong and the evidence will bear it out:

• 15:34 - Ian.thomson posted about these quotes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals (which pinged Broter).
• 16:22- Broter reverted himself.
• 16:28 - Ian.thomson posted this ANI and contacted Broter.

This timeline clearly shows Broter realized his mistake as soon as he got a ping about it and moved swiftly to correct it himself before this ANI. I am sure that he would have done the same if Ian or someone else had simply posted on his talk page and given a warning. This discussion of a TBAN is based on flimsy, stale evidence that Ian.thomson posted AFTER the situation had already resolved itself. -- Netoholic @ 09:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You're leaving out that I announced that I said I was going to start this ANI thread. And the disingenuous begging from the last one. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, Netoholic, "he realized his mistake" after Ian.Thompson threatened to take him to ANI. It's splitting hairs, frankly. He should not have needed that threat. He needs a topic ban or he will keep pushing the envelope more and more, hiding the evidence when he's challenged, and sneaking it back later when he thinks things have blown over. I continue to strongly support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The quotes were not by myself. They were by Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Donald Trump, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and so on.--Broter (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You put in a cherry-picked Hadith that has nothing to do with modern politics, which explains why so many of the quotes you selected were condemning Islam (instead of just elaborating on modern politics). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Broter, the fact that the quotes at Portal:Right-wing populism were not by you is immaterial. Out of the 12 quotations, 10 specifically attacked Islam. Eight were from right-wing figures who have said a lot of things on a lot of subjects. Why choose only Islam? Worse, the criticism from Ayaan Hirsi Ali doesn't belong in that portal at all. She is most emphatically not a right-wing populist. Ditto Wafa Sultan's quote. Then to top it all off the final quote is a hadith with your personal bolding on the words "I have been made victorious with terror." Again entirely unrelated to right-wing populism, unless you're claiming that Mohamed is a right-wing populist. It is blindingly obvious to any neutral observer what that quotations section was meant to do. The fact that you only removed it after the threat of an ANI report and are still defending it here speaks volumes. I continue to strongly support TBAN on Islam, broadly construed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban. That's just OTT, given the otherwise productive contributions. A specific solution (tban) exists. Cesdeva ^(talk) 11:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

From the lead of the article Right-wing populism:"In Europe, right-wing populism is an expression used to describe groups, politicians and political parties generally known for their opposition to immigration,[1] mostly from the Islamic world[2] and in most cases Euroscepticism.[3]" --Broter (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in trouble for what other people said about Islam. The people who accuse me of wrongdoing should recognice that this people attacked Islam and not Muslims in their quotes. For them to criticise Islam is within the law.--Broter (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Broter: Let's reverse the situation here. Let's say an atheist user kept adding material to Christian articles about how Christianity is inherently a religion of persecution and warfare... edit warred to include such material... admits that that material was reverted... had previously promised to stop engaging in that sort of behavior... added "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" to the communism portal... and also added a dozen other negatives quotes about Christianity that largely have nothing to do with communism, with the excuse "but those speakers are communist" -- would you not see the necessity of topic banning such an individual from articles relating to Christianity? If they argued "but I'm useful in articles on LeVayan Satanism," would that excuse their edits to Christianity?

Imagine if a user (who had previously promised not to engage in this sort of behavior) kept edit warring to add material (citing explicitly anti-Mormon sources) calling Joseph Smith a treasure-hunting occultist, kept adding material about possible relationships between Mormon leaders and multi-level marketing schemes, and added an out-of-context Smith quote to, say, Portal:Organized Labour with that editor's own emphasis to try to portray Smith as out to screw over the working man or something, along with a dozen other anti-Mormon quotes from vaguely left-wing individuals... Again, can you honestly pretend that a topic ban would not be necessary? Would you really buy "I'm sorry, I'll do better," when they said that before doubling down on the same behavior? Would "but my edits to Pentecostalism are good!" as an excuse?

I'm not bringing up those examples as a suggestion for article/portal changes -- I'm bringing them up so you can reflect on how your answers would relate to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and so you try to understand why you're really "in trouble." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hadith can also be seen at Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:220. I showed the entire quote and it is not forbidden to cite Muhammad.--Broter (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support siteban per Jytdog, with a topic ban from Islam, broadly construed, as second choice. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC).
• Support TBAN based on the egregious diffs above, not sure on site ban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the quotes section myself and the other stuff was not accepted anyway. So I think this is not a big problem.--Broter (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, if one of the users in the examples I pinged you in made those same arguments, would you really buy them? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your appreciation of the size of the problem, @Broter:, is not a useful contribution to the discussion. It is entirely unsurprising that you don't think it is a big problem. In fact, that's why it is a problem and why we are having this discussion in the first place. Your refusal to either see or admit that this problem is the very same one you promised two years ago not to repeat is the reason sanctions are being considered by your peers. You should have already known not be editing in this area at all. You selected the quotes and by doing so, assembled a collage of the words of other people to give the biased message you wanted that page to send: that all Muslims are terrorists. You are responsible for that message and you can't blame it on the "other people" you intentionally picked. You only reverted when you were threatened with reporting here, so it was in no way voluntary. This is all recent and ongoing behavior. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN broadly construed at this time per cogent reasons well illustrated with diffs above. Will support escalating to siteban if the disruption continues elsewhere. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"that all Muslims are terrorists" was never the message of the quote section. I quoted Muhammad at Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:220 but this is a completly different matter. It is adequat to criticise the islamic prophet without being accused of being anti-muslim.--Broter (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be possible to criticise Jesus/Muhammad without being accused to be anti-christian/anti-muslim.--Broter (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And if someone added a dozen quotes to Portal:Communism to criticize Jesus, and edit warred in the articles on Christianity and History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance to portray Christianity as fundamentally a religion of torture and oppression, we would topic ban them from editing articles relating to Christianity. @Broter: Do you think that would be unfair? Your continued avoidance of this issue is why people are !voting to topic ban or even site ban you -- because you are coming across as either unwilling or unable to consider your behavior needs to be held to the same standards that you'd (presumably) want others to be held to. If you don't think you should be held to the same standards, that's gross hypocrisy; and if you don't think the hypothetical anti-Christian or anti-Mormon users I illustrate should be topic banned, then there's very little means of enforcing WP:NPOV besides blocking otherwise productive editors.

Your best bet to get out of this without any further trouble is to explicitly and voluntarily announce that you will accept to a permanent topic ban from all pages relating to Islam, to be appealed only by community consensus, with one year between each appeal. The community is going to topic ban you from Islam pages one way or another, but a lot more people are calling for a site ban than even I'd like. I don't think you should be site banned, but the surest way to make sure that doesn't happen is to agree to the topic ban as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban or at least t-ban - Sure, you can claim "those are not my words", but you applied those words in bundles to misconstrue Islam as a terrorist religion. Some of those opposed may say "what about the Atheists" or "what about the Democrats", and they should be ashamed of themselves. Hate is hate, no matter what the source is. Once it spews onto Wikipedia, it becomes a problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support site ban. POV editing is a real problem in WP. POV editors who ran into an ANI in the past, and survived, can simply attempt to game the system by guarding themselves, just enough, not to run into another ANI just as has happened in this case, except in this case the POV the second time around was, again, too much to be ignored. Taking the position that having just a couple of recent POV editing cases is somehow OK, in itself shows a lack of understanding the NPOV policy and, in a sense, makes such commentators pro-POV supporters themselves. There's no place in WP for POV, and POV editing continues to be a real problem in WP. Far more editors have left WP due to POV pushers than due to personal attacks. There's also a real problem with anyone who believes that it's OK to have sources that are not reliable, as Broter has been editing, as long as he editor consistently sources his unreliable sources. You won't find that in the WP:P&G anywhere. Then there is the question of, why a site ban instead of a topic ban? Because when we only topic ban an editor who is an anti-Islam (or anti-anything) POV pusher, we leave the door open for that same editor to start POV pushing of Pro-Christian, pro-Jew, pro-atheist, etc., articles. So the POV pushing doesn't end, it shifts. The net effect is that the community has accomplished little, if anything at all if just a topic ban is implemented. Mercy11 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I agree to be topic banned from all pages relating to Islam. My main work on wikipedia is Mormonism anyway.--Broter (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: If the consensus here is for a topic ban on Islam (broadly construed), this needs to be formally logged, despite Broter's apparent acceptance above. We saw what happened the last time (2015), when he made assurances and manifestly failed to adhere to them over the next three years. Voceditenore (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic and site ban. Even a quick look at their contributions, the evidence above, their obviously racist-supporting userboxes etc shows that they are a True Believer. The point of sanctions/restrictions is to a)prevent disruption, b)educate the editor into what is acceptable (behaviour on wikipedia) with a goal of eventually removing the restrictions. While a topic ban will prevent disruption related to Islam, there is zero chance it will affect their opinion or viewpoint in any way. And long experience shows that editors like this go on to cause disruption in other areas. We will be back here in less than 6 months because they are being disruptive about Mexicans, Jews or whatever else has annoyed the right-wingnuts. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: We are not here to "educate people" or change their beliefs, opinions or viewvpoints. We are only here to develop and protect this online project. Sanctions are instututed to prevent disruption to the project and not as a punishment for someone's beliefs. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• See inserted bracted comment. I think meaning may have been lost. I meant educated as to what is acceptable on wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"I meant educated as to what is acceptable on wikipedia." I have to be honest, following your comment above, "right wing nuts", what I see you saying is, "...what [kind of person] is acceptable on wikipedia." A site ban will set the ridding-Wikipedia-of-undesirables-who-don't-accept-unspoken-political-groupthink precedent, for certain. And with that, the "right wing nuts" will be on notice. Chilling, for certain. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that all right-wing editors are Islamophobic. Got it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not being serious. There are nuts on the fringes of all political extremes, but the current climate has given those on the far-right the impression that people are obligated to listen to their hatred. Comparable figures on the left usually assume we're a tool of capitalism/institutional racism/patriarchy and refuse to use mainstream sources that are "likewise" capitalist/racist/patriarchial -- usually resulting in them leaving or someone blocking them long before they end up at ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support site-ban or TBAN: Given the substantial evidence of an ongoing WP:NOTHERE situation, I personally doubt that the TBAN would do more than delay the inevitable as the user is likely to move their polemic approach to peripheral areas and end up back here in short order. So, given the depth of the issues here, I can support a site ban as my first choice. At a minimum a TBAN clearly needs to be instituted. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, but oppose site ban and oppose block. From review of Broter's contribs, this editor edits heavily and productively in other areas, therefore a site ban would result in a loss of productive contributions. A limited block, as an alternative to a site ban/indefinite block, would be inappropriate because blocks are meant to stop an immediate acute problem. A topic ban is clearly warranted because of a long-term pattern of POV pushing, editing warring and other issues in Islam related articles. Since Broter accepts the idea of a topic ban, this should resolve the problem satisfactorily for everyone.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, oppose site ban Wikipedia tolerates, to a certain degree, a pretty diverse community of editors with a broad range of beliefs and political leanings, but it should not, and cannot, tolerate editors who let those same beliefs and leanings blatantly taint their editing. Broter obviously has a strong, and negative, view of Islam which they have allowed to taint their editing in those articles, so a topic ban is a reasonable sanction. I don't see that evidence has been produced of the same sort of behaviour in articles outside of Islam related topics, so a site ban at this point would not be reasonable in my book. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. I suspect a site ban will inevitably follow, but all the issues raised above would be addressed with a topic ban. Fish+Karate 14:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban at minimum. His contributions re: Islam are clearly not constructive. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 violation of topic ban, after a 1 year block for violation of the ban

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

---

• Memills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Evolutionary psychology:. User is topic banned from editing anything relating to mens rights, and was found in violation of that ban on several occasions, being outright blocked for a period of 12 months for editing on sex differences in psychology. The editor has now begun editing anew with a series of edits on the evolutionary psychology page surrounding the topic of "coercive mating" and "rape".

Ping previously acting administrators: Keilana, Bbb23, Yunshui. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

First, I'm sure that CFCF understands that a one year topic ban that was imposed in 2015 has expired.

Even so, the next step will probably be to assert that I am in violation of an *indefinite* topic ban based on this:

You are hereby notified that you have been indefinitely banned from editing any pages at Wikipedia related to men's rights, broadly construed. This ban is imposed pursuant to WP:MRMPS.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The article probation on which the topic ban was based has been revoked and is now obsolete:

See:

Notice of obsolescence:
Community sanctions in this area of conflict have been revoked or have expired. As a result, this community sanctions-related page is now obsolete, is retained only for historical reference, and should not be modified. For the specific community decision that rescinded or modified these community sanctions, see this link.

Because the basis of the block has expired, I presume that a block based on it would have expired as well.

Further, I recall reading that topic bans cannot be *indefinite.* And, of course, it goes without saying that evolutionary psychology and behavioral ecology are different topics from "men's rights" (the latter is, apparently, the 3rd rail here).

FWIW, as documented on my Talk page, there is a very interesting history here of biased and unjustified sanctions by administrators with a POV. At least two of those administrators subsequently have had their administrator status revoked due to biased enforcement of WP policies. Also, CFCF and I have had a number of disagreements which may have motivated a premature trigger finger here and a miscalculation of expiration dates.

Memills (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please take a closer look at User:Kevin Gorman and their user talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

First, the discussion didn't remove the MRMPS, they deprecated the template. So, any sanctions involved are still in effect. Second yes topic bans can be indefinite. Third, I think an argument needs to be made that the edits are in fact a violation of the topic ban. Evolutionary psychology isn't a de-facto men's rights subject, so the edits themselves must violate the ban for there to be a violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with your comment: "Evolutionary psychology isn't a de-facto men's rights subject..." It isn't.

Regarding your first point: when I read "Community sanctions in this area of conflict have been revoked or have expired" I presumed that it meant... well, that. Memills (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As someone with a psychology degree, I can definitely say that evolutionary psychology would readily come under the umbrella "Broadly construed". Many, many, many arguments made by the more radical members of the men's rights crowd are badly misunderstood chunks of evolutionary psych. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That is way, way too "broadly construed." The mischaracterization or misunderstanding of a topic area by a particular group doesn't broaden that field to include them. If there was a topic ban on mysticism -- some of whom might be said to misuse quantum theory -- that would not make a topic ban on mysticism inclusive of quantum theory. That's guilt by association. Memills (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) — I would not have reacted had the edits been on aspects of evolutionary psychology that did not pertain to gender issues. However you specifically chose to edit regarding "coercive mating" and "rape", two subjects on the radar of the MRA-movement. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• [55]

Again, overly and inappropriately broad reaching. Quantum theory is "on the radar" of some mysticism movements. Because something is "on the radar" does not make it part of the field itself (quantum mechanics does not include mysticism / evolutionary psychology is not inclusive of "men's rights"). Of course, if you wanted to denigrate either field, then guilt by association is one strategy. Memills (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A fascinating case of using a non-sequiteur to dismiss an alleged non-sequiteur. Needless to say, the topic of the motivation of rape falls within the span of "MRA broadly construed" — which is regardless of whether the edits are supported or not. It is frankly closer to the core of the MRA debate (which now has come to encompass "enforced monogamy") than your edits at sex differences in psychology ever were — and that ban was upheld by three different admins. Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note The article probation on men's rights didn't expire, it was absorbed by WP:GamerGate and was automatically replaced by standard discretionary sanctions. The deprecation of Article Probation was a strictly procedural update meant to reflect the update in current practice, and if you read the relevant discussion, you will see that it was specifically done after clarification that all restrictions were superseded by standard discretionary sanctions. It was not a decision to grant amnesty to anyone previously sanctioned. While the aforementioned page notice was misleading, it should have been reasonably expected for Memills to read the linked discussion to confirm whether this meant his topic ban was invalidated (and he would have seen that it wasn't). It is false and disingenuous to argue here that he was falsely informed that his topic ban was invalidated. I will log the topic ban and this violation at WP:ACDSLOG. It's a clear and unambiguous violation, and given the very long-term history here, I see no mitigating factors. Blocking for one year. Swarm ♠ 22:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 again

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

---

I happened by Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language where I noticed a series of problematic "contributions" from User:Baseball Bugs. This surprised me because we just [56] had an ANi that included considerable concerns with his Ref Desk activity. He does not understand WP:NOTAFORUM and refuses to consider advice to provide better quality answers or not answer at all. [57] and [58]. After I posted the last section he proposed a IBAN between us [59] which is as offtopic and inappropriate as his useless Ref Desk participation.

Anyone unfamiliar with his participation can peruse Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs for gems like [60] Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Singular_or_plural_verb_in_"Shingles"_article? and Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#What_is_the_meaning_of_"soy"?

I therefore think we should revisit the idea of banning him from Ref Desk. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable in any of these diffs. The whole "soy" thing *is* an Alex Jones conspiracy theory, and the rules on plurals are different in British English than in American English. I'm willing to take his word on Milo's marital status, I would much prefer not to know or look on that one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any ban. None of the links show anything even remotely problematic. They also do not display any WP:NOTAFORUM problems. How "Some theories turn up on Google, but nothing confirmed" is deemed a "gem" is difficult to understand. The ANI thread linked to was about posts at ANI - not the ref desks. It should be noted that Bugs gave a succinct answer and was thanked for it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Bieberbach etymology/meaning in German. This thread Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#500 Mile Race and this one Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#World's oldest warning label show Bugs giving reasonable answers to questions as well as finding links to items on the web to help with those answers. This thread Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Draft: Don Peretz contains a suggestion to help an editor. As someone who regularly scans the ref desks I can say that Bugs has taken previous criticisms on board and has moderated past behaviors. I would suggest that others looking into this read posts at the ref desks thoroughly. MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per MarnetteD - I'm not seeing anything problematic and the "gem" was them finding nothing on Google ? ..... I would suggest withdrawing this. –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW Bugs is on a self imposed ban from ANI which means he won't (in good faith) be able to respond to this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 22:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion regarding these diffs, a point of clarification: Bugs is topic banned from ANI, but that topic ban enacted there has explicit exceptions for threads he starts or threads about him (i.e. commenting in this thread would not [and should not] be a problem). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - There's nothing in he least actionable here, and I respectfully suggest to Legacypac that they drop the stick regarding Bugs. This request was completely unnecessary, and I agree with Davey2010 that it should be withdrawn and archived. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Bugs is on a community imposed ban from ANi, only self imposed when it was obviously going to pass. The last ANi had considerable support for a RefDesk ban from high profile editors and Admins but he continues to spend a considerable amount of time there giving substandard answers. I just picked a few quick examples of thousands available. I'd like to see others weigh in who were involved in the last discussion. If his ref desk participation has really improved (I don't think so) then great, but since if looks the same it this is worth some more eyes. Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You must know that's not the way it works. If there are "thousands" of examples of Bugs' disruptive activities on the RefDesk subsequent to the recent ANI, it should be easy for you to provide more than a handful of them, and hopefully ones which other editors find to be problematic. Claiming misbehavior without providing the necessary supporting evidence is WP:Casting aspersions, so the onus is entirely on you to provide that evidence, not on other editors to do your work for you. As Nick Thorne suggests below, failure to do so may well result in a BOOMERANG. Either provide the evidence, or withdraw the complaint, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry, but there simply is not any problem with the edits you are complaining about. Legacypac, this looks a bit like harassment. Please leave off this ridiculous not-picking about non-issues lest you find yourself on the receiving end of a boomerang. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You better read the harsh comments about Baseball Bugs in the last ANi and think again before you accuse me or harashment Nick. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not seeing sufficient WP:DIFFs presented to support this at present. It looks like BB got a warning from Cullen328; perhaps he should weigh in. Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, part 2: In my mind the question is whether BB provides useful information at the Reference Desk. If it is adjudged that he does; then there is rationale to allow him to post there, and the question becomes whether his irrelevant comments at the Reference Desk outnumber and/or outweigh and/or neutralize whatever assistance he actually provides there. The onus is, however, on the filer (or others) to make this case rather than on ANI !voters to go on a goose-chase. Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, I have interacted with Bugs twice recently about what I saw as flippant or speculative answers at the Ref Desks, and we had a slightly unpleasant conversation on my talk page on May 20. I encourage other editors to let him know when he makes an inappropriate comment at the desks. But at this time, I do not see an ongoing pattern of behavior that requires a topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Swarm and a number of others found BB's participation problematic but an even broader topic ban from all Wikipedia space did not pass. In my estimation, nothing has changed with how he treats the Ref Desk since that discussion so a revisit is worthwhile. If people see no issue, I'm not here to push hard. I just wanted to raise it since he blew off my comments on his talkpage Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Be careful about past ANI consensus. There has been ANI consensus to indef LegacyPac on at least one occasion. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• This comment is just as improper as Legacypac's report, or even more so, as evidence is only asserted, not reported; Legacypac at least offered some evidence, only no one appears to agree that it is problematic. ANI cannot be a place where one floats trial balloons, vague accusations with little or no evidence, then waits to see who comes along to prop up the charges. We should perhaps start to consider such behavior as being sanctionable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Weakest possible oppose: In the past, I've been about as vocal as any RefDesk contributor about the daily violations of WP:NOTAFORUM of a couple of incessantly happy-go-lucky editors, and it is for this reason that I gave full support to the proposal to topic ban bugs from the desks (indeed, I think the closer of that discussion was in error when they failed to note that that consensus wanted Bugs banned from the desks in addition to ANI). But since then, I've noticed (at least in my own stops by the desks which are not terribly frequent at present) that Bugs is making an effort to conform themselves to the new expectations (I presume that the WP:VPP discussion on RefDesk reform a few months back, StuRat's banning, and Bugs' own close call with a ban last month have finally combined to convince them that patience is at an end for treating the RefDesks like Reddit or social media). I can't say that I do not still have concerns, and my !vote could switch back in a hurry, but the discussions cited above are not sufficient to convince me to abandon giving WP:ROPE just when Bugs is attempting to correct their approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Interaction ban between Legacypac and Baseball Bugs proposed

So, in the previous discussion[61] Legacypac proposed a TBan for Baseball Bugs from "Wikipedia Space" (specifcially intended to keep him of the Ref Desks), which was closed as "no consensus" on 6 May 2018.

Legacypac then posts an extremely vague post on BBs user talk page[62] posting to a ref desk page where BBs ""contributions" from May 27-May 31 range from downright stupid to completely confusing. Please stop posting stupid misleading unresearched "answers" based on whatever nonsense pops into your head." BB correctly asked for diffs[63]. Legacypac refused to provide any twice[64], with rather circular reasoning: "that sou can't see the problem is exactly why you don't belong there". BB then proposed a voluntary interaction ban between them[65], which Legacypac above describes as "as offtopic and inappropriate as his useless Ref Desk participation."

And then Legacypac opens a section here, with diffs (not clear why they are needed for us but not for BB when he asked for them), and it gets universally rejected. And the conclusion Legacypac gets from this is to ping someone who supported him previously (which violates WP:CANVASS) and to reiterate that "nothing has changed with how he treats the Ref Desk since that discussion so a revisit is worthwhile" but that "he blew off my comments on his talkpage". Um, no, he didn't, he just wanted some indication of what Legacypac was actually complaining about, not some handwaving, and considering the responses here it was only logical that BB didn't know what you meant.

As BB wants an IBan with Legacypac, but Legacypac sees nothing wrong with his own approach here (at BBs talk page and in this ANI section) even though no one agrees that there is a problem with those diffs he provided (not "the problems you note are worrying but severe enough", but one comment after another noting "there simply is not any problem with the edits you are complaining about" or a variation thereof), I propose

Baseball Bugs and Legacypac are formally banned from interacting directly with each other, and from discussing each others edits (apart from reporting violations of the interaction ban). They are otherwise allowed to participate in the same threads, talk pages, articles... Fram (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I would support that. I stay away from the Reference Desks because nobody on there trying to be funny is actually funny, which makes it really depressing. Looking at it winds me up, unfailingly. IF it were up to me, the reference desks would all be deleted, but it's not up to me, and so I just avoid them. It seems Legacypac has the same issue, but not the same solution; if he can't stay away from looking at the reference desks, getting irritated by BB's nonsense and trying to get him banned for it, then a formal interaction ban will at least mitigate the overreaction we see here. Fish+Karate 09:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Fram you need a lot more evidence then restating that there is less consensus with the current participants to do something about this users activity at Ref desk today then a few weeks ago with a different set of participants, even though nothing has changed with the behavior. We improved the Ref Desk by topic banning StuRat, so there is precedent. I have extremely limited unteraction with Baseball Bugs and a Tban would serve no purpose. As for diffs I referenced all his controbutions visable on the page between two dates and said exactly what is wrong with them. None of the contributions provided real answers. Imagine if all users that see a question just posted "I can't find anything on Google"? Anyway, let the ref desk carry on as a place where pointless banter rules the day and no Refs are required. Who cares. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm unarchiving and unclosing this. This was closed by Legacypac out of process, and archived by Jbhunley. Also, I support an interaction ban. Given this attempt to make the interaction ban disappear, I also support a topic ban on posting to ANI for Legacypac. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:NinjaRobotPirate what a dumb thing to do. There were suggestions I withdraw the complaint - which I did! You reverse that withdrawal to try to get me topic banned from making a complaint I withdrew? What possible value is there in that? I'm done here and my respect for you just dropped a couple points. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I planned to comment here later during the day however to my surprise it wasn't here! (because it was rather quickly archived by Jbhunley),
  

Anyway Support IBAN - I respect both editors but due to the constant postings here I see no other viable option than an IBAN, I personally feel it would be better if LP were to be banned from creating ANI threads on BB (I can't say either party because BB doesn't create threads....). –Davey2010^Talk 23:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You may not realize this is the only thread I've ever created about Baseball Bugs and I withdrew the complaint when a few other disagreed there is an issue. The last ANi on Baseball Bugs did result in a limited topic ban, but no consensus for the wider topic ban I proposed as an uninvolved editor. I'm still an uninvolved editor with no dispute involving Baseball Bugs or other interaction except in that last ANi thread I did not start. As an ANi regular you are in the same position as I am with many editors discussed here. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @NinjaRobotPirate: There was no intent to 'disappear' it on my part. There was a closing statement of "No interest on this board in pursuing this issue at this time" by a well known and experienced editor who does NACs. I did fail to notice how short of a time it had been closed and would not have archived it if I had. No excuse for that much as there is no excuse for you accusing me of deliberately trying to "disappear" a thread. I will make sure to double check close time and statement to make sure it says what I think it says. Jbh ^Talk 23:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. The close seemed like an attempt by Legacypac to avoid the consequences of their opening the thread in the first place. I support the I-ban. There should also be some sort of stipulation for Legacypac regarding the opening of an AN/I thread without hard evidence of a problem. One suggestion is that future actions of the sort should come with a block of a brief duration. Hopefully, this would be a preventative measure against such an occurrence. MarnetteD|Talk 23:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

BTW the claim that "I can't find anything on google" is problematic is just ridiculous. It means that Bugs - or any other editor that uses the phrase - tried to find an answer to the question and was unsuccessful. There is no problem with posting that to any ref desk thread. MarnetteD|Talk 23:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems to me that there are two issues here: (1) Responses to Ref Desk questions which are not genuine, knowledgeable answers (by anyone) to those questions. (2) The fact that Legacypac's intrusion into the matter is not helpful either and is achieving the reverse effect: increased disruption. On the issue of item 2, I would suggest Legacypac voluntarily drop the stick here in regards to BB. On the issue of item 1, I would suggest that it be determined whether idle banter should be allowed at the Ref Desks or not. (It seems to be that it should be a scholarly Q&A devoted to helping the querants and nothing more, but I have never posted there.) Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• How about if everyone just goes home? Softlavender's idle-banter question should be raised some other time, without reference to any particular editor. EEng 00:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any serious ruling here The issues are borderline inane - the Ref desks have a long history of being less-than-serious on a regular basis, and trying to make them into some sort of "special discussion area for serious stuff only" is a substantial change to the way those desks have been used for the entire history of Wikipedia pretty much. Even Quora permits levity, and it is set up in a far more serious vein than the refdesks here were. I would note that the refdesks, in fact, get very few actual serious queries, and most of the queries are not of a scholarly nature at all. Collect (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That's dubious reasoning, in my opinion. The fact that a small handful of problematic editors have habitually abused the patience of the community with such behaviours is not remotely a principled argument for not presently trying to do something to bring conduct in that space into line with well-established community consensus on appropriate behaviour as regards WP:WWIN, WP:TPG, and WP:DISRUPTION in general. And nobody is campaigning to eliminate levity from the RefDesks--that's very much a strawman argument. We all enjoy a chuckle or two now and again on this project, and the RefDesks certainly provide fruitful context, if any forum on the project does. What we are talking about are more substantial issues with editors who have a serious case of WP:IDHT with regard to what the community is telling them about WP:NOTAFORUM. Per my reasoning in my !vote on the OP's proposal, I don't think a ban for Bugs is advisable in this instance. But saying that we should not be trying to instill the basic level of procedural normalcy and decorum that is expected of every other project workspace flies quite in the face of the local consensus at the Desks and broader community concerns raised in central discussion spaces (here, WP:VPP) over the last year especially. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed sanction may not be justified but that doesn't mean there's anything that justifies a BOOMERANG IBAN. Given the context of BB being an editor who was just banned from ANI, with multiple people asking for ref desk to be included in that, it's not that unreasonable a topic of discussion. Swarm ♠ 20:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Persistent e-harrassment by Juicy Oranges

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

---

Juicy Oranges (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I told this user numerous times to stop harassing me on my talk, and yet he keeps ignoring it.[66]-[67]-[68]-[69]-[70] Even when another user reverted him,[71] he simply re-instated it again.[72]. He has a history of edit-warring on articles, and now he's edit-warring on my talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And now Oranges Juicy is harrassing the user (@Wikaviani:) who removed his unwanted stuff from my talk page.[73] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This is in violation to WP:TALKO and this is a legitimate warning. The claim of harassment towards Wikaviani is false. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:REMOVED. On the user's talkpage, they have the right to remove comments as they see fit, unless it's a denied active block request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

All right I may have been wrong there but there is no way a TALKO warning can be likened to harassment. It just happens to have been done in error. Seems to me that editors can remove whatever they wish and claim WP:REMOVED. Personally I don't want any third party editors removing comments from my space. I would rather decide on how I wish to respond. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ps. I just read your summary. It wasn't removed by the addressed editor but by another editor. He stated afterwards that he has been given the right to stalk the talk page but my point was that what I did where Wikaviani is concerned is not harassment. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If I can point out at this stage that I have no further comments I wish to relate to Louis Aragon. Please note that the first comment was in response to a rude comment directed towards me in a revert summary, and from there on the editor provoked responses by addressing me within the summary. These comments were not to the effect of "I take your point" nor were they presented in the form of a thread. The mannerism is a clear civility issue. As for harassment, I expressly deny this. The method used for the final comment was such that Louis Aragon could not respond to unless he were to re-open a thread or head to my user talk. And so he has resorted to false accusations. Note that I never even touched his recent revert of me. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree with LouisAragon, and i would add that Orange Juicy obviously shows an aggressive behavior with other users.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Examples? Or is it proof by assertion? --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

AND i inform you that users can allow other users to stalk their talk page so that my revert was by no mean a TALKO violation. For example, Oshwah (a veteran admin) allows experienced users to stalk his talk page. I would suggest you to moderate your aggressive behavior on this community encyclopedia.

You pointed that out to me after I reverted on TALKO principles. After that I never involved myself with you expect for the warning. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this is the second time in the thread you mentioned "agressive behaviour". I invited you to provide examples and am still waiting. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Examples ? just check LouisAragon's diffs. Since you confessed being wrong, it's ok for me. Now i think we're done here. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Juicy Oranges, since you admitted having been in the wrong (better late than never, I suppose), I guess I shouldn't block you for these final pointy edits, but rest assured, you were indeed in the wrong, and you will be blocked if you keep posting there. A few hints--you are allowed to post notifications of threads on noticeboards if you file one involving the user. You are not allowed to make zero edits to leave remarks like you did in those last two diffs. Moreover, AE has nothing to do with talk page guidelines, so "I am NOT prohibited from implementing warnings or defending myself against outrageous claims. Got a problem? Go to AE" is simply false, in its entirety. Note to others: I have not looked into the user's other edits and problematic behavior; certainly there's some hostility there. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about long delay these past days. Basically here is the situation. The comments posted here along with the offending remarks of Louis Aragon's talk page were all spontaneous and occurred within a short time amid flared tempers. My admission of wrongdoing was specifically referring to the brief altercation with Wikivania, particularly afer he explained that he was asked to stalk Louis Aragon's talk page and so on. With regards Louis Aragon, I realise now that I violated policies with some of my actions at his talk. This has now been pointed out to me, but I am not vindicated in the action. I do know however to avoid this sort of thing in future. Before this case closes, I would like there to be an investigation into Louis Aragon's role in the entire affair. My finding here is that the summary box was created to explain the purpose of an edit whether that be addition or removal of anything. The summary box is not a tool for making remarks to other editors - for this we have talk pages, article and user. Obviously I too am guilty of using the summary box to address other editors but this has always been whilst working on the project whereby the editor I addressed is somehow in a position to respond, particularly if my summary comment falsely accused that editor of something. Lousin Aragon accused me of TEND and NOTHERE. I'm sorry but these are serious allegations, especially the latter which if true should have meant that I were banned after fewer than 100 edits. The former, incidentally, had been in response to me reverting an IP who undid the contributions of a confirmed account without explanation - in other words I was dealing with a behaviour issue. There was no TEND issue because despite having the article in question on my watchlist, I had never interfered with this part of the conflict on any side (which had been going on for a week) and my summary explained itself in no uncertain terms; it said the very words "rightly or wrongly" and I never reverted Louis Aragon afterwards either. So perhaps he would like to explain what he meant by TEND. From here on in, he used his summary as a launching pad for sarky comments. When I played him at his own game, he didn't like it and that is why we are here. Yet when he posted on my talk page, did I not blank it in a civilised manner? Everybody knows how to undo and that on one's user talk you don't even have to explain yourself. But when you use the summary to accuse someone of NOTHERE, it is downright insulting and provocative. Do you also realise that if I left it - and it was not seen through the history in the close vicinity that I replied - it could have looked like I were acceding to the false accusation. If I pinged him on my own talk page then this would have too remote for people to see that I did reply if only to challenge my accuser to demonstrate his claim. And what is more irritating is that the TEND and NOTHERE accusations are nothing more than a personal attack based on Louis Aragon's resentment of the fact that in February/March of 2017, we sat on opposing benches of a dispute and made some exchanges during this time. We interpreted a situation differently and along came the accusations. Now that conversation has dried up, I don't believe that I deserve to be criticised from summary boxes - I mean it is an online "hit from behind and run away" stratagem. If Louis Aragon wishes to revert anything I do anywhere, let him use the summary to explain the edit, and use whichever discussion page for when talking to me. How would Louis Aragon feel if when I removed his comment from my talk page I accused him of breaching 3RR, committing vandalism or of being a sock? The concept of being NOTHERE is the very same because to all intents and purposes a NOTHERE editor should be banned. As for the "aggressive behavour", Wikivania has already admitted this is a circular accusation made in reference to the same edits which prompted this report. I don't believe past actions from either of my two accounts have been agressive unless I have really forgotten something these past four years. So I pledge to avoid repeating this type of behaviour, and I would like Louis Aragon warned for misusing the summary boxes to make false accusations and for deliberate provocation. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read, and posting something this long when it is already established that there are conduct issues isn't helpful. On posting this reply, I now see that they pledge to avoid repeating this type of behavior, so please don't repeat it again with overlong posts. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon. As far as TLDR goes you have nothing to worry about. Apart from the fact that your username is not Drmies, you're not an administrator either and nor are you involved in the events which led to the report. On that note I reject your final premise of "don't repeat it again with overlong posts" because long posts do not violate any reglation, and I am not sure as to where you derive your "over"long from given you claimed TLDR. There is no part of the longer text that I can remove which would give the post to make sense. So in the end of the day if someone needs to write a long post then so be it. I've read other people's posts over twice the length of this one so the DR of TLDR is your choice, and remember nobody invited you to the thread and you know you didn't have to leave a remark. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If you think you can ignore what people say to you when they're not admins, you're not going to last very long here. BTW everyone except those few topic banned and anyone who shouldn't be editing point blank are invited to all threads on ANI. They don't need anyone in particular to invite them. ANI is intended for the community, not for any particular individual so all posts should aim to be useful. If someone feels for good reason a post is not helpful, they are fully entitled to point that out without needing someone to invite them. Also you should stop worrying so much about "regulations", are start worrying more about how you can be a productive member of the community. I'm a master of long posts myself but sometimes they are clearly unhelpful. If you've made a clear cut mistake, e.g. continually posting on someone's talk page when you were asked not to, a long post is probably not going to improve your image since your best reply is an aknowledgment of your wrong doing, with a brief explanation if really needed of how it came about. It probably doesn't help that a quick check of your talk page suggests this is not the first instance you've been annoying someone on their talk page although maybe you weren't asked to stop in that instance. (Or you did when asked.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The remark from Robert McClennon: 1) produces no input with regards the claimant's issue, and 2) merely suggests my post is "overlong" while admitting at the same time that he refuses to read it. Naturally I needed to point out that everything in the post needed to be stated, and if you do happen to read it, you'll see it is not actually a justification of my actions (I've accepted they were wrong), but it is an analysis of the surrounding events and in particular the conduct of the claimant. You appear to forget that there is such thing as BOOMERANG and this is the relevant thread for citing such concerns. Second thing: with regards the second editor you allude to that I annoyed (earlier instance), well snap, he pissed me off as well. You are talking about one extremely rude individual who does not know how to talk politely or interact with fellow editors on whom he does not agree on things and he can count his blessings that he has never been sanctioned nor - if I had my way - banned for breach of CIVIL. Sometimes on multiple occasions. A few appear to think that if a new editor is lacking in standard then it is fine to swear at them while they remain free to edit. I tell you if he ever spoke like that to me then I promise you he won't be editing today, and as for using this language on me in real life, well, let's not even go there - outcome will not be pleasant for him. Nevertheless, I should have pinged him. He did breach policy and appeared to be ignoring it. I've got better things to do that check on him to see if he has breached it again but if it should occur on a page that I am watching then it will be raised here along with the instance you referred to where he was in the wrong, not me. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You now seem to be treading in the area of veiled threats. I strongly recommend against such a tact. Icarosaurvus (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Point taken Icarosauvus. We'll meet half way. If nobody mentions rude editors with bad attitudes to me then I won't raise the subject either. No threats from me - and I don't do "veiled" as there is nothing slimy or creepy about me. I lead a clean life. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"JO", do take care not to get typecast. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate Wikipedia behaviour

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

---

On user BallenaBlanca.

There is ongoing litigation w the above editor related to a number of behavioural problems. The issue is overall with disruptive editing, Wikihounding and one-purpose, POV editing (I hope I am in the right place here). The editor in question claims in his personal page to be focused on medicine, still since approximately September 2017 his activity stands out for litigating on red hot controversial national issues nowadays at the very center of political life in Spain and media, often accompanied with misleading edit summaries. It really looks like WP:NOTHERE.

I had a first contact and numerous discussions in Catalan independence referendum, 2017, where the editor in question almost automatically reverts to extenuation edits that do not suit his views, even verified information, with content blanking. I got fed up in that article, and then I found he is jumping onto my area of interest doing highly controversial edits. Admittedly he has irritated me and my reply has not been at times the most level-headed. Thanks

• [74] Alteration of main information to conspicuously focus on fringe information], misleading edit summary, citing "consensus". [75] Check source here

• [76] Removal of supporting material, content blanking (references) and misleading edit summary

• [77] Removal of inconvenient WP:IJDLI depiction (check picture), is an artwork vetoed from article for being 'subjective'?]

• [78] Straight disruptive, POV editing] One of a series, browsing Basque articles to remove Basque and often add instead Spanish.

• [79] Idem, remove Basque and add Spanish

• [80] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently.

• [81] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

• [82] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

The editor in question has refused talk on his page. It has followed instead in my talk page.

Iñaki LL (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment 1. For some time I am kindly asking Iñaki LL to stop personal attacks, to respect the Wikipedia policies and to comment on the topics of the pages and not on the users per WP:TALK#USE WP:TPYES, without success. See a few examples [83] [84] [85]

As we can see here in his message above, he are again judging my attitude and labelling me, also violating WP:AGF.

He is reverting me with edit summaries that are considered personal attacks, misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil per WP: SUMMARYNO. A few examples (and there are several more): [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]

"The editor in question has refused talk on his page. It has followed instead in my talk page."

Iñaki LL left a message in my talk page, [94] that I removed per WP:HUSH. After this, I left a message in his talk page and we talked there. Again, I asked him to stop personal attacks User talk:Iñaki LL#You are committing personal attacks.

Maybe someone can explain me where I make personal attacks in these messages... ? User talk:Iñaki LL#You are committing personal attacks.

I will reply point by point to his objections (his text in italic):

• 1 [95] Alteration of main information to conspicuously focus on fringe information], misleading edit summary, citing "consensus". [96] Check source here

I do not understand the objections here, it is more detailed information and adjusted to the source, which explains "[El Ministerio del Interior ha decidido trasladar a la Fiscalía General del Estado las acusaciones contra la Policía Nacional y la Guardia Civil formuladas por la alcaldesa de Barcelona

Misleading edit summary, citing "consensus"? The content of the page was hardly discussed here Request for Comment (last comment 21:48, 18 October 2017) including this section on Violence and injuries. I restored the content to the version as it was at the end of this RfC. You can compare both texts:

- 23:50, 18 October 2017 "The Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against Spanish Law enforcement organisations.[172]"

- 12:33, 20 January 2018 "The Spanish Ministry of the Interior instructed the Spanish Attorney General to investigate whether the accusations of police sexual abuse against protesters made by Mayor of Barcelona Ada Colau, who had mentioned the councilor's statements, could be considered a legal offense of slander against Spanish Law enforcement organisations.[208]"

(And in the meantime you can see again in this latest edit summary another one of the Iñaki's multiple and continuous accusations, in this case "POV", and violations of WP: SUMMARYNO)

• 2. [97] Removal of supporting material, content blanking (references) and misleading edit summary

This refer to the content that starts with "On 18 January 2018, the Spanish Home ..." In my edit summary I was referring to this user Edgarmm81 Edgarmm81 - legal threat I will not to extend in explanations here about how this user were continuosly violating WP:NOR WP:SYNTH, this is not the place. You can read more about this here Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017#Edits by Edgarmm81

• 3. [98] Removal of inconvenient WP:IJDLI depiction (check picture), is an artwork vetoed from article for being 'subjective'?]

This image has no place on a page about politics (may be fine on a page about art), it is a work of art that offers the author's own version, therefore a primary source and does not comply with WP: RS.

• 4. [99] Straight disruptive, POV editing] One of a series, browsing Basque articles to remove Basque and often add instead Spanish.

The accurate information is what I left after my edit in the page, Amaiur, that "Baztan in the autonomous region of Navarre in Spain". In fact, if you do a search on Navarra's own page, there is not a single link to Basque that I removed from Amaiur.

• 5. [100] Idem, remove Basque and add Spanish

No, what I did was to complete the information with more accurate and adjusted data, also adding information and a link to the Autonomous Community in the infobox, which only contained the population and the country, but not the Autonomous Community.

• 6. [101] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently.

Look at my edit summary “Unsourced. Please, feel free to re-add this information supported by a reliable source”. Unreferenced content can be deleted without further explanation. I think all of us know the WP:RS policy.

• 7. [102] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

Look at my edit summary “Adjusted nationality as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. The Constitution of Spain only admits one nation, which is the Spanish Nation.” There is no such thing as " Basque Spanish" nationality, it not exists and nobody uses it. This is an invented term that violates WP:NOR.

And I now add something that I did not write in this edit summary, which is that in this way duplicate information is simplified and avoided reiterations (see the following content: "He became the second elected Lehendakari (President of the Basque Country)") Also taking into account that the lead section must be a concise overview per MOS:LEAD.

• 8. [103] Idem, one-purpose ideological editing, on articles I have edited recently, remove Basque and add Spanish.

I am very happy that you put this example here so that everyone can see that you are even withdrawing the nationality from the infoboxes.

You can see more about this here Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Nationality

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment 2. I wonder if this can be considered as WP:CANVASS, since they are not cited nor involved here, just me, and they edit in the same line as Iñaki LL, [104] [105] [106]. If not, I apologize for my mistake. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been noticed about this discussion and I haven't followed all the events surrounding it, but I have seen the editions made by BallenaBlanca in order to promote certain agenda. Even when notified that his POV can be challenged with other articles about Kurdish, Flemish, Taiwanese or Sardinian people he has changed them all, making his editions point in one and only one purpose: trying to use the opinion of the Spanish Constitutional Court as the point to determine how an article in Wikipedia should be written, even for people from other countries and nationalities. I think that this attitude is utterly disruptive. Maybe this section is out of the scope from this Incident, but he is even trying to change all the "Basque Country" links to "Basque Autonomous Community", and we all know that they are not the same. It seems that this user is following a plan to deliverately promote certain views. -Theklan (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment 4.@Theklan: you are saying “Even when notified that his POV can be challenged with other articles about Kurdish, Flemish, Taiwanese or Sardinian people he has changed them all, making his editions point in one and only one purpose”. I'm sure you're writing this in good faith, but it's obvious that you're confusing me with another user. Can you please provide diffs to prove this assertion? I have never edited on pages about Kurdish, Flemish, Taiwanese or Sardinian people.

I am always editing assuming good faith, including references and respecting the policies about verifiable sources WP:MEDRS WP:RS. See for example this 500 edit summaries.

I'm always listening the opinions of other users, editing collaboratively, using the specific talk pages, and arguing from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. You can see here that 17% of my global contributions are in Talk pages and 73% in Main pages, while the rest in miscellaneous.

And if I'm wrong, I have no problem recognizing it. See for example this Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017#Last edit by BallenaBlanca and how I did the reversion myself (Restored previous version, trimmed primmary source per talk) and also the same in Operation Anubis (Reverting to revision of 17:06, 30 April 2018. Trimmed content supported by a primary source per WP:RS). This only an example, and obviously does not fit with a POV pushing editor.

About your last comment, once again, I repeat that my edits were intended to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context. I adjusted as stated on the main page on Basque Country (autonomous community). See the edit summaries [107] "(The Basque Country is officially the Basque Autonomous Community. See Basque Country (autonomous community))." Edited: By the way, "Basque Country" is a desambiguation page.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 12:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the editor seems to have a lot of time, which I do not. The editor in question seems to know very well the rules and uses them against editors in the opposite spectrum of his POV, deceptively citing administrative/technical reasons ('adjusted', etc.). Looks like a bureaucracy really. Anyone knowing the topics, knows this editing is extremely controversial and contested, they are red hot national sensitive issues in Spain at this very moment, for which I have doubts over this account. He goes browsing the EN WP removing automatically Basque/Catalan for Spanish, and acknowledging only administrative realities, or citing the Spanish Constitution.

His reaction above is very telling about his attitude, he does have a lot of time to question the contribution of others, pushing the most restrictive interpretations according to his POV, there is always a pretext, in a way that the outcome of the edit is virtually a censorship of the relevant piece of information. It is highly disruptive, ultimately scaring away editors.

I had to leave the Catalan referendum article, and now he is coming over to Basque topics as some kind of rescuer of the WP. Anyway, I think the diffs I added above are revealing enough of his POV, one-purpose activity. Admittedly, at times he got bit on my nerves. One year-ago, a disruptive editor, User:Asilah1981, was finally banned after 2 and a half disrupting the WP (I went through all kind of tricks and attacks against me, eliciting improper reactions from mine), and this is looking not very different. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment 6. Iñaki LL, with all of my respects, I will kindly make an observation. Maybe then the main problem is that, as you are saying yourself, you are losing your nerves. Arguing, reasoning or interpreting the conversations and messages of others with neutrality is very complicated, while not impossible, when one is not calm, centered nor focussed. Maybe that's the reason why, despite all my explanations, you continue to accuse me of bad faith, violating WP:AGF, with the accusation you added here that I am gaming the system (I cite your words, follow the link "Looks like a bureaucracy really"). I would suggest that you try to calm down, please, so that we can talk in a fluid, neutral and calm way.

What I am doing is respecting the rules and asking others to respect them too, as simple as that. They are the basis of Wikipedia, without them this would be chaos.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. You are not respecting the rules, but making a sui generis interpretation of them to promote your POV in a disruptive way. You are also accusing others of not following the rules, and in the same talk pages you are not even accepting an argument over your bureaucratic attitude towards the subject, disregarding what external sources say, what common sense say and what the reader would expect fom a Wikipedia article.

About the changes in other nationalities (Quebécois, Flemish, Kurdish...): sorry, maybe it wans't you in the discussion who claimed that he/she was going to change them all. I have reviewed the conversation and I think it was Crystallizedcarbon who claimed it. -Theklan (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Catalan separatism is on my list. EEng 19:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly a case for dispute resolution rather than admin intervention. Perhaps inevitably the situation in Catalonia and Spain itself is being reflected by users from that country on wikipedia with a huge amount of passion for the subject, and dispute resolution seems to be the only sensible way forward, given this thread. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It is nothing about passion except what I pointed that I overreacted to the editor's controversial campaign and wikihounding, the sequence of edits are clear above. The editor in question, mild mannered but extremely aggressive in actions, shows a command of policies to censor other editors in highly sensitive issues, evading common sense and consensus seeking, besides having plenty of time, always pursuing the rule, if any, in its most restrictive and alienating interpretation, changing the edits of editors with a different POV. See also here (verified information), where a verified authoritative voice was automatically reverted by the editor ultimately "for being a primary source", when nothing more is being reported in the text than what that authoritative voice said.

The case of Navarre above (Amaiur) ("In fact, if you do a search on Navarra's own page, there is not a single link to Basque that I removed from Amaiur") is very revealing of the kind of self-entitled reasoning of the editor in question, incomprehensible, just self-entitlement, only what he says is good. He removes Basque, critical information (I do not know if this editor knows anything on the village, it seems that he does absolutely nothing if his edit is anything to go by) and adding Spain, with no nuance or further considerations other than that.

The disruptive POV pursuit is clearer in his way of migrating from one article to another, evading more easily detection. He claims to edits on "medical", although it clear looks more of a facade if his edits are anything to get by. I strongly believe a topic-ban applies, other than that, a warning temporary block, incremental if he continues his disruptive the WP or his hounding pursuit. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment. It seems that I also have to apologize if I have time to edit in Wikipedia...

Your sense of "hounding pursuit" is very easy to explain.

The starting point was when this thread was opened on May 15, 2018 Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Nationality, page that I have been following for some time. My first intervention in this thread was on May 21, 2018 [108] You can enter my contributions and check dates, to see that before May 21, 2018, I had not done any edit correcting errors about nationalities (because they do not comply with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context).

From there, I was interested in seeing how the situation was in other related pages. That was as simple as looking for categories, entering the lists and going checking pages one by one, correcting the irregularities (a great part has the correct data). As I have looked at several tens, it seems that I have coincided with you, for what I have been able to verify later with your multiple reversions of my edits, with misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil edit summaries violating WP:SUMMARYNO.

I'm not trying to upset you, your reactions depends on your personality. For example, I am very calm and I did not react violently to these edit summaries, although reasons were not lacking:

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

On the contrary, have you noticed that I have not undone them? Except for a couple of pages a few days ago, in which we both undid edits, I have not touched the rest (easy to check it seeing the histories). If I were like you say that I am, I would have continued to revert, but I am waiting calmly to see how the open discussion in Talk Puigdemont is resolved.

In addition, a user left me this message in my UTP on 23 May, with a list of pages arbitrarily edited by a sockpuppet currently banned, who systematically introduced irregularities about nationalities violating Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, among other things.

Linking here and there, I ended up reviewing a large number of articles.

P.S.: Note that the policy that you mentioned hounding says:

Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam.

About your bann suggestion and seeing that you still do not calm down, judging and accusing me more and moere, keep in mind that it could be applied WP:BOOMERANG.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban would need to apply to both sides which is why dispute resolution would be much better. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If he feels there is a "POV pursuit" on my part, I am not responsible for it. I do not know what more can I do to get him to calm down, although I'm trying to ask him kindly.

It is easy to show that I am not following or harassing Iñaki LL and that the times we coincided in pages were fortuity.

I have taken the last contributions of Iñaki LL (I have eliminated the duplicates, that is, the pages in which he made several edits).

Let's see the RESULTS:

ARTICLES:

• May 27, 2018: 16 edits by Iñaki LL, reverting my only edit on those pages, except in Joseba Sarrionandia, in which I made 2 edits, and Carlos Garaikoetxea, in which I made 7 edits .
• May 25, 2018: 2 pages edited by Iñaki LL, one of them reverting my only edit in Étienne Polverel. I did 5 edits in Juan José Ibarretxe.
• May 23, 2018 to April 15, 2018: 38 pages edited by Iñaki LL. I made 0 edits in 35 of these pages, 1 edit in University of the Basque Country, 1 edit in José María Arizmendiarrieta, and 179 in Catalan independence referendum.

TALK PAGES:

• You can see how I am using the talk pages of articles in which I have edited several times, but I have not followed Iñaki LL to any other page.

And if you keep looking back, you'll see the same pattern (I'm not going to put more here to not collapse the page).

In conclusion: We have edited in a few same pages coincidentally, there is no bad faith on my part.

I paste here the results of the reports and the links so you can check it:

Articles

ARTICLES: May 27, 2018: 23:44, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-33)‎ . . Arnaldo Otegi ‎ (Undid revision 842918300 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing) (Tag: Undo) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Arnaldo Otegi (0.27% of the total edits made to the page) 23:41, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-80)‎ . . Zarama (band) ‎ (Undid revision 842930922 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose, contentious editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Zarama (band) (5.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-14)‎ . . Jorge Oteiza ‎ (Undid revision 842926502 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Jorge Oteiza (1.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:39, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-25)‎ . . BAP (Basque band) ‎ (Undid revision 842931726 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on BAP (Basque band) (2.22% of the total edits made to the page) 23:35, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-46)‎ . . Betagarri ‎ (Undid revision 842931555 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Betagarri (1.61% of the total edits made to the page) 23:16, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-75)‎ . . Negu Gorriak ‎ (Undid revision 842931881 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Negu Gorriak (0.74% of the total edits made to the page) 23:15, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-65)‎ . . Nestor Basterretxea ‎ (Undid revision 843078112 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv systematic controversial editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Nestor Basterretxea (1.61% of the total edits made to the page) 23:13, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-45)‎ . . Joseba Sarrionandia ‎ (Undid revision 842927897 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 2 edits by BallenaBlanca on Joseba Sarrionandia (1.61% of the total edits made to the page) 23:12, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+5)‎ . . Delorean (band) ‎ (Undid revision 842926603 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious POV editor) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Delorean (band) (0.67% of the total edits made to the page) 23:11, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-82)‎ . . Fermin Muguruza ‎ (Undid revision 842923344 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv POV editor) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Fermin Muguruza (0.74% of the total edits made to the page) 23:10, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+16)‎ . . José Antonio de Gaztañeta ‎ (Undid revision 842925973 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (Tag: Undo) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on José Antonio de Gaztañeta (1.92% of the total edits made to the page) 23:10, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+11)‎ . . Federico Krutwig ‎ (Undid revision 842918401 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (Tag: Undo) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Federico Krutwig (1.18% of the total edits made to the page) 23:08, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . Diego de Borica ‎ (Undid revision 842927233 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv verified info by campaignerr) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Diego de Borica (1.04% of the total edits made to the page) 23:08, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+10)‎ . . Pablo Sorozábal ‎ (Undid revision 842926050 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Pablo Sorozábal (1.27% of the total edits made to the page) 23:05, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-100)‎ . . Kortatu ‎ (Undid revision 842930320 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv POV editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Kortatu (1.11% of the total edits made to the page) 20:45, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+25)‎ . . Carlos Garaikoetxea ‎ (Undid revision 843032492 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv to inclusive definition, critical national background) (Tag: Undo) Found 7 edits by BallenaBlanca on Carlos Garaikoetxea (5.51% of the total edits made to the page) May 25, 2018: 22:14, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+94)‎ . . Étienne Polverel ‎ (Undid revision 842923556 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose editing) (current) (Tag: Undo) [rollback] [vandalism] Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on Étienne Polverel (1.56% of the total edits made to the page) 22:13, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . Juan José Ibarretxe ‎ (Undid revision 842917331 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv removal of critical information / controversial editing) (Tag: Undo) Found 5 edits by BallenaBlanca on Juan José Ibarretxe (2.81% of the total edits made to the page) May 23, 2018 to April 15, 2018: 22:59, 23 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-43)‎ . . Altsasu incident (2016) ‎ (Undid revision 842634762 by Oraina (talk) Rv non existent category, also Spanish judicial truth still pending) (current) (Tag: Undo) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Altsasu incident (2016) ‎ (0% of the total edits made to the page) 16:02, 23 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+46)‎ . . Basque Nationalist Party ‎ (Undid revision 842599191 by 112.64.68.70 (talk) Not grammar) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Basque Nationalist Party (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 16:02, 23 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+124)‎ . . Xirula ‎ (Undid revision 842570006 by Dbachmann (talk) Rv per WP:VER) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Xirula (0% of the total edits made to the page) 14:02, 22 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . Reconquista ‎ (Undid revision 842419682 by 62.12.175.131 (talk) Rv to accurate, balanced version) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Reconquista (0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:09, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+113)‎ . . Immigration to Europe ‎ (→‎Spain: Picture) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Immigration to Europe (0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:21, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+122)‎ . . Syrian Civil War ‎ (→‎Ceasefire and escalation (April 2012 – December 2013): Picture) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Syrian Civil War (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:13, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+114)‎ . . 2018 Gaza border protests ‎ (→‎14 May: Picture) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Gaza border protests (0% of the total edits made to the page) 12:07, 19 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+36)‎ . . Basque National Liberation Movement prisoners ‎ (→‎Recent developments: links) (current) (Tag: Visual edit) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Basque National Liberation Movement prisoners (0% of the total edits made to the page) 15:37, 17 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Battle of Toulouse (721) ‎[ https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=BallenaBlanca&page=Battle+of+Toulouse&max=500&server=enwiki Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Battle of Toulouse (0.0% of the total edits made to the page)] 07:09, 17 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+669)‎ . . Basque Country (greater region) ‎ (Undid revision 841633490 by 174.71.219.114 (talk) Rv IP) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Basque Country (greater region) (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 12:02, 16 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+25)‎ . . Pamplona ‎ (English) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Pamplona (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 00:55, 15 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+748)‎ . . José María Arizmendiarrieta ‎ (→‎Biography: Expanded) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on José María Arizmendiarrieta (1.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:43, 14 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-90)‎ . . Reconquista ‎ (Idem) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Reconquista ‎ (Idem) (0% of the total edits made to the page) 13:01, 12 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Lemóniz Nuclear Power Plant ‎ (Idem) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Lemóniz Nuclear Power Plant (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 07:56, 10 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . French Basque Country ‎ (Undid revision 840446672 by Jamez42 (talk) English language name) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on French Basque Country (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 21:02, 9 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+25)‎ . . Navarre ‎ (Undid revision 840405482 by 152.16.39.247 (talk) Rv unexplained change) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Navarre (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-169)‎ . . San Sebastián ‎ (→‎Modern Age: Restored previous removed info, avoided redundancies, cleaned up) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on San Sebastián (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 09:22, 9 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+173)‎ . . Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette ‎ (Undid revision 840338018 by Wehwalt (talk) This is a fully free licensed picture, it is in Pasai Donibane for everyone to see, thanks) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:22, 8 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Alsasua fight ‎ (Fixed) (current) (Tag: New redirect) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Alsasua fight (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:20, 8 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+37)‎ . . N Alsasua incident ‎ (Redirect) (current) (Tag: New redirect) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on N Alsasua incident (0% of the total edits made to the page) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+5)‎ . . Lèse-majesté ‎ (Tweak) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Lèse-majesté (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 22:44, 7 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+69)‎ . . La Manada sexual abuse case ‎ (Oops, links) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on La Manada sexual abuse case (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:55, 2 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+22)‎ . . Carmen Lamela ‎ (→‎Audiencia Nacional of Spain (National Court): Link, fixes) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Carmen Lamela (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:48, 2 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+142)‎ . . Alsasua – Altsasu ‎ (Link) (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Alsasua – Altsasu (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 21:30, 2 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . User:Iñaki LL/sandbox ‎ (current) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on User:Iñaki LL/sandbox (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:27, 1 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+425)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (→‎Current requests for increase in protection level) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 10:05, 29 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+293)‎ . . GAL (paramilitary group) ‎ (Undid revision 838698301 by Abedulanilla (talk) Rv unexplained change) (Tag: Undo) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on User talk:Amorymeltzer (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:32, 23 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+67)‎ . . Olárizu ‎ (info) (current) (Tag: Visual edit) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Olárizu (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:00, 22 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . m Battle of Irún ‎ (→‎Notes) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Battle of Irún (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 11:20, 21 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+265)‎ . . Crown of Aragon ‎ (Ref) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Crown of Aragon (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 21:56, 20 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+376)‎ . . Catalan independence referendum, 2017 ‎ (Undid revision 837411460 by Crystallizedcarbon (talk) No, no and no, it is a reported statement of what a recognisable, authoritative document says) (Tag: Undo) [Catalan independence referendum, 2017 Found 179 edits by BallenaBlanca on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (9.74% of the total edits made to the page)] 23:20, 18 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . Charles Martel ‎ (→‎Background: Nuance) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Charles Martel (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 11:38, 17 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+50)‎ . . Mimizan ‎ (→‎History: links, paragraph) (current) (Tag: Visual edit) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Mimizan (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 15:16, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+5)‎ . . Wikipedia:Help desk ‎ (→‎Redirect and rename issue) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Wikipedia:Help desk (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 12:00, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+15)‎ . . Ikurriña ‎ (Undid revision 836696508 by 150.241.162.243 (talk) Testa desegin) (current) (Tag: Undo) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Ikurriña (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 23:25, 15 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . University of the Basque Country ‎ (Wording, pragraphs) (Tag: Visual edit) Found 1 edits by BallenaBlanca on University of the Basque Country (0.4% of the total edits made to the page) 23:09, 15 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+46)‎ . . N UPV-EHU ‎ (←Redirected page to University of the Basque Country) (Tag: New redirect) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on N UPV-EHU (NaN% of the total edits made to the page) 00:43, 13 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-16)‎ . . EH Bildu ‎ (Reverted 3 edits by 79.136.107.17 (talk): Misrepresentation of source. (TW)) (current) (Tag: Undo) [vandalism] Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on EH Bildu (0.0% of the total edits made to the page)

Talk pages

TALK PAGES: 23:49, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+269)‎ . . Talk:Carles Puigdemont ‎ (→‎Nationality) Found 16 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Carles Puigdemont (3.8% of the total edits made to the page) 21:27, 27 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+432)‎ . . Talk:Carlos Garaikoetxea ‎ (→‎Nationality) Found 9 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Carlos Garaikoetxea (33.33% of the total edits made to the page) 23:05, 25 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+389)‎ . . Talk:Juan José Ibarretxe ‎ (→‎Nationality) Found 7 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Juan José Ibarretxe (21.88% of the total edits made to the page) 09:44, 9 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+515)‎ . . Talk:Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette ‎ (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 17:16, 2 May 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+269)‎ . . User talk:Amorymeltzer ‎ (→‎Removal of Page protection petition) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on User talk:Amorymeltzer (0.0% of the total edits made to the page) 01:03, 26 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+635)‎ . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 ‎ (→‎Revert of authoritative document) Found 102 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (9.24% of the total edits made to the page) 18:28, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+130)‎ . . Talk:Basque Country (greater region) ‎ (→‎Edit warring in lead) Found 0 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Basque Country (greater region) (0.0% of the total edits made to the page)

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

More argumentation based on evidences, showing what Iñaki LL has omitted.

There are more problems with his accusations against me. When only part of the facts are exposed, a biased view is being given.

Iñaki LL said: "It is nothing about passion except what I pointed that I overreacted to the editor's controversial campaign and wikihounding, the sequence of edits are clear above. The editor in question, mild mannered but extremely aggressive in actions, shows a command of policies to censor other editors in highly sensitive issues, evading common sense and consensus seeking, besides having plenty of time, always pursuing the rule, if any, in its most restrictive and alienating interpretation, changing the edits of editors with a different POV. See also here (verified information), where a verified authoritative voice was automatically reverted by the editor ultimately "for being a primary source", when nothing more is being reported in the text than what that authoritative voice said."

I will develop the rest of the information that Iñaki LL has not mentioned and that can prevent you from seeing the facts with the necessary neutrality.

This is the edit that Iñaki LL refers to Revision as of 22:25, 20 April 2018 BallenaBlanca (Leaving aside other considerations, trim this content per WP:SPA. Before reinserting again, please reach consensus in the PD.), which was made by Edgarmm81 here: Revision as of 09:34, 20 April 2018) Edgarmm81 (→‎Press coverage and Internet)

I undid the edit and asked him to use the TP Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017/Archive 7#Revert of authoritative document. When I said "leaving aside other considerations" I meant that, besides having a behaviour compatible with WP:SPA [109], he did not listen to the multiple advices to use verifiable sources, complying with WP:NPOV, using the templates to format the references and taking care of the presentation and writing.

The source that Iñaki LL says is "a verified authoritative voice" does not comply WP:RS: it is a self submitted publication by a hacker / activist. A small extract from the discussion (by the way, opened by Iñaki LL himself) [110] (Notice that it is not me who is arguing this):

• First is that the statement that "claims pushed by Spain about Twitter bots & #Catalonia are false" is original research on a primary source as what the document criticized are the alleged methods used but does not make that claim.
• Second the phrase "UK Parliament 'fake news' committee publishes" is misleading, as this is not an official report. The committee is still ongoing and has opened a site where document submission is open. (see here) it lists all those contributions on that page. Since it is not subject to editorial control, so it would not qualify as a reliable source.
• Third the term US expert is also misleading. McGrath is just a young hacker and an activist that has developed some software tools for gathering data.

In fact, after an edit war motivated by the user who added it and another user indefinitely blocked for being a suck puppet [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116], who kept adding it without paying attention to the discussion, the information has not been added again.

This edits profile has been the general rule in the referendum page and the reason why I have done so many edits on that page (and its talk page), seeking neutrality, consensus, and trying to avoid vandalism and irregularities.

Best regards.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that is a wall. Why are you bringing all these links? Thanks but I do not need them and do not think nobody requested them, my claim is much more simple. However, the link above ("fake news") seems to be right, so you are right on that link, I was wrong in choosing that diff. I remember now that it was actually discussed. A point for you. Your mild manner is not an issue, that is good, but it is not about the words, it is about your actions.

So going through articles you never have worked on, where I have been recently or not long ago, in my area of interest, exclusively to substitute 'Basque' for 'Spanish' (an ideological move and highly contentious in Spain, more so in certain politicians, needless to say), with a focus also in 'independence' matters (from above), after having a good number of scuffles and litigation with you in Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (for which I left the article) is just a coincidence. That has a name in the WP, for which came here. It does not look very constructive, it all seems more to elicit a reaction or tediousness.

You do not need to undo anything for Wikihounding. As for the rest, your history and mine are there for whomever to look at. I have been for 10 years on the WP, I had to put up with a disruptive editor, a sockpuppet, finally banned after two years and a half roaming freely through the WP, accusing me (etc...) of all kind of things. To whomever this refers. I have nothing more to say. I request a sanction on the grounds pointed above, based on breach of healthy editing environment. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for acknowledging your error.

10 years? Really? And after 10 years in Wikipedia, you're surprised because an edit of yours is undone because it does not provide references? (neither verifiable nor unverifiable, no reference at all).

Neither you are taking into account that I invited you kindly to add the content again, supported by a reliable reference. Let's see the my edit summary in the link you just provided: Unsourced. Please, feel free to re-add this information supported by a reliable source.

Neither you are taking into account that I have not undone it, although that is what should be done. It is still the current version [117].

Also, please remember that Wikpedia is an open voluntary project and that the users can edit in the pages we want, and we do not need to justify or explain why we choose the topics or the articles we edit; we do not have obligations or a calendar of edits WP:CHOICE WP:VOLUNTEER. We only have to comply with (all) the policies, this is the basis of Wikipedia.

It seems that you think you are not obligated to comply with the rules and you can apply them arbitrarely, and that you edit letting yourself be carried away by emotions. This is a big problem for Wikipedia...

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I continue providing documented evidence.

Let's see now how Iñaki LL has also forgotten the facts? / made a mistake?, saying that I have been harassing him and that because of my behaviour he has had to stop editing on the referendum page.

He has said it twice in this thread (citing his words literally): “after having a good number of scuffles and litigation with you in Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (for which I left the article) "highly disruptive" "pushing the most restrictive interpretations according to his POV" "editing is extremely controversial" “I had to leave the Catalan referendum article, and now he is coming over to Basque topics”

Here we have the complete list of his edits on the referendum talk page:

• Found 94 edits by Iñaki LL on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (8.51% of the total edits made to the page)

Edits by Iñaki LL on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 - Detailed list

23:03, 25 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+635) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 22:12, 25 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+974) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Edits by Edgarmm81 */) 21:15, 25 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,383) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 20:42, 25 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+500) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Edits by Edgarmm81 */) 22:08, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+0) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 22:07, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+15) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 22:03, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,602) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 21:25, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+609) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Edits by Edgarmm81 */) 19:33, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+201) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2,574) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Revert of authoritative document */) 22:10, 21 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+0) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Typo) 19:59, 21 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+928) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 20:13, 20 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+654) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 20:03, 17 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-2) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */ Format) 20:02, 17 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-4) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 20:01, 17 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,073) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 21:29, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+362) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion 2 by Crystallizedcarbon */) 20:58, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+9) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion 2 by Crystallizedcarbon */) 20:58, 16 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+936) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion 2 by Crystallizedcarbon */) 22:58, 14 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+273) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 21:57, 12 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-8) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 21:56, 12 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */ Fixed) 21:55, 12 April 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,417) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Reversion by Crystallizedcarbon */) 10:18, 25 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+452) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 01:28, 25 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+3) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 01:27, 25 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+688) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+884) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+509) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:28, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:28, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 00:27, 23 February 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+893) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Cyberattacks and disinformation are not the same thing */) 19:39, 21 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+6) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* PRESS COVERAGE */ Reply) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+19) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* PRESS COVERAGE */) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+580) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* PRESS COVERAGE */) 10:11, 20 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+98) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 10:07, 20 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+766) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 18:31, 14 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+87) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Consensus version altered */) 18:27, 14 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+802) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Consensus version altered */) 17:45, 14 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+963) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 23:52, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-13,906) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */ Reply) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-27,124) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Do add your information in the article, sourced and accurately) 17:39, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-13,850) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */ No and no, this is no wall, come here for discussion to fix specific problems) 09:14, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+249) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 08:14, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 08:13, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+225) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 08:01, 11 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+316) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */) 20:41, 10 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (-30) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Mass removal of content */ Fixed link) 20:39, 10 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+407) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Multiple voting */) 12:44, 30 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+26) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Misrepresentation of sources */ Sb added this in the wrong place, not belonging there, create section) 08:21, 28 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+270) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Apparent Misquote in article with no citation for support */) 20:35, 20 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-6) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Thanks but no, do not alter the meaning of signed comments) 22:48, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+307) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* "The Guardian" about fake news of violence */) 22:42, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+514) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 21:58, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,174) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 20:58, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+323) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 20:32, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-58) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Undid revision 806077687 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv unhelpful edit, by WP:TPO, like improductive and harmful personal edits, see also WP:NPA) 14:10, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-58) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Removed userbox per WP:TPNO) 13:59, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Fixed link) 13:59, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+2) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Fixed link) 13:57, 19 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,912) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:38, 18 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+391) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:06, 18 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+579) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 19:53, 18 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+458) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:23, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+2) . . m Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:22, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,748) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 14:54, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+426) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 13:28, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+282) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 13:15, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 13:10, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 13:09, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+799) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 08:41, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+263) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 08:36, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+319) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Fixed comment) 08:32, 17 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+367) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:37, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+3) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:36, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+613) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 22:21, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+707) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 22:01, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+378) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 21:56, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+576) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 21:35, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+557) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 21:04, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+646) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 20:36, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */ Spelling) 20:35, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,808) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 17:38, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,507) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+708) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 10:25, 16 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+410) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Level of detail on the lead */) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+220) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Misrepresentation of sources */) 20:15, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+237) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Supposed illegality of "approved law" */) 20:02, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+788) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Supposed illegality of "approved law" */) 19:33, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+267) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (Unsigned comment) 13:52, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,139) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Misrepresentation of sources */) 09:52, 14 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+580) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Neglect to include Franco-Catalan electorate in referenda */) 22:21, 08 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1,338) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Request for Comment */) 20:39, 08 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+869) . . Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (/* Request for Comment */)

If what he is saying is true, we would have to see how he was continually discussing with me until his last edit and leave because he could not stand it.

Well, we can verify that it is completely false. Checking his edits one by one in reverse chronological order, from the last one on April 25, 2018 to October 19, 2017 (I have skipped edits with minor changes such as (+0) (+15) (-2) (-4)... and I have not included all the edits because the list is very long, but with these is more than enough to get a clear idea) and seeing who he is answering to, we have the following results:

• The last time he was answering me was almost 6 months ago, on January 20, 2018.
• 18 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon
• 7 Replying to BallenaBlanca
• 3 Replying to Aljullu
• 3 Replying to Ymblanter
• 2 Removal of inaccurate content
• 2 Replying to Edgarmm81
• 2 Replying to BallenaBlanca and Crystallizedcarbon
• 1 To everyone (please WP:INDENT)
• 1 Voting

Detailed list with links for you can check it

Revision as of 01:03, 26 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 00:12, 26 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 23:15, 25 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 22:42, 25 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 00:03, 25 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 00:03, 25 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 23:25, 24 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 21:33, 24 April 2018 To everyone (please WP:INDENT) Revision as of 21:28, 24 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 21:59, 21 April 2018 Replying to Aljullu Revision as of 22:13, 20 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 22:01, 17 April 2018 Replying to Aljullu Revision as of 23:29, 16 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 22:58, 16 April 2018 Replying to Aljullu Revision as of 00:58, 15 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 23:55, 12 April 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 11:18, 25 February 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 02:27, 25 February 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 17:33, 23 February 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 01:53, 23 February 2018 Replying to Edgarmm81 Revision as of 01:27, 23 February 2018 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 20:38, 21 January 2018 Replying to Edgarmm81 Revision as of 11:11, 20 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 11:07, 20 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 19:27, 14 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 18:45, 14 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 00:52, 12 January 2018 Replying to Edgarmm81 Revision as of 18:41, 11 January 2018 Removal of inaccurate content Revision as of 18:39, 11 January 2018 Removal of inaccurate content Revision as of 10:14, 11 January 2018 Replying to Ymblanter Revision as of 09:13, 11 January 2018 Replying to Ymblanter Revision as of 09:01, 11 January 2018 Replying to Ymblanter Revision as of 21:39, 10 January 2018 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 10:21, 28 October 2017 Voting Revision as of 00:48, 20 October 2017 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 23:58, 19 October 2017 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 22:58, 19 October 2017 Replying to BallenaBlanca Revision as of 15:57, 19 October 2017 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon Revision as of 00:38, 19 October 2017 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon and BallenaBlanca Revision as of 00:06, 19 October 2017 Replying to Crystallizedcarbon and BallenaBlanca

I think that the multiple false accusations of Iñaki LL towards me, with the aim of getting my ban are very serious and deserve WP: BOOMERANG.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 05:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Is my first time here. Is any administrator going to say something? -Theklan (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you've all said too much, nobody wants to wade through all that. I would suggest you all get back to editing, and if a fellow editor's editing bothers you, then calmly and politely, and most importantly succinctly discuss the issues with them on their talk page, or the talk page of the article in dispute. Remember, ¡sucintamente! Fish+Karate 10:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Thank you very much for your answer.

I will follow your kindly advice. I will go back to editing in the various topics in which I have interest and in which I can collaborate positively to improve this encyclopedia, expanding them when interesting or possible, and fixing the numerous errors detected and adjusting them to the Wikipedia policies.

Of course, as I am always doing,, I will continue talking with other users calmly and politely.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 12:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

...Wow, so much noise, no surprise one cannot gather conclusions from the maze above. @Fish and karate: Beautiful words are good, but actions speak louder than words. I came here for a solution to irregular activity with POV overtones, for which I added a list of approx. 8 diffs, and an short explanation for each (see above). For whatever is worth, here is another diff [118], a revert dismissing a balanced edit of mine, including a vague/misleading edit summary, see here Archive 4 discussion referred in the edit summary by the editor in question; see also the reference supporting my statement [119] (headline goes, "Violences policières en Catalogne : attention aux images trompeuses / La journée de dimanche a été marquée par les violences policières en Catalogne, mais certaines images-chocs ont été manipulées. Explications.") Check out my edit, check out BallenaBlanca's revert, go to Archive 4. Please do it. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, your 1st diff in your latest share illustrates perfectly how both you and Ballena are pushing different POVs, POVs that are entrenched in Spain right now. If you want something done, ask for mediation. Admins here aren't going to support either political viewpoint. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you really read it? My report is not about POV, clear, it is about irregular editing with POV overtones, I do not call into question his POV. My last diff and related links above are revealing enough. Do I really need to go through all the details again? Please go through it. Read what my edit says and what the reference says. That is not about POV, it is about an ungrounded, irregular revert, that ultimately discourages participation in the article. (I did not even bother to undo the revert, despite knowing that I was right, to skip further litigation on both the main space and talk) Iñaki LL (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Another one here [120] (mass-removal of verified content). I doubt that youtube can be used altogether, but note that the editor has barred the whole paragraph. Twitter, as a platform, is not barred anywhere as a reliable source. Could this paragraph be improved in tone? Most probably, yes, but that is another thing.

Also [121] this and [122] this (sequence). Insisting on misrepresentation of sources (note edit summary, "adjusted to the source"). [123] Here El País article supporting the statement. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You may think statements like "Spanish unionist media initiated a propaganda campaign to discredit the victims, deny the Spanish anti-riot policemen charges and giving rise to the idea that all pictures were actually "fake news"" are neutral but it reads to me like pro-Catalan propaganda stated as fact. Content has to abide by POV and notability and not just be verifiable. This fails on POV grounds and is therefore a content dispute, as are all the issues between you and Ballena, and content disputes can¡t be fixed here at ANI. You need dispute resolutio and to identify problematic content currently on wikipedia, not just past edit warring. Is there a problem with Catalan independence referendum, 2017 as it now is? etc ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

With re to mass removal of content, apart from the first paragraph (clearly biased), the rest of it is accurate. Tweaking the rest of it could have saved the edit; apart from the the wording, the facts stated are well founded and supported, and would have added no doubt to mutual understanding, trust and cooperative environment. That is implied in WP:PRESERVE. Twitter has also been used here, which does not detract from the information's accuracy, relevance and notability. Removing the whole edit just alienated editors, and did not add to a healthy environment, clear, but one of confrontation. As for the second diff, it is as straightforward disruptive editing as it gets (misrepresentation of sources, deceptive edit summary). Iñaki LL (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, you aren't helping your case by removing my comments here ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, of course I did not intend to remove your edit, I just fixed my edit, but in the EDIT CONFLICT it seems to have removed your comment, so I should apologize for inadvertently removing it. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Alabama gubernatorial election, 2018 behavior by IPs

The following discussion is closed. 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 edit warring behavior by a couple of IPs over the last couple days, who I believe may be sockpuppets. I first noticed the disruptive behavior earlier with these two edits, both of which accuse an editor of pushing a political viewpoint, which does not appear to be the case (one edit was simple formatting, the other a change made with a source and explanation). Regardless of whether this IPs edits were correct or not, I placed a warning on their talk page for failure to assume good faith, which was apparent from the edit summaries. After I reverted those edits, a second IP started reverting. The second IP has made similar edits in the last couple days as well, as seen here on a different page. I am not sure that the two are connected, but the similar edit summaries makes me believe that they are. Not only did this edit remove sourced content but also, like the other IP, the edit summary was accusing the same editor of violating the NPOV policy, calling them a "Bell supporter" with no evidence to back that up. I do not want to get involved in an edit war or violate WP:3RR, but I am very concerned by the two IPs making accusations towards the editors whose edits they do not like.

The IPs are:

• 144.163.23.232
• 144.163.49.20

I am not sure what to do. As I said, I do not want to violate the three revert rule, and I cannot revert them again without doing so. I was not sure if I wanted to file an SPI because it is two IPs, and that is harder to monitor, but an edit war report would seem to be more difficult to prove since it is not one IP. I am concerned about the accusations that the two IP editors are making and do not know how to resolve the situation, especially given that the IP edit summaries have shown that this editor(s) have no interest in actually resolving a content dispute. If I am not doing this right, should have gone somewhere else, or did something else wrong, please let me know.

Tillerh11 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPs (which are most likely the same individual) should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

If they are sockpuppets, I'd also suggest the page be protected to prevent the user(s) from hopping onto another IP to continue. P.S. - Tillerh11, don't be afraid to file a SPI. The behavior and similar IPs of the users are heavily indicative of sock or meatpuppetry.Nanophosis (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nanophosis: My concern with filing a SPI was that I don't know how much good that will do, since as you said they can switch IPs again to evade a potential block. I have requested page protection. Tillerh11 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Tillerh11 I protected it for 1 week, since the primary is happening day after tomorrow. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editor and his socks

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

---

JJ 25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single purpose account, has caused massive disruption so far. Edit warring on dozens (and I literally mean dozens) of articles, in order to drag this non-European country into Europe.[124]-[125]-[126]-[127]-[128]-[129] Has abused tons of sock IP's as well, other than regular sock accounts.

Here's another one of his sock accounts; JJ 2626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And here are some of his sock IP's.

• 204.40.130.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 204.40.194.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 204.40.194.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 204.40.130.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 204.40.194.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 204.40.194.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 204.40.130.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 204.40.130.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 204.40.194.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Given how determined he is (has waited numerous times for page protections to wear off,[130] ignored numerous warnings on his talk pages[131]-[132]), I suggest performing a range block as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 has indeffed the three named accounts above per checkuser. For the IPs listed above, if a range block is needed I'd suggest Special:Contributions/204.40.128.0/17 for a month. All the edits from the range for the last couple of months look like they are the same person so there is not much risk of collateral. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment The reported editor does not fully understand all policies of editing Wikipedia and is definitively not discussing as they should (I reverted some of their edits myself), but I do not see any consensus that establishes that Armenia and Georgia should be categorically excluded from articles that list "European things" such as Politics of Europe, Central banks and currencies of Europe etc. Part of their territory is in Europe (similar like Russia), there is a consensus to list them in Europe#List of states and territories and they are members of Council of Europe. The POV formulation "drag this non-European country into Europe" makes this seem like a content dispute rather than vandalism, since the countries can be considered both European and Asian, and whether they are listed in a "European" lists is open for discussion. For instance, Armenia crisis: Protesters bring cities to standstill after vote 2 May 2018 is listed in category "Europe" by the BBC, so clearly the inclusion of Armenia in Politics of Europe is verifiable such as other edits of the user that were reverted because of their inability to back their contributions properly, so I don't really see basis for blocking this editor.--Concus Cretus (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

We are discussing his editorial pattern, which has been rampant so far. Lots of socking, lots of edit-warring, lots of single-purpose editing with a tunnel vision.[133] Zero intention to discuss his edits, zero intention to edit constructively. That's WP:NOTHERE in every sense of the definition, regardless of how "correct" or "incorrect" the content of some of his edits may or may not have been. Furthermore (though off-topic), in reference to your statement that "part of their territory is in Europe", you're mistaking recent political developments with the actual geographical context (because you're citing Wikipedia as a source, which is not allowed), as Armenia is geographically completely in Asia.

"Geographic Characteristics of the Republic of Armenia" (PDF). Marzes of the Republic of Armenia in Figures, 2002–2006. National Statistical Service of The Republic of Armenia. 2007. p. 6. Retrieved 15 January 2016. "Republic of Armenia is situated in south-western part of Asia. The country occupies the north-eastern part of Armenian plateau – between Caucasus and Nearest Asia".

With all due respect, but I do have to say its pretty endearing to see people defend "editors" who are clearly not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments around Armenia's "non-Europeanity" are WP:Original research and WP:Cherrypicking sources that suit your POV. It is a transcontinental country. Just the fact that you always reply something in discussion does not give credibility to the content to your edits. For instance, Georgia had formal recognition that it may apply for EU membership by the European Parliament; citing "Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – like any other European state – have a European perspective" in reference to the Article 49 of the Treaty of Maastricht (as amended), that says that any "European state" can apply. Your unsubstantiated removals of these countries from for for example Politics of Europe is as much "vandalism" as the accused users's behavior. Just because they don't know how to properly respond to your POV-pushing WP:Wikilawyering does not mean they are wrong or need to be blocked.--Concus Cretus (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I never disputed that Armenia "is" transcontintental. That's you making a strawman right there. Though its geographically fully in Asia, the Republic of Armenia is also part of the South Caucasus/Transcaucasus region. Due to that, and due to the recent political developments (i.e. Council of Europe, etc.), we "always" include Armenia in both Asia and Europe, at least category wise. Same goes for Georgia and Azerbaijan, but they are transcontinental by soil as well, unlike Armenia, as part of their territory lays in Europe. But this all has jack to do with the blocked sockmaster having a WP:NOTHERE editorial pattern, and which you, unacceptably, try to justify.

You are ignoring WP policies, and its becoming borderline disruptive in my opinion (WP:POINT). I don't have any intention to have a high tea with you @ ANI over the "Europeanness / non-Europeanness" of the Republic of Armenia. Consider this my final comment to you. Oh and btw, just a friendly advice; I highly suggest you go read a bit more about WP policies. All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• The sockmaster has just started another socking spree with his IP's.[134]. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

References

• Whether his Armenia-related edits are good or bad, this person should not be evading a block of his User:JJ 25 account using IPs, so I have gone ahead with a two-week block of Special:Contributions/204.40.128.0/17. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Uncooperative IP vandal

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

---

Been having issues with an IP sock puppet (yes, the same user with other IP addresses here, here, here, and here, as evidenced in the article's revision history). Rather than discussing revisions on the talk page, he or she instead chooses to vandalize, edit war, and disruptively remove sourced content without explanation other than falsely claiming to "legally represent" the topic of the article, thus hogging it. Would appreciate the help.  MegastarLV  (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone familiar with WP:BLP policy should probably take a look at the article in question. For a start it cites four sources for the subject's date of birth - none of which are WP:RS. It also fails to demonstrate notability through third-party sources. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... Damn... they're all from different ranges, and I'm willing to bet that they're very wide. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah those IPs are all from different ranges, and they've been causing disruption onto the article over time by pushing ownership behaviors and making the page a battleground instead of an article. I've semi-protected it for one year - this will hopefully stop this behavior completely and push collaboration and discussion as their top priority. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)\

I wonder if you could explain how you know that the claim is false?--Auric talk 14:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed date of birth. As noted by IP 86.147.197.65, none of the sources provided meet WP:RS criteria for personal information in BLPs, nor do they meet the policy requirements of WP:DOB (e.g. "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources").--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Extreme hostility by User:Jasonbourne033

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

---

I am not involved in this exchange, but I became aware of the extreme hostility by user:Jasonbourne033 directed to user:Jim1138 for reverting his repeated vandalism at Mexican Drug War. In addition of his vandalism in that article, here is the hostile message Jasonbourne033 left on the Talk page of Jim1138: Diff: [135] I'll just leave this in your desk. Thank you, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Jasonbourne033, I invite you to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Saying "fuck off, asshole" no matter who is "right" or "wrong" is ALWAYS unacceptable here. I was initially tempted to say you're WP:NOTHERE, but you seem to know how to edit constructively, you're just passionate and emotional about a certain topic. I'd suggest you redact your inflammatory personal attacks, apologize, and back away from editing about politics or anything else where you will be emotionally charged, or else I can foresee an indef block coming your way. Regards, Nanophosis (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This particular edit gives me scant cause for hope. User as gone off-line.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"On a personal level, I would invite you to consider the fact that the media and the modern "US government" aren't reliable" indicates to me that the user already has their mind made up, and would be fundamentally unsuited for editing here, as I doubt no amount of linking to WP:OR is going to change their mind. That's just my opinion, though, and I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt and AGF before I expressed it. Nanophosis (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

On an impersonal level, the dif ref'd above has a nice "NOTHERE" feel, You have thousands of edits in a bullshit internet site which everyone in the real world knows is leftist and (/therefore) unreliable. On a personal note, being a leftist, I've no problem with this. And all the deleting and blocking provides an outlet for my OCD.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat with BLP issues

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

---

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

This IP has been making tons of unsourced additions to BLPs, mainly around stating they are Irish-English. Their talkpage speaks for itself. Now they're making legal threats. Every single one of their edits has been reverted, a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. They've also used 68.118.252.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to edit too. Appreciate if someone could block both of these accounts. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I hard blocked the 50.x as it is a static IP for 6 months. Feel free to adjust if needed. The other IP is dynamic. Hopefully this set a cookie block?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Toni021 and UEFA European Championship

The following discussion is closed. 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:Toni021 appears to have no interest in actually collaborating on building an encyclopaedia, simply making unilateral changes to UEFA European Championship and making no effort to discuss their changes outside the medium of edit summaries. I've written directly to them to request that they start using Talk pages, but judging by their edit history, they have never used a Talk or User Talk page since they started editing here in November 2017. I'm willing to put this down to ignorance of those pages' existence, but six months is a long time to go without knowledge of article discussion pages. They are now becoming quite disruptive with their sole focus on the UEFA European Championship article and the status of Russia as the "official" successor to the record of the former Soviet Union. – PeeJay 06:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 - This dispute on UEFA European Championship involves multiple editors and many of which are not following dispute resolution protocol and collaborating either. I've fully protected the article so that you all can take a step back and walk into that talk page together... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've left a final warning for Toni021 as well, though - he's been edit-warring for a long time now to push various pointless or simply incorrect information into the article, and as PeeJay says has never used a talk page. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

CIR concerns: Unknown contributor123

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

---

Unknown contributor123 is a newcomer with only a month's tenure here on en.wiki. However, his talk page has amassed quite an impressive array of complaints. There are strings of PRODs: [136] [137] [138] as well as commensurate CSD and even AFD. Now these are not frivolous challenges: you can clearly see that every page questioned has since been deleted and shows as redlinked. There are also the declined drafts, and some articles which had to be moved out of mainspace. Two friendly plain-English warnings were issued by concerned editors: "slow down!" UC123 responds that he isn't much concerned about the need for others to clean up after him, and proclaims his intent to continue, full-steam ahead. Now, conversely, his contribution history indicates that he has successfully created about 11 new articles which have yet to be deleted. He seems to work in Argentine topic areas, obscure for en.wiki. I am skeptical that his relatively prolific prose output is wholly original. Google search fails to reveal obvious COPYVIO, but is it machine-translated? Cross-wiki? Not really sure. That may be superfluous if we conclude that the signal:noise ratio is just too low here. Thoughts? Comments? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The first one I looked at - Luis Rubio - is a direct translation of es:Luis_Rubio_(humorista) from the Spanish wikipedia. Same for Manuel Pizarro Cenjor, which is a direct translation of es:Manuel Pizarro Cenjor. He is translating these without attribution which means they are copyright (or at least licensing) violations, see WP:TFOLWP. Those all need to be deleted and I'm sure there'll be a template somewhere which explains to the user why translation without attribution is a breach of licensing. I'll sort it now. Fish+Karate 09:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be issues at Commons, too, looking at c:User_talk:Unknown_contributor123. Fish+Karate 10:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted all the articles the user created, due to their lack of attribution; let's see what happens now. Fish+Karate 10:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Fish & Karate, a breach of licensing is a copyright infringement. See WP:CCBYSA, section 7, first sentence: if you breach any terms, your rights vanish, so anything you've copied is a copyright infringement because you've copied something without permission. Nyttend (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So one would need to place a link to the other language article with a "translated from" note?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Look at: w:Template:Copied and w:Template:Translated page. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a couple of editors on my talk page asking me per WP:RIA to restore these deleted pages and add the attribution for each. I am happy to do this, even though it takes bloody ages, but would appreciate a second opinion on whether this is the right thing to do; my thoughts were that a copyvio is a copyvio is a copyvio, as Nyttend says. When you create a translation you are supposed to note that in the edit summary with a link to the source Wikipedia page, so the chain of attribution can be maintained. I did one page - Luis Rubio as a test for how to correctly do the attribution, it can be re-deleted if necessary. Fish+Karate 14:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Attribution can absolutely be added after-the-fact; see WP:RIA. Normally, I would be all for preserving good content, but this content is...not...good. UC123 has had dozens of deleted articles: if we preserve these last few, will they just undergo AFD or PROD later on anyway and cause more work? And by deleting these machine-translated pages, is anything of value lost? How much work does it take to go to es.wiki and run something through Google Translate again? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI: User has been blocked on Commons for prolific 100% copyvio uploads. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the user you're talking about. I have many articles that I want to create, however, most of them got deleted. Why? All of them should be in the Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That is very nice that you think they should be here, and thanks for your desire to contribute! However, you have been missing critical steps that are necessary from the standpoint of legality. As you may have read in the many, many warnings on your talk page, every single one of your contributions violates copyright in some way. At the very least, you must give credit to the editors of the Spanish Wikipedia who created the articles you're translating. If you could do that, we could keep some of your content. Other content, however, is not so great, such as all the photos you stole from the Internet and put on Wikimedia commons. You cannot take what is not yours and use it here. A huge amount of content on the Internet is copyrighted and not appropriately licensed for our use. We could be sued if we hosted it here. So that is why all your articles were deleted: the threats of lawsuits are too great to ignore and keep it around. Thanks. Spanish translation follows.

¡Es muy bueno que pienses que deberían estar aquí, y gracias por tu deseo de contribuir! Sin embargo, ha estado perdiendo pasos críticos que son necesarios desde el punto de vista de la legalidad. Como puede haber leído en las muchas, muchas advertencias en su página de discusión, cada una de sus contribuciones viola los derechos de autor de alguna manera. Por lo menos, debe dar crédito a los editores de Wikipedia en español que crearon los artículos que está traduciendo. Si pudieras hacer eso, podríamos conservar parte de tu contenido. Otro contenido, sin embargo, no es tan bueno, como todas las fotos que robó de Internet y puso en Commons de Wikimedia. No puedes tomar lo que no es tuyo y usarlo aquí. Una gran cantidad de contenido en Internet está protegido por derechos de autor y no tiene la licencia adecuada para nuestro uso. Podríamos ser demandados si lo organizamos aquí. Es por eso que todos sus artículos fueron eliminados: las amenazas de demandas son demasiado grandes como para ignorarlas y mantenerlas. Gracias. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I shall be pursuing deletion, through WP:PROD and WP:AFD if necessary, for your surviving articles. Their quality is so poor that they simply make us look bad, rather than being useful to the project. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've restored about half of them (see a list on my talk page) as potentially ok. The rest are unsalvageable one sentence stubs that would get CSD'd or gibberish. Fish+Karate 09:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm very sorry for everything that I have done. It was not my intention to upload copyrighted stuff to Wikipedia. All I ever wanted is to make the Wikipedia the most complete encyclopedia. I repeat, I'm very sorry for everything. I saw recently that I have been blocked on Commons for uploading copyrighted stuff. Is there any way you can unblock me? I promise I won't be uploading Google images again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Unknown contributor123: Google does not actually have their own images. They link to images which other people own. It's lack of awareness of stuff like that that's causing trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Reddit vandalism continues to plague article

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

---

For two years now the same vandalism has occurred on List of kaiju creatures as a result of a one-off mention on a YouTube show put on by Game Grumps. One of the many many Reddit articles on this can be found here and here as proof of this. The article in question has been protected due to this vandalism multiple times over the years and recently came off PC protection. User:KaijuFan4000 has continued with the nonsense and has repeatedly put the vandalism back into the article. The only reason this isn't at AIV is because of the explanation that was required. In any case, I'm asking for administrative assistance in this matter. This is not a content dispute. This is a vandalism problem that has been ongoing for years and continues to present itself repeatedly. --Majora (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Since the article is completely unsourced (literally - it has zero sources, and has never had any for the ten years it's existed), it's impossible to tell what is correct and what isn't anyway. I'd suggest the article is redirected back to kaiju, since it's not providing any useful service - and of course, this would immediately solve the vandalism problem. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 24 hours for adding unsourced content after warnings, but yeah, the problem is bigger than just this. Swarm ♠ 21:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni redirected it, and I fully agree with their decision. This has been ongoing for such a long time that hopefully this will stop it. Thank you --Majora (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Content dispute at cerebrovascular disease

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

---

Original section title: "I was started a discussion “Really Diabetes is risk factor for Acute cerebrovascular disease (stroke)?”.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Really_Diabetes_is_risk_factor_for_Acute_cerebrovascular_disease_(stroke)? Even I submitted secondary source from government of usa ….not considerable .I require administrator s third openion" Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I am medical doctor , a diabetes consultant .. I observed usa government statistics ….i recognized that diabetes is not risk factor for stroke. Then I was started discussion at [[139]]

I was submitted followg primary sources :

https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb17.pdf

https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb51.pdf

user:jmcgnh commented below :

That's an interesting observation you have made. Unfortunately, you need to get it published in a peer-reviewed medical journal before it becomes a suitable topic for inclusion on Wikipedia.I am thankfull to user:jmcgnh

User:Doc James commented like this :

You would need to get it published as a review article on the topic in question in a major journal for it to be included. In The article cerebrovascular disease, they used following links

In article cerebrovascular disease the following links giving wrong information with our reliable primary sources

http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/7/11/e007858

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402118300250

These two links have no supportive evidence. These links are form private organizations.They informed that diabetes is risk factor for stroke.I have no believe on these two links .Especially these are private organizations and the second links ,,,I cant believe them.

On suggession of user:jmcgnh and User:Doc James I was submitted following secondary source a review from government of USA

https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(05)00529-0/pdf

Department of Vascular Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. A government of usa recognized publication .

This review clearly conclude that : This Review confirms Stroke, rates in patients with diabetes are similar to patients without diabetes. Diabetes is not risk factor for stroke

My question : I was submitted secondary source from government of usa , a review supports stroke is not risk factor for diabetes . it is valuable ? or not ? can we believe private organisation reviews ?

Administrators please come to conclusion my primary sources and most reliable secondary review source is not valuable ? (Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC))

This has already been commented on by 3 admins. What more do you want? Natureium (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I am looking at this review and not seeing the text:

"Stroke, rates in patients with diabetes are similar to patients without diabetes."

In fact the review in question says "Patients with diabetes have been shown to have about 1.4–1.7 the relative risk of stroke." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No ...they commented on subject...i want third opinion of a source i have submitted . I was submitted this source at the end of discussion.So i want to continue discussion at here . Please include my source in that article cerebrovascular disease

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC))

There are several reasons why, basically, you are not going to get anywhere with this. 1) That review is from 2006 - the other reviews are from this year. For medical information, there is a deliberate favoring of more recent meta-analyses, especially when the odd-one-out is over a decade old. 2) The review you cited is about stroke risk post surgery, not generally. 3) You do not get to keep asking for more opinions simply because all of the opinions you've gotten already aren't to your liking. Someaguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I didnt found these words any where in a link i was submitted

"Patients with diabetes have been shown to have about 1.4–1.7 the relative risk of stroke."

https://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(05)00529-0/pdf

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC))

It is on page 147. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 march secondary source. confirms the stroke most common in non diabetics than diabetics . please verify following link .

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/3/e020346.full.pdf

Please read 8th page ...cerebrovascular disease ( other names :cerebral infarct/transient ischemic attack ) listed in top 10 of non diabetic patients....cerebra vascular disease not listed in top 10 diseases. compare only diabetic and non diabetic. Impaired fasting glucose patients are UN related to our study .

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC))

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

Editor

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

---

Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place but truth be told I have no idea where to post,

IP blocked, page protected.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Is there any point to leaving this one unarchived? Natureium (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion of references

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

---

Angelopedia is a corporate-run website that provides English-language news reports on pageants around the world. This is helpful for sourcing basic information where the in-country sources have been written in non-English languages, especially where the original sources are written in non-Roman script. A question about the site's reliability has been raised at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (here). A discussion there is on-going.

The original poster at the noticeboard was Jytdog. Although the discussion is on-going, Jytdog has apparently decided on its outcome and has already begun a mass deletion of references to the website. After doing a few dozen deletions, they went back to the noticeboard to call on other editors to do the same (diff}.

I registered my objection to these mass deletions at Jytdog's Talk page (here). The response suggests that Jytdog has no intention of undoing their mass deletion of sources.

The deletion of these references is controversial and, so far, has been done in the absence of any evidence-based rationale. If these deletions are truly to take place, they should be done pursuant to a formal Request for Comments that is closed by an uninvolved administrator. In the meantime, I am here asking for a restoration of the status quo (i.e., a restoration of all of the references deleted by Jytdog, as well as any other deletions that might have been done by editors who heeded Jytdog's call at the Reliable Sources noticeboard). NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

NOTIFICATION OF THIS REPORT given here NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be enough consensus on the RS/N board that the site is not reliable; the single argument for it (which NewYorkActuary gave) doesn't show how it meets RS's requirements, given that we know some content on the site is user-generated, just not which content or how much. I have spotchecked a few of the references removed by Jytdog and see an immediate problem in addition: if the site , as claimed, was translating foreign articles to English, the links I spotchecked show no sign of the original article that was sourced from that I can find, so this itself fails WP:V and potentially could be a copyright violation. (If the links were there, then my suggestion would have been to replace the Angelopedia links with these foreign-language ones, which are likely to have been better than Angelopedia). So Jytdog's work to replace the references with CNs based on the impression from RS/N discussion (opened long enough to gain input) is completely legit and not actionable.

Furthermore, it's not too hard to find suitable replacements, for example, for this removal, an early hit on Google was this article [140]. So there might be some effort needed to correct these, but we can do that without Angelopedia. --Masem (t) 00:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the prompt response. I'm reluctant to go into too much detail here, because I recognize that the substantive discussion should be taking place on the RS noticeboard (and not here). But I'll briefly address two items in your comments.

First, I'm not suggesting that Angelopedia's staff writers are translating existing news reports. Perhaps they are relaying information received in press releases; perhaps they are watching the shows on television or live stream and reporting from that. And so, we shouldn't be expecting the site to identify sourcing that they might not have been using.

Second, my one comment at the RS noticeboard was intended only to refute the one argument put forward against the site. A fuller discussion will permit further debate, hopefully along lines that call for the actual production of evidence. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen evidence Angelpedia is anything resembling a RS and I fully support blacklisting it. I strongly suspect the site hires people to add their links to Wikipedia given how many SPA accounts operate on the topic. Jtydog deserves a barnstar for cutting out 100 crappy "sources" in one pass. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. And I'll be happy to provide the evidence you're asking for. Angelopedia has often been used as a source by the Times News Network, the news agency of the Times of India (the country's oldest and largest-circulating English-language paper). And "use by others" is an indicia of reliability. A list of the many times it has been used as a source by TNN is here. This is precisely the type of evidence that would have been produced had the mass deletions been held off until the discussion had ended. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliability is not transitive. If the Times of India is a reliable source, and it reprints an Anglopedia piece, then the citation is reliable because it comes from the Times of India. If that source constantly reprints erroneous information from Anglopedia, the Times of India will soon lose its status as a reliable source -- but, in any case, Anglepedia does not become a reliable source because it is used as a source by a single reliable source. So WP:RS for what defines a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Too bad Miss Universe 2018 wasn't being held on board.

-EEng

• I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS BOARD BEING CLOGGED WITH ARGUMENTS ABOUT BEAUTY PAGEANTS. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR STUPID BEAUTY PAGEANTS AND WHETHER MISS KYRGYZSTAN WON HER CROWN IN A PAGEANT OR WAS APPOINTED TO HER ROLE. OR JAPANESE ANIMATION. OR PRO WRESTLING. JESUS. EEng 04:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Jesus dude... calm down lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I WILL NOT CALM DOWN! OUT! OUT WITH THE LOT OF YOU! EEng 04:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, EEng, somebody unclogged this noticeboard, to make room for some threads about cricket, snooker and porn stars. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Crush! Kill! Destroy! EEng 05:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC) And we are all corrosive-resistant and self-oiling. So there.

• Lol...uh, so anyway, yeah it looks like there’s a developing consensus that it isn’t an RS, so if that remains the case, it renders your complaint moot. Maybe you should just let this one drop. Swarm ♠ 04:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Assuming that EEng won't pick up a drive-by indef from a passing "petulant frenzy" Admin, I'm guessing someone can save all that WMF legal fee money by revdelling those amusing Lost In Space clips which are obvious copyvios? Or perhaps I'm just being a nitpicking killjoy?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Uncle, please help

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

---

Resolved

 – TheDragonFire (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure whether to report here or at the technical notice board. Adding {{Unkle|state=collapsed}} has sent this page to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page to join all the other pages that use that template. But they are not listed in the main CAT:CSD. Someone please find out why. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it was because of this edit which I have just reverted. I could be wrong. --bonadea contributions talk 09:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool, you found another sock account... thank you :-). This has been going on all day now... we'll need to keep careful eyes on edits to the template namespace. I've caught and blocked two other socks for edits like these to unprotected templates, and these changes do make a significant impact. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was it. Many thanks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 with a severe competence in English problem and repeated false sock allegations.

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

---

ZH8000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has a major problem editing in English. There was a problem at Vignette (road tax) where ZH8000 misunderstood a contribution as claiming that the annual cost of the Swiss vignette was the most expensive in Europe and not the cost of transiting the country in spite of clearly stating the latter. His response on the talk page betrayed this. Making no further discussion and that his edit summaries continued to reference the original edit with eight reverts, this interpretation either did not change, or he never read the talk page or what he was reverting ([141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147])

There was consensus on the talk page which he appears to have accepted after a warning. This aspect can be regarded as settled.

However, an underlying problem has been revealed in that ZH8000 clearly does not have the necessary competence in English to edit the English Wikipedia. He has self identified as a native German speaking Swiss. I have not been here that long and I don't know how this would normally be handled so please bear with me and forgive me if this is the wrong place.

The article on Gun laws in Switzerland has become a mixture of good English, pidgin English and the plain unintelligible. Consider this nugget:

[Of ammunition that cannot be sold]

Ammunition with one or more floors to the release of substances which damage the health of people in the long run

I doubt many English speakers have the knowledge on such a specialist subject to unravel that or the other unintelligible English.

There are several others, but I'm trying to be brief. Just recently, this was added to AC power plugs and sockets

[Of disadvantages with multi-standard sockets]

Using appliances which require earthing, but socket does either not provide it, or the socket's earthing connects not with the one by the plug.

He subsequently provided a rewrite but it wasn't any more intelligible. His reaction is that anyone is free to improve the contribution but it is rather difficult if you can't figure out what it was trying to say in the first place. He has reverted a request for clarification here

It is worth adding that ZH8000 has a history (and three blocks) for battleground edit warring with others, mostly over his lack of understanding of how to present ideas in English.

Having made a false edit warring and socking allegation at WP:ANEW (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:86.153.135.111 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Semi) (More than one user pointed out that there are three groups of dynamic IP addresses - the IP addresses are separated by at least three continents and he was at 5RR when he made it - no one else had exceeded 2RR), he has continued to repeat the allegation here. He clearly still does not understand the concept of dynamic IP addresses. This shows that ZH8000 is quick to quote policies to everyone else, but refuses to abide by them himself ([148], [149], [150], [151] - all within 3 1/2 hours. (I assume removal of gibberish and restoring removed maintenance tags is reverting vandalism).

I know the last bit should probably be at WP:ANEW but I wouldn't want to be accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. 81.156.46.74 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Uhm. ZH8000 isn't a vandalizing editor. (Wikipedia:Vandalism). How do you know that his previous blocks are "mostly over his lack of understanding of how to present ideas in English"? --Miaow 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

By following his edit history. Also a look at the posts that ZH8000 has deleted from his talk page is highly revealing (he always deletes negative posts). 81.156.46.74 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If the only problem is that the user writes in somewhat confusing sentences (I wouldn't call these examples illegible, I'm not an expert in these subjects and I can mostly parse their meaning) but they otherwise contribute productively, the civil thing to do would be to just copyedit their contribs. I know we're not about to appoint someone to follow them around and clean up after them, but perhaps we can advise them to suggest changes on talk pages instead? Of course edit warring is intolerable, but if you're editing in good faith and presume that there's nothing wrong with your contributions, having several editors gang up on you is unpleasant. And then again if it's just a matter of them not wanting to collaborate then they'll be on their way out, but I don't think that's the case here. Not yet, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ivanvector. --Miaow 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Well, it's one thing to write badly and quite another to write badly and refuse to acknowledge it. My stance is: Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, there is no automatic right to participating in this online project, and if someone's editing efforts force others to do devote disproportional amount of time to correcting them while the editor refuses to acknowledge his weaknesses, then I see no point of continued participation of such an editor in the project. GF is not all. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, Google Translate should not be writing articles on en-Wiki. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s interesting that you say that, because I spoke a friend of mine who is a translator for the EU. He is not a great fan of machine translations. Given that ZH8000 generally has a passable proficiency in English, he states that the English being posted is fairly consistent with that generated by machine translations such as Google translate. TheVicarsCat (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Plus when he ran into resistance he reacted by generating this ungrounded socket allegation. EEng 18:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• ... and failed to identify master socket :P — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

His edits are polarizing. He may have potential if he stays in contact with current events. EEng 19:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

...I propose to topic ban EENG from any more puns today, broadly construed. --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

He may resist such a measure, regardless of capacitance. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Watt? Ohmy! EEng 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's stop this pun thread before it Hertz. Natureium (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's relative, but we do need a quantum of gravity in this thread. Kleuske (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair point, we should to try to keep the thread readable for the Swiss gentleman. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Putting the joking aside. There is a more serious issue here. I have little to add to the language issue apart from to observe that it wholly unreasonable for an editor to expect others to clear up after them.

However: the last part of the complaint should be taken seriously. A criticism from an admin (EdJohnston) was made about ZH8000 posting 3RR notices on user’s talk pages when he himself is deliberately flouting the rules. ZH8000 should receive a short block for the 4RR violation in under 4 hours (let alone 24 hours) as a timely reminder that the rules apply to him as well. In addition the IP should also receive the same block as he also made 4 reverts in much the same time period WP:BOOMERANG. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. It seems ‘my boomerang won,t come back’. I just saw 4 edits from the IP and wrongly assumed they were reverts. On looking more thoroughly, only three were reverts. One just added a clarify tag to the poor English, though the reason could have be better phrased (though it does appear to be apposite). TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. After the IP was reversed, I don't see any problems there. --Miaow 18:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• We're not going to CIR block over the language issue. It's just not going to happen.
• The reported edit war at AC power plugs and sockets is stale. Please report future edit warring to WP:AN3.
• I will warn ZH8000 against making further unsubstantiated accusations.
• Is there anything else other than what I've mentioned above that requires an immediate response? If not, please re-report if and when that happens. Swarm ♠ 23:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Revoke talk page access for WhenDatHotlineBling sock

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

---

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

He's back several days after being blocked, and is now adding this onto their own talk page. theinstantmatrix (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done

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

Atmiyarajan05 - not here to improve the encyclopedia

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

---

Atmiyarajan05 (talk · contribs) is not here to improve the encyclopedia. After multiple warnings including a final warning, this editor has posted another long essay on his/her user talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indef as a spam only account. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Ashford Carbonell

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

---

A few different IPs have been adding POV info about speed limits since September 2016 all but the first (to Ludlow) Geolocates to Swadlincote in Derbyshire (nowhere near Ashford Carbonell in Shropshire, making it obvious they are the same person). They have been warned about this numerous times, would protecting or blocking be helpful? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP that was just recently making repeated edits to the article. Other than these edits, the article looks mostly quiet with a low number of edits, so I'm going to hold off on protection for now. If more edits like these continue, let me know or file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and someone will review it. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I just thought the possibility of protection due to it having no unregistered contribs in over 2 years (apart from 1 vandalism revert). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale - Let's hold off for now and keep eyes on the article and after the IP user's block expires. If disruptive edits pick up and the rate of disruption gets high enough to where it's needed, we can easily apply it ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've added the article and user talk page to my watchlist, I'll report if anything more happens, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Archiving of this page

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

---

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

Can we please not archive sections which have been closed, immediately afterwards? I have no problem with the closure of sections which have run their course, but please then give people some time (24h or so) to actually see (and if necessary challenge) the close without having to go to the archive page. Fram (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the archiving seemed a bit too quick. I'm all for thinning out the page, but... Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah what happened here? This page looks like the few survivors of some sort of massive cull. Please at least give us time to read the results of threads we may have been following, after all we come from time zones all around the globe. Surely at least 24 hours after a thread is closed is not unreasonable. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Just 72 hours... ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Upon reflection, 72 hours would be better. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It auto-archives after 72 h, but for a lot of things ("Can someone block this person?" "Done.") 24 h seems adequate. Natureium (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe everyone in WikiWorld has been extra-super good in the last 24hrs, with no issues to report. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone pardoned themselves :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I really wish people would stop manually archiving every single thread as soon as it's closed. I don't have this page watchlisted, and it's getting pretty annoying to see that entire threads are disappearing before I even have the chance to see them. Can we please stop obsessively archiving everything? Give people a day or two to see the threads. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that even closed discussions need some time to simmer down and become "cold" first. If anything, it allows users to review and read through them and become aware of anything that they should know about :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think @Swarm and Davey2010: might like to explain their actions, as this precipitous archiving seems to be their work, as I read the page history.

Swarm:[152][153][154][155][156][157][158]

Davey2010:[159][160][161][162] - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted something on here and it was archived before I had a chance to respond to someone who answered me. I can't be bothered to un-archive to answer, so top marks there. I'd support a community-based ban for the editor who archived it, preventing them from archiving threads here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You want to community ban Swarm and Davey2010 for archiving threads quicker than you like? That seems like a pretty extreme reaction. Natureium (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think they mean a topic ban. Fram (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Still, that seems uncalled for. I was amused by the fact that there were only 2 threads here last night. If you are looking for where something went, you know where to check. I'm not saying this is what should be done, but it's not some kind of epic disaster. Natureium (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's first give them the message that what they did is considered unhelpful or unwanted by many, and ask them to stop doing this in the same way in the future. No need to start topic banning people without at least giving them the chance to respond and reform. Fram (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, if everyone thinks that closing and archiving a thread less than 4hrs after it was responded to by someone is fine, then I stand corrected. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't think that's okay, that's why I started this thread. But there is quite a wide gap between "this is not okay, please don't do it again" and "this is not okay, you are now topic banned". Fram (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• I will agree my archiving today was way OTT, As explained on Jbhs talkpage the short and less problematic ones get archived after a good 4-5-6 hours, The longer and more problematic ones tend to get archived the next day or 2 or as is the case sometimes I don't touch them at all, I don't really know why I archived so soon but yeah sorry!, Shant happen again. –Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also thanks Natureium for the courtesy ping, Had no idea this was even going on. –Davey2010^Talk 13:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm... If this is an example the attention to detail you use when deciding to archive threads, especially given the Hussein Nishah quote on your user page, I think you should carefully reconsider doing that task at all. It was me that pinged you. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: since you explicitly asked two editors to "explan themselves" at ANI—thus re-focussing the thread on editors rather than the abstract—the big red box (see top of page) applies. You should have left notices on the two editors' talk pages: The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I never recieved your ping - The ping I received was from this comment "You want to community ban Swarm and Davey2010 for archiving threads quicker than you like? That seems like a pretty extreme reaction. Natureium (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" - Any pings before that had not been received,

That respect message has absolutely nothing to do with the archiving of this board! - Perhaps you should put your pitchfork down and reread on my reply. –Davey2010^Talk 14:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010:...what respect message? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hussein Nishah quote on my talkpage the "Treat others how you want to be treated" quote :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that may have been unnecessarilly personal. And, true, you wouldn't have got their ping, because—here's irony—they added it to their previous message rather than in a new one, so of course it wouldn't go through..."attention to detail" indeed  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've just read Alex's reply - The absolutely irony of it all!, Couldn't make it u could ya! :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is only tangentially related but I'm still trying to figure out why the advice here [163] clashes so badly with the comments here [164]... and because @Davey2010: had already NACed it I never had a chance to reply, forcing me to take it to his talk page where Hhkohh got his ears clipped for "clerking the meta areas" and I pretty much got trouted because my comments "belonged anywhere but there". Well the obvious place to ask the question would have been in the ANI discussion, had he not closed it already. ... CJ [a Kiwi] inOz  14:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Various editors and admins agreed and disagreed with those threads and not being an admin I wasn't going to say Yay or Nay to it although my closure of it could be interpreted as Nay, I did say to you to post elsewhere (ie here), I wasnt going to explicitly say on my tp "don't post there" when it could be the wrong advice and I said that all on my talkpage, Your comment is wholly unrelated to this thread. –Davey2010^Talk 14:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If you hadn't NACed it I might have had a chance to post the question. Thus I think it is indicative of similar unhelpful behaviour. And I still disagree with your assertion that anyone anywhere disagreed with the advice given in the initial thread, the disagreement was with other ways of dealing with backlogs ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  15:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It would've been more appropriate to start an RC (and you still can) but IMHO a few (not everyone, but a few) disagreed with the thread and I figured it was more helpful to close but as I said you're more than welcome to start an RFC either here or on any board of your fancy. –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Nick Thorne, other editors cannot receive your ping if you fix the markup afterwards without signing your post again ([165]), see Wikipedia:Notifications#Alerts. In regards to the recurring trend of manually archiving almost immediately after the thread is closed, I agree that it is beyond unnecessary; I don't really think it necessary reduces clutter; these day I often check noticeboards through mobile, and I can simply minimize sections that have been closed. Finally, CJinoz, hijacking a thread for unrelated question is not very nice. I will answer at your talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Alex Shih I have put up & shut up for a few days now on the previous thing and wouldn't have brought it up at all had Davey's behaviour not been called into question. I referred to the experience simply as an example of similar-but-different unhelpful editing here at ANI. Premature closing is as unhelpful in my eyes as premature archiving - and to point out the apparent stupidity of Davey complaining that I took the question to his talk page when he left me few options by closing the discussion so quickly. As I said on his tp, I knew it wasn't the best place to ask the question but he didn't leave me much in the way of options. I do not appreciate your suggestion that I was "hijacking" anything. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  15:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is everyone's, not only two people's, so let the discussion leave at least 24 hours after closure to let more people know the discussion result. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably time to close & archive this... Exemplo347 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose @Exemplo347: Swarm 's comment isn't come. Hhkohh (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I was joking... Exemplo347 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well don't. –Davey2010^Talk 15:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you say, clearly prematurely closing & archiving a thread is no laughing matter. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe to get around this we say that nobody can manually archive discussions here, and reduce the auto archiving to 48 hours? GiantSnowman 15:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reducing to 48 hours seems fine, but banning manually archiving seems unnecessary. Just think before you do it. Davey2010 already admitted it was OTT, and no one is arguing that things should be archived immediately. Natureium (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But what is the need to manually archive? We're trying to fix a problem that isn't there. GiantSnowman 15:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Shortening the auto-archive interval is likely to result in more premature archiving and, worse, in the archiving of un-closed threads. Establishing some sort of guidance is probably the best way to deal with the issue. Perhaps a minimum of 36 hrs for non-trivial threads and 12 hrs for the simpler 'please do this threads' or whatever rules-of-thumb are generally found to be appropriate. Jbh ^Talk 15:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As a point of interest after being told to "let the bot handle archiving" I looked at a few past archives. As far back as I looked, January 2016, 95%+ of the archived threads were marked 'Oneclick Archiver'. I would suggest that before jumping down the throats of the editors who keep this board from continuously 200K+ you all may want to establish what the new expectations are. I am absolutely sure those who still clean up here will be perfectly happy to follow whatever guidelines are established.

Everyone screws up from time to time, misses something and on the flip side most regulars here can find some instance where another has done something they disagree with. To whomever it was who called for a community ban on an editor for following established practice I must simple say … if you do not like how something is being done mention your disagreement before calling for sanctions. Doing it the other way is bullshit. Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a "move to close" followed by a "second" after 24 of no activity, and then archive 24 hours after that if no objetcion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary bureaucracy - if a discussion has been reviewed and closed by an Admin, it should remain closed (pending exceptional circumstances). Allowing 48 hours for people to see the close and challenge it (if required) is more than enough, before allowing the bot to auto-archive. I still fail to see why we need manual archiving. GiantSnowman 15:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

So closed discussions can be removed to declutter the page and open discussions aren't archived too quickly (48 hour auto-archive would lead to more discussions being prematurely archived) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't the status quo to archive closed discussions after 24 hours? That seems fine and sensible to me. Maybe make it 12 hours or something for small issues Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't think 12 hours is good... Hhkohh (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that I generally only archive threads that have been closed (with a box or a Done checkmark) for at least 24 hours, and only do so when the page has >20 threads/250KB on it. *I'll occasionally archive threads sooner if the page is very long and the action taken very non-controversial, or if the thread touches on a WP:BEANS situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be on the talk page anyway? Plus, this thread will get archived when it should remain on the talk page in case it needs to be referenced. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have posted this on the talk page if I were posting it, but I wouldn't have posted it at all, as it's making mountain out of a molehill. Natureium (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Response and proposal

I personally agree with leaving closed discussions on the board for ~24 hours before manually archiving. I'm actually a huge proponent of leaving purple-boxed discussions on the board to encourage an organized and efficient culture at ANI. However, it is not something that is established in practice or precedent, so I don't bother to wait the 24 hours as other people just manually archive before then anyways. I manually archived several threads last night.[166] I assessed each thread in that group independently and can provide a reasoning for each individual thread that was archived. I can also provide a reasoning for each individual thread that wasn't archived. I was a little surprised to see Davey immediately archive the discussions I left on the board, bringing it down to 3 threads.[167] But, knowing that Davey was just trying to be helpful, I just laughed and figured if that's what we're doing, I'll just archive the other closed threads and we can have 2 threads on the board. I have to say, there's no doubt it got carried away, and I don't know if we've ever seen AN/I down to 2 threads like that. But it was amusing, and I am confident that no harm was done. I do apologize for my role in the over-archiving episode, and anticipated the complaints. Historically, ANI has around 10-25 threads at any given time, and if discussions are appropriately closed, auto-archiving will keep it on the lower end of this. Manual archiving is a nice option if AN/I is too bloated, but there is not actually any reason for archiving discussions too quickly. Davey is a good editor who was only trying to help and should not be thrown under the bus over this. But, since we're all here, I'll propose a remedy:

The rule "Please do not manually archive closed discussions before 24 hours has elapsed." is added to the AN/I header. I have BOLDly added it myself as I assume it will be without objection, but I welcome anyone to modify the precise wording as they see fit. (The header is located here.) Feel free to opine below. Swarm ♠ 16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There are times when I think we don't need to wait 24 hours before archiving. I don't think a hard rule is appropriate. In general, you should wait 24 hours before archiving but use your judgement and determine if some items can be archived sooner. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if other people agree, we can soften the wording and make it gentle guidance instead of a hard rule. But based on the feedback above, it's would seem that this is the general guidance from the community. Swarm ♠ 16:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps to start, the header should offer the guidance of generally waiting 24 hours. I haven't seen it an issue until today really where the archiving was far too early. I used to archive this page and I would usually wait 24 hours except for simple cases and extreme vandalism cases that didn't need 24 hours scrutiny. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with a bright line of 24 hours. 24 hours is probably appropriate for most threads. Some contain extensive discussion and should probably stay longer for more eyes. But, on a not-infrequent basis there are things like "Can someone block this person?" "Done.", which don't need to stick around for widespread awareness. I'm not an admin so I'm not going to modify the wording, as this is after all, the administrators' noticeboard. Natureium (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well suggest an alternative wording! Swarm ♠ 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that any wording is necessary. Is this a problem often enough that there needs to be a rule for it, or can we allow people to use uncommon sense? Natureium (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously wording is necessary, because no actual policies or protocols were breached, and yet an unwritten rule not to manually archive closed discussions before ample time has elapsed has been strongly articulated above. If feedback to myself and Davey was all that was needed, that could have been discussed without an entire ANI thread, but since we have one going already, we might as well actually do something to ensure that the community's wishes here are articulated in the ANI header, so that unwitting users do not cause an uproar again. Swarm ♠ 16:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most of the one-and-done threads e.g. (X is vandalizing Y --> indeffed) are short and do not really clog things up so, if there is going to be a bright line rule there is no need to clutter it up with exceptions.

That said, I would suggest since I do not think the issue so critical as to require a bright-line rule, that the wording be "Closed threads should generally be left on the page for 24hrs for the information of interested parties, and to allow time to challenge the close." The 'generally' allows for discretion and prevents the odd 23hr archiving from becoming a source of drama. It also articulates why threads should be left up. This gives something to gauge 'generally' against e.g. if it is a 'one-and-done' there may be little reason to not to archive it at 22-23 hrs when part of cleaning up the page. Also, for longer, more controversial, or threads with a wider interest it says why they should be left longer than 24 hrs. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC) last updated: 17:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

*Support proposal - It's 50/50 - On one hand the "Can someone block this vandal" = "Done" threads don't need to stick around for 24 hours but on the other hand I feel if we don't have some sort of "rule" if you like someone else could potentially be here for the same reasons, It's 50/50 but I'd rather have something than nothing at all really. –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Editors should normally wait at least 24 hours after a discussion is resolved to manually archive it. The phrase "should normally" is deliberately vague. Or we could make "ANI archiver" a site permission, and come up with a Byzantine process for a community discussion to ensure that people with that privilege appreciate the unwritten rules ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

How about all of you thinking about people in other time zones? It's disturbing to come here and see threads that were discussed for a few hours and closed while I was asleep. I'm UTC plus 12 (or 13 DST), so a discussion in the US 7am-noon hours takes place while we're all asleep here and in Australia. Akld guy (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What about Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Editors may want to wait at least 24 hours after a discussion is closed to manually archive it so that interested parties may read it.? Natureium (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely. How about not even closing for 24 hours? Akld guy (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Another possible alternative wording would be Barring completed requests for routine, uncontroversial action, editors should generally wait at least 24 hours after a discussion is closed before manually archiving. That'd allow the the "such-and-such has serious backlog" - "dealt with", the "would someone please block this blatant WP:DUCK" - "done" and the "now-offline admin closed an RPP-request as "semi-protected for 72h" but forgot to actually *apply* the protection they said they would. Would someone please?" - " Done" and such to be archived quickly while still requiring a minimum of 24h for actual discussions. The "generally" should still allow for case-by-case situations as long as the archiver is capable of explaining why they feel this specific archived thread *shouldn't* wait 24h. Of course, the wording presumes that exceptions even need to be coded into the rule, which there currently seems to be no consensus on. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng:-- did you say unsinkable?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• 72hr auto-archive by a bot. For all threads with no activity in that timespan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Alright, reworded with the above feedback in mind. And, uh, Lugnuts, that's already a thing. Swarm ♠ 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me . Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

+1 -Looks good to me aswell. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Might I kindly point y'all away from the bikeshedding and in the direction of Wikipedia:Backlog. ;) TheDragonFire (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• In the last few years I believe I've done most of the archiving. (I had nothing to do with the recent scorched-earth attack.) I generally wait 24 hours after a close, then archive. Exception: Very simple stuff ("Need help with this move .. Done! .. Thanks") with no "educational value" might be archived faster. Another exception: Threads with a good chance to come back to life (e.g. block of a possibly dynamic IP) I'll leave longer. Another exception: Long threads with many participants stay longer to be sure all have had a chance to review. Leaving everything 72 hours after close seems unthinkable. EEng 19:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Technical query

Related to archiving this page, why do some edit summaries say "OneClickArchiver archived topic X'', while some say "OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to archive page X"? Listing the topic in the edit summary is clearly more useful, and if it's the same tool, why the discrepancy? Natureium (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Some people are using outdated versions of the script. I remember someone told me to update mine once, but I never got around to it. Swarm ♠ 22:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. Update your script. Natureium (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to do nothing

• Comment Geez, are you folks trying to make up for the premature archiving by adding as much text to ANI as possible? Can I suggest that everyone take a few deep breaths and calm down. So a couple of editors were precipitous in their archiving of the page -- they both agree that was the case, and it seems to be a lesson learned, so let's leave it and move on. There's little need for more rules or bureaucracy, this was pretty much a one-time event -- at least I haven't noticed anything like in the 10 years or so I've been reading this noticeboard. Why don't we all go back to improving the encyclopedia and let this now non-issue drop? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Pages being archived too early once in a blue moon does not require that we make a new rule. Natureium (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The process we have has been in use for literally years with minor mistakes until this blew up. The most commonly stated practice is leave most stuff around for 24 hours after close and use good judgment on whether to archive something minor and uncontroversial early or to leave an important, long, or controversial thread for longer. Jbh ^Talk 21:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support and just for the record, there was an AN thread brought against me where I archived some threads and someone didn't like it, so it's not like this hasn't happened before. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Go do something productive. Everyone who has even remotely caused this issue is now aware of said issue and has said they understand the concern and will act accordingly. We've got way more important things to do, like argue about info boxes. (Info boxes are the new Godwin's law. Wikipedia's law?) --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strongest possible neutral - I've spent 8 hours responding to pending AN/I threads alone. Yesterday was the first time I've seen the backlog get that low, and it was a pretty good feeling. I think this is, ultimately, a successful social experiment as to what happens when we actually succeed in eradicating the backlog at AN/I: people will make a massive AN/I thread complaining about it. Swarm ♠ 22:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  Everyone knows that if you aren't doing anything else you should work on building a bikeshed. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 22:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support A good deal of the threads archived seemed to be non-actionable, at any rate. While perhaps a bit bold to archive everything, I thought it was nice to see the board almost clear, for once. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the Saints and Apostles, someone please close this. This thread should never have been started. The OP should have had a quiet word with the editor who did the archiving. EEng 01:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 see a consensus. Is the note at the top of the page going to be removed? Natureium (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove the text, since it appears to just be stating long standing practice. No objection to removing it either. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 01:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You've been here for like a day. BRD indicates that if an addition is in dispute, it's removed. Natureium (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I was basing that statement on reading the above discussion. Per BRD you could just revert and then discuss if someone disputes it. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I BOLDly added it, and it is correct, and it is not a hard rule that needs a formal discussion, and you yourself said it looks fine. If you really think another formal community discussion about that blurb is needed, I will start an RfC on the talk page, but please don't get caught up on strictly procedural objections. Don't drag this out any longer than it needs to be. There's now some guidance in the header so that this doesn't happen again, and nobody else has any problem with it, so please, just let it go already. Swarm ♠ 02:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

• Prompted by a comment in the above thread, I have created Wikipedia:Tarage's Law. Contributions welcome (especially bluing the redlink). EEng 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Revealing a personal address?

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

---

Unclear what's happening here, but this diff appears to seeking to reveal someone's address. Bondegezou (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:I asked for a revdel over on #wikipedia-en-revdel on freenode. Looks like it is gone now. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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

• BTW this is an example of a thread I'd leave a while longer than normal before archiving, because the community needs constant reminding not to post privacy issues here. EEng 22:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah. I might also add that you can email me and I'll get the ball rolling if anyone needs help with this sort of thing. The system will tell me if I have email. Posting here lacks sufficient discretion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Abusive tagged

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

---

I was giving a disruptive notice by User:90.206.125.54, Difs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P37307&oldid=844759326, who is repeatily editing Big Brother 20 (U.S.) with spoilers about cast members based on info from a newly created twitter account. CBS has not announced a cast yet and the season doesn't start until June 27. I notified the user in my reverts as to why, joined in talk pages and still no good came across. It's IP talk page shows other have warned and marked him/her before for this behavior.

I'm not sure what his disruptive tag will do against me in the future. I wish to have it removed from my record and have this editor stop editing this page based on new twitter accounts gossip and their tweets.

I take great strides in learning editing the Wikipedia way, not perfect, but I am not disruptive.

Difs from the Big Brother Page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_20_(U.S.)&action=history

Thanks in advance P37307 (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@P37307: Well from looking at the history neither of you look great. You appear to be well over WP:3RR. You might be right, but that isn't an excuse to edit war. As for the warning template, it doesn't do anything by itself. Any admins will be looking at more detail before doing at something. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 00:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zchrykng: Thanks. I'll review WP:3RR and comply better in the future. First time a situation like this has occurred since I started doing edits. P37307 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The page has been protected and I 3RR warned 90.206.125.54. I don't recall if I saw an ANI notice on their talk.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@P37307: Trust me, I know how tempting it is to just keep pounding the revert button when you know you are right. My main tip would be that if you see someone violating policy who won't listen it is better to just report them and/or ask for page protection if they are an IP. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 01:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zchrykng: Will do in the future. Also, @Dlohcierekim:, thanks and the ANI notice was here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:90.206.125.54&oldid=844762462 P37307 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

As they continued to edit disruptively but did not respond here, I have blocked them. They can respond on their talk page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Massive sockpuppetry at Neerali

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

---

This is the latest of a long prevailing sockpuppetry for promoting actress Parvatii Nair. This user's main activity is placing her name on a superior position on films star cast as well as promoting in whatever ways possible & edit warring for the same. Presently it is at Neerali, her latest appearance. Yourmistake was the first to make these edits on the page and after the block of Yourmistake, a second user User:Lathaj8 performed the edits on his behalf after which Neerali was ECP'ed for sockpuppety (on May 27). Apart from altering the cast order, both attempted to replace the existing poster with another featuring the actress too. After protection, there was continued attempts to reinstate these edits through edit requests & other efforts by new socks:

• May 28: Szzs.vsn (talk · contribs) - [168]
• May 29: Zyravi (talk · contribs) - [169] (contacts page protected admin to loose protection)
• May 29: Zyravi - [170] (asks to rewrite the lead as "Mohanlal and Parvatii Nair in lead roles")
• May 29: Weedo vivek (talk · contribs) - [171] (same thing Zyravi asked the admin)
• May 29: Weedo vivek - [172] (an attempt at WP:RFP/C over the wrong perception that it would grant permission to edit ECP pages)
• May 30: 27.5.111.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - [173] (says this article is not in encyclopedia format and needs a lot of modifications and people can contribute and add lots of facts regarding the movie to make it more complete - another way of asking to unprotect the page, not to mention the claim was false - version at the time)

When responded to 27.5.111.108, reply was given by "Szzs.vsn" (see the timing and shared concerns); Szzs.vsn besides making a false claim about referencing, asks to replace the poster with the same one Yourmistake & Lathaj8 were trying to add. Note: Zyravi and Weedo vivek were sleeper accounts waked after page protection, as was Lathaj8, waked after Yourmistake's block. Although the possibility of meatpuppetry cannot be omitted, I personally don't believe it, as their demeanor is same as if from a single person.DunsonDavis (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Protection expired on June 3, 2018; a new a/c DunsonDavis (talk · contribs) created on June 4 began making mass disruptive changes, a smokescreen for altering the cast and began edit warring for the same ignoring the warning not to re-add the content before reaching consensus [174], additional warnings were given by Ravensfire [175] and Escape Orbit [176]; the last time I saw this behaviour was on Yourmistake. Also, DunsonDavis ask for third opinion too early in a discussion before discussing it himself. This trait too was last seen on Yourmistake[177] during this discussion. Even if it not considered, how come a rookie user with few hours experience & 9 edits knows about WP:3O ?

Some consecutive edits made on behalf of each other – Zyravi [178], [179]; DunsonDavis [180], [181]; Szzs.vsn [182]. Look at the timing, all suspected socks logged on at the same time for the same cause, a common case of swapping accounts during edit warring.

DunsonDavis also asks to replace the poster with the same one the other socks were struggling to add, but with a poor reasoning that the existing poster is unofficial. In between, a new user Seetharaghavan (talk · contribs) also came with the same poster claim [183], see the editing time, just few minutes after Zyravi logged in to edit. The ridiculous poster claim was nullified yesterday after a long discussion, after which DunsonDavis didn't showed up, but returned as a new sock Josephpaulkochi (talk · contribs) uttering nonsense [184] and made a logged out edit [185] (not the first time). Also didn't forgot to alter the star cast [186]. --Let There Be Sunshine 20:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Article ECP'd. Let There Be Sunshine, any reason why this wasn't posted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhinand1234? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

NeilN: Yeah, I indeed filed for CU for the accounts before DunsonDavis, but was stale. Behavioral evidences are strong. I don't know if I can report it twice there, so I made a report here, also including the new accounts.--Let There Be Sunshine 07:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if it not considered, how come a rookie user with few hours experience & 9 edits knows about WP:3O ? Let There Be Sunshine (talk · contribs) I call it reading sir. Also, I think you have shown characteristics of a bully.Let There Be Sunshine (talk · contribs) Your behavior also seems to promote just Mohanlal. I was just trying to give credits to other cast members as well not only Parvati Nair. You have been preventing it. Once warned I informed that I am new to wiki and didn't know the Rules and started discussions for each dispute. One dispute was resolved. Others I couldn't agree with his arguments. Let There Be Sunshine (talk · contribs) is the one trying to promote a single person. I asked him to stop trading insults. It didn't stop as well. His last message towards me was him calling me an imbecile. If this kind of behavior is fine in wiki talk pages I don't think I belong here. Thank you. When we start with an article such as the one in question and someone like Let There Be Sunshine (talk · contribs) starts an ego fired fight and tries to show his superiority, I feel so intimidated. In my opinion, I think the administrator community is biased and new editors don't have a say in anything because they don't have enough friends, please correct me if I am wrong.DunsonDavis (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't underestimate other Wikipedians intelligence level. We see this regularly. And FYI, I don't have a record of promoting anyone and edit warring for it.--Let There Be Sunshine 07:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Now you are claiming that I am fooling people. I did not promote anyone. I made few changes that I saw fit you reverted them. I added all the cast members. I tried to organize the cast. I asked you to add English reference for a release date as it caused confusion. In the genre isn't my argument legit?? I gave references that it was a thriller (gonna add one more reference in the talk page please see there). I made English changes which can be subjective and you informed that it was copy edited by an expert. I check that as well and once confirmed I didn't discuss that in talk page. I went to the talk page and read the conversation and the tried to talk sense to you. I didn't know the edit waring rule. Once informed I was trying to talk sense to you (to no avail). I am just standing up to your bullying behavior nothing more. If you weren't so arrogant with your replies we could have come to a common point. But you tried to make my claims illegitimate even though I was citing references by calling me sockpuppet and all.DunsonDavis (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DunsonDavis (talk • contribs) 07:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

May be if you were willing to listen to reason instead of insisting on your edits, this could have been ended very soon. This was and had been the problem of all the socks before.--Let There Be Sunshine 08:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make you entitled to call every edit to be of socks in the article talk. If you suspect you have to report and get it investigated rather than accusing everyone of wrongdoing. In my perspective, you are not listening to my reasons. Try to keep an open mind. Also, quit bullying people, beginning experience doesn't make you great. I am pretty sure you are dead fixed on keeping the article in your control. Today you have made the same genre edit (Thriller-Drama) that I did, based on a similar interview article that I have provided as a reference for my edit. That was the edit got me edit waring warning which is uncalled for. If you feel empowered by being experienced, try to behave responsibly. DunsonDavis (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DunsonDavis (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Glam metal vandal needs a rangeblock

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

---

Someone using IPs from Plymouth, Massachusetts, has been genre warring for three years on music articles, as well as adding unreferenced dates. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2601:198:C180:29C5:0:0:0:0/64?

The disruption started in February 2015 with IP 24.63.220.44 who was blocked five times, the last one for six months. Other involved IPs and ranges are listed below. Typical behavior is to add the glam metal genre,[187][188] or to make unreferenced changes to recording dates.[189][190] Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Involved IPs and ranges

• Feb 2015 – Sep 2016 24.63.220.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 2016 – Feb 2017 Special:Contributions/2601:198:c000:8c00:0:0:0:0/64
• Mar 2017 – May 2018 24.63.111.43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Mar–Jul 2017 Special:Contributions/2601:198:C17F:F299:0:0:0:0/64
• July 2017 – June 2018 Special:Contributions/2601:198:C180:29C5:0:0:0:0/64
•  Done Rangeblocked for a year, there are no positive contributions from that range - since it's a /64, it's almost certainly one user. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Music genres are on my list. EEng

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

Conspiracy editor with competence problems

The following discussion is closed. 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 seems as if Locus102 is a conspiracy theorist, and is pushing them across the project. Their edit to Mark Zuckerberg was a BLP violation, claiming that Zuckerberg is an alien reptile. They have insisted that the Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories a place to insert conspiracy theories, but have little to no competence on what are reliable sources or rather on how to present them. This type of editing calls into question the other edits they are making, most of which I am not familiar with and are in the ISIS and Israel/Palestinian area. Another editor more familiar with that area might want to look at their other edits. Dave Dial (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not claim Zuckerberg was a reptile. I wrote that OTHER PEOPLE had claimed that. Since it is a widespread conspiracy theory online, I thought it might be a suitable inclusion to note that many people believe that he is a reptile. Personally, I think it unlikely. It had five sources. As it is, some other editor didn't like it, and removed it. I haven't tried to revert.

As for Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, it is an article about conspiracy theories that exist about Barack Obama's religion. The views I added (which again are the views of OTHER PEOPLE, not my own) are conspiracy theories about his religion. That is the purpose of the article. The three sources were Washington Post, Al-Araby, and CNSNews. All meet the requirements of a reliable source.

You appear confused about the difference between the notable fact that other people believe conspiracy theories about people, and an editor believing it worthy of inclusion and the editor themselves believing the theories, which I do not. And if I did, it's actually irrelevant.Locus102 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. — Maile (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Locus102, my best suggestion for you is to stop editing and read WP:FRINGE,WP:UNDUE, and this further explanatory supplement on that policy. If you believe you sufficiently understand these policies, feel free to continue editing, but keep in mind that other editors who believe you've breached policy can interfere and remove content as they see fit. If this happens, consider heading to the talk page to discuss. Regards, Nanophosis (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Locus102: Regarding this, BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Please remember that and read the notice I placed on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. As for the Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories page, admin User:Neutrality made an appropriate edit that keeps some of the content rather than removing it. I won't edit the page further, to avoid edit wars.Locus102 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Locus102: PLEASE learn to indent conversations. --Tarage (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage: I learned.Locus102 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Calton

The following discussion is closed. 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:Calton was reported by User:D.Creish on WP:AE for personal attacks in edit summaries, particularly in American Politics section where a discretionary sanction is live.

The AE thread

As the reported user has been the subject of various AN/I discussions I'm cross-posting it here as a matter of courtesy. Where should we proceed to from here? 79.102.176.21 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Elineotto

The following discussion is closed. 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:Elineotto#Disruptive_Editing

User repeatedly wasting editors’ time by recreating a blatant spam article about a horse riding school. Has ignored all polite attempts to collaborate ad nauseam. Suggest reasonable 1-2 week article space block period to encourage the editor to answer talk page notifications - failing that an indef. Edaham (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I salted the one title and left them my standard G11 deletion notice.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

...I distinctly remember salting that page after deleting it. Pointed at the previous title and everything. Wonder what went wrong. —Cryptic 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a different iteration.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth salted another title. The persistence is admirable; the lack of communication not so much.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed at least one attempt at using alternate capitalization/spelling to circumvent that. The fact that the user utilized this method is stretching my ability to assume good faith. Edaham (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I laid on a final warning. Though with all those deletions . . . . Won;t be surprised if someone just blocks 'em.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think an editor that persistent could be useful if they could be turned from the dark side and used their powers for good. I think a preliminary article-space block is the way to go. See if that gets the editor to liven up on the talk page. Edaham (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Edaham, huh? There is no such tool as a namespace block. Either an editor is blocked, which still allows access to their own talk, they're blocked with TP access revoked, or they're not blocked. John from Idegon (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Thanks for the clarification. Blocked but not TP revoked. I've never been an admin, nor have I been blocked so the lingo is still coming slowly. Sometimes I think I know what I mean/am doing and then it turns out that I don't. Edaham (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record, while there isn't such a thing right now, it is currently under development by the WMF. ansh666 06:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• This seems to be a school project. Hopefully the teacher will read this. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• posted at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Elineotto_(talk_·_contribs). They will help her.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

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

WikiEditCrunch

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

---

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

• edit count

So today User:WikiEditCrunch, in a move that was unwise on several levels, did this. It was copy/pasted from Draft:CAN Capital

• That is plagiarizing someone else's work as there was no WP:ATTRIBUTION.
• That was the work of a paid editor, that WikiEditCrunch added to mainspace with no disclosure, violating WP:PAID (the paid editor did disclose at the draft talk page)
• It was obvious POINTY trolling/stalking, as I had commented extensively on the talk page to try to help the paid editor yesterday: Draft_talk:CAN_Capital#Note. If you look at WikiEditCrunch's contribs you can see that WikiEditCrunch left a comment at my talk page, and their next diff is creating the page.

In general this person is here to promote companies/products: providing excessive detail about them, removing negative content, and stripping tags when the problems are not resolved.

• stripping tags without addressing problems: diff, this and this (look at the history section and other bad content there). this stripping was obvious stalking. We have indeffed a paid editor and then their sock, who worked for that firm, and who left all caps messages at my talk page. (see here for the master, then here and here for the sock)
• removing negative content: this, which was immediately reverted
• excessive detail: this sort of thing, and this. This is what they were up to last fall when they were around. It wasn't good then, and it is not good now.

In the little tiff over The Pictet Group, I gave them an edit war warning, and they, treating it like some kind of "badge of shame" rather a notice, gave one to me. Typical newbie, tendentious behavior. At the article they "resolved" the dispute with this embarassingly-bad-for-WP edit, changing "employs around 4200 people" to "employs around/more than 4200 people" (the "more than X" is very typical PR writing that I had changed to "around")

I will not make a recommendation but am asking folks to look at this person's behavior and editing. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• That's pretty bad. Either WikiEditCrunch is violating WP:POINT presumably because they lost a dispute with Jytdog, or WikiEditCrunch has a skill deficiency that makes them unsuitable as an editor of encyclopedic articles. Copy/pasting a draft is fixable by deleting the copy, but it is hard to put a good spin on that action given the sequence of events. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty pathetic.I found a good draft somewhere and posted it.I was hoping to work on it soon. WikiEditCrunch 19:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Prior to deeming it "pathetic", did you read the concerns raised? In detail? Are you able to respond to the points specifically as opposed to dismissing them wholesale? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time ([191]) I have witnessed WikiEditCrunch's competency in question. If they are unable to respond to the points raised here, I rarely say this but it is time to show them the doors. Alex Shih (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

They've gone to ground. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I've repaired the copy-paste move (which constitutes a copyvio), and I think the article can be re-draftified without the PROD even being required, but I'm not entirely familiar with the protocol governing that. Anyways, I concur that WikiEditCrunch should be blocked if they do not come up with a more satisfactory response very quickly. Stealing drafts like that is disruptive on many levels. Swarm ♠ 09:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that User:Swarm. I have redraftified it and restored the AfC reviewer's notes -- it is back at Draft:CAN Capital. The draft was in the AfC queue, and it should finish going through the AfC process. WikiEditCrunch is not an AfC reviewer - this was a fourth way that the copy/paste move was unwise. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If I have done any wrongdoing so be it.I apologize, but this is not the first time the other user has hounded me, which is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment.Also rather than pointing fingers I would like to know how to resolve this issue.

WikiEditCrunch (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I have blocked the account of WikiEditCrunch (talk · contribs) indefinitely after their blatant refusal to answer the concerns raised in this thread instead of continuing to accuse Jytdog of hounding; labeling a notification to this discussion as "spam" ([192]) made it clear to me that this editor is not capable nor intending to contribute constructively to the project, especially when taking the editing history of this account into consideration. Alex Shih (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:JackintheBox

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

---

I just got off being blocked for 31 hours mostly for hating on Lights Down Low (MAX song) and started reverting all of the reverts of my (mostly) helpful edits from this user and he keeps on reverting them like a bot no matter what i tell him or how many times i revert him and he doesn't even bother looking at the edit itself or my description. Is anyone willing to help me with this troublesome user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.209.66.109 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update into your continued disruption immediately after your block, especially the edit summaries in the edits you made as soon as your block was up. Blocked for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: And thank you. —JackintheBox • ^TALK 16:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I see a revert from Widr that says the IP was correct and cautioning against uncautious reverts.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, JackintheBox was actually quite clearly wrong with those reverts on Unforgettable (French Montana song) today. The IP's edits were even supported by the reference. The edits on Zapotec civilization were arguably right by the IP user as well as they're putting in c. in front of the date for circa instead of the actually definitive BC date for which we don't have an exact year. Canterbury Tail talk 17:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Both the obviously wrong precision, and the claim that the May citation backed up June data, are hoaxes. When people remove hoaxes, we thank them: we don't block them. And when people add hoaxes, we block them with firm reminders that further hoaxing will lead to longer blocks. IP unblocked; account blocked. Nyttend (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why exactly did the IP deserve to be unblocked? Even setting aside those edit summaries, I see 4 reversions on Unforgettable (French Montana song) within a single hour. Grandpallama (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Because JackintheBox's reversions of their edits are considered vandalism and disruptive editing? Canterbury Tail talk 13:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's one thing if you make a typo or you misunderstand something, but if you repeatedly add false information to articles (in this case, you claim that a May 2018 source provides information about something in June 2018), you're vandalising the article. We praise vandal-fighters; we don't block them, and if they get blocked by mistake or misunderstanding, we unblock them. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems JackintheBox decided they didn't like the IP editors edits and made a determination to revert all of their edits blindly. That's not on. Canterbury Tail talk 13:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I see JackintheBox's reverts more as overeager mistakes than vandalism. I do think they need to be more careful, but I do not see their actions as meaning to purposefully harm the project. Their block appears a bit over the top as well; was it determined that they would continue with their reverts after being shown the error of their ways? Tiderolls 13:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering the IP just came off a block for completely vandalizing an article, I think characterizing him/her as a "vandal-fighter" is amazingly disingenuous, and their edit summaries are appalling and completely in line with edit-warring. Everything written in response to my inquiry explained the reasoning behind blocking JackintheBox, but it in no way justified the unblocking of the IP, who probably shouldn't be doing any editing for a while, again, either; that seems like an over-hasty and ill-considered unblocking to me. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

JackintheBox 's reverts were ill-considered. The IP's reverts were correct in this instance. And it's entirely possible that the current editor using the IP is not the problematic one from before. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In the initial complaint, the IP editor confirms he/she is the same person. And again, JackintheBox's edits justify blocking JackintheBox, but treating the IP's edits as virtuous when the summaries tell JackintheBox to "fuck off" and call JackintheBox an "asshole" is, as I said, amazingly disingenuous. The fact that JackintheBox was wrong doesn't immediately invalidate bad behavior by the IP. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Here we go with Psl85 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.

---

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Psl85
• 46.227.72.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 46.227.72.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Psl85 is back at again, once again evading his block logged out through this IP geolocated to Sweden. Some hours later after I reported him, he added this enclosed HTML comment on the top of the section telling that you do not sign your comments with 4 tildes ([193]). I removed the comment and moved Psl85's remaining comments to other users section, which basically states he'll continue to revert vandalism ([194]), without even answering the question why he have evaded the block in the first place. Just to show that this user is clearly trolling and that he should promptly be blocked (and the whole range as well, I only listed the range since it has been blocked before by Bbb23). theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no, please do not block the ip range, and I want to continue to revert vandalism, and I want to not sock again, and I DO NOT trolling, only the IP address currently editing from and not the whole range, please only block current IP I editing from? 46.227.72.88 (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Psl85, you know perfectly well that you aren't allowed to edit while your account is blocked. By editing from an IP address, you are evading your block. I'm going to go block the range now. --Yamla (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Lobbying for article on Pavle Stanimirović, with persistent addition of poorly written and 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.

---

• Chateaux Margo (talk · contribs)

At AIV, I requested this account be blocked a week ago. The disruption persisted, so I'm bringing this here. See [195]; [196]; [197]; [198]; [199]; [200]; [201]; [202]; [203]; [204]; [205]; [206]; [207]. And I'm being selective--I'm not sure that the account has ever provided a source for their edits, despite numerous warnings. I'm also wondering about this relationship, with an account by the self-professed Mr. Stanimirović [208]; [209]. So there's COI all over this, too. At some point, a combination of disruptive attributes, including competence issues here, reaches a tipping point. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef as the user has been already been warned substantially. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 18:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That was a determined promotional effort, and it wouldn't be surprising if they return in another form. 2601:188:180:11F0:25DE:7B4A:164F:567F (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued disruptive editing by some related IPs

The following discussion is closed. 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 pages 2018 Indian Premier League, Template:2018 IPL match 58 and Template:2018 IPL match 59 are repeatedly disrupted by edits from related IPs. The edits are completely against the conventions and principles of the project and hence various members have overturned the edits but to no avail as the disruption still persists. I request for an appropriate page protection and some relevant action against these IPs causing disruptive edits. Thank you. Cricket246 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I went and semi'd these based on the reversion of this post here by an IP. Feel free to reverse or change if I erred.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Mr KEBAB and User:Kbb2

The following discussion is closed. 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 wasn't sure weather to raise this concern or not, but I thought I point out that Mr Kebab is currently banned and kbb2 is also Mr Kebab who says he editing on kbb2 because he forgot his password! Sounds a bit too convenient to me to say you lost your password to a banned account. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: See [210]. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kbb2: Well I didn't know about that, I can only go by what I see and having two accounts like that looked suspicious to me and that fact that your first account was banned raise a red-flag to me, that's why I posted here. Govvy (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Evolution2k8

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

---

Evolution2k8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned since 2014 about the proper use of endash when editing but he persists. He also seems to have never used his talk page, completely ignoring WP:Communication is required. It is becoming rather disruptive. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, 65,000 edits and none off main space. Nevertheless, this is what gnomes are for. If there is nothing more serious I don't think it merits any action. In fact this report seems frivolous, and since endashes can take much much longer to write it seems quite suited for automated fixing. I for example have made 29 edits to Categories, because I neither understand them or appreciate them — I don't think this is really a problem. Much like how those who care about categories can work on them — those who care about endashes can fix them, so as long as Evolution2k8 isn't reversing the fixes this seems WP:POINTY. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There have been times where he reverses the fixes. I will have to look back and see if I can find any diffs of this happening. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

For example, this diff. And countless others. Though I will admit this was a while back. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this is more pointless than pointy? If there is anything currently going on with them reverting, maybe. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

65,000 edits to articles and none to any other name space is truly amazing. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 changes/edit war without any consensus

The following discussion is closed. 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 relates to Somaliland, a self-declared state internationally recognised as an autonomous region of Somalia. Editor User:EELagoon changes locations in articles from Somaliland to Somalia. For example, Borama is a city in Somaliland (although there have been attempts to change that article by others too in the past), and he has changed Borama Airport from Somaliland to Somalia. I have explained on the talk page that Borama Airport is not the place to dispute this as a debate on the recognition of Somaliland is a much bigger issue. He has ignored my advice not sought any higher-level consensus. Upon looking at his talk page, I see a history of edit-warring on this issue in many articles. I considered turing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Somaliland but that appears to be inactive. MB 19:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I merely reverted the content to cite the sources. You weren't interested to any discussion on the talk page so due to a lack of activity I reverted the content. The Borama article has also been changed from Somaliland to Somalia, which is what it's internationally recognised as. EELagoon (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that Borama has not been changed; the first sentence and the infobox say it is in Somaliland. MB 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's the first edit I made to Borama. As you can see it has been changed. EELagoon (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's the latest edit as it stands now. EELagoon (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The above response is hard to comprehend. The edit linked above (Somaliland -> Somalia) was reverted, and the second link showing the current version of the article confirms it currently says Somaliland. This further reinforces my point - if consensus at Borama is that Somaliland is correct, then the same must apply to Borama Airport. MB 22:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Somaliland is also not a member of WP:Africa. Borama Airport and all articles with Somaliland are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Somalia. EELagoon (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that editor has been warned here that they would be blocked if they changed Somaliland to Somalia again on any article without reaching consensus on a talk page. MB 19:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that it says "... if they revert again on any article related to Somalia or Somaliland without first making a good-faith effort on the talk page to reach consensus for their proposed change." Here's the discussion and here's me contacting you on your talk page. EELagoon (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And you know what I don't see? Consensus. Stop reverting it. You don't have consensus. Going to the talk page once does not count as a good faith effort to reach consensus. You are edit warring. --Tarage (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You linked to an initial discussion, not the entire thread that shows you did not reach consensus, did not request other opinions or seek other avenues of resolution. You don't seem to understand that arguing about this on this article is pointless when the issue is much bigger. MB

This isn't a discussion of Somaliland v. Somalia but edits being true to the references which they aren't in your edits. I already talked about that in the talk page but you did not reply. The first one has even manipulated. You don't want to discuss the content on the page which I was told I was supposed to do with other editors. EELagoon (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. USE THE TALK PAGE TO GET CONSENSUS BEFORE MAKING YOUR EDIT. IF YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH PEOPLE THEN LOOK TO PROJECT PAGES OR START AN RFC. You do NOT get to just make your edits if you don't like the arguments someone else is making. Period. --Tarage (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This is actually very straightforward. On 20 May you were told that you would be blocked if you changed 'Somalia' to 'Somaliland' (or vice versa) in the text or infobox of an article unless this has been proposed first on Talk and a reasonable time has passed. You proposed it on Talk and did not gain consensus. You then changed the article anyway. I could block you at this point, but since "consensus" was not part of the original instruction, I will make it clear now - you will not change "Somaliland" to "Somalia" without a talkpage discussion that gains consensus for such a change, otherwise you will be blocked. I hope this is clear. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How could you block me now? I was told to propose it in the discussion page, as you say I had and reasonable time passed. What do you regard as reasonable time? EELagoon (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't blocked you now, because the original remedy didn't mention getting consensus (it probably should have done, even though it's completely obvious that you should gain consensus for any contentious change). This remedy does. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you said you "could" block me so I'm asking you under which pretext are you able to block me now since I did as I was bid and what constitutes reasonable time? EELagoon (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Black Kite needs to be looking very hard for a pretext, when a regular reason (like POV warring, disruptive editing, etc.) will do. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I could block you simply for edit-warring, most recently on Adal Sultanate and Borama Airport, especially as you reverted yet again on the latter article after this report had been opened (in fact, if I'd noticed that before I posted the above comment, I would indeed have blocked you). Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why what Black Kite has written is so hard to understand. It should be implicit that one gains consensus in a discussion for an edit that is contentious rather than just posting and making the edit., but I guess if you want to adopt a loophole mentality, clarity must be brought forth. You have now been told what you should have understood. I think that's clear enough. And I find this searching for loopholes and argumentativeness disruptive.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How does the reversal of Adal Sultanate constitute a ban? It's a good faith reversal cause entire sections which are sourced are being removed? I'm actually very interested in knowing what constitutes 'reasonable time', you haven't answered that so I'm really confused about that because I opened up the proposal on the talk page and what I considered reasonable time passed before I reverted the Borama Airport article. EELagoon (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Gonna ask you a real simple question here. What do you think 'getting consensus' means here on Wikipedia? --Tarage (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you are derailing my questions. The fact that my edits on Adal Sultanate is considered edit warring and thus blockable is worrying for me. EELagoon (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This is NOT a derailment. Answer my question. What does 'getting consensus' mean to you? --Tarage (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the editor has a problem understanding the english language. I have repeatedly asked him/her to read the references but to no avail. Saturnet (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned if they don't answer the question they should be blocked for CIR issues. We've wasted enough time on this. --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I asked for clarification on a different matter. The Adal Sultanate page has been protected due to disruptive editing. I'm trying to understand how my actions on there warrant the threat of a block. EELagoon (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding. My question DIRECTLY relates to your actions. As I have said numerous times, you have to get CONSENSUS before you make edits like that. Going to the talk page and deciding that everyone is wrong and then making the edit anyway IS EDIT WARRING. Since this concept seems to be impossible for you to grasp, I do think you need to be blocked for CIR issues. If you can answer my question I'd be willing to relent on this, but until you do, you are nothing but a waste of time. --Tarage (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If you check the edit history merely reverted it to the "stable version", isn't that exactly the point here, if you want to make bold changes you have to seek consensus? That's why I'm very confused. You should definitely help me. EELagoon (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You weren't reverting back to a 'stable' version, you were reverting back to YOUR version. The version you did not have consensus for. If you make bold changes and get reverted, then you MUST get not only seek but GET consensus. Quite honestly, if this is confusing you this much, perhaps editing Wikipedia is not for you. --Tarage (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

And then the asshat got blocked as a sock. Whatever. Nothing of value was lost. --Tarage (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This is real simple. Everyone in Somalia agrees thst the airport in Somaliland is in that state. Where there is some disagreement is if Somaliland is part of Somalia or not. So keep things simple and use Somaliland as the location: which everyone agrees too. Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Similar to Kosovo; everyone agrees on what Kosovo's boundaries are, so as long as coordinates can be established for something, its location in Kosovo or out of Kosovo isn't disputable. What's disputable is whether to consider it an independent state or part of Serbia. Same here: either something's in the independent state of Somaliland, or it's in the part of Somalia called Somaliland, but a location with coordinates in this region is definitely in a place called "Somaliland". Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat posted on my talk page

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

---

See this diff. User Liana Rush posted a legal threat on my talk page after I reverted an edit they made deleting sourced information on the article Paul Miller (Canadian politician). Admin attention is needed, but in the meantime should I revert the threat? Aspening (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, their edit history shows multiple large deletions from that page that have been quickly reverted by patrols. They are claiming that information in the article is defamatory and saying they "have contacted wiki to have it deleted." Aspening (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the user and will remove the threat. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 review 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.

---

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

---

Andrevan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

I can’t believe I am posting this. As some of you may know Andrevan is currently the subject of a just-accepted arbitration case, and was recently topic banned from editing articles about Donald Trump, and briefly blocked for violating that ban. So now, while an investigation into their suitability to retain advanced permissions is underway, this happened:

Dewythiel made a number of edits to the article Freedom Caucus on June 6th and 7th regarding whether or not they are a “far right” organization.

• Each of their edits were reverted by other users, both sides were pretty clearly edit warring but as Dewythiel has no ally they were making more actual edits/reverts
• On the 7th, they received a standard DS notice and on the 8th an editwarring warning[211]
• They made no edits at all since receiving the DS notice on the 7th
• On the 8th, Andrevan reverts their last edit [212] (thus involving themselves editorially in the dispute) one minute after issuing a block for edit warring
• The account they blocked was a new user, who likely never heard of DS before yesterday, and Andrevan failed to use a standard block template that would let them know how to appeal.

I find this disgraceful and would undo it myself but I suppose the Arbcom case makes me involved ina dispute with Andrevan so I’d like an uninvolved admin to have a a look. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked the user for standard WP:3RR violation. 4 reverts is a bright line violation. Andrevan@ 01:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It appears that Dewythiel was reverting to enforce this consensus Talk:Freedom_Caucus#RFC:_far-right and are exempt from blocking. Bad block. – Lionel^(talk) 01:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? I'm really getting tired of this double jeopardy bullshit. I was also warned, made no edits, then blocked exactly like this. It comes as absolutely no surprise that this is Andrevan's block. I suggest that this be overturned. Bright line or not, you don't warn an editor then DAYS LATER block them for the SAME THING. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

3RR is a policy which has very few exceptions, it is not the same as discretionary 1RR or DS. A new user who makes 4 reverts may be blocked for 24 hours. Andrevan@ 01:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've seen some oblivious admins but you take the cake. Did you take time to notice that you yourself were reverted? --Tarage (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My revert was procedural and not editorial. I did not even look at the content. 3RR is a bright line for a reason. Andrevan@ 01:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually you know what? This might be it. This might be worth removing your bit for. Congratulations, you played yourself. --Tarage (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

And one of those exceptions is "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." – Lionel^(talk) 01:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Bad block as well as a violation of Andrevan's three month topic ban, an arbitration enforcement sanction forbidding him to "edit any page related to Donald Trump, broadly construed". [213]. Freedom Caucus is politics, but also has 20 instances of the use of Donald Trump's name within the content. Incredible. Is this an example of wiki-editor suicide by administrator? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Bad block and vio of topic ban – Lionel^(talk) 01:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Bad block and support topic ban block - AHAHAHAHA fucking HILARIOUS. Yes. Please, block them. I honestly can't believe that not only was this a bad block but a topic ban violation as well! Superb way to start the weekend. --Tarage (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Very bad block a series of consecutive edits involving reverts only count once for 3RR purposes, so there was not a bright-line 3RR violation. Also the edits were over 24 hours old, and the new user had been warned. Whether or not this new user who immediately jumped into making controversial edits on American Politics topics will turn out to be a constructive editor is not relevant. I'm not convinced that it's a topic-ban violation, but it was a very bad idea. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Lionelt: "Enforcing consensus" isn't a 3RR exemption. @Beeblebrox: Standard block templates are not required or even encouraged by WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It is wrong to imply sort of wrongdoing for that reason. Information on appealing blocks is clearly provided by the system notice. That said, @Andrevan: WP:3RR is clear. A "series of consecutive edits" counts as one revert. This editor hit the 3RR limit, but didn't breach the brightline. Therefore your block for a 'standard 3RR violation' is objectively wrong. As it seems this was straightforward policy misunderstanding, I'll go ahead and unblock. Swarm ♠ 01:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Already taken care of by NeilN. Thanks! Swarm ♠ 01:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What a mess. Dewythiel unblocked - they didn't violate WP:3RR. Andrevan blocked for violating topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

• Remind me what it takes to get desysopped around here (since apparently this isn't it)? EEng 05:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

We're about to find out. If this isn't enough I don't know what is... --Tarage (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I sense the token "retired for good" template, before the Arbcom circus rolls into town. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Trump Derangement Syndrome is contagious and fatal. --2600:8800:1300:16E:5852:24F4:4BDD:31B8 (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

They were making poor decisions at least as far back as 2014, when nobody seriously believed Trump would ever be president. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 was nothing snarky about it. What would have helped would have been someone mentioning that there is now an Arbcom case request for desysopping Andrevan: [214]. EEng 18:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Mea culpa, by the time I read to the end of this saga I forgot that at the very beginning it mentioned the Arbcom case. EEng 19:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this IP Address: 2001:8003:613A:4100:68C3:40FE:FDB:B26C

The following discussion is closed. 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, can someone please keep an eye on this IP Address: 2001:8003:613A:4100:68C3:40FE:FDB:B26C (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8003:613A:4100:68C3:40FE:FDB:B26C) it vandalized a page I very much care about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proserpine,_Queensland I am unable to leave them a message as they are not a registered user. I would consider blocking them since the only edits they have made so far is to vandalize and not contribute in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greditdesu (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment): Listed IP-address is N Stale. Four mobile edits in a four minute timespan a bit over two weeks ago. Incredibly unlikely the same editor still has access to this specific IP. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yep, this is stale. Nothing to do here. Kerry Raymond, no big deal, but it looks like you unintentionally restored some vandalism here. Not a big deal, just an FYI. Swarm ♠ 02:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor who is combative against US/North American editors back again

I was talking to an IP editor when I was informed by CJinoz about this incident. The facts of the matter are very similar. See this section of my talk page and recent diffs here, here and here. Aspening (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Aspening for posting here, I have also reported at SPI ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  22:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to add, but the IP this time is 199.101.61.24. Aspening (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It just gets weirder. A new editor Kbeovmbg (talk · contribs) pops out of the blue with a comment on the original IP's talk page Listen YAH, I know your zealous but harness that into being a Wiki fembot and drive off the real bad guys from the site: THE GG ers . signed KEVIN GORMAN (the Gormfriends back and he's better than ever) [215]. The only other edit that user has made is creating this page User:Kbeovmbg/KevinGormansRFACriteria where, if I'm not mistaken, they are impersonating a former administrator who is now deceased? Can anyone make sense of this? ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  02:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No I'm not against U.S. North American editors, my name is Andrew Darbenyan, and I am a Kenyan-Armenian who moved to North America in May of this year. I'm not sure who you are referring to but I am not against U.S. and North American editors. Thanks. 199.101.61.24 (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC) I took a look at the IP's contributinos, and appart from Kim Esty, we have nothing in common. I reverted the edit claiming that she is Canadian because I found a source at Discogs saying she is from Lymington. I'm a long time fan of Eurodance music, and happened upon the article from curiosity. Looks to me like this guy is interested in nationality, while I am more interested in culture of the music. Hope that helps. 199.101.61.24 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Cards84664 (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Cards84664: You rang? EEng 03:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. These edits appeared so sporadic and bizarre I was convinced you were involved in some way. Cards84664 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but WTF? EEng 03:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This sock from the above section may provide context to the sporadic and bizarre joke I am trying to convey. Cards84664 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You speak in riddles, but don't worry, I'm not stressed about it. EEng 05:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reblocked for a month, for what are obvious reasons. Swarm ♠ 02:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• @331dot: To be clear, this is a WP:DUCK situation. I assure you there is no misunderstanding. User is exhibiting the exact same strange fixation on an outspoken grudge against Americans, which has already led to at least two previous blocks, goes into unnecessary personal detail about their life and cultural background, and as soon as they’re confronted about their obvious bias against and fixation on Americans, they flip and claim they have no problem with Americans. It’s literally identical, with the only difference being the personal details themselves, they’re obviously trying to deceive in this regard. Not to mention the IP geolocates to the same address, which they claim is due to them living in an apartment building. LOL. Hell of a coincidence. Swarm ♠ 09:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, and this latest one is a doozy. Says a lot that their second edit since reemerging was to edit an article which I had on my watchlist only because of their prior disruptive edits. Instant bingo. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  12:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• @331dot: No, seriously though, we KNOW. There’s no need to humor their act any further. Swarm ♠ 18:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you 331dot (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ahsatan76 Behavior/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.

---

I have come across a user, Ahsatan76, who has begun making legal threats on Best F(r)iends. This is the most obvious threat but they have made a couple like this, saying things such as "this is a legal notice to the Wiki community" that are obvious WP:LEGAL violations. Tillerh11 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• NLT indef issued. Swarm ♠ 20:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Best F(r)iends

Not sure if you'd label it vandalism or not, but I'd like to draw admin attention toward some bizarre activity over at Best F(r)iends. The edits seem to mainly be focused at removing mentions of the actor Paul Scheer who appears in the movie and removing the plot summary. These edits have been committed by two users (might be the same person): User:La9810 and User:Ahsatan76. There's also these two bizarre edits (1 2) where Ahsatan claims to be producer Greg Sestero's attorney and that the removals of Paul Scheer and the plot summary are required by law. Boycool (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Both accounts blocked and tagged for sockpuppetry. Swarm ♠ 20:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've protected the page for a few days since the disruptive editing appears to also include IPs. Hopefully things will calm down now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 you need a real bulldog for an attorney, I suppose Ah Satan is a pretty good choice. Maybe it's Michael Cohen moonlighting! EEng 18:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

What does anyone else make of this?

The following discussion is closed. 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 here, though this is also problematic. This post suggests they misunderstand what exactly this project is for. But the rest of their edits are trying to help... in an eccentric way, so WP:NOTHERE doesn't immediately apply.

My initial reaction was to open the block window just for the bit There is some really good kiddy porn on the dark net - I have never seen children as happy as this before! Adjectives: Ecstatic; Happy; Love; Special; Sharing; Kind; Enjoyment; Intelligent; Advanced; Fun times; Did I mention Ecstatic!
How do I reference DarkNet so you guys can remove it from DSM as a mental illness?

It's still open if anyone confirms that this is a good idea, but there's just enough confusion about everything outside of that line that I thought I'd ask. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I agree that this is concerning. Like you I am uncertain that this is immediately block worthy. To me the guideline that speaks most clearly to this situation is WP:NOTFORUM, which they are clearly in violation of. My suggestion would be to explain that to them, and if they fail to get it then maybe indef. Vanamonde (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think you'd both better take your troll detectors in for recalibration. EEng 17:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd INDEF per IAR if necessary. No need for trolls promoting child pornography on the project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Might be a compromised account? Or a troll. Possibly. But if this account's a troll, well, the child pornography promotion is enough for an indefinite block, I think. Anyway, I would agree with Vanamonde for now: explain NOTFORUM, and, if user fails to understand, maybe indef. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 17:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • • Indeffed by Alex Shih. Good block and yes, a troll.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • We need to distinguish between clueless new editors and pure troll; sometimes there is a fine line, but there wasn't any here. Alex Shih (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• My concern wasn't so much "clueless new editor" as "disturbed individual who needs professional help." That latter type isn't identical to troll. Ian.thomson (talk)
  • There are different forms of troll. If there was a genuine concern about "disturbed individual who needs professional help" (I didn't see it in this case), WP:EMERGENCY is the closest thing I can think of. Alex Shih (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I've only ever seen "troll" to imply a "deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the reliability of Wikipedia." This and the rest of the (now revdelled) post that prompted this possibly suggests that the individual in question has serious issues from the past that they were trying to work through here. Were it not for that one bit that I quoted, I suspect that we'd be trying to explain WP:NOTTHERAPY to them. It was that possibility that prompted me to ask this instead of just blocking right away. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Child porn is one of the few societal taboos that is still pretty much universally regarded as beyond the pale. FWIW promotion of obviously and grossly illegal type stuff is a zero tolerance offense in my book and I think the community accepts/expects a no warning indef block for something like that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

probably a good idea to revdel (or at least blank) the individual's user page. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• We have a policy on this..WP:Pedophilia, and it is pretty clear that those who expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children, identify themselves as pedophiles, promote pedophilia etc are to be indefinitely blocked Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Beyond what Galobtter mentioned , we should not ignore Wikipedia:General_disclaimer#Jurisdiction_and_legality_of_content, and remember that things that are blatantly illegal under US law are not allowed on Wikipedia. Child grooming laws may cover the above mentioned quotes: Child_grooming#United_States. The policy WP:Pedophilia is also not just a policy, but a policy with legal considerations — which are stronger than ordinary policies.

This should probably be noted by users, so that we can block this kind of thing on sight, and not wait for discussion. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this report should be revdel'd too, or at minimum the quote at the beginning. And closed and immediately archived and hatted if it can't be revdel'd. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Sarwanam Theatre Group

Some ip addresses are adding false fact in the article Sarwanam Theatre Group multiple times, so please request you to protect the article from the edits through ip address. Nirjal stha (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• What the article really needs is removal of unsourced promotional content. It was created by a WP:COI account, and is a press release--I've added appropriate templates. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've asked Diannaa to look at this. It appears that most content was copied from the theater's website in 2012. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The entire article is a copyvio- it has been copypasted from [216]Curdle (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like IP CD63 got in before me :) Curdle (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up using material from an old revision and done some revision deletion. All done; will watch-list for a while. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! 2601:188:180:11F0:25DE:7B4A:164F:567F (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Topic banned user commenting on topic ban violation on said topic

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

---

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On this page. The user in question is topic banned from the topic "race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed": User_talk:Mathsci/Archive_30#Unbanned. The user commented here regarding another topic banned user on the topic "Mens rights activism"; user Memills, who was found to be in violation after editing Evolutionary biology and is now permantently blocked from editing Wikipedia.

My report here concerns whether a comment on the topic of edits on evolutionary biology fall under "race and intelligence, broadly construed". It is my interpretation that it most certainly does. Please see the edit in question:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=844426161&oldid=844426129

Relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#User_in_violation_of_topic_ban,_after_a_1_year_block_for_violation_of_the_ban
• User_talk:Memills#Report_opened_at_AN/I

Thanks, Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

In the context of Mathsci's topic ban, "race and intelligence" refers to the topics related to Race and intelligence (the article): the very controversial issue of whether or not there is a genetic link between human intelligence and race. While there are aspects of evolutionary biology (and evolutionary psychology) that relate to that debate, there's also a lot of evolutionary biology that does not. (That is to say—one cannot discuss Shakespeare without talking about language; one can discuss language without touching on Shakespeare.)

The AN/I discussion you've linked to, and where Mathsci commented, seems to deal with a topic ban violation by another editor (User:Memills) who was banned from editing topics related to the "men's rights movement". Memills' topic ban violating involved edits to evolutionary psychology relating to rape and "coercive mating".

I think you're going to have to connect the dots a little more explicitly for us, if we're to find a topic ban violation. As far as I can tell, we have

• Mathsci is topic-banned from "race and intelligence", which involves aspects of evolutionary psychology.
• The "Men's rights" topic area also involves aspects of evolutionary psychology.
• Memills is topic-banned from "men's rights".
• Mathsci commented (briefly) in an AN/I discussion that found Memills' violated his "men's rights" topic ban.
• Mathsci therefore violated his topic ban because he commented on Memills' editing, which was in violation of a "men's rights" topic ban, which is related to the topic of evolutionary psychology, which is related to "race and intelligence", and therefore engages Mathsci's topic ban as well.

That seems tenuous on its face. Is there a more direct connection that you're trying to draw? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(Edited to strike reference to Mathsci's topic ban because – as pointed out by Johnuniq below – the topic ban was lifted by ArbCom five months ago. I'm leaving the struck-out text in place, because I think it's still worth recording how and why the original report was deeply flawed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC))

Have to agree. I can't see this gaining traction, because you'd have to read "broadly construed" as meaning very very broadly construed. There's a weak link between race and intelligence & MRA, but nothing here seems to be stepping over that link. Nanophosis (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Huh? Even if Mathsci were subject to an R&I topic ban ([217]), the OP is wildly stretching. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify, the edits related to evolutionary psychology, not biology. Do with this what you wish, several of the edits related to cultural and social factors, see the history of evolutionary psychology. Carl Fredrik ^talk 00:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• @CFCF: At this point, I'm rather curious what led you to file this report in the first place. Even if the topic ban had been in force, it's a real stretch. Moreover, you filed it three days after the AN/I thread where the edit was made was closed. Some cursory searches don't bring up instances of you and Mathsci interacting on "race and intelligence" topics (or topic ban enforcement) in the past, though I certainly didn't dig exhaustively. Did something happen in the last couple of days to prompt your interest in enforcing this (lapsed) topic ban? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don;t know if it's related or not, but I do want to point out the existence of [218] on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

For me at least, that is not related Beyond My Ken, and I did not act on it. I filed the report because I saw an editor banned from editing on "race and intelligence" who defended another editor blocked previously for editing on "sex and intelligence" in 2015, who now edited evolutionary psychology, a topic I found intricately related and one which does cover the issue of race and intelligence in the article. Memills was specifically prohibited from editing on "sex and intelligence", which is what he was blocked for in 2015 — and I think those: "sex and intelligence" and "race and intelligence" fall under any interpretation of "broadly construed". Many of the edits by Memills are easily interpreted as covering also "race and intelligence".

The reason this follows the AN/I report is because it was part of that report. I looked into the users editing history upon not understanding the comment and found something problematic. TenOfAllTrades Nothing has happened, I merely found what I perceived to be an infraction. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Upon reading more from the link Beyond My Ken gave — I see no reason to pursue this further. I am still under the impression that there is a clear violation here, but that it is minor. Please consider closing the matter without action for now, it feels unlikely to result in anything productive when Mathsci is unable to defend himself. I was not seeking a block, more clarification if this was correct, but now seems a poor time to do so. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@CFCF: Fine, but it looks like you missed reading my above post which shows that Mathsci is not topic banned. In the future, please consult WP:RESTRICT before jumping to conclusions. Also, consensus here is that your reaction was over-the-top even if a topic ban were in place. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In general, CFCF, I would hope you take three things away from this discussion. First, the consensus appears to be that you're overreaching, even with respect to a "broadly interpreted" restriction. Please bear that in mind going forward.

Second, Mathsci is not under a topic ban in this area. Please don't continue to try to police his behavior with respect to a ban that is no longer in force. (It would help if you acknowledged that you are now aware of this, since as of your last edit you still seem to be under the impression that there is a ban left to enforce.)

Finally, if you just want to have a discussion about something you consider a de minimus violation of a ban without asking for a block or other administrative action, it would be very helpful to explicitly say so. The default assumption, when one brings a report of a (putative) topic ban violation to AN/I, is that one is presenting an incident report and seeking an administrative action. Another venue, perhaps WP:AN, might also be a better choice if one is simply looking for a clearer understanding of a topic ban's scope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Roland Baines hoax returns

The following discussion is closed. 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 Roland Baines. Roland Atwood Baines, RJCola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), DFCola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), PWCola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive801#Removal of Speedy template.

Appears to be back as ImTireOfHogies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MrCouncilofTrent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), FilbertWilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and JohnnyBoyMullins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Also PWBookshelf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I just checkuser blocked a whack of the accounts:

• ImTireOfHogies
• FilbertWilbert
• JohnnyBoyMullins
• CouncilorMorris
• CouncilorDavy
• MrCouncilofTrent
• 4FRussianOlive
• NYCMondays
• PWBookshelf
• 2BCottonwood

Let me know if I missed anything.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked but WilsonDirtbike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are no sleepers attached to that account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And FWdeCoffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And PWTea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I hope I've done this right, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE could sonmeone take this up? There are more socks coming thick and fast, and I am getting rather dispirited that I get personal attacks from them and they can merrily carry on vandalising and creating yet more socks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• @DuncanHill: Most recent one blocked. Perhaps we could request an edit filter, though the last request I made there went completely ignored so I'm not sure how effective that will be. The SPI will be handled quickly, don't worry. The pages have been SALTed. What else do you need from us? Swarm ♠ 23:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  There are more not yet blocked at the SPI. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  Looks like they're all blocked now. Just waiting on a CU. Anything else? Swarm ♠ 00:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  I keep getting more notifications of more socks undoing my edits to more and more articles. So yeah, "something else". DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

To any watching admin: StillTiredOfHogies & not yet used GeorgyProg (sock according to the SPI) are not yet blocked. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 matter is not closed, see DrivingDuncanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: This needs to go to WP:SPI.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 03:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, sorry for troubling admins about an obvious sock, obviously vandalising, under an obvious attack name. DuncanHill (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC*And has started again, using multiple accounts to target my edits. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

He was just pointing out that SPI is the correct venue for reporting socks, and he's correct. Above, I was sincerely asking what else you needed from us to help you handle this harassment. SPI procedurally closed your report as actioned as every account in the report had been blocked. No one's trying to give you a hard time, so there's no need to give the the people who are trying to help you an attitude. Swarm ♠ 15:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I get no thanks, contradictory advice from admins, and stacks of notifications of my edits being undone or my talk page shat on. Or try to raise things with admins familiar with the case and they don't respond (except to tell me I'm doing it all wrong). I'd forgive you if you got a bit snarky in similar circumstances. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

POV issues with IP editor

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

---

Despite being warned multiple times, 27.4.34.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring and introducing non-NPOV content to Muhammad of Ghor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and has deleted references, blanked sections, and changed links. See 1, 2, 3, 4. They have made similar edits to other articles as well. Aspening (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Potentially Disruptive Mass Editing of 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.

---

Recent mass editing by 104.33.80.17 has my finger hovering over the block button. It looks very similar to the kind of editing that has gotten them blocked in the past. Most recently there were a couple of check user blocks of which I don't have access to the reasoning. Out of an abundance of caution and because the subject matter is outside my normal areas of competency I am seeking a 2nd opinion before I drop the hammer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Reported for misunderstanding

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

---

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

mmm, delicious pancakes power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This user named ViperSnake151 reported me due to an misunderstanding. The user thought I was doing disrupting vandalism on the IHOP page., I tried to point out that it was an misunderstanding and that it had been found out that's it just an marketing campaign. He doesn't care and reports me anyways to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism despite that the page used used for obvious (actual) vandalismand not mistakes. Before I saw that the user did that, I issued an apology to him. He did not reply so I checked the intervention against vandalism page, sure enough he has reported me. I would like to find an way to reslove this dispute. Bang. (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

See the talk thread here for the origin of this dispute. User:ViperSnake151 was leaving a warning for User:Clarkzero. Clarkzero had removed 14,000 bytes of discussion from Talk:IHOP. ViperSnake151 left a report at AIV complaining about Clarkzero. The responding admin suggested posting it to ANI, so here we are. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that I did not know that removing ended discussion was bad at that point. I was trying to clean up the talk page. Bang. (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I was mad at the people at the talk page because they were overbearing and not really caring about what I had to say. My note I left when removing the info was to warn users it just was not an good idea. This user is falsely accusing me of intentional vandalism. When he told me about it, I issued an apology stating that it was an mistake. I'm pretty sure he still does not care. Bang. (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if that is still considered vandalism, I apologize because I am an newer user. Bang. (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that you request this thread be closed, Clarkzero. The only possible outcomes from this complaint are going to be on you (see WP:BOOMERANG). I'd also suggest whatever administrator shuts this down consider removing the filer's rollback flag. Between the complete lack of clue exhibited in the referenced dispute, all the copyright associated issues on his talk page, and his self-admitted lack of experience, I do not see this editor as sufficiently qualified for any advance permission yet. John from Idegon (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Everybody calm down. Clark’s RC patrol looks competent to me, and nobody’s getting BOOMERANGED. He made a minor mistake in deleting a thread he started because things got too heated and was misjudged as a vandal. Both parties were in the wrong, but nobody was doing anything in bad faith. This can be clouded with no action. Swarm ♠ 02:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been on sites like this since 2008. I never made an account until 2015. I always try to do the right thing and like everybody, I make mistakes. I apologize to everyone I had offended and do not wish harm. Bang. (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I used to edit Wikia(2008-2017), which was not as strict and guided as Wikipedia so sometimes I forget about these policies. Bang. (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Ashford Carbonell

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

---

We have had more Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#Ashford Carbonell, pinging @Oshwah: thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 36 hours. - Donald Albury 12:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola

The following discussion is closed. 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 can people stop closing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola? Or do we have to keep opening new investigations every time they come back because they've seen that it's been closed? DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• A new report is created every time. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That seems designed to help the socks. DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
    • It helps to see which ones are most recent and how frequent the socking is. Admins don’t have to file an SPI to block. If you don’t feel CU is needed, you can contact an admin who is familiar with the case directly as well as just file a report. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Last night I tried adding a new one to an existing thread here and got told to take it to SPI. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• @DuncanHill: (edit conflict) We are not going to keep the SPI open as a dumping ground for new socks. Also, please write your comments in the proper section of the SPI. As Tony states, the easiest thing for a sock this obvious is just to report any new ones you see to an administrator who is familiar with the case, or even to WP:AIV with a reference to the case. We don't have to keep a record of every sock. Indeed, it's counter-productive per WP:DENY, as is this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

No significant relationship was found between diabetes mellitus and intracerebral hemorrhage (except in patients younger than 60 years)

The following discussion is closed. 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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4437093/

Previously the discussion continued on subject " Really diabetes is risk factor for stroke " on ANI . Now i want to get final conclusion for "No significant relationship was found between diabetes mellitus and intracerebral hemorrhage (except in patients younger than 60 years)"

Yes Hemorrhagic stroke is not risk factor for diabetis after 60 years age

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC))

Subrahmanya preethamm it would be nice if you would explain what this is about and what admin action you wish to take place. As it stands your post could be about a content dispute and this is not the place to settle those. MarnetteD|Talk 02:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 posting spam links/adverts on their own talk page

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

---

The only edits Momu182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made are spam posted to their own talk page. From what is intelligible, they appear to be posting adverts for FM radio transmitters, cutting machines, and jewelry among other things. Clearly, they are WP:NOTHERE. Also, in the future, in cases like this one where spam is restricted to their own userspace, should they still be reported to AIV? Aspening (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed and copyright violations revdeleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, when you encounter a spam only account, you can also report at WP:AIV. I for one would be more likely to see it there than here. But, nice catch. Endorse block. I suppose we can close this.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Off wiki canvasing

The following discussion is closed. 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:Vincecrystal [219].Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know the user is blocked, but this is a heads up in case he has some kind of knock on effect. He did e-mail me a link to this video, he may have done it with other eds for all I know.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The channel has eight subscribers and (when I checked) the video has 20 views (including mine), one like and two dislikes. Not a very big deal, unless we make it one. Kleuske (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Not clear what admin action is required. I confess to having succumbed to the Streisand effect. Recommend closing before everyone wiewing this thread clicks the link.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

May I request eyes on Z75SG61Ilunqpdb please?

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

---

I'm a bit lost on this one. Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk · contribs) has only been editing since April but has already amasseda swathe of contributions. Some are helpful, but then there are others, like this citespam which alerted me to their behaviour in the first place. Their version of "discussing" has meant dumping even more links at the talk page and not responding to my explanation of why I had reverted their edits, I then tried to restore a stable version with the common name at the time the title was held and with an appropriate reference [220] and again was reverted [221]. The issue isn't confined to that page, see the dump of links at Bettie Page and Ted Kennedy. I've tried a belated welcome on their talk page, I've tried pointing them towards various policies & guidelines, but they don't seem to take the hint. I also pointed out that their username is confusing which devolved into this discussion. I'm not sure how to interpret this but I'm certainly not hiding my change of username, it's clearly listed on my user page. As I said on their talk page, I don't think me trying to discuss with them further will be helpful so I would appreciate some fresh eyes on it. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• I concur. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• More - since this section was opened ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  01:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have some concerns about this user's attitude and ability to communicate effectively. The mass introduction of citespam in articles and on talk pages is outright disruptive, IMO. I have invited them to respond to these issues here. Swarm ♠ 02:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles are being targeted by the same sock IPs

The following have ongoing socking issues and in every case the IP spams the page with various excessive links. I have provided the article link and history for reference:

• Chibi (slang) [222] (Protected)
• Drifting (motorsport) [223]
• Hand fan [224]
• Nature therapy [225]
• Net idol [226]
• Yonkoma [227]

Is there a way to deal with all of these IP socks? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you filed a report at WP:SPI? Aspening (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the different subject matter which doesn't appear to show an overlap, I'd say the behaviour seems like a peculiarly similar case to #May I request eyes on Z75SG61Ilunqpdb please? above. And from what I can see, all since my earlier ANI report, and after the time the above user stopped editing. @Swarm: do you notice a similarity? Or am I drawing too long a bow? (feel free to tell me I'm nuts) ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I would report them to WP:SPI but I'm not the best at writing out those reports. I provided the edit summary histories here which I hope will be enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87: I've consolidated these threads as they seem to be obviously related. It appears the above account continued doing the same disruptive behavior while logged out, via dynamic IPs, when confronted with the above scrutiny. I'll protect all pages involved. Let me know if you see any others. Swarm ♠ 20:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• @CJinoz: Good catch. I've never before even witnessed this shocking level of cite spam, so to me it's beyond a reasonable doubt that we're dealing with the same person. Swarm ♠ 20:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Swarm... I wasn't 100% sure it was the same person but the timing seemed a little too convenient. Glad Knowledgekid87 reported or I wouldn't have noticed - and even still I didn't believe my eyes at first. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  20:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Subzzee

The following discussion is closed. 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 morning I blocked this user for persistently making unsourced edits to articles. They are now attempting to WP:OUT me, mentioning my hair colour here and my surname and hometown here (which I have redacted). They have attempted to OUT me previously, using my first name in June 2017 (again, redacted). Please can an uninvolved admin review the situation? GiantSnowman 11:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm strongly inclined to indefinitely block them and throw away the key. Any objections? Fish+Karate 11:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request posted, FYI. GiantSnowman 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Suppressed all the personal details. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

stwalkerster has declined that unblock request and adjusted the block length to indefinite with talk page access removed, which saves me the trouble of doing the exact same thing. Fish+Karate 13:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)... yeah, that. :) stwalkerster (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. GiantSnowman 13:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Boockvar

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

---

Need a block here. Account is either John A. Boockvar, someone working for him, or someone impersonating him, who is in any case not talking with us and just edit warring. Block is to stop disruption and hopefully get them to start talking. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would normally suggest WP:COIN, but since s/he isn't communicating, maybe a short-term block would be in order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

exactly. There is no point to COIN in this instance because they are not talking and there is nothing ambiguous here. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them for a famous person user name, coi warned and invited them to answer the ANI on their talk page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

thx. need to make that page decent at some point. Bunch of Northwell related pages have been extensively edited by PR people there. :( Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Boockvar (2nd nomination) EEng 01:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 accusing everyone of bias, malfeasance, skullduggery. Will not drop stick

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

---

1. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made this addition to an article, and was reverted twice by SounderBruce, and again by SarekOfVulcan. SarekOfVulcan posted a {{Uw-biog2}} warning.
2. The IP then kicked off this discussion. IP 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 accused them "a serious violation of WP:BRD", and of "tag teaming". Sarek pointed out the reasons for removing the edit, and Mjroots and myself gave additional explanations. Primarily WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:BLP1E, and the fact that the addition was not cited at all.
3. In spite of the detailed reasoning given, the IP claimed no justifications for the reverts were given. The IP accused me of "threatening" them. Sarek suggested they read WP:IDHT. The IP denied the reasoning given by the three others, and I replied with an even longer and more detailed attempt to explain. The IP denied all of this reasoning again, and accusing everyone of bias.
4. No other editor has expressed support for the IP's position.
5. Rather than waste any more time beating this dead horse, I marked the discussion closed and posted on their talk page that they should proably drop it, or else follow one of the suggested actions at WP:Dispute resolution. They accused me of trying to "intimidate" them. The IP then opened a new discussion on the article talk page, denying consensus is against them, accusing all of NPOV violations, accusing them of not explaining their reverts, accusing them of edit warring, and trying "to hide behind their tricks".
6. Meanwhile over at Talk:Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, where I haven't followed closely, 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 has cast numerous aspersions and was warned repeatedly to stop making personal attacks.

So there. It's your basic WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:IDHT. Probably a temporary or indef block is in order. Reason has not worked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Has the OP returned any of the disputed text to any articles as yet? --Jayron32 02:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• He got to 2RR on one article back in may, but that's the extent of it. 1RR an another article. But that's it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• So then what do admins have to do. Are we supposed to block a user for using article talk pages? That's what they are supposed to do. So long as they aren't currently being disruptive to article text, I'm disinclined to do anything at all. Unless and until this becomes a problem for readers, let him say his piece. If consensus doesn't agree with him, and if he also doesn't edit against consensus, then I feel no need for admins to intervene at all. --Jayron32 03:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, all those polices about behavior towards other editors, aren't a thing any more? All that matters is what happens in the article namespace? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I for one do not enjoy being insulted by users like this, and would consider the user's behavior to be disruptive even if confined to a talk page, considering he chose to call me out by name based on a POV-motivated misunderstanding of how the editing process works. I have been editing for almost a decade and don't appreciate this being permitted without consequences. So far the user has also shown a disregard towards policy even when warned multiple times. It might be time for the "stick" now to get the point across.Legitimus (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting choice of word ... "malfeasance". I was accused of that exact same thing a little over a year ago. I wish I could find the exact diff with that word in it, but not able to readily. Might have been redacted somewhere, as much of this IP-hopper's edits were. But there was This talk page threat. A big thing on RFPP Texas Revolution. A bunch of other edits hither and yon. Bottom line, it was a SPI. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I could extensively address the many misrepresentations by Dennis Bratland which he made above, and elsewhere, but I am quite doubtful that he will be appropriately punished for what he did, and continues to do. Tell me why I should bother. I haven't been actually requested to participate. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 been on a trip for a few days, and just saw this. While I am glad to see Dennis Bratland's request be ignored, I still have objections to what he has done. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock of LTA case

The following discussion is closed. 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 noticed SurgeGuaudo9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made edits that were similar to a couple of other users who were blocked for LTA. I can't find which case this belongs to, though. Aspening (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've marked it in the block log: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaredgk2008 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC Enforcability of logged editing restrictions

An RfC has been opened about whether voluntary editing restrictions logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary can be enforced in the same was as those logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Your input would be appriciated.

The RfC is located at WP:Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions Jbh ^Talk 06:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe and NMFD

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

---

Earlier today a community-wide RfC was closed making changes to WP:NMFD. It closed with a pretty strong consensus, there was specific language proposed. SmokeyJoe objects to the language, and has now hit 3RR on the article: first by reverting the changes: [228] [229], and then by restoring a disputed tag to the section after I had removed it, because, well, we just had a large RfC advertised at CENT that supported adding this language. He wants to discuss this, but there is really nothing to discuss: specific language was put to the community and approved. He is claiming it is disputed when this is the clear community consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Someone with higher authority than me should revert and SJ should be warned that going against consensus will result in a block. –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I also think the "disputed" link should be removed. The text of that section was literally just decided in the well-attended RfC that TonyBallioni links to, so keeping "disputed" there misleadingly implies that the section does not have community consensus backing it. Mz7 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

He's a good editor but he's gone off his rocker on this issue. There is no disputed wording here - the new wording is the new wording. The only thing wrong with the new wordimg was the RFC did not totally gut WP:NMFD which does not reflect actual practice at MFD. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac is a good editor too, but he’s never been good with details. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Says you occasionally and you are incorrect. I tend to see the principle immediately and shoot for that, not focus on interpreting some details in ways that go against what we are trying to accomplish in the big picture. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And SmokeyJoe is apparently no good at explaining himself. Care to start? Maybe with some of those "details"? --Calton | Talk 05:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It can be a challenge sometimes? Legacypac and details? Like he says, he looks to the principle and fuzzes over the details, I think that’s how he can review thousands of junk drafts without going brain dead. We have different skills, and usually are complementary. User:VQuakr’s edit to WP:Drafts came out of the blue, the wikilinks weren’t working, and I had completely forgotten that RfC. I’ll see if I can explain better later, Calton, but the detail is mostly there at WT:Drafts. The intent of the RfC is not the issue, but the wording apparently being locked in. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:: I'd already read WT:DRAFTS as much as I could before my eyes glazed over -- though I didn't comment on the RFC -- and I still don't know what you're talking about. And seriously, after that reply, I don't think you have the standing to issue a veiled personal attack about someone else being "not good with details". --Calton | Talk 05:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Calton, thanks for trying. I can explain, but am now sure that it is not worth your time to listen. Can I go with Legacypac's I fell off my rocker. WT:Drafts has been developing very nicely, I saw an unexpected addition that didn't make sense, edit summary links didn't work, I reverted, I finally found the RfC I'd forgotten, I suddenly didn't like the wording, I got confused with dispute/discuss templates. I actually don't disagree with the RfC or its intent or its effect. I apologise to everyone, can you let me back out of this hole? There are a few lessons for me, one being: don't revert on a mobile device. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• The reversions were ill-advised. However, one point I disagree with is, "We’re not having another RfC. The community was asked to comment on a specific proposal. They did. It was accepted. It is now the text of NMFD." Not immediately (bar exceptional circumstances), but a couple months down the line, anyone (including SmokeyJoe) is free to propose a change to the wording if it is causing problems or simply to suggest something else (just as TonyBallioni did to seek these changes). I would not support any action here greater than a warning not to revert consensus based changes (or to watch the reversions in general) in the future. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That quote obviously refers to right now, not months down the line. Consensus can change but not hours after a well-attended well-advertised community-wide RfC. I’m not seeking sanctions. I’m seeking to get the current disruption to stop. Being forced to relitigate this to satisfy one person is disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

He added "disputed" and linked to the talkpage - we don't link to talkpage like that and I've removed both those additions. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hatnoting disputes to the talk page thread is very common, and good practice I believe. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• No, it's not. You're going to stop doing that, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• It used to happen a lot in policy, and still happens in articles, but ok yeah. The objection feels weird but whatever. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not to belabor the point, but tags like those listed at Template:Content are used in articles, not straight links to talk page discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• You are not familiar with Template:Disputed tag? Currently in use at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BAG, rare, but used to be more common. The very similar tag I placed at Wikipedia:Drafts#Promising_drafts seemed ok to others, although the link to the RfC has now been moved to the footnote. Template:Discuss is currently used on several Projectspace pages. All are links to talk page sections. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe: Please re-read what I wrote above. I said we use templates, not bare links like you did here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, you mean I got in trouble due to not using a template? You know, I didn’t have time, didn’t know the right template, and did my best. I have often done this sort of thing, it has the same visual appearance, it works, it’s easy. What is the benefit of templates except to bar the non-template-savvy from contributing? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe: Template wordings have been worked out so they give a neutral indication of the issue. We don't want editors adding personal commentary to the article (e.g., "This is all lies", "Liberal propaganda") when adding wikilinks. As for getting in trouble, an editor who persisted in adding links to inappropriate namespaces after being told to stop would get blocked for disruptive editing. An editor who violated WP:3RR when (re)adding a template would get blocked for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• So piping a talk page section link through “disputed” is not ok, but using {{disputed tag}} to do the same thing is ok, because the first might allow POV expression? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC). I think that template and {{Under discussion}} produce excessively large boxes for no benefit, and WP:IAR exists for this sort of reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

User repeatedly editing article despite COI

ArcadeMuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have an affiliation with the Funspot Family Fun Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but they continue to edit the page despite repeated warnings from multiple editors that they should not do so due to the COI policy. See diffs 1, 2, 3. Aspening (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I gave them a notice about edit warring. Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 04:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Well we should block them anyway for the username, obvious violation of WP:ORGNAME based on their edits. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Reported to UAA. Aspening (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thin ice cracks within the week

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

Realphi was just unblocked Monday after 6 unblock requests, and said:

• I now understand that I should not indulge in Edit Wars

He currently has warnings for edit warring on 2 different pages today

Dlohcierekim gave the following conditions:

• Please always use edit summaries

He has made 20 edits to Skandha (disambiguation). 5/20 have edit summaries. Similar record on Religion.

I don't think he's technically violated 3RR, but he clearly doesn't care about avoiding the reasons he was blocked. Natureium (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would wonder if a topic ban from religion would give us a chance to tell if this is a problem with the editor in general or just with this topic. That they apparently have continued in the behavior that lead to their block could suggest the problem lies with them, but as all of their edits so far fall into the topic of religion we don't really have anything to confirm that it's not the topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Bloody Hell. Reblocked for a week. Feel free to unblock or change length of block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock unless they provide a good indication that they'll try only editing some other topic long enough to show that their general ability is not the problem (just the specific ability to handle religious pages), or a formal topic ban passes here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The unblock was a last chance. It will take very strong persuasion for me to not make this an indef block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Has he made any positive contributions? I'm not feeling like going through 800 contribs because it would certainly be well buried, but judging from his talk page, I would assume the answer is no. Natureium (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

His edits in religion could be constructive if he had gone about them in a different way. He's especially focused on distinguishing between universal and ethnic religions, which is a concept that I've seen a lot of authors assume that distinction without actually explaining it. If time and money weren't issues, such an article also would be on my list of articles to write. However, he wants to attach so many ideas to universal religions, and especially emphasize Jainism, that the core notability of the idea gets drowned out. He's also been sneaking references to his universal religion article back into articles after the article was redirected. If anyone else had done that, I don't think it'd be an issue.

He's doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, largely because he doesn't get how things work here. That's why I want to see what happens when the topic is changed entirely. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

He actually is somewhat constructive; not sure the "edit warring" justifies an indef block. I'm inclined to wait and see. The lack of response here gives me nothing to work on. (if the problems resume, ping me and I'll take a whack at it.) If anyone feels compelled to increase the block, then that is OK too.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234 on Morocco 2026 FIFA World Cup bid

The following discussion is closed. 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 made changes to Morocco 2026 FIFA World Cup bid with links to guidelines and with explanations. Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs) reverted them and has refused to discuss. Based on the warning on the user's talk page from @SFB: about behaviour at another article, with commentary from @Primefac:, this is not an isolated case. I'm not seeking any specific action other than a promise by the editor to

1. supply full edit summaries
2. explain changes with respect to policy, guidelines, manuals of style or consensus
3. not engage in tit-for-tat warnings (a violation of a few points on WP:NOTHERE)

I believe Sportsfan 1234 could become a good editor. Not sure why the editor has gone off-the-rails recently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You'd both do well to explain the issue with the edit rather than template each other. Jonathunder (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A reasonable expectation if the editor bothered to use edit summaries or discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have started a talk page discussion on the article in question which you refused to reply too and continued to revert. For someone with a history of blocks for edit warring this is not good behaviour. As for the case from SFB I left a comment on the talk page of the user with links to explain why I had reverted and the page remains the same now, ie no issue. And who are you to say I am not a good editor lol? For someone with multiple blocks, putting false warnings on a user's talk page and then failing to discuss, that is quite a rich statement. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Bad assumption. I didn't refuse to discuss, the article isn't on my watchlist and I didn't know that you had opened the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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

New editor disruptively editing on far-right themed 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.

---

A newly registered editor, User:Dsut357, has been active on a number of far-right themed articles, making changes to the RS-cited information, potentially to express a particular far-right POV (changing terms like "far-right", "fascist", and "white supremacist" to "white nationalist", "nativist", and "identitarian"). They are currently edit warring over at National Front (UK) to change the designation of that particular political party, in contrast to what the academic sources state. If this continues, could an uninvolved administrator step in and give them a word of advice and, if that proves ineffective, a sanction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This would probably be better off posted at the edit warring noticeboard, by the way. We've had numerous discussions on many different far-right articles about this same topic, which honestly should've been shown to the user in question before coming here. Nanophosis (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Earthyspirit

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

---

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

Just found this user out while browsing the recent changes page looking for vandalism. Majority of his contributions are on this page, User:Earthyspirit/Books/Chi, and the links at the bottom, especially "Earthyspirit's Live Journal" implies that this user is using Wikipedia as a web host, and is evidently not here to build an encyclopedia. Since this is going on for a long time now, his latest article edit is made on 20:17, 15 March 2017, and his first edit is also on that user page, please block him/her indefinitely. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Page has been deleted by RHaworth as U5. Blackmane (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation?

The following discussion is closed. 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 need guidance on something. I am asking the following because I really am unsure of the answer, and because at this point I have developed a bias which makes me suspect my own thinking on this:

Is the following...

"I hope that the cool heads and great minds of Wikipedia will remember that Mr. Daniel Plainview and Dewythiel were blocked as right-wing POV pushing socks. [...] The news today shows that "active measures" and "meddling" are continuing, it's not a kooky conspiracy theory, and Wikipedia is a battleground for many bad actors."[230]

...a violation of this?...

"You are topic banned for three months from from edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed."[231]

If so, is this the right place, or should I post it at AE? As I said, I am not posting an accusation, but rather asking a question in what I believe is good faith. And again, there is a strong possibility that I am biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, it's just a comment on his own talk page on the rebound from all that's happened recently. Yes, he needs to zip his lip on AP32, even on his talk page, from now on, but please, let this pass. Paging TonyBallioni, who imposed the topic ban. EEng 00:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Guy made it crystal clear that he's here because he seeks to calibrate his judgment with prevailing community views. I'd like to see more of that, not less. For God's sake, whatever God has to do with this. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy said he was unwatching Andrevan's talk page [232]. What happened to that? EEng 00:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. Javert's comment below is bang on. In a case like this, let someone who feels strongly it's a violation raise the question. If (as I suspect) there's no such person, then this never gets raised and we're all saved a prolongation of this sad episode. EEng 00:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I know exactly what you're referring to, Guy Macon, as I've been watching the page, and I'd aver that the above statement is not a violation of the topic ban. (Granted, I'm not an admin, so my opinion can be disregarded somewhat.) Now, don't take this the wrong way, but I think your feelings are clouding your judgment a bit. Maybe take a breath and stop following Andrevan's talk page? That's my sincere advice. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 00:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Now look what! Poor Andrevan's keyboard has gone haywire! [233] EEng 00:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You mean "gone meshuggah." HTH, HAND. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yours too! It's an epidemic! EEng 01:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it may have something to do with feeling piled-on, or it could be just me feeling that way - not just about Andrevan's TB vio but the relentless accusations by other editors of that same/similar mindset who become displaced when someone disagrees with their particular POV and strike out in defense. The response is typically to start making generalizations and casting aspersions about Americans who oppose a particular ideology, calling them "horrid racists", "gullible idiots", or attempting to fit them in the basket of deplorables, or make far-fetched claims about them being Russian spies, or far right POV pushers and the like. It's not just simple binary thinking - it's purposeful pigeonholing and it is simply not conducive to a collegial editing environment. It leaves no room whatsoever for balance, neutrality or consideration of different perspectives which may actually work better in an article. After a while, patient editors start to lose patience - and worse yet, the constant bludgeoning with allegations and untruths may eventually be perceived by others as true - tell a big lie long enough and it becomes true. Jiminy Cricket! It's a bit more serious a problem than some may realize. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Talk:Paul Frampton

Diff. I would say that I suppose, but it isn't just me threatened, and it appears to be blackmail as well!. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• To be more accurate, I would say that while the latest comment by an (alleged) professor at Oxford stops short of making a legal threat, its certainly chilling. And in light of what appears to be an outright threat/intimidation to User:Jonathan_A_Jones that resulted in this, something needs to be done (blocking an IP address that is used very sporadically isnt going to do anything). If anyone wants a quick brush up on the dispute: Paul Frampton was convicted in Argentina of drugs smuggling. Paul Frampton would rather his biography did not say he was convicted of drugs smuggling and has spent a lot of time and effort attempting to prove to the world he was involved in a honey-trap scam, to the point of releasing his own book on the situation, commissioning experts to refute the evidence in the Argentine trial etc (none of this will actually change the conviction as as far as I am aware he is not appealing the conviction in the Argentine courts). As a result of his imprisonment and conviction, he was fired by his employer in the US and subsequently won a court case over back pay which was significantly covered in the media beyond the original conviction as it impacted on how employers could treat tenured staff - there was widespread support in academia for his lawsuit. The entire conviction, subsequent employment court case in the US can be well sourced and is still being mentioned in news stories as late as last year. Its just not possible to write a comprehensive biography on the subject without covering it. Previously there was excessive detail but at the moment it is a bare minimum description of the facts, Paul Frampton's version of events and thats it. Any expansion is going to swiftly hit UNDUE. It has been to AFD (where I voted to delete) which was rejected. I have left as clear a message as is possible to either contact the WMF and try to persuade them to take an OFFICE action, or contact google and have his biography removed from search results via right to be forgotton, but ultimately what Paul Frampton wants is a biography that is sanitised and has no mention of his conviction, which just really is not going to happen. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• The message that you left for the IP (which is a computer in the Physics Department at the University of Oxford but seems not to be used exclusively by the person posting the message complained of here) has been removed by User:Bbb23, who has also blocked the IP for a week. The block is unlikely to do much harm, as although constructive edits from that IP are numerous, they are -- as you rightly point out -- not frequent. MPS1992 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• I also would not have called it a legal threat per se, but I'm not going to argue with the block. All of the statements in the article regarding the incident are (at a glance) well-sourced, except for one which was not which I have removed. Overall I agree with Only in death: a balanced biography on this subject requires balanced coverage of the incident, and the article has treated it fairly. But don't overlook legal threats. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have read too many sources on this, which is probably why I dont notice if something is not inline. The sentence you have removed is sourced elsewhere in the article - ref 9 covers when his pay was stopped, ref 8 covers academic support. I will update it if I have time later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, and I see it's been done now so thanks for following up. I cringe when I see {{cn}} tags beside contentious info in BLPs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Left note for IP referring to WP:BLP/help.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO: Non-neutral editing and inappropriate behavior

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

---

Greetings, all. I hereby assert that editor SPECIFICO has engaged in a series of baseless and non-neutral edits in an article. More importantly, though, is the pattern of his behavior here in Wikipedia, which is consistently hostile, antagonistic, and far from civil. SPECIFICO seems to have certain ideas that he's extremely keen to promote in Wikipedia, mostly by deleting content of opposing notions, with typically arbitrary assertions. SPECIFICO acts like a person on a mission.

"Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018" SPECIFICO has removed large parts of informative text along with the respective sources, passing personal judgement on the content of the removed text. Here are samples, with diffs and SPECIFICO's self-revelatory summaries inside brackets:

1. "Removed blithering nonsense about Irving Fisher" (removed whole Bloomberg article about the referendum's background)
2. "Remove commentary from primary-sourced staff working paper" (that was an IMF paper that was removed; nothing "primary" about it)
3. "Shorten and remove mixed up note that has some misinformation" (removed part of paper by UMKC economist; removed reference to other PK economists)
4. "Remove opinion cited to non-RS" (removed the source to the paper behind the referendum!)
5. "Remove trivia primary-sourced to crank website" (removed reference to similar initiative in the United States, known as the NEED Act)

And so on, and so forth.

SPECIFICO has some very strongly held viewpoints about Economics, like lots of people have, but seems dead set on imposing those viewpoints on Wikipedia articles without the least concern for balance! All this, served with hostile, when not insulting, language, a standard piece of the repertoire, e.g. "You have nothing constructive to add there", "You belong in a nutshell", etc.

Searching back in time, I found that SPECIFICO is a regular feature in ANI reports (here, May 2013, 31 hr block); (here, when the evidence against SPEC was so overwhelming that the process ground down, June 2013); (here, off with a warning, May 2018); (here, June 2018, again a warning); there's more. The title of one particular complaint more or less sums it up: "SPECIFICO is deleting content without seeking consensus, repeatedly threatening blocks, making false claims, and being quite condescending". Trying to humor SP (e.g. here, where SP ended up accusing me of "defending SPAs") apparently does not work.

Topic ban proposed: I suppose a few months long cooling-down period from any Economics-related topic would be helpful to all concerned. Wikipedia contributors will better use their time; the conditions for a constructive and collaborative environment even (and especially) among persons with opposite viewpoints will improve; stressful interaction will decrease; and SPECIFICO might possibly take it easier coming back. -The Gnome (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• It was honestly hard to take this complaint seriously after seeing that the first diff you present as evidence is SPECIFICO removing an obviously false statement of fact from an article - Irving Fisher never received a Nobel of any kind. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bloomberg report, which SPECIFICO deleted, along with other text, contained this one factual mistake. And the mistake could have been deleted from the Wikipedia article, or simply not been mentioned. (Or, if quoted, tagged with a 'sic'.) Instead, and because that Bloomberg article presented the views of those who initiated and supported the June 2018 referendum, SPECIFICO deleted the whole thing. If the purpose was to remove "blithering nonsense about Fisher", SP would have merely deleted the mention about a Nobel; but no, everything went out the window. SPECIFICO has gone on a rampage of mass deletions in the article, over and beyond the one you mention, all with the same exact intent: so that false prophets do not have a stand in Wikipedia, so some such reasoning. SPECIFICO's work is in gross violation of the balance principle. Whether SPECIFICO's views on Economics are correct or not is irrelevant. We cannot have crusades in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk)

• I've looked at the diffs, the article history and the talk page and I'm concluding that no action is necessary (based on what I've found). Removing material is not, in itself, an offence. Moreover, I don't see most of these removals being contested either in the article history (there's a minor back and forth between BBCLCD and SPECIFICO that hasn't been touched on the talk page, mutual fault at worst) or on the talk page. I did note the nebulous POV claim that The Gnome levied on the talk page, but that doesn't seem to have resulted in anything productive. Moreover, I see a serious assertion of his behavior here in Wikipedia, which is consistently hostile, antagonistic, and far from civil that has not been adequately substantiated (or at all). The five years apart threads at AN/EW (which is for edit-warring) and AN/I (which resulted in warnings only and for AP2, and the AE didn't result in a warning but a reminder) don't come close to that claim. Even if they did, there's none of that at either the article or talk page in question. You want a months long TBAN from economics for this? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The totality of SPECIFICO's text deletions are one-sided. The edit summaries speak for themselves, and anyone who looks at the history and the diffs can see this. SPECIFICO tried to have the article deleted (the AfD resulted in a Keep decision) on the basis of the subject being "promotional narrative device for a fringe group of deflationist monetary activists." However, Wikipedia does no favors to any particular idea or viewpoint; it's all about balance and verifiability. SPECIFICO disputed the subject's notability (wrote "[these people have] been flogging this stuff for nearly a decade with zero public notability to show for it"), a patently untrue claim, as evidenced by the myriads of sources.

Again, with patience: This is not about the subject's merit. This is not about the referendum's proposal being correct (or not). This is about SPECIFICO, using language that is peristently confrontational, aggressive, and non-constructive, engaging in crusades against "false news", "phoney ideas", and whatnot. Being an economist, I have my personal opinion on all such subjects (and I happen to agree with SP's views on some of them). But I do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground for ideas. I'm here to offer a balanced viewpoint to the user; not assert and promote. -The Gnome (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is about SPECIFICO's 'language' and behavior then some solid evidence for that would be useful i.e. behavior which violates policy like WP:NPA etc. Right now this complaint reads to me like a content dispute being wrapped up as a notional behavior issue. So far you have presented the removal of a sentence falsely stating Fisher won a 'Nobel Prize' and a source used only for that; What looks like a throw away bill from the U.S Congress which was likely UNDUE; Something from the CFA Institute, whose website is filled with a bunch of buzz-words but, on brief examination, does not seem to be much of a monetary policy commentator, etc - Which contain pithy edit summaries.

All in all, I believe this complaint needs some actual evidence of sanctionable behavior. If you see a 'ballance issue' take it to WP:NPOVN, if you disagree on sources take it to WP:RSN. I will note that Wikipedia seeks neutrality not ballance and we do not give equal time to fringe or 'crack-pot' viewpoints. Whether the material under discussion is such is a content issue. Jbh ^Talk 12:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Who exactly is the arbiter for a viewpoint being "crackpot," Jbhunley? We have articles about the Earth being flat and chemtrails in the sky that are more balanced than this article. And that's because their text, rightly, presents both sides' views per sources, including the case made by the believers. As it happens, and as expected, the sources are overwhelmingly labeling such theories as invalid; and, well, that is what is presented. Here, we have serial biased deleting of one side's arguments, even when presented by established reliable sources, e.g. Bloomberg. This is strongly biased editing and I'm sorry if you accept that biased editing can be the norm here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

By definition, the sources are the arbiters of what is fringe and what is not. We do not give flat Earth theory or chemtrails any weight in articles which are not about those topics. Any time they are discussed we make it very clear they are fringe so I really do not get why you bring them up here? Is the information SPECIFICO has been removing as … shall we say … eccentric as flat Earth? If it is even close then it has no business in that article without clear caveats that it is not accepted by main stream, or even a significant minority, of those who are qualified to have an opinion. Jbh ^Talk 13:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, Wikipedia seeks neutrality and balance. Just for the record. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE simply discusses the weight given to each POV. If the view under discussion is mostly held by the fringe then we do not give it undue prominence. That would mislead our readers. Jbh ^Talk 13:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• In lieu of a boomerang, it might be worth giving a friendly warning to OP here, not to use article talk pages to disparage other editors and to bone up on Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines so that he might channel his energy more constructively in the future. SPECIFICO talk 12:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please keep your "friendly warnings" to yourself. This ANI report, my first after more than ten years onboard, has been made only after your behavior and manners have gone totally overboard. I'm simply trying to rid Wikipedia of bias, from any side. Your series of removals is completely out of line. If reporting blatantly abusive behavior and arbitrary, baseless, and biased editing will get me boomeranged, then so be it - it'll be another step in my education in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you should explain yourself. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comments re: the "behavior" piece of this report: I'm not sure the person filing the report formed it in the best manner, but their explanation follow-ups in this thread ring true and are reminiscent of similar previous complaints, not just recently but also in the past, regarding SPECIFICO's reverting and edit summary habits. For the most recent issues, I'll leave these diffs that include an AN3 where the party in question received a strong and final warning from NeilN both at the noticeboard [234] and at SPECIFICO's talk page.[235] Neil stated there: "This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus. [236], [237] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed." The biggest point raised beyond the edit warring behavior is the blatant dishonesty in SPECIFICO's revert, edit summary, and answers given to why they felt the revert was something it actually wasn't. There's also this similar concern just a few days later from JFG.[238] [239] And now, less than a week after the AN3, this report. It's not the first time SPECIFICO's behavior toward other editors and tendentious editing practices have been seen as a serious issue with strong warnings issued. The following ANI stated in the close, "User:SPECIFICO is warned that any such anti-community behaviour may lead to a site ban...User:SPECIFICO is also warned that although an IBAN is usually controlled by escalating blocks, the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion".[240] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be ANI without a stalker showing up, cherrypicking this and that, and canvassing, would it? 😎 SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

With this unrestrained attitude of name calling and ad hominems you are indeed the best witness for the case against you. Is it that difficult to own up and change your ways? -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be best if everyone could remember that not all editors share the same view point or values. This is why civility is impossible to enforce outside of egregious transgressions. Trying to enforce one's own view of proper interaction on anyone other than one's self leads to nothing but frustration, disappointment and, if it becomes disruptive, sanction. The community at ANI and elsewhere has not formed any consensus that, in general, incivility beyond repeated or egregious violations of WP:NPA should be subject to sanction at ANI.

It would also be best, but beyond realistic expectation, if editors with prior unresolved grievances did not show up at ANI threads to continue those conflicts. It almost never helps resolve anything and, more often than not, lends more heat than light to the discussion. Jbh ^Talk 14:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Reminder about unfounded accusations made above [241]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• A case was presented which doesn’t appear to be actionable. But, if the participants continue, the may all get sanctioned. I suggest they all take a step back. O3000 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• If past indiscretions are brought up then that is worth documenting here as they demonstrate a pattern and this forum is needed to demonstrate that the community has been informed and maybe tried but failed to resolve a behavioral or similar issue. There is enough to recommend the OP shoot this to arbcom where they can either accept or decline a case.MONGO 14:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• JFG also brought up some problems with SPECIFICO's behavior here. Maybe he would like to weigh in? Natureium (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(pinged) Within our behavioral guidelines and dispute resolution mechanisms, it is difficult to properly address long-term patterns of low-level disturbance. Given my experience watching SPECIFICO's behavior at American Politics articles, I am not surprised to see her questioned for a similar pattern in another subject area. I have no involvement or opinion about this particular complaint, but for context I can point observers to the comments I made in a May 2018 AE case against her: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#SPECIFICO. (please open the discussion by clicking "show" and scroll to section "Statement by JFG.") My summary assessment was: Overall, SPECIFICO's interventions contribute to the toxic atmosphere in the AP2 area, especially in articles about political "current events", which are contentious enough without her fanning the flames. Her snide comments and threats have had a chilling effect on healthy debate towards article improvement. Some of the attacked editors have quit (and SPECIFICO is proud of that). Warnings have been tried, and had no lasting effect on her behavior. A topic ban is in my opinion long overdue. Note that I also defended SPECIFICO in other circumstances, e.g. at another recent AE case. Her cavalier dismissal of a commenting editor above[242] is typical of the "snark" she has been admonished for. Will this thread yield yet another warning? Probably so. — JFG ^talk 14:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Someone familiar with Wikipedia policy needs to look at that article: the 'historical context' section is almost entirely WP:OR (and not exactly neutral either, though there is nothing unsurprising about that, given the propensity of the Austrian School fanclub to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote their fringe economic theories). 86.147.197.65 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Austrian School? SPECIFICO already has a topic ban for Ludwig von Mises Institute Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Placed_by_the_Arbitration_Committee.– Lionel^(talk) 15:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The von Mises Mises Instetute isn't mentioned in the article. And if it wasn't for WP:OR, the Austrian School probably wouldn't be either. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever in the article (at least as it stood before been trashed by SPECIFICO) that advocated anything related to Austrian economics. In fact, I challenge "new" editor 86.147.197.65 to provide specific examples of their allegation. What's "Austrian" about the article? The Historical section in the article is, of course, anything except "original work", since it is fully cited and entirely relevant.

Personal stance disclosure : The referendum proposal is/was based on a totally fallacious understanding about money, the state as monopoly creator of the national currency, banking and central banking operations, and a host of other foundational notions in Finance. However, we are obliged to proffer to Wikipedia users the full rationale and context of the initiative. I advocate against such proposals elsewhere online, under my real name. But this is Wikipedia. We don't do advocacy here. It's an encylopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Challenge accepted. Specifico made his first edit to the article here [243]. The article at that time began the 'Historical context' context section with a single-sentence paragraph: "Criticism of fractional-reserve banking has been prominent in such circles as the Austrian School for over a century." And yes, the section is WP:OR because only the contributors responsible for it have decided that it is 'historical context'.

And I'd appreciate it if you stopped dropping paranoid hints about me being Specifico. I'm not. Feel free to file a SPI if you think otherwise. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• I can see that this has something to do with aspects of liberal-versus-conservative politics, although I'm far from an expert in economics. The entire subject area of post-1932 (or whatever year it was) US politics is an absolute toxic waste dump, despite the Discretionary Sanctions put in place by ArbCom. I've been dealing with it at another, very different page, and, well, facepalm. Whatever else, admins need to recognize that there are certain editors who keep showing up on both sides of this stuff, quite ready to use noticeboards to advance content disputes. If you notice a pattern in who is on one "side" of this ANI thread and who is on the other, you aren't just imagining it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Tryp - does that include your appearance here? 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I know you are kidding me, but given the venue, I feel the need to point out that I did not take a "side" in my comment above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• This article like others relating to this fringe, now decisively rejected, referendum in Switzerland, was heavily edited by sockpuppet and SPA accounts that added a lot of poorly sourced, POV, and OR content to them. The sock was banned, and my involvement in this article consists almost exclusively of trying to remove the worst of its edits and salvage whatever is noteworthy in the remainder. OP in this complaint apparently became frustrated at this and launched listed a set of content concerns on the talk page that he mis-described as behavioral transgressions. The thread is here [244]. As can be seen, I ignored the WP:ASPERSIONS and addressed the content, but then he quickly jumped to this ANI. A few editors who follow my talk page have commented. That's ordinary course for noticeboards. Then other editors, who as Tryprofish says, have had content disagreements with me in unrelated topic areas, have come here hoping to paint a dark picture of me or even to canvass OP to open an ARBCOM case against me. This Swiss referendum article is just about orthogonal to American Politics. It's kind of a green party cum fringe anti-banking cause celebre that's now run its course. The article will most likely be deleted, but it may survive a while first while we see whether there are mainstream post-mortems or any other fallout. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• have had content disagreements with me in unrelated topic areas - The community chooses to legitimize that tactic, and so be it. One is allowed to discredit the complainant(s) by simply stating that they usually oppose you on content, with absolutely no requirement for evidence that that is their actual motive. And it usually works, in my experience, which is one of the reasons ANI is broken. The obvious corollary is that editors who agree with you on content issues are far less concerned about your behavior, far more likely to look the other way or actively defend you in a behavior complaint. You can't have one without the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this is mostly a content dispute that isn't ripe for ANI. Regarding SPECIFICO's edits here, when I look at a diff like "Remove trivia primary-sourced to crank website.", removing a paragraph about Dennis Kucinich proposing a bill that wasn't discussed at all in the US Congress is a reasonable position for an article on a vote in Switzerland, especially with no reference tying it to the Swiss effort. Whether that material is sourced to a primary source or a secondary source (or a "crank website" source) isn't relevant. SPECIFICO certainly isn't the only editor to focus too much on finding a very weak "policy reason" for removals, rather than simply saying it is an editorial opinion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Massive disruption by Fuad Rəcəbli

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

---

Fuad Rəcəbli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, Fuad Rəcəbli is involved in huge disruptive editing on Wikipedia in numerous articles (he adds some Azerbaijani ethnicity/claim but without providing a single source for that), just some examples : [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258]. An admin should maybe take a close look at the editing profile of this user. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As user continued after a final warning, I gavea short block for adding unsourced content.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Forgot password, need to edit the former account's user 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.

---

I have forgotten the password for my other account User:WikiImprovment78, I need to edit its user page to redirect to this new one but of course, this is a new account so I cannot edit the old account's user page. Is there anyway you can help with this? ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, ImprovedWikiImprovment. That page is not protected, so you can edit it as you wish. I recommend that you add a note stating that account is now inactive, with a link to your new userpage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There's an edit filter which prevents non-confirmed users doing that, which is what this user is experiencing. The choices are: become autoconfirmed in another four days, or persuade an admin to make them confirmed, or get someone to make the edit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is what I’m experiencing but I’ll just wait the four days I think. Thanks, ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Mongolian Beef

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

---

Just see his comments in User talk:Oshwah, then you all will know what's happened with the five pillars. Sænmōsà 11:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Kiva Gordon

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

---

Help, I already warned this user about his/hers disruptive editing, can someone check him out? (Article: Marshmello) Thanks. hueman1 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Just for future reference, it's easier if diffs are provided as opposed to just linking an entire article.

I've also notified the user of this ANI report on their talk page. AryaTargaryen (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

User:Brad-XXVII

Help, this user uploaded non-free images (I guess) and claiming it as his own work. hueman1 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Please provide diffs for this report. I've also notified the user properly as a warning on the users talk page is not sufficient in my book. AryaTargaryen (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

hueman1

Sigh... the above two reports are disingenuous. I see no talk page activity from HueMan, only edit warring. Suggest a warning that consensus and sources are required for such statements. --Tarage (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Russian vandalism in Adolfas Ramanauskas 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, last Commander of the Lithuanian partisans Adolfas Ramanauskas remains were just recently discovered, who was tortured and secretly executed by the KGB. Some Russian troll is currently attacking his page and I believe there could be more of them in the future because he most likely soon will be buried as a Head of State of Lithuania. I request protection from non-registered users for his Wiki page because he is hated by many Russians and other pro-soviet personalities in the East and his page currently is very vulnerable to them. Proofs: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolfas_Ramanauskas&diff=845593363&oldid=844828496 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolfas_Ramanauskas&diff=845593587&oldid=845593363 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolfas_Ramanauskas&diff=845593728&oldid=845593587 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolfas_Ramanauskas&diff=845593848&oldid=845593728 -- Pofka (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pofka: I have undone those edits. We do not protect pages preemptively, if issues resume then please visit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, Fish+Karate 09:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Thanks for your quick actions. I will watch his page. -- Pofka (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Also

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

---

There is an issue with wikipedia policies related to "See Also" sections. In [259], it is mentioned "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.", and, some contributors tend to take it literally for the time. According to my knowledge "See also" is designed for cross-referencing (e.g., refer: [260]). Shall we modify the policy to imply it is not enforced in such a way?(Note [the sentences in the policy]: "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." and "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." are contradicting each other too.) Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You probably want WP:VP for that. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how that's contradictory. Did you ask at WP:VP like suggested? Natureium (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Hi all there is an additional link in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#See_Also too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shevonsilva (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Victor Miller 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.

---

Since the announcement yesterday that an injunction was filed to cease all new created content for Friday the 13th: The Game, the page of Victor Miller (writer), the creator of Friday the 13th, has been relentlessly edit-attacked. It is now semi-locked in an egregiously vandalized state. It needs to be reverted to the most recent edit made before the announcement on June 11th, and locked there. I tried, but could not. Please have someone watch over this page until the anger dies down? Thanks. Schmendrick (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It was protected and I just reverted all the crap. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Schmendrick (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone added a bunch of crap to the game's page now. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Im Westen nichts Neues".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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

122.11.188.2

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

---

Keeps adding unsourced content on Zhou Tong (Water Margin) (without edit summaries), even after being warned several times. See the entire revision history: [261]. 100.2.98.246 (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 36 hours for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Chintanboman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active since 2010 and has managed to contribute not a single edit in article space (AFAICT). I became aware of this after nominating a page full of external links to assorted instagram accounts, which I tagged as CSD-U5. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

True, O King, but—they haven't actually edited at all for six and a half years  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't see deleted edits. They edited today.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Phew... For a moment I though I was going crazy. It's "O, Queen" btw. You can address me as "your majesty"... Kleuske (talk)

Oops! Sorry about that, your maj  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, 75% of their edits are deleted! But where did they edit? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Their userpage has all the deleted edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Roth Capital Partners

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

---

Infochief1 has repeatedly undone stable, well sourced material on Roth Capital Partners and replaced with promotional material using unreliable sources. The account appears to be a single-purpose account with an affiliation to the subject.

Left messages here and here. Cypresscross (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The article was pretty bad but Infochief1's edits seemed obviously promotional as well. I stubbed the article and remove a BLP violation.[262] Jbh ^Talk 14:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I think those are good changes.Cypresscross (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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

24.159.60.138

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

---

Can an admin. take a look at these edits? The anon. has added unnecessary piped links to multiple film articles, all of which need to be reverted. I can do it manually, but a mass rollback would be quicker. There's no reason for a piped link for [[TriStar|Tri-Star]]. This is just tedious. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

TheOldJacobite - I've reverted those changes and left the user a message to let him/her know that these edits aren't necessary. Let me know if these edits continue and I'll take another look. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You bet; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Donnowin1

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

---

Donnowin1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been active on Wikipedia for quite some time. They seem to make fairly small, gnomish sorts of edits. They're mostly ok, but looking at their talk page, there have been a few problems. But the main reason I'm starting a thread here is because the editor has consistently failed to leave edit summaries for any of their edits, despite notices asking them to do so. I even asked for an acknowledgement on their talk page to see if they understood, but they've just kept editing with no such acknowledgement. I really don't want to see a block, but I'm not sure what else I can do besides coming here. There have also been numerous other little things on their talk page, and not a single one has been responded to. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The editor has over 65K edits, mostly to main and template spaces. They have used an edit summary a little under 45% of the time. They rarely talk. They have almost 13K edits at zh.wiki. They've never been blocked at either project. Unless you can come up with something more substantively disruptive, I'd forget it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: That 45% value isn't accurate because edits to sections get left with an automatic summary (like "→ Section name"), which is counted in that total, but really isn't a true summary. If you take a quick peek at their last 500 edits, you'll see that actual summaries are very few and far between. Again, I wasn't asking for a block, and if you think nothing should be done, then I won't push this any further, but I've been under the impression that continued refusal to leave edit summaries is in itself inherently disruptive, as is the lack of communication. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Lack of communication plus disruption is problematic, but other than mentioning "few problems" and "other little things", you haven't prevented any evidence of disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 - the lack of communication and edit summaries is bad practice and perhaps concerning, but if the user isn't causing other disruption and isn't failing to communicate when doing so is needed (i.e. dispute resolution), this is not a violation of policy and not something that this user can be blocked exclusively for. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Jytdog

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

---

• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Godrestsinreason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chewy (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernie44
• COI complaint about Bernie44 which mentions Godrestsinreason
• closed DRN

I'm well on my way to being done with this issue, but before I am, I would like to discuss some of the overly aggressive warnings that were left on my page that were made in bad faith by Jytdog. This user was in a conflict with another user, levying attacks and accusations of COI editing. I've made more than a few missteps in reporting this issue as I continue to learn the Wikipedia platform, but I believe I finally ended in the right place. I'm happy to list all the details as I saw them.

I joined Wikipedia to make a few edits to a few pages I had my eye on: WWE, Steven Universe, and Chewy (company). I saw there was a user that was making a few edits to the page, and it was all about pretty insider information he was adding to the page, so I looked him up to see if I recognized who he was, and if he was affiliated with Chewy. I saw that I didn't recognize him, but I also noticed he was involved in an active dispute with user Jytdog, who was levying personal attacks, and calling him a "smooth talker" in regards to his apologies for his COI issues with his edits. He ended up being permanently blocked from editing. I questioned why he was being personally attached in his talk page. I then went back to the Chewy page, and found that roughly 75% of the content was stripped, with most of it coming from reliable sources, under Wikipedia's policy. Nothing was left on the talk page about this, so I reverted them, believing them to be vandalism from a user who was actively in a dispute with another user, in bad faith. When I reverted his edits, three things happened on my talk page:

1. Warning for "edit warring" 2. Bad faith accusation of COI with Chewy 3. Bad faith sockpuppet accusation

I've more than discussed this with the user, who continues to levy these accusations against me, and overall, I would like to have these warnings removed from my talk page, and be done with this issue once and for all. Godrestsinreason (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog was correct. However, you can remove warnings from your page yourself, but the historical record will remain on the page history. -It's God's Fault. barcus 16:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added some links to the head of this report to help explain what it's about. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added the DRN they filed. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• I’m of the view that Godrestsinreason is clearly a sock of someone, and I don’t fault Jytdog here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I became aware of this dispute when User:Godrestsinreason filed a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard request at DRN, claiming bad-faith editing and bad-faith allegations by User:Jytdog. I closed the dispute both as a conduct issue (and DRN is for content disputes) and as already pending at COIN. I advised GRiR that, if they wanted to pursue a conduct allegation, they could file here at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. So they filed here. What I see now is that a supposedly brand-new user went immediately to editing an article with a history of paid editing, that they accused a respected stubborn editor, User:Jytdog, of bad faith and of vandalism, and that they went straight to DRN with a conduct dispute. I also see that they are not physically using the same IP addresses as any of the Bernie44 socks, and that they deny a conflict of interest. (I don't believe the denial, but the policy is to assume good faith, although the subject didn't.) Heading straight for DRN with a conduct dispute is neither a newbie error nor the error of an experienced editor, but an intermediate-user error; a real newbie doesn't know where DRN is, and an experienced editor either knows what DRN is, or at least reads the banner that says it is for content disputes. The filing party appears to be a new account by a previous editor. Jytdog is not a vandal, and there was no reason to claim vandalism, except that yelling vandalism is a tactic of some combative editors. Those are my comments for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• I really don't know what to make of this account. Bernie44 is rhetorically very skillful. I cannot decide if all this drama and flailing around is just that person or their buddy jerking us around, or is this some actually-new user who has no connection to Bernie44 or Chewy (as they say they are) who just happened to stumble onto two paid articles and the talk page of the paid editor, where they just happened to defend that person (diff) and lash out at me diff, diff), and who happens to have a very thin skin. The number of coincidences necessary for the latter to be true are very improbable. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• I didn't bring this at SPI but look at the history of Chewy starting on May 25, and you will diffs by an IP (who then pretty apparently creates the OP's account) and Bernie44 taking turns editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, In case you haven't looked, note the whois for that IP address. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • • Oh my, totally missed that. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Is this a problem? I'm a low level employee of the company, which is why I was watching the page in the first place, and only made edits updating publicly available information. Godrestsinreason (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes you repeatedly said you have no connection to Chewy. You lied. diff, diff, diff.
      • Likewise your statement that you have no connection to Bernie is also blatantly misleading Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I can only apologize for misleading you in that regard. I have no authority to make any statements on behalf of Chewy, and didn't want my job linked to this issue. That being said, I've made no COI edits, and have only retaliated against your combativeness. Again, I have no connection to Bernie whatsoever. If he was paid by Chewy to write articles for the company or the owners, that's waaaaay beyond my paygrade. Godrestsinreason (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is becoming a bit of a joke. The assertion that I've made "intermediate" mistakes for too new of a user is just silly. I Googled "Wikipedia Dispute Resolution" and found the page, and at this point, a followed the link to here when the dispute was closed. I can assure you, a multi billion dollar company isn't paying me to stumble around multiple dispute noticeboards, having an internet argument with veteran wiki editors. I feel I was dragged into a needlessly vitriolic dispute between two other veteran users, and simply wanted the BS to be removed from my talk page. Now that I know I can simply blank it without it being considered vandalism, I'm just going to be on my merry way. If it makes you guys happy, I'll make no further edits to the Chewy page, and will focus on other pages of personal interest. Thanks. Godrestsinreason (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please indef this person. They have lied in the course of trying to maintain promotional content about their employer and the CEO of their company, and in the course of defending their employer's paid editor who dumped that slag into WP in violation of our policies and guidelines. They have wasted a bunch of our time with dramaboards. They are not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. This has been a farce from beginning to end. I'll accept any punishment from admins involving both the COI board and this. That being said, I'll leave you with this. You began this BS with your combativeness and all around horrible attitude toward new users. I started a personal account for me, to make minor edits to the page, and other pages. You still haven't proved that I was here making promotional edits, and have only reverted your edits. You can justify your crap attitude with my "thin skin" however much you want, but at the end of the day, you've been a jerk to myself and multiple people for no real reason, and have refused to assume good faith. I haven't lied, but I've ommitted personal information about myself on a public forum to avoid real life ramifications. This is the last edit I will make on Wikipedia in general, and will continue to use it as a personal user, rather than a contributor, regardless of the outcome. I can only imagine a day will come where your assumption of bad faith will catch up to you, and you make the wrong edit, and are found to be adversarial to those who were here to help build the encyclopedia. Godrestsinreason (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That was never you, was it. My questions (and they were questions) to you were well grounded and in fact the answers were "yes" not "no" as you said, repeatedly. The only vitriol has been from you. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You seem to think that anyone who sticks their toe in for one second to defend someone you were spewing toxicity at is either the same person, or a COI buddy of theirs. Sorry reality doesn't fit your narrow minded vision of how things played out. Again, I've made no promotional edits whatsoever, and have no connection to Bernie whatsoever. Never met him, never associated with him, don't live in the same state, nothing. I've made MINOR edits to the Chewy page, and then updated the C-level execs to current, sourced right from the Chewy page. As a low level employee, I have very little access to any information outside of any random person. The only thing I did was revert your edits and request a discussion in the talk page, when I was met with back to back warnings. You need to admit that you threw your weight around so heavily, and it was unnecessary. Godrestsinreason (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal - Site Ban of User:Godrestsinreason

I didn't believe GRiR when they said that they didn't have a WP:COI. Now they have stated that they are only a low-level employee of the company. They have also explained that they used Google to find DRN, and that they have therefore made newbie mistakes (and I have learned a lesson about mistakes that look like they show experience). I now believe everything that they have written. They are not a sockpuppet. They are an inexperienced paid editor, and they lied blatantly about conflict of interest, and about paid editing, and the latter is a policy with legal consequences. Based on everything that they have written, we cannot accept their apology, and the appropriate action is a Site Ban.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support I have zero interest in continuing to deal with this. I don't know anything about legal consequences. I'm not being paid to edit. I tried to apologize, and I didn't understand the gravity of what I was doing, and I honestly want nothing at all more to do with this. This is a personal account, and I'm more than happy to prove this in any way that I can. But I will accept any punishment. Godrestsinreason (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. ((edit conflict) with the closer of the thread.) At 18:44 14 June UTC, Godrestsinreason finally acknowledged being an employee of Chewy,[263] after repeatedly denying having any connection whatever with the company: I told you no plenty of times. I don't know how to make it any more clear. 'No. There's no connection. Your witch hunt is misguided.' (Bold in original.) And now, after having the admission of working for Chewy screwed out of them, they're still lashing out at Jytdog and blaming J for their own untruthfulness. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC).

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

Venezuelan deletion nominations

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

---

• 2601:644:400:52F7:31B5:B5A6:97FC:1B40 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:644:400:52F7:515F:6593:5CBC:B19A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:644:400:52F7:6199:8521:E7E0:CAC7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:644:400:52F7:F447:90DD:72DB:F24 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2601:644:400:52f7::5042 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 67.164.93.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Possibly other undetected IPs or anonymous directions acting in Venezuelan articles.

The IPs and anonymous directions listed have removed the "articles for deletion" template, voted to keep and in some instances engaged in blanking in the articles Marco Aponte, Carmen Moreno de Aponte, Actors of the World and their respective nominations for deletions, as well as Harvey Hernandez', David Allen Brooks' and Victor Romero's, most of which are related to Venezuela, specifically to Marco Aponte, starting on 12 June up to today. Article protection may be in order, but since there are several involved and because of the pattern, I imagined this noticeboard was suitable. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IPv6 /64 range for disruptive editing. The IPv4 listed here appears to have just been adding AFD comments, so I've left this one alone for now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:OAbot is malfunctioning

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

---

This page is pushing opinions as scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:6800:2120:D980:3163:C6B2:A5 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs with examples of what you believe are malfunctions caused by this bot please? Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Visual editing of Talk pages and other similar discussion pages

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

---

How long do we have to wait for this and how are the people involving in developing the API?  :) Shevonsilva (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Shevonsilva - I believe the Village Pump is the proper place where you should ask this question. This noticeboard is for reporting behavioral or problematic issues of other users that need administrator intervention in order to solve :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 again for Wilmington IPs

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

---

Following a six-month rangeblock set in August 2017, the block evasion by User:BushidoBrown began again in March 2018 at which point Widr blocked the range Special:Contributions/2601:46:4:F229:0:0:0:0/64 for one year. In June the long-term disruption found another outlet, using IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2601:46:280:377B:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a lengthy rangeblock for the latter? Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I've blocked that range for a year. clpo13_(talk) 22:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 thought the SPI I filed would do it

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

---

But I was wrong. As soon as I finished the paperwork, I noticed the sock's legal threat and associated PAs. I guess that's the icing on the cake. Dr. K. 05:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. I have to go offline for a bit now; I'll tidy up the SPI when I get back in an hour or two. Yunshui ^雲_水 05:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Yunshui. Dr. K. 05:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui beat me to it. Thanks for handling that matter so quickly :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Revoke talk page access

The following discussion is closed. 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:Emilyiship'05 is making disruptive edits to her talk page. So, please revoke talk page access. Clockist (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where she's going with this and this, but I agree with revoking talk page access. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Erpert: The way she is behaving might warrant a indefinite block . Clockist (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Talk page access has been revoked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: you might also want to take a look at Emiship'05. clpo13_(talk) 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Clpo13 - Ohhh, joyyy.... another account... awesome lol. Alright looking into this now ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Clpo13 - Since the user disclosed on their alt account user page that it's associated with the master account, they're not violating sock puppetry policy. However, I've applied the same block to the alt account as the master. Let me know if I can do anything else or if my assistance is needed further, and I'll be happy to help :-) Thank you for pointing out the alt account to me. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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

using Hibiscus as personal gallery

Not sure I'm reporting this in the right place, but wanted to bring it to admins' attention. Please see this history page. Tried several times to revert the edits, but the editor is adding pics too quickly for me to do so, and I keep getting edit conflicts. Eric ^talk 03:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I think it might have been better to address the editor in question before posting here. If the images are high quality and germane, it might be OK. I know I've seen a policy on this somewhere, but don't recall. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:NOTGALLERY apply? Dozens of images, all of Thai hibiscus, appears to be an undue concentration, without explanation of why this is necessary or constructive. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The additions seem excessive and indiscriminate. When I looked at some of their images, I noticed that they seem to have started out under another username, One World Thailand, and that the metadata lists PHOENIX_AGENCY in the author field. An example of both may be seen here. I've little experience with image metadata; the copyright holder is listed as TRISORN_TRIBOON, and the author field may be irrelevant. I left them notices about the multiple usernames. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Trisorn Triboon. I just wondering how many picture allow for gallery ? I also want to know if someone allow High Definition image to contributions for free usage and want to be part of create free knowledge would it not allow to have a group of people helping ?

I own advertising company and I believed I could help to support at lease high quality of images. If you have over 10000 images to use for each article how would you upload images as quick as you would ? One World Thailand are partner of our group so they allowed to have my images to help upload for contribution at lease if something happen to me such as car accident or sickness at lease I leave something for the world. not sure if varieties of Plant I put in gallery would be an issue ? if Wiki not allow to have that much I believed Wiki should have solution to have warning directly to author. One more reason I am trying to contribution as you can see Thailand only have around 1xx,xxx Articles while other country have more than millions. So I think with pictures I allowed to use would at lease give inspiration for someone to write more article for more knowledge for next generation. Sorry if part of my answer are not good English but I did my best trying to explain my point of view. and thank you for bring it up as issue at lease we can have better generation of wiki for new user to be part of it and use it the right way. so please let me know if too many of species not allow in gallery I would stop it right away. for other genus. Please also see Adenium and Plumeria gallery and Kindly give me explanation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trisorn Triboon (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Dlohcierekim, BlackcurrantTea, and anonymous. In my experience, this kind of editing pattern does not come from someone interested in learning about the project and improving the encyclopedia. I just wanted to bring the behavior to others' attention. The system won't let me revert the additions, apparently because of the number of consecutive edits (56 on June 6, 62 on June 11). Eric ^talk 11:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

From what I am reading here, the user in question wishes to help, but needs some advice on how to do so in a manner that aligns with best practice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Would it help to create some stubs about the species (most are redlinks) and diffuse some images there? They are indeed high-quality and it is a pity we do not have a use for them.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Your hibiscus is here

Mmmmmm... hibiscus!

-EEng

• Pretty BITEY, I'd say, and this certainly never belonged at ANI. Urgent! Encyclopedia under siege! Too many hibiscus images! EEng 16:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus please kindly look at this page about difference plantae we are talking about

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents, chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and too many hibiscus images." Natureium (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Trisorn Triboon: The trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong, you would need to upload them under creative commons, GFDL, or public domain. You would in effect be giving away your rights to the images. If you are willing, commons would be willing to host the images. that's their mission-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckles, gang. As I said in my first post, I didn't know where I should sound the hibiscus alert, even after searching WP's superbly indexed guidance for the appropriate place. So if it was completely out of line to post here, someone wiser than I could have simply removed my post and told me where to go, so to speak. Re "bitey": This is an encyclopedia, not a personal image showcase, and I think anyone who came here to improve the encyclopedia and took a few minutes to learn how we do things would have refrained from adding 60-plus images to an article in a WP whose language he/she does not master, all with captions in Title Case reading "Colorful Hibiscus Flower". Eric ^talk 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

They might very easily have come here to improve the encyclopedia and not realized they need to take a few minutes to learn how we do things, and just gone ahead and done something they thought would be helpful. AFAICS you never even left them a talk-page message before coming here. EEng 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng:Same as Koala eating Hibiscus it actually Eucalyptus not Hibuscus if you check type of leaf before you put title on image--Trisorn Triboon (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eric: Humor aside, it could look spammy if one adds too many of one's own images, so I think it reasonable to discuss the matter. We do need to find a best, highest use. Certainly, if one does not mind giving away one's images, commons is the place to do it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eric:I am wondering on talk page of Eric why he got so many of talked and IBAN ? and nobody answer me if today i give away high resolution of 100 species banana and 100 species of mango and 100 species of herbs and put in the list of banana cultivars article and in the list of mango cultivars article and the list of herb article just because i am lucky that i am business owner of advertising agency dont give conclusion that pictures in gallery i put in or i made would be personal gallery ! because wikipedia are free to improve anywhere anytime and especially anyone. so if someone find difference species or the same species i put in but can improve quality of image which better lighting, better color better mood better tone better resolution, etc. in the same species i did put in feel free to put it up for other people in the world to see and use for education or anything so kindly do so. but do not give conclusion what i put are my personal gallery because anyone can help to improve it but not delete all of it ! so let me know if i got this wrong so i can stop what i am contribute right away. Thank you.-- TrisornTriboon (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding the photo File:D85 1108 Sunset Through window after rain in Thailand photographed by Trisorn Triboon.jpg to sunset and adding File:D85 0751 Photographed by Trisorn Triboon 50.jpg to photography are representative of one aspect of the problem here. These two photos were added as the lead images for the two articles, but they are not appropriate: the sunset photo doesn't really exemplify what a sunset is, and the flower photo added to photography is only related to the topic in the sense that it is a photo. In a nutshell, Trisorn Triboon is here to highlight his photos in Wikipedia articles regardless of their appropriateness. @Trisorn Triboon: your photos are wonderful, but please be more selective in their use and make sure that they are used only where appropriate (perhaps by using the articles' talk pages to suggest new images and see what other say first). Peacock (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually IMO (unrelated to the specific case) seriously enforcing of WP:GALLERY is way overdue. We have quite a lot of galleries not compliant with the policy, and a lot of images which do not illustrate anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we don't - I do some patrolling of articles tagged for this, of which there aren't all that many, and a good number are actually compliant. Place articles, especially in Asia, are often bad though. Of course views differ as to interpreting the policy. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Gallery Policy aside (I personally feel that particular one needs a bit of revisiting), I'd suggest that Trisorn Triboon may wish to take a trip to Wikimedia Commons; lest I am mistaken, Commons welcomes high-quality images of various sorts. From there, usage of the images for various articles could likely be proposed and discussed on the talk pages here; it's not as though many of our plant articles have as many images or as good quality images as would be preferable. (Notably, many seem to lack pictures of, say, the bark for trees, or various other diagnostic structures.) Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

All his images were already on Commons, uploaded by him. If you mean he should transfer his gallery there, then no - a) we shouldn't tell people what to do on Commons, and b) Commons galleries and "pages" are mostly unhelpful to users, the "pages" in particular being where users end up from a search, which is a major problem on Commons. I'd love to get the lot deleted. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDing by Admin User:Buckshot06

My recent interactions with User:Buckshot06 started here: User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 23#Tuy Hoa Air Base on 7 May when I questioned them over the deletion of Tuy Hoa Air Base and then later Nha Trang Air Base. Buckshot06 was "presumptively deleting" entire pages as part of the Bwmoll3 CCI. My questioning of Buckshots06's approach eventually led to this response: "I am acting in full conformity with that rule and I am tired of you attacking me for doing my job as an admin. I do not expect to be criticised again for acting in full confirmity with the rules that keep the site legal". I then opened the entire issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 145#Potential deletion of USAF/RAF pages where I showed on 17 May that Buckshot06 was not in fact following CCI policy. Since opening that discussion Buckshot06 has been hounding me on various pages and issues.

Starting with User talk:Mztourist#South Korea in the Vietnam War on 13 May Buckshot06 became involved in a debate I was engaged in with an IP User (later registered as User:A bicyclette) regarding purported massacres by South Korean troops in the Vietnam War. Early in that discussion I stated "I find it strange that you as an Admin are siding with an anonymous IP which has made repeated POV changes, may well be a sock for a banned User and is unwilling to discuss the issues on the Talk page." Buckshot06 became involved in the debate, opening the issue of body count. They questioned the reliability of the AFD process and the competence of other Users with this comment "simply getting three or four other wikipedia editors with no specialist knowledge to agree is no particular evidence that the actions did not take place" and assumed without any evidence that I had a US military background and so was inherently biased, "Clearly from your U.S. military background you would, indeed, tend to suspect enemy writings." a claim which they subsequently covered up here: [[264]]. Buckshot06 then moved and continued the discussion here: Talk:South Korea in the Vietnam War#Copied over from User talk:Mztourist.

Also on 13 May Buckshot06 began revising categories of various Vietnam War bases leading to this debate: User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 23#Military bases of the Vietnam War.

On 16 May User talk:Mztourist#Military articles being deleted by Buckshot Buckshot06 stated "Do you not see (a) that the reason I started keeping an eye on what you're doing currently..." I advised them that "keeping an eye on what you're doing = WPHOUND."

On 31 May I started this discussion:User talk:A bicyclette#Your recent changes which Buckshot06 joined discussing body count. I suggested that the correct procedure rather than edit warring claims on each page was to reach a consensus that could be applied to all Vietnam War pages, Buckshot06 ignored this. Buckshot06 incorrectly asserted that I had "defend[ed] U.S. official body count figures, en generale" and was "saying they should be left in the articles without even giving the other side's figures, which would be equally biased". The dispute then moved to edits to the body count page. I noted that A bicyclette was making changes without providing edit summaries and asked Buckshot06 why he wasn't enforcing this.

On 31 May I opened an edit warring complaint against A bicyclette here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Declined) regarding his changes to numerous Vietnam War battle pages to insert US claims" etc and Buckshot06 became involved in the discussion addressing underlying issues rather than the edit warring by A bicyclette.

Also on 31 May Buckshot06 posted this: User talk:Mztourist#Army War College Study on Military Professionalism, 1970 on my Talk Page to push their view on body count. I suggested that instead "why don't you look into this sudden surge of Vietnam War edits being made by User:A bicyclette and IP: 172.86.241.3 who both appeared out of nowhere 5-10 days ago or don't they concern you because you like their POV and they are causing issues for me?"

Also on 31 May Buckshot06 made various changes to the body count page here: [265] to enforce his views on the unreliability of Vietnam war body counts. I added further WP:RS that were a counterpoint to this on 2 June: [266] and then A bicyclette joined in making multiple changes to try to undermine my changes and support his view of a "Vietnamese Government" document which he claims represents the only truly reliable figures. Edit-warring followed and there were discussions on the Talk page: Talk:Body count#Last edits and Talk:Body count#Discussion of Body Count Sourcing. Buckshot06 being involved did not act impartially, not questioning A bicyclette's claims that a 1995 AP story which gave different figures was incorrect nor questioning the reliability of A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document. Buckshot 06 did, thankfully, block the body count page from editing for 1 week, however as soon as that block expired yesterday A bicyclette has gone straight back to making his changes as I have noted here: Talk:Body count#Unbelievable.... Buckshot06 moved the discussion to Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates stating that A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document "This is probably the best source I've seen put forward from the Northern side for whole-war casualties" but finally acknowledged its deficiencies. I suggest a resolution of the entire issue here on 4 June: " I am asking you to adjudicate a final position on PAVN/VC casualties to go in the Vietnam War infobox, I suggest this should be the following range: 849,018 (with A bicyclette's ref when he provides it properly) - 1,489,000 (with Rummel ref). Please confirm and obtain confirmation of this from A bicyclette as he seems to still be contesting all other references other than his Vietnamese document" but Buckshot06 did nothing.

On 5 June due to the ongoing edit-warring I opened a 3RR here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive369#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned user(s)) and Buckshot06 was asked by the Admin to contribute and they once again discussed the issue of body counts and my skepticism regarding Vietnamese sources. On 7 June both I and A bicyclette were warned but this did nothing really changed.

On 7 June, as suggested by the Admin I opened two discussions here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages regarding the whole "claims/body count" issue and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties regarding the reliability of A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document. I posted these on the edit-warring complaint, Talk:Vietnam War#North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties, Talk:Vietnam War casualties#North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties, both remain open and I would have assumed that until they are closed the edit-warring would have stopped.

Also on 7 June A bicyclette made this change [267], which I reverted here [268] commenting "no explanation or justification given for revert, discuss on talk page rather than edits warring again", A bicyclette referted again here: [269]. Buckshot06 made an intervening edit but did nothing to stop A bicyclette making these changes or enforce Talk page discussion. On 9 June I reverted A bicyclette again here: [270], Buckshot06 then reverted my change here: [271] stating "2 to 1 consensus ; accurate; improves context". On 10 June I reverted Buckshot06 here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_allied_military_operations_of_the_Vietnam_War_(1966)&diff=next&oldid=845104222} stating "2:1 is not a consensus, take it to RFC". On 9 June Buckshot06 opened this discussion on the Talk page: Talk:List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1966)#Mid-2018 threatening me with Admin sanctions. I advised them that "As you should be well aware, I have raised this whole issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages and you should await the outcome of that RFC and ensure that A bicyclette stops making these changes until that RFC is finalized rather than threatening me with sanctions." Buckshot06 then proceeded to block me for 3 days.

I successfully appealed my block as discussed here: User talk:Mztourist#Block and here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block and unblock of Mztourist.

I believe this all shows that Buckshot06 has clearly been hounding me and request appropriate action/sanctions to stop this and prevent any recurrence. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I note that you started a blatantly POV pushing "request for comment" at WT:MILHIST#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages, and have followed up on the complaints about this by starting a RfC which also falsely presents a live dispute in the abstract at WT:MILHIST#RFC: How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented?. That you are giving these as an example of good conduct on your part suggests a lack of reflection on the matter: this is poor conduct which indicates that Buckshot has valid concerns about your editing. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D you are the first to categorise my RFC as "blatantly POV". Several Users indicated that my RFC was poorly framed and I have attempted to correct that creating a new RFC in the form suggested, how does that "falsely presents a live dispute in the abstract"? I have been getting nowhere in my disputes with A bicyclette and Buckshot06 on US claims/sources/reports/body counts and so am seeking comments/consensus on this issue which I thought was the correct procedure. If not, please explain to me exactly what procedure I should be following there rather than casting dispersions on me here and distracting from my complaint regarding hounding. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lodging a SPI report about your opponent in this content dispute (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam) and then badgering the checkuser [272] and closing admin [273] when it was declined on the grounds that you saw the report as a way of ending the dispute is also poor practice. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D Amanda the Admin who declined the checkuser of A bicyclette said on 7 June "If after a few days no further evidence is provided, I'd recommend closure w/o action". I provided further evidence on 7 June and then again on 10 June but Bbb23 closed the entire SPI on 10 June while I was subject to Buckshot06's block. Once I was unblocked I raised the issue with Bbb23, I don't believe that I have badgered Bbb23, but if so I unreservedly apologise. I believe that I have legitimate grounds for the SPI because A bicyclette's edits follow a familiar pattern and POV to previous blocked Users. I am especially frustrated by the fact that I am receiving so much criticism from so many fronts for trying to follow proper policy and procedures while A bicyclette ignores all policies and procedures and attracts no criticism or sanctions whatsoever. Do the checkuser, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but if I'm right then I have been sorely wronged. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't feel badgered.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit I would have done that Checkuser. There is certainly enough evidence (overlaps in editing, time of creation of account etc.) to do so IMO. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Body count is a mass of SYNTH and OR (some of which I've deleted). EEng 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge that this discussion is underway; I'm signaled my acceptance of the decision regarding the reversed block - clearly I acted too hastily regarding the body count issue in articles; Mztourist has repeatedly got in my way as I have attempted to continue the copyvio cleanup after Bwmoll3; I have grave concerns about Mztourist's POV on Vietnam matters, but I've also had to rollback some of A bicyclette's edits, and to advise him to lodge source complaints with WP:RSN. I believe that both Mztourist and A bicyclette are getting a little too worked up over the issue, and a cup of tea and pause for reflection might be in order. I do finally however note that I do not agree with some of Mztourist's characterisations of our interactions above. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Repeatedly got in my way"? You were not following CCI policy as you repeatedly claimed. Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: You should probably consider yourself involved with Mztourist from now on.--v/r - TP 17:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: I am somehow surprised that Nick-D's first reaction to the complaint was to comb through Mztourist's entire edit history and try to find faults with them, even going as far as an entirely unrelated SPI, while displaying zero interest in in the very problem that has brought them here, i.e., HOUNDING. It will take some effort to convince me this is not an attempt to undermine the complainant's credibility. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Problematic editing by Missana.marco

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

---

Missana.marco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding wp:FRINGE content, likely citing Missana.marco's own papers to:

• Cosmic microwave background (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Olbers' paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Physical cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Redshift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The same or similar content has been added by Natalia.missana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no question in my mind that these two users are the same person - they added the exact same content to Redshift here and here, as well as made similar changes to the other articles listed on this ANI report. I can't block these accounts for this fact given the timeline of their edits, however. Neither one of these accounts are blocked, and it looks like the edits stopped after May 31 with Natalia.missana and then began on June 4 with Missana.marco - so there's no block evasion or obvious attempts to violate policy between these accounts (such as editing between the accounts to appear as if they were different people, etc). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have gotten an explanation of the edits and a confirmation that the two are the same on my talk page here Jim1138 (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Well at least the user is confirming this... I think that the proper next steps going forward from here are to try and explain WP:FRINGE to the user and try and educate / help them if they're willing to learn. If they ignore such attempts and keep adding this kind of content, I would imagine that this will become a problem when the user begins edit warring to keep their changes, or engaging in similar repeated disruption... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I left a wp:fringe link on her talk page. Maybe I should have elaborated? Jim1138 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - I think we should follow up with the user on their user talk page and just make sure that they understand WP:FRINGE. This feels like good faith confusion to me more-so than purposeful ignorance. Thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: She contributes rather seldomly. I'll leave a message. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - It's the thought that counts ;-). Cool deal; let me know if I can help with anything else. Otherwise, I don't think there's much more to do here and (unless you object) I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Marco Missana, the author of the text, is my father but he's not able to modify wikipedia, so I do it for him. I'm Natalia Missana and I'm a physicist but not an astronomer. Sorry, but it's not easy for me to understand the problem and to write the text in the right way. I inserted a link to an article that was pulished in a scientific review of the Italian Physical Society (https://en.sif.it/) written only in Italian. The article, in the Italian version, is not on line and there is no English version. Italian Physical Society suggested to me, in an email, to put in a website the English version translated with the help of my father.

All the text inserted in Wikipedia is written by my father, who worked for forty year as an astronomer in Observatory of Milan. Do you want me to send you the email with the authorization of the Italian Physical Society? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missana.marco (talk • contribs) 11:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Missana.marco, and thanks for adding a comment and participating in this discussion here. It looks like we just need to educate you on the addition of fringe content to articles, and help you to identify what this is so that you can avoid adding them in the future. Have you reviewed this guideline page yet? Do you have any questions about it at all? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:BALKANS

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

---

1. Max Legrottaglie97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}
2. CarloMagno96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Gothius90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is a requests for arbitration involving Macedonia and some closely related topics, especially in these sensitive topics. However both these users (who might be socks to User:A. Katechis Mpourtoulis) have been indiscriminately editing, without talking to other users, going against general consensus on these topics, just doing EW and pure vandalism. The pages edit were protect, to no effect. No ammout of talk, multiple users reverting and warnings have worked.

Examples:

• [274]
• [275]
• [276]
• [277]

Coltsfan (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

These accounts are  Confirmed to each other. They are  Unrelated to A. Katechis Mpourtoulis.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

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

How to know user page guidelines

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

---

how to know user page guidelines ? how to archive own user page subject ?

(Kebabglitz (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC))

Hi Kebabglitz. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please see WP:UP and WP:AATP. I have also dropped a welcome message on your talk page with multiple links that you may find helpful. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Can i upload my own image to my user page ? (Kebabglitz (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC))

Yes, provided you own the image. P.S. In the future if you have questions the best place to go is the WP:HELP DESK. This forum is usually where you go if you are having problems with another editor or someone is behaving disruptively. Alternatively if your issue is not time sensitive you can just drop me a line on my talk page (see link to the right). -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

In The following user page , the user used a photo with some abnormal in nature ,,,abnormal hair style ...is it against user name policy ? or under user name policy ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oshwah

(Kebabglitz (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC))

No. As long as you own your image and it doesn't promote something grossly offensive or obviously illegal you can put it on your user page. However, please be aware that we are not a social networking website like Facebook. Adding some personalized stuff is fine, but don't use our pages for blogging, editorializing about subjects not related to the encyclopedia or promotion of yourself or other persons or entities including businesses. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I was just writing a note on your talk page wondering about this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:87.102.116.36

Hi, is it possible for an admin to look into this this user, 87.102.116.36. I've noticed that he has an issue with articles particularly concerning the European Union, and after having a look through his edit history, appears to accuse anyone and everyone of having WP:COI conflicts. Here's his latest rant on Nuclear power in the European Union, which is still standing as a clean up notification on the article:

'Piss-take' (Partisan, possibly Irish Republican) map self-supplied by the article-creator in 2008 with his own arbitrary, unique or pedantic definition in order to specifically single out Northern Ireland as some sort of 'All-Ireland nuclear-power-free zone' (resulting the Isle of Anglesey, the Islands of the Outer Hebrides and of the Inner Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, Ceuta, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Rügen, Öland, Gotland, parts of Stockholms Lan, Slovene Istria and the Prekmurje region all shown as having declared themselves as 'independent nuclear-power-free states', despite being integral parts of the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Germany, Sweden and Slovenia respectively); the Isle of Man wrongly included despite having always been formally considered as being outside of the EU (or even the UK).

The edit is a few days old and still standing. I was led to his case by finding this on the European Court of Justice talk page following an archival of talk page notification:

[2] "Only the versions of the documents published in the ‘Reports of Cases' or the ‘Official Journal of the European Union' are authentic. The other documents available on the Institution's website are given for the purposes of public information and are subject to amendment." So, basically, it can be legally-speaking false or factually misleading or incorrect! Nice legal disclaimer here (such as this one [3])! The original assertion was inserted by one editor [4], on 1 February 2009, completely unsourced anyway! You are just a (paid) EU civil servant public-relations (PR) spin doctor with NO background or education in law! Stop wasting MY time here, I am out! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

His edit history demonstrates similar behaviour. I'm not sure if an official warning has been given, but it might be an idea, along with, obviously, a revert of his contributions on Nuclear power in the European Union. Luxofluxo (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

He has a point, to a degree, in that I'd agree the map at File:European Union map Nuclear Energy Countries.png is shit. Fish+Karate 08:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That may be so, although the article does provide an explanation in the picture description and someone with more knowledge on the subject may be able to say why it was done like that:

European Union countries (contiguous land mass) employing nuclear energy for electricity generation are marked in orange. Those without nuclear power stations are shown in pale blue (including islands belonging to countries that do have reactors but no presence on this island).

However, the point remains that the wider behaviour of accusing everyone he's in conflict with of having a COI and leaving clean up messages like that deserves a warning. Luxofluxo (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

His behaviour is to say the least unimpressive, but the map is genuinely bad so I have just deleted it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan. Glad to see it wasn't just me. Luxofluxo, I absolutely agree the behaviour is not helpful. Are you aware that you don't need to be an administrator to discuss this with the user - you can find their talk page at User_talk:87.102.116.36. You can find a list of templates at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, or just talk to them like they're a normal human being. Fish+Karate 10:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre edit summaries / hounding on 13 Reasons Why

I reverted User:TimmyAU twice over the removal of production info in the lede of the 13 Reasons Why article. His response has been simply bizarre, as can be seen in the following edit summaries:

• here - "Chaheel Riens" is clearly a character from a book and not a real name: you are distorting articles for the purposes of advertising and not a real person
• here - added citation qualifying description whilst defending integrity of wiki by calling out false name of marketing assistant using character name from Alan Dean Foster's novel, "The Man Who Used The Universe"
• here - cleaned up coding dirt whilst watching interaction and attempted intimidation from marketing assistant using false name from obscure old novel to hide fakenews activities
• here - minor paragraph edit: have placed a 48 hourly alert on my iphone to remind me to check the aggressive edit-warring of the falsenamed promoter of brand names not directly relevant to the wiki article and especially not appropriate to the initial search summary on Google
• here - every48hrs: abridgement of linguistic reference to recordings to unify millennial generation with previous generations: watching you, fake novel character, every 48 hours
• here - linguistic abridgement: researching in depth the influence of a certain fake contributor's name and articles affected and possibly corrupted with advertising

I have no idea what to do about this - I don't think ignoring it is appropriate. Are they personal insults or accusations of paid editing/COI? I'm pretty certain they come close to hounding, but, well - it's just weird. Editor informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's another one: clarifying character name by adding surname: finding lots of interesting contributions from fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis

Seems to be making small edits to the article, purely so they can comment on my contributions/identity as they do so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens - Have you tried creating a discussion on the article's talk page and pinging the user? Have you tried discussing the content dispute with the user directly? I'd do these if you haven't already - create a new talk page discussion and ping the user, then leave a message on the user's talk page and point them to that discussion. Let me know how this goes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is apparently what it's about. I'm going with the OP's description of "just weird".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Yeah that is a bit... interesting... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• At the Teahouse, I've directed the user to go read WP:AGF until they understand what the problem is. Oshwah's also right: you could have started a talk page discussion to explain things more thoroughly than an edit summary would. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not the changes to the article that concern me, it's the edit summaries, and the apparent belief that because my name is taken from a novel that makes me ineligible to contribute, and the insinuation that I'm a promotional editor: fake contributor's name and articles affected and possibly corrupted with advertising, fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis. and intimidation from marketing assistant. Accusations such as those are no longer the province of a content dispute, surely? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hah! consider the source. I'd not let it bother me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone think Timmy needs a PAID or COI warning?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not immediately seeing why. If anything, he's downplaying corporate involvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Those actions are a failure to assume good faith, which has not been explained to him until just now. If he refuses to understand WP:AGF's application to this, then I'd start considering further accusations to be personal attacks. Once I see what his response is to me telling his to "read WP:Assume good faith until you understand the problem here", then we'll have more to go on. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: I've left a message on TimmyAU's talk page explicitly spelling out the situation as it applies to him, just in case he doesn't check back on the Teahouse or misses the point of my post there. I've added the article to my watchlist. If he continue accusing you of being some sort of "fake account marketing assistant" or whatever, I'll treat it as a personal attack. I could imagine that his argument implies that WP:UNDUE might apply, which is why I'd be happy to see some discussion on the article's talk page instead of just in edit summaries, but I'm not immediately thinking of a developed form of that argument that I believe so I'm not gonna expect it.

Until there's further action from anyone involved, I'm not seeing anything to be done at this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, with regard to this edit summary from TimmyAU "clarifying character name by adding surname: finding lots of interesting contributions from fakenews contributor with 9 years of history: lots and lots of interesting ads embedded in wikis" I would like to ask him to provide oh, let's say five examples of when I've embedded ads in links for promotional purposes. Even if this wasn't about me, I'd be interested to see what the results were, and what were considered to be promotional editing. I must be pretty good if I've gotten away with it for nine years... Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Alssa1's harassment of Garageland66 and lack of competent editing

Original, longer version of complaint by Tanbircdq
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alssa1 appears to be continuously WP:WIKIHOUNDING Garageland66 on British political pages. Alssa1 also appears to be adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS. Harrasment It all seemed to start unprovoked on the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party talk page 19 May here: "*No As above, WP:COMMONNAME. @Garageland66:It's only a controversial claim amongst self-identified "Communist(s), trade unionist(s) and anti-austerity campaigner(s)." Its existence in the Labour Party is not denied." Then continued a couple of days later on 21 May here: "You don't get to ascribe your interpretations to a WP page like that..." Then continuous highlighting of Garageland66's editing history to discredit him started here: "@Garageland66: furthermore I feel I have to make an accusation of WP:NOT HERE because of this edit your political opinions as to what makes a "Israeli advocacy...organisation" is totally irrelevant to any discussion." The editor goes onto other talk pages (the Eton College talk page) against other editors where they've had no previous involvement here: "Familiarise yourself with WP:NOT HERE." Back to Garageland66 on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party talk page here: "It's concerning that Garageland66 thinks it's acceptable to label an organisation as a "Israeli advocacy" group simply because it uses a definition of anti-semitism he doesn't like. I note from his block log that this not the first time he has engaged in edits that could be described as going against WP:NOT HERE; he clearly is not learning..." And again here: "I really wouldn't make accusations of edit warring given your history and your recent WP:NOT HERE edit." After adding this category didn't go down well on the Labour Party (UK) page adding here. The editor reverted Garageland66's edit with the edit summary here: "Reverting edit by repeated WP:NOT HERE editor Garageland66.]" Then going onto the talk page to make the same statement here: "Again, you are not in a position to have 'suspicions' of anyone given your history and your repeated WP:NOT HERE edits." Then reverting G-13114 here: "Take it to talk, it's already been discussed there. It's removal was done by a someone who has made a series of WP:NOT HERE edits." Now back to the talk page again the following day on 22 May here: "You've actually been banned for a series of WP:NOT HERE edits." Then moving back to the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party talk page here "... Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think they are not WP:FRINGE? We don't include fringe groups simply to provide a 'neutrality' that fits in with your previous WP:NOT HERE edits." Further comments here: "What you seem to fail to grasp (among other things) is that your "analysis" is totally irrelevant to wikipedia." I made a general warning without appearing to single anyone out here "I also would urge editors to be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and not use talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Ad hominem comments about editing history and repeated accusations of WP:NOT HERE is unhelpful. If you've got any personal issues, take it to ANI not here." The editor acknowledged receipt of this here. However, this didn't deter the editor reverting back to old ways on 11 June here and here. "To be honest, I don't think Garageland66 will ever accept a page that criticises his espoused political viewpoint as neutral. As a cursory glance of his talk page history will show, he's quite adept at engaging in numerous edit wars when his views are not implemented." "I love how every time you come up against a definition for anti-semitism you don't like you instantly assert that the source is a "well known advocate for Israel". You did this for the ADL in this edit. Please remember that WP is not here for you to forward your political viewpoint." Today, Garageland66 even kindly asked here: "Alssa1 please note WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF". To which Alssa1's response was here: "...Rather than telling others to note "WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF" why don't you note WP: DGF?" Incompetent editing Alssa1 has also added primary sourced content here and here to make a WP:POINT. Despite claiming to be aware of "WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements" here. Adding a YouTube video as a source to push a POV on the George Galloway page here. With the edit summary "Previous edit was not original research. In fact, it constituted WP:V which therefore makes it legitimate to include." Edit warring it back into the article when RolandR removed it here. At the same time removing sourced content from Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi's article here and the Conservative Party (UK) here. Despite a talk page discussing being started about content on Momentum (organisation) page here. The editor ignored WP:BRD and continued to WP:EDITWAR with Nonsenseferret here and here. Summary Considering Alssa1 has been an active editor for at least nine years I think this behaviour is very unbecoming and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. The repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, lack of WP:AGF and use of talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND, particularly against Garageland66 which I can only deem to constitute WP:HARASSMENT and shouldn't be tolerated. I'm sure the editor is more than aware of Wikipedia guidelines and policies so I can only assumed they've either adopted a WP:IDHT approach and edit from a WP:POV by adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS or they aren't WP:INCOMPETENT. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tanbircdq: If you want more than a very small chance of resolving... whatever it is; I suggest that you try to express your complaint concisely... say less than 100 words with 3-4 diffs to support it. Also, please specify what kind of action/resolution you are looking for. I really doubt anyone is going to spend the hour or so it would take to dig through the wall of text.

My best advice is to pretend you have 60 seconds to convince someone, verbally, that there is a problem what you think should happen. Clarity and brevity are essential to resolving issues here. Jbh ^Talk 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Garageland66 has displayed WP:IDHT behaviour on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, promoting the theory that evidence of antisemitism in the Labour Party prior to 2015 doesn't seem to exist multiple times this month, but ignoring requests from both me and Alssa1 to find reliable sources that discuss this, and then returning to bring up the same point again in a new discussion. Alssa1 is right to say that it's your responsibility to find sources that meet the WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements, but Garageland66 refuses to do so. Iffy★Chat -- 08:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If Garageland66 has displayed WP:IDHT behaviour then this should be addressed directly with reference to previous discussions. Bringing up Alssa1's right to say that it's Garageland66's responsibility to find sources that meet WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements appears to be a disingenuous strawman attempt to deflect the overarching point here regarding the continuous disruptive personal attacks not the point of contention regarding the content. I feel there is no justification in Alssa1's interaction with Garageland66 over the past few weeks. I feel Garageland66 has displayed quite a lot of restraint in not retaliating at repeated provocation which a less an editor may have done. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jbhunley, thank you for your advice, I realise it was far too long, if the above is WP:TLDR then below is a concise summary of all the key points into two separated headings:

HARRASSMENT

Alssa1 appears to be continuously WP:WIKIHOUNDING Garageland66 on British political pages. Alssa1 has accused Garageland66 of WP:NOT HERE at least seven times on talk pages and edit summaries:

Alssa1 accusing Garageland66 of WP:NOTHERE: here and here.

Making reference to the Garageland66's editing history and WP:NOTHERE: here, here and here.

Further accusations of NOT:HERE in edit summaries: here and here.

Alssa1 made a what appears to be a unfounded WP:NOTHERE accusation against another editor here.

After I put a general warning being put on the page here, which Alssa1 editor acknowledged here but has still continued with the PAs here and here.

Even after Garageland66 highlighted WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF here, Alssa1's response was to basically deflect the issue back to Garageland66 with an accusation of WP:DGF here.

Considering Alssa1 has been an active editor for at least nine years I think this behaviour is very unbecoming, inappropriate for the encyclopedia and clearly disruptive. The repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, lack of WP:AGF and use of talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND, particularly against Garageland66 which I can only deem to constitute WP:HARASSMENT and shouldn't be tolerated.

Given the fact this has been highlighted to Alssa1 twice which appears to have been ignored, I'd like an admin to issue a formal warning that if this continues strong action will be taken in the form of a topic ban from these articles. Tanbircdq (talk)

INCOMPETENT EDITING

Alssa1 also appears to be adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS.

Alssa1 claims to be aware of "WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements" here but added a YouTube video as a source to push a POV on the George Galloway page here. Tried to WP:EDITWAR it back into the article when it was removed by RolandR here whilst at the same time removing sourced content from Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi's article here and the Conservative Party (UK) here. Despite a talk page discussing being started about content on Momentum (organisation) page here. Alssa1 ignored WP:BRD and continued to WP:EDITWAR with Nonsenseferret here and here.

I'm sure the editor is more than aware of Wikipedia guidelines and policies so I can only assumed they've either adopted a WP:IDHT approach and edit from a WP:POV by adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS or they aren't WP:INCOMPETENT.

I think it's right that this should also be noted so should this editing behaviour continue action may be taken by banning Alssa1 from these pages. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It takes far less time to check Garageland66s block log and contribution history than it does to read the walls of text above. POV-pushing, IDHT, edit warring, tendentious editing, misleading edit summaries, POV-railroading... Mildly surprised that they [Garageland66] haven't already been topic banned from Politics-broadly construed. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't have the time to examine the actual point of this report. Are you saying an editor with a previous history of being blocked remains stigmatised with this (in this case over six months ago), therefore, is fair game of being abused with extreme prejudice?

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide their opinion on Alssa1's actions rather than joining in the WP:WITCHHUNT to discredit Garageland66 which is what Alssa1 has been doing at every given opportunity for the past three weeks here. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

in this case over six months ago Well, that last block duration was 6 months... Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Can I just explain that the 6 month block was for edit-warring on the Eton College page not on any political page. I've done my time. I've learnt my lesson. I now have the right to edit. I've done nothing wrong and there has been no suggestion that I should be blocked again for anything I've done. I treat other editors courteously and feel that this current issue is because of differences of opinion. This is inevitable among editors and differences should be dealt with amicably on the Talk Pages. Garageland66 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've been aware of a situation at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party for some time, though I haven't followed it in great detail. The article is a WP:COATRACK filled with pro and anti-Jeremy Corbyn material only tangentially related to the titular subject. I expect there are multiple editors problematic enough at that article to be sanctioned; it would take me 2-3 hours to determine this for sure. Based on a quick look at the talk page, Tanbircdq's comment appears to have some merit; most of Alssa1's comments are acronym soup claiming Garageland66 is WP:NOTHERE without any real evidence to support that, or any constructive participation in discussing how to improve the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment without going into further detail I would remind @Alssa1: and the others that accusing an editor of being NOTHERE repeatedly, outside a sanctions discussion and without evidence to back it up is very likely to be seen as a personal attack and, should it be repeated, I am reasonably confident an administrator would sanction you for such. Jbh ^Talk 16:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Alssa1: diffs or knock it off, @Garageland66: Sources or knock it off, @Neil S Walker: Fix your signature, it violates WP:SIGLINK. You have an extra space between the colon and the N. It wrecks bots. Also, we expect a little more investigative effort than counting lines in the block log.---v/r - TP 17:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Rev del

The following discussion is closed. 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 recent edit at Diamond and Silk‎ was reverted, but should probably be rev-deled too. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Vote stacking concern

Note: A related discussion has been opened on the WikiProject Conservatism talk page. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

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

---

I may be way off base here. I ran across something I haven’t before seen: the WikiProject Conservatism talk page here. The page contains eight RfC notifications and some other discussion notifications. Indeed, this is the nature of 11 of the 18 sections. Perhaps this is entirely innocent. An RfC is designed to draw additional editors to a discussion. But, this project looks more like a club for conservatives. Whatever the intent, RfC notifications posted on this page could result in swaying consensus by selective notification. On its face, this looks like chronic canvassing. I’m not asking for any sanctions, just voicing a concern.

Note: If there is like activity in any other “side” of any contentious area, I would be equally concerned. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about votestacking, but that seems like a forum disguised as a talk page. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Winkelvi, the editor who posted most of those RfC notices, sought to get a third editor involved in a content dispute between the two of us on the Diamond and Silk page (Winkelvi repeatedly removed reliably sourced text which corrected false conspiracy theories that D&S were pushing).[278] This appears to have been done to get the third editor to assist Winkelvi in the content dispute or find something sanctionable about my behavior.[279] The third editor, Lionelt, had early that day frivolously sought to get me sanctioned, which is why Winkelvi contacted the user.[280] I consider this to be an example of canvassing, but my understanding of Wiki policy and precedent on this precise subject is admittedly poor. Is it canvassing? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a project page, not unlike Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. AN/I is the wrong venue for this discussion. Take it to the project TP where its members can explain how WikiProjects work. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been going on for a few months, so it's not surprising to see such abuse of our dispute resolution processes again. There is a transparent effort underway to co-opt WikiProject Conservatism and form an association of editors who hold the same POV. As far as I can tell, it involves email, gratuitous barnstars, and certain editors showing up at various content and conduct disputes in which they have otherwise been uninvolved. Anyone paying any attention knows that there are approximately four bad actors in this scheme. I'm not sure what can be done about it.- MrX 🖋 17:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that happening in American politics articles for years. Certain admins always show up at the right time, AE complaints get filed with pile on supports, etc. It's not against policy for editors to independently follow each other. It's only against policy to coordinate off-wiki.--v/r - TP 18:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Interesting that there is a note on the project page saying "This project does not extol any point of view, political or otherwise, other than that of a neutral documentarian." I guess that means it could include people who don't hold right-wing views and are interested in the project because it helps them check up on potential NPOV matters. That's surely how the rest of us should make use of it. Deb (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what it has always been. Unless you have evidence of collusion to skew Wikipedia articles. We all know Wikipedia leans left in political articles; not right. Even Jimbo has commented on this before.--v/r - TP 19:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, there are editors who are members of that project including DGG, myself, SPECIFICO, Carrite, Binksternet, etc. who profess no political persuasion so attempts to pigeonhole anyone as something we're not is inappropriate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Even Jimbo said it, so it so must be true.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll take an authority over an editor who gets engaged in a lot of heated disputes in the topic of American politics assertion without evidence anyday.--v/r - TP 21:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Every time I've notified a project of an RfC or discussion at an article talk page, it's always been at every project listed on that same talk page as "...of interest to the following WikiProjects". I've done it several times with various RfCs and always with every project listed at the talk page. My only intent has been to get as many voices in the RfC as possible, nothing more. If doing so is considered "vote stacking" or canvassing, it's news to me. If that's indeed what it is, I'll discontinue doing it, but it should be stated that I was completely unaware that it would be against policy. It seemed logical to me that editors involved in the projects listed at the article talk page would be interested in commenting at an RfC concerning an article where a project has an interest. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair the first point on WP:Canvassing under appropriate notification is "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, but it goes on to say: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions." The editors on that page have ardently supported the same POV both in article TPs and drama boards. O3000 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

On what basis are you saying project conservatism are just a bunch of POV pushers? Seems like a charge you should try and show rather than just assume. Plus looking at the member list it seems fairly diverse, even our friend SPECIFICO is a member. PackMecEng (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about that one page. I really am trying to avoid discussing particular editors as I'm not looking for sanctions. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder of policy on canvassing, PackMecEng. Link to the section is here [281] I'd like to further note that the policy also states, "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions...Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". Which is exactly what I have been doing. I always copy and paste the same message each time I have done this at project pages, just changing the link to the discussion and name of the article, of course. The messages I left today stated, "RfC at Richard B. Spencer - There is an RfC at the Richard B. Spencer talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in." Polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. And in today's instance, placed at the following project pages: [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288] [289] [290]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng beat me in posting this point. The projection is high with the ASPERSIONS about using email and any thinking that there is a conspiracy in using the top method listed under appropriate notifications. Members of a public wikiproject and watchers of its talk page may not hold the views of that project, but rather want to collaborate on coverage of that topic. Big difference. --Netoholic @ 20:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this the purpose of Wikiprojects? Natureium (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

SNOW CLOSE - every WikiProject ever created would be subject to this argument - the OP needs to stop-breathe-think about what exactly is being suggested here. It's a time sink...but of the highest quality among time sinks, if that matters. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages [291]. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, they got the color right. O3000 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Yellow is the new red.- MrX 🖋 20:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I found the article on Andrevan to be in particularly poor taste. Since when do we issue newsletters talking about editors by name along with sanctions? Maybe it’s just me. O3000 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Best practice is to announce an RfC to all wikiprojects listed on an article talk page. Avoiding the appearance of vote stacking isn't that difficult folks.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, many people are aware that there are strategies to avoid the appearance of vote staking. Thank you for reminding us.--v/r - TP 21:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think that admins are going to find anything to use admin tools for here. I've watchlisted the project almost since its inception, and editors there should be aware that there are a lot more people looking at what they post, than just those who actually comment. If you look at the edit history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/References, it started out as a listing of a lot of sources, a significant number of which were extreme-right non-RS that were listed as though any good editor would find them useful to cite. There's been a history of the project as a gathering place for editors who are enthusiastic about present-day conservative US politics, as opposed to simply wanting to make sure that we have well-written content about all forms of conservatism all around the world and in all periods of history. A lot more of the discussions are alerts about how some conservative content is being presented unsympathetically, than alerts about pages where the conservative perspective needs to be balanced by a liberal one. But there's no bright line here: it all ends up as content disputes about POV, and there's nothing wrong with having an opinion on one side of such disputes. The problem to watch out for is if an editor makes a career of only adding pro-conservative content and removing opposing views. More editors should take a look at Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oh, and if an editor lists a discussion at WikiProjects, the best practice, and the best way to avoid being accused of canvassing, is simply to put a note on the discussion page, disclosing that those notifications have been made. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO - that handy newsletter (to which I don't subscribe but have seen on the TP of others) is first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing...and it often contains credible material we should not discount (if we are truly looking to abide by NPOV, BALANCE & WEIGHT). Our WP projects are especially handy at AfD, for those who are not aware of how that works, ask a knowledgable admin, keeping in mind that they are all knowledgable so I'm not showing "favoritism" to only the knowledgeable ones. On a lighter note, (excuse my Tumpism), but I have to tell you...you haven't lived if you haven't been watching the Ultra Spiritual Life videos - amazing entertainment - BIGLY - have never seen anything like it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This is stupid. Sorely tempted to close this. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Casting aspersions

The following discussion is closed. 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 an admin kindly inform User:Doniago that calling another editor "rather tendentious" without providing evidence of such [292] is a violation of WP:Casting aspersions, and if Doniago is unwilling to provide such evidence, [293] the comment should be struck? Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - I left Doniago a discussion on his user talk page. I think it sufficiently gets the point across and keeps everything peaceful so we can move on. Let's start from here and see where things go :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment struck, with apologies.[294] Oshwah, thank you for the thoughtful message. DonIago (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doniago: Thank you for striking the comment and the apology. @Oshwah: My appreciation for your intervention.

Unless anyone else has related concerns that need to be addressed, I believe that this thread can be closed, and the content discussion can continue on Talk:The Swimmer (1968 film). Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

DonIago - No problem; always happy to help ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 of Wilhelm von grundwasser

The following discussion is closed. 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 showed up at AIV, and I blocked indef. If somebody says they're a banned user, they get blocked. That said, I'm posting this here as an FYI. There is no hint who User:Wilhelm von grundwasser is. — Maile (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 - Your block is fine. A self-admission of being a blocked or banned user like that is enough to warrant action on the account. If they wish to explain, they can file an unblock request and we'll hear them out - no big deal. In fact, you beat me to the punch by only a minute or so ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 and Oshwah: Thanks for the quick resolution earlier. I debated whether to put that at AIV or here, instead, but figured it would probably get actioned quicker there. Home Lander (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Home Lander - No problem; that's what we're here for :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

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

SkyQQQ2 posting hate speech

The following discussion is closed. 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/SkyQQQ2

User needs a ban and the edit needs a REVDEL.

By the way - is there a better venue to report users posting hate speech? They've only made one edit so I can't report them at WP:AIV. Thank you --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Egregious vandalism such as this can be reported at AIV after only one edit and any reasonable admin will block. I have indef blocked the user and hidden the edit. Thanks for catching this and reporting here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose I'm as reasonable as Ed (thanks for the revdeletion and block). ChiveFungi, thank you for reporting; yes, this can go to AIV, though personally I don't mind if you post it here: more eyes. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Alst0004

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

---

Alst0004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since this is a clear-cut case of both WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR (their talk page could be a good starting point to see this), could we please issue an indef block before they create more mess? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they were CU-blocked by Bbb23. –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I am really tired of dealing with socks every day whom I have to treat as if they are good-faith contributors, but I realize that there is very little I can do about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

2600:1700:1260::/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.

---

2600:1700:1260::/32 (talk · contribs)
I reported this dynamic IP yesterday, requesting for expand the range block. Unfortunately there was no reaction. The smaller range has been blocked for one year in April [295]. This user's contibusions are very disruptive. Some of his edits are good, but it's typical for professional vandals. Examples:

from blocked range: [296], [297], [298], and similar from yesterday: [299] - Gene Simmons didn't write this song, [300] Ace Frehley didn't play the whole album, [301] - Gene Simmons didn't write this song, and Paul Stanley is the only producer.

some of his vandalisms only from last week: [302], [303], [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314], and many more.

The rest of his contributions is mostly unsourced iffy content. Cynko (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Accusations of "pedophile apologetics"

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

---

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

---

I would like to report the following edit summary here by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The language used is a personal attack and is highly offensive and completely unnecessary. I would like to have the edit summary redacted and for an apology from User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I think these kinds of comments have no place on Wikipeidia. They are simply a nasty personal attack. 91.110.126.210 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

•  Administrator note When this specific issue ("sex offender in lede sentence") was discussed at BLPN, the majority of responses were in agreement with the IP's position. It was re-added only after it was subsequently proposed without any reply on the talk page, and continues to remain with no hard consensus backing it, or even subsequent discussion. In other words, this is a legitimate content dispute in which one party completely dismissed the other as a "pedophile apologist", in hard contravention of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF. I can see this complaint being closed with an informal warning to the attacker, but Boomeranging the complainant seems exceptionally severe. I don't normally take issue with Bbb's admin actions but I think he was wrong on this one. First, about this, there's no reason to force-close a legitimate complaint made in good faith, and no reason to remove, refuse to allow, or refuse to respond to, followup comments. That's not even mentioning the fact that he removed a comment questioning/disputing an admin action without responding (possible breach of WP:ADMINACCOUNT), much less the fact that he used rollback to do so (straightforward misuse). But, blocking for it? Where was this alleged "disruptive editing" that warranted a BOOMERANG? I'm genuinely not seeing it. Swarm ♠ 23:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Feel free to unblock the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think this might be block evasion, primarily because of the IP editor's knowledge of Wiki rules and procedures and their desire for punitive action. Regarding the merits of their complaint, my comment is: If this editor really wants the community to support his calling Jeffrey Epstein a "philanthropist" and not a "sex offender" per his diffs [315], they should probably register for an account. As the page was PC-protected to prevent this user's editing, this looks like trolling to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but that's not actionable without hard evidence beyond the content dispute itself. Looking at the page's history, the IP's original intent was simply to remove "is a sex offender" from the lede sentence, which is something that a majority of people at BLPN supported in the past. Swarm ♠ 00:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Steven0306 - lack of competency

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

---

• Steven0306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Steven0306 has had numerous warnings and one block for his disruptive editing. Yesterday he received a justified "only" warning from Amaury,[316] and today he added copyright violations to Instinct (U.S. TV series),[317] which resulted in another warning.[318] This is not the first time he's violated copyright; there are multiple warnings on his talk page including a note that I've left there.[319] Despite this, he continues to make the same errors, which I've also commented upon.[320] He just does not seem to understand any of the warnings and messages. There is a major competency problem and, after over 4 months and 126 edits I don't see any improvement, or likelihood of improvement. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A typical case for an immediate indef-block till the user justifies their disruption on their talk page and agrees to correct. Lourdes 07:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this user is highly problematic, and that there's been no improvement in their editing. Hard to tell if it's a WP:CIR case, or deliberate trolling, but either way a block is likely justified at this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Hwood777

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

---

I have contacted this editor six times over several weeks about creating articles with no sources or no clear sources, and refusal to communicate. I have pointed out that communication is mandatory per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE and tried to work with them. Their response to my sixth message was just to delete their user talk page: [321]. Boleyn (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 20:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Slow cooked edit warring

• MHS1976 (talk · contribs)

Over use of 'era' in headings. Until recently the edits have been far enough apart not to trigger 3rr warnings, but it's an issue when it drags on for weeks, entails numerous notices, and includes edit summaries such as these [322]; [323]; [324]; [325]; [326]; [327]; [328]; [329]; [330]; [331]; [332]; [333]. At any rate, calling this edit warring doesn't quite do it justice. Several editors have attempted to engage in conversation, and the response has been to repeat an unsupported claim: [334]; [335]; [336]; [337]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This is definitely edit warring by definition and the spirit of the rule - you don't have to violate 3RR in order to be edit warring. 3RR is just a bright-line rule to "draw a line in the sand" and give editors a guideline that, if violated, will almost always be seen as edit warring and any resulting blocks applied viewed as justified and appropriate by the community. This user has engaged in this behavior between two other users over the last few weeks; (s)he's reverted the article in a repeated back-and-fourth manner and in-place of following dispute resolution protocol and hasn't discussed it on the article's talk page (none of users involved have done so) - that's edit warring... the number of times that it occurs in a day, week, whatever doesn't matter. Anyways... instead of blocking, I went ahead and applied full protection to the article in order to nudge everyone involved to discuss the various disputes on the article's talk page, and warned each user recently involved in the dispute. If the disruption continues after the full protection expires, let me know and I'll be happy to step in and take things further if needed. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Problematic edits by Altamimi579

Altamimi579 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit warring on Hotat Bani Tamim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and to some degree on Racism in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Adding unsourced content / name change on Hotat Bani Tamim claiming it is "obvious". Will not discuss on talk pages nor user talk:Altamimi579. Has been blocked before for edit warring. EWN archive Altamimi579 Jim1138 (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yup, clear case. The user even continued reverting the article after being left a warning on their user talk page for edit warring. I've blocked the user for 36 hours for this (extended to this duration due to recently being blocked for the same issue less than a month ago). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the user added a new talk page discussion soon before I applied the block. For the record, I'm open to unblocking the user if they create an unblock request and agree and promise to stop editing the article until the discussion reaches a consensus or successful close. Pinging Altamimi579 so the user is aware of my response here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The source left on talk:Hotat Bani Tamim was a blog. I replied indicating it was wp:NOTRS Jim1138 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138 - Cool deal; at least a discussion is started and awaiting the user's response when either their block expires or they request an unblock and agree to the conditions I outlined both here and under the block notice left on their user talk page. Hopefully the user will chose to discuss rather than cause more disruptive behavior ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

SaltySaltyTears

The following discussion is closed. 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 blocked SaltySaltyTears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I don't know, this just seems like one of the usual trolls and griefers to me, but I have been up since 5am and my judgement may be cloudy. Please review and dispose as you see fit. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Or maybe not. Checkuser identified sock. OK, bedtime. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

"Best known for IP"

• 87.54.9.210 (talk · contribs)

First of all, I apologise for my very poor technical approach while filing the report, I am very dumb at doing these I'll admit it. The IP described as follows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP) has returned with a new address, and in the ONLY (so far) article we have a beef in, Quique Sánchez Flores, they continue to taunt me in their summaries. This time, they upped the ante by removing references that I had just added just to reinstate their version, on the grounds that my English is bordering on the pathetic (see diff here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quique_S%C3%A1nchez_Flores&diff=845874914&oldid=845815780).

Don't know if anything else is needed in this report, but I will provide it upon request. NOTE: User:Mattythewhite, also familiar with the situation, redirected me here; also, please note as this person says in the main article about them (or is mentioned to have said in the form of a diff) that they get/got tired of people randomly undoing all their work so they resorted to antagonizing because it amounted to the same as being courteous. I am the one trying to reach a compromise in the wording of Mr. Flores' article and adding new refs (I don't even go near the other articles the person works on), they are having none of that and blanket revert! Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 36 hours for disruptive editing. Whether or not this user is the "Best known for IP" LTA can be ignored given their recent edit warring, reverts, and inability to respond appropriately to warnings. If the user is found to be this LTA, any admin is free to update or change the block I applied; no need to ask first ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Erpert: you closed this discussion. Does that mean you've examined the evidence and decided that this is not the "Best Known For" IP? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless I misread something, Oshwah indicated that s/he examined the evidence. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It might have been my fault for not responding clearly (and if that's the case, please accept my apologies). I looked at the edits by the IP and determined that a block was justified for disruptive editing and I stopped there. I did not examine or compare the IP user's edits to try and associate them with the "Best known for IP" LTA and make that determination. I wanted to leave that part for someone else whose more familiar with this LTA than I am to make that determination, or for others to state that the block imposed was good enough... one or the other :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the close. This discussion is obviously not done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Sorry if that was my fault; I tried to indicate what I did but it may have gotten misinterpreted due to me not being clear. I didn't mean or want to dump this discussion off in the middle like that - I just thought that someone would be around that's familiar with this LTA and could quickly identify this IP user as one of them. It would be my luck that I'd spend time diving and investigating this only for someone to go, "Oh, yeah! Easy peasy - definitely him..." and call it out in a snap. I'll be happy to investigate and determine if this IP user is this LTA if what's what is wanted... just let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I understood what you meant, but I guess you never really know how you'll be interpreted. I'm not really an expert in identifying socks of this IP, but I know we have some around here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Cool deal; if this sits unresolved for bit longer, I'll take a dive and figure out what the deal is. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know that I'm an authority, but I've tangled with BKFIP before. Edits such as this and this, coupled with the generally belligerent attitude suggest that this is indeed BKFIP, but given that the number of edits isn't large, I'm not 100% certain. Vanamonde (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Users repeatedly adding false information to Informal Talks page

Pages: Informal Talks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Please refer to the list below:

1. 203.232.213.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}
2. 123.115.61.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 61.98.217.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who's been vandalising since 2016)
4. 태현 정 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since the creation of this page, some users have repeatedly added false (sometimes ridiculous) English names for the representatives. As the names are often unknown, I do not include them in the page, but some users have repeatedly added false ones without sources for fun, despite me leaving messages on their walls many times. Some names I know are obviously fake, either because it's the name of a celebrity, or I know the actual name of the representative, but just haven't added it to the page.

Examples of some of the edits

1. Link I know for a fact 李越's English name is not Dean as I previously found his actual name on a university website, but haven't added it to the page yet. Reference
2. Link
3. Link This user decided to change from one fake name to another, this time to "Berlusconi", the name of the Italian president involved in a sex scandal
4. Link Changing from one fake name to another
5. Link

There are many more edits, but it's too many to list.

Some earlier examples:

1. Link From Jan, 2018
2. Link From Dec, 2017
3. Link July 2017

While they are different users, due to the consistent editing style (of adding false, sometimes ridiculous names), I am almost certain they are the same person. This has been an on-going issue for a very long time. I have left messages on their walls many times, in particular (61.98.217.150), but they have never responded. I previously reported this issue 2 years ago. Please refer to [338] It ended up in the page being semi-protected.

Please help me with this issue by either blocking the users or protecting the page. Thank you for your time!PurpleLights123 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit, the Ma Ding/Martin Gaye (Marvin Gaye?) thing is funny, but, yes, this is disruptive. I would advise page protection due to persistent vandalism, which can be found at WP:RPP. —Javert2113 (Let's chat! | Contributions) 17:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection to the article for a few months in order to stop this. Whether or not the edits are true is the wrong way to look at this; it's whether the edits are referenced that's important. References are how we verify that changes being made to article content are accurate and true, and the contributions to the article in question clearly lack these additions. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Also, if the user comes back with a number of different accounts/IP addresses and makes disruptive edits again, what can I do? PurpleLights123 (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Shevonsilva

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

User:Shevonsilva has been creating a lot of stubs with a lot of problems. A lot of time has been spent on their talk page by PamD, Vexations, Nick Moyes, Imaginatorium, and me. They have issues with things like sourcing information, mass creation of stubs with the same misspelling, bad titles, and using Wikipedia as the source for article creation. Despite a lot of patience, things have now devolved into personal attacks like:

• I never expect you as a big liar. [...] You have no idea about the subject there [...] You do not appreciate other, and, telling lies and discourage other. If you cann't understand the article it is fine. STOP LYING to other people. [...] This is dis-graceful. You are attacking me personally. I am very unhappy about you, now. I hate liars.[339]
• You like to involve in arguemnts with me and impress others while others are supporting me and suggesting me important things like bots and stuff. You only created two pages (according to your page), look like you got no idea how much effort we have to put to create pages[340]
• and the ironic Your English is much like Gangster English.[341]

I suggest they be banned from creating articles due to WP:CIR and strongly warned about civility. Natureium (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I am on Kenya constituency stubs (actually, already for three days) and I am steadily improving them. No need to intervene in this area. Just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This is about me. I will post the full discussion. There were personal attacks towards me and my work. I will post the full discussion. Creating stubs are something else.Shevonsilva (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Removed

Sorry for the whole mess. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Here are the full discussions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mass_additions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shevonsilva&diff=prev&oldid=845405728&diffmode=source

Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed, Shevonsilva has created more than 1000 stubs on subdivisions of Africa over approximately 6 weeks. Many of these have included lots of careless errors (each one mass-duplicated); the most recent couple of samples I looked at did not have any obvious errors. So I find it easy to assume good faith, but I cannot see how all this effort is improving Wikipedia. For many of the countries concerned, there is absolutely minimal information, and some sort of list of subdivisions (e.g. Departments of Gabon): putting this list in tabular form, adding information such as "Capital" or "Population" would obviously be an improvement. But instead what happens is a mass of microstubs, giving the same information in less convenient form. Worse, when there is an occasional division with a useful article there is no way of distinguishing it, since every division has a microstub link. A few other points:

• Shevonsilva does appear to be engaged in a bizarre "point scoring" exercise. When it is pointed out that many of his pages (for example from a previous mass-creation of "units" pages) have been converted to redirects, we get comments like "Re-directions are regarded as a creation."
• The history for the page M'Bagne Department is curious. (See User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mauritania_now). Originally there were eight extra paragraphs after the usual boilerplate, the first duplicating the boilerplate (with the usual punctuation errors), the rest of an oddly poetic style. Shevonsilva replied to me that this "was in another source", and progressively deleted the last three, then the last two paragraphs. I cannot imagine how anyone capable of reading the text could truncate it progressively in this way; it simply makes no sense.
• Many people (from the very first comment on his talk page) have asked Shevonsilva to "slow down"; the response to these requests has always been evasive. It is very difficult to cooperate with an editor with this approach. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I had no idea about point scoring thing. I don't need any point. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• These issues wouldn't be a problem if they weren't repeated by the hundred. The title of almost all of the stubs need to be changed because they all end in the descriptive word as though it is part of the title. Ex, Farafangana District. District is not part of the proper noun. There are hundreds of articles that need to be moved. I informed them about the title thing a few days ago and they are still creating new articles with the same problem. Natureium (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Before they recently removed a bunch of comments from other users, Shevonsilva's talk page looked like this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, they've removed a lot of comments. (Just a few examples.) And this may explain some of their approach to mass creation of sub-par articles. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That is very very motivational, please refer full discussion (the approaches are well discussed there): [342]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Please_get_your_bot_to_take_a_little_more_care!. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, FYI, I stopped stub creation of administrative divisions. Anyway, I am glad to discuss naming issues of the articles with policy makers and we have re-structure naming of over 10,000 articles (I never created or edit those) if we are going to make a change on naming. I am thinking to focusing on my own works. Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The issue here is whether Shevonsilva should be sanctioned for their conduct. I lean toward an indefinite block based on a mixture of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, and WP:IDHT. Shevonsilva has over 5,000 edits. They didn't start editing in earnest until 2014, and in the three years 2014-16, they made between 350 and 700 edits each year. In 2017 they had one edit. In less than half of 2018, they have made a whopping 3400 edits, but apparently mostly not benefiting the project. I don't see a temporary block as serving any purpose, other than perhaps to slow them down, as I don't expect their abilities to improve.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly a ban on article creation with an appeal only allowed after they have diligently worked to repair the mess their mass creation made? I do fear, based on their writing here that there may be an English competency issue i.e. I am unsure whether they are not comprehending the issues being brought up and the need to address those issues, if they are simply engaging in willful WP:IDHT or if they simply lack the necessary clue to edit. If the first then it is possible they can learn to contribute constructively. Jbh ^Talk 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree to a ban from creating any new articles or redirects, widely construed, for an indefinite period. GiantSnowman 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That would give thee time to practice editing, expanding, and sourcing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

can anyone kindly, confirm me, in Districts of Madagascar do I have to change the naming for the articles which only I have created, or, do I have to change the naming of all pre-existing ones too with the syntax, "name department"? Shevonsilva (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Question Oh wise admins, is there a tool for mass moving of pages? Natureium (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, bots.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then, I will move articles I have created as this is everyone expects and that is my responsibility to do it as I am the creater. Heavy work. I will follow the pattern e.g. name (department). I will try to move other pre-existing ones (a heavy bulk, which I never created or edited, over 10000 articles) if I have a free time. Hope this is what all are expecting. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, the name should be discussed first, and per country. Do not rush to move before we establish consensus. I am actually happy with Kenyan stub names, and they follow the same pattern earlier articles did.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, dear, I am very sorry. Just now I saw your message. I changed the naming for the articles I have created as everyone was expecting it(except for Kenya as someone was in it). I really feel this is breaking the Extended metaphor. I think we have amend the policy of naming related things like this. Anyway, no worries. I will revert the naming if it is helpful. Anyone can easily trackdown the pages through my user page which has all the link for the articles. I am always here to help and go with consensus. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am a Senior Software Engineer and Researcher. There are a few cases. In user interface design (including web pages), we always follow the same metaphor to make the user less confused. The other part is search engines give more weights for URLs sometimes. If we use name (department), search engines have to use lexical analysis and probably gives a less weight, but, if we use name_department, it will filter the underscore, and, easily pick it. And, as I know it is a common practice to use name department than name (department). One good example is we call Hydrogen ion not Hydrogen (ion). To be honest, I only tried to help. I am getting nothing with these changes, only tried to help you all. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• One of the saddest aspects of all this is that this flood of stubs are so ridiculously minimal. "X is a [type of unit] in [country]." and nothing else, except an infobox giving the same information (except when it's mangled, as for Madagascar). Even where the sources cited clearly state the intermediate unit(s) (eg Regions in Madagascar), Shevonsilva will not add that extra information which could transform a pretty useless stub into one which enables the reader looking for "X district" to find out roughly where in the country it lies, and get more information about the area. I've upgraded Sakaraha District from the original version, using the source provided. I've pointed this out several times, to no effect. The flood of all-but-useless stubs, many of which would be much more useful as a redirect to an existing sourced and informative list of administrative units, has continued unchecked until it finally arrived at ANI.

There's a huge amount of cleanup to be done, which ought to be done by Shevonsilva before they are allowed to create any more mess.

There is also a need to add navigation links - thus Sakaraha District should have a hatnote link at Sakaraha, and similarly every article called "X [unit]" needs a link by a hatnote, dab page entry or redirect from "X". If this editor had the interests of the readers at heart, they would be making these links. It looks as if their sole goal is to add to the length of the list of "Articles" created, seen on their user page.

Editors with long memories may remember a slightly similar set of problems around obscure units of measurement a few years ago - over-enthusiastic stub creation based on a very dodgy source, and necessitating a lot of cleanup. PamD 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

yes, as I promised, now I am going to improve the articles I have created as the second round, after resolving the naming issue with moving articles. These are really my responsibilities. Thanks all. After resolving all the issues, I am really going to focus on my own stuff. I will try to finish all the issues tonight. I am measuring myself how fast I am. Thanks everyone. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I will go for coffee and come back address all the issues.  :) [As, I am in a break of my job, I really tried to help Wikipedia.] :) Shevonsilva (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE learn how to indent... --Tarage (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Title problems are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sub title problemsa are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Added additional information for all the minimal stubs (as my stage 2 work). Hope things are fine now and resolved the issues. I am thinking to take a break now.Shevonsilva (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, Shevonsilva. I'm afraid I do not see all the issues resolved. I recognise your keenness and enthusiasm to create all these microstubs. But I feel this editor is still not properly listening to, or acting upon, editor feedback here. Seeing some of those concerns deleted from their talk page raises 'alarm bells' with me. All these errors, taken on their own, are not normally of huge concern. But this user is clearly automating the process of stub creation in some way, and is not taking enough time to check that their work is good enough. Magnified over hundreds and hundreds of stubs, and possibly not always based on reliable sources, this is really not acceptable. (We had detailed discussions prior to Qbugbot going into operation making entomological stubs, which produced very high quality content. Sadly, and despite the best of intentions, this is not happening here.) I raised my concerns (diff]), and the user assured me s/he was doing this work manually, and admitted they shared my concern over the reliability of some of their key sources on which some pages' existence was actually based. But then the user deleted their answer to me (diff) and has not address my request for them to go back and fix the issues I raised. Since then, it's clear their process is automated. For example, looking at their contributions on 9th June between 16:57 and 16:58 they created 87 articles. That's one every 1.3 seconds! So the question we have to ask ourselves is whether we tolerate innumerable microstubs that a user doesn't work to clean up any errors (either before page creation, or afterwards) but which we wouldn't have had without their input. Or would we prefer not to have them at all if their content - or sometimes even verifiability - is in question? I tend to lean slightly towards the former, but remain very worried at the quality of such rapid, sloppy content creation. As with Qbugbot, a Village Pump discussion required page creation to be throttled back, and for checks to be made on batches of new pages. This isn't happening here, so perhaps a temporary block on page creation would be helpful, only to be lifted when there is a consensus that past articles have been cleaned up, wikilinked, referenced to WP:RS and any unverified content like this removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That description for Ibanda was in French encyclopedia as I remember (I check it later again). Yes I will re-scan all the stubs again and do another clean up for the content. Every work was Manuel, but, I use some different techniques to speed up (that is why I removed that description from the conversation as readers get wrong idea. Sorry.) I will do the clean up today (I have to do these as I am the one responsible for creating) :). Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shevonsilva: Yes, the description of Ibanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo is in the French wikipedia, at fr:Ibanda. It is unsourced there. You have stolen the intellectual property of the editors of that French article by dumping a poor translation into English of their exact text into the English encyclopedia and claiming it to be your own work. That is unacceptable behaviour. Also, the two references you have cited might support the first sentence but have no mention of the rest of the content, so you should not have placed the references after the unsupported content. And you didn't bother to link to any other Wikipedia articles except "Commune" and "Congo", while the French article linked to Bukavu, Lake Kivu and Rwanda, so that your version of the French article was even less useful to the reader. This shows very little understanding of how to contribute to Wikipedia. And of course there needs to be a hatnote at our article on Ibanda, a Ugandan town, so that readers have a chance of finding the new stub about the DRCongo place. There just seems to be constant series of problems here. PamD 16:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

As we operate under a creative commons license, and it is just a translation from the French Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, nothing has been stolen. Derivation, alteration, and usage of one's work on Wikipedia in perpetuity is something one can and should expect, and translating from one language to another is rather standard practice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

While that is technically true, Icarosaurvus, we do have guidelines for translation that should be followed. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is true, and I wish to state that best practice was certainly not followed here; I likely should have stated that above. However, calling it theft of intellectual property struck me as rather disingenuous. Icarosaurvus (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link of we do have guidelines for translation. I noted a good point here, I can try to develop a more efficient bot to cross reference the missing bits across different encyclopedias with varied languages. Thnanks all.Shevonsilva (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icarosaurvus: I didn't look at the details here and dislike the phrase 'theft of intellectual property' in general but remember the guidelines come about for a reason. The CC BY-SA licence allows derivative works but it requires certain conditions are met. If someone is not meeting those conditions, they are violating the terms of the licence and therefore are likely engaged in a copyright violation. The fact that someone has chosen to release their content under the CC BY-SA licence doesn't mean we don't have to respect their intellectual property and so we should not tolerate copyright violations whether they are of CC BY-SA licenced works or works released under some different licence or simply not released an open content licence. Someone who released their work under the CC BY-SA licence isfully entitled to be as aggrieved about any misuse as someone with any other licence or no licence. The fact we can use someone work doesn't mean misuse is acceptable. If anything it's just dumb. To be clear, it's possible to comply with the CC BY-SA licence requirements without following our guidelines so I can't say this actually happened here. It's also possible copyright does not arise if e.g. the threshold of originality is not met. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

It's good that you're trying to improve these articles now, but you're making upwards of 50 edits per minute. How is this possible? Natureium (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am using my own automation which is much more technical. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

hi all, :) I improved the content of the articles, and, localized information, and, citations tag when it is more required. Hope thigs are better and fine now. Thanks all. Anyone please suggest me a place (in wikipedia) to discuss re-structuring issues like article naming specially with administrators and policy makers and other relevent personnels, or, this is the place for it? Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa could be a good starting point. And pls stop editing until the consensus is clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and, thanks for the link. I am too more interested about the naming consensus too. Anytime, I can surely help to revert all the namings with the top categories if it is required (for the articles I have created, and, if it is needed if i can help for other articles too). I too like to join with the naming consensus discussion too. Sorry for asking this in a different angle again. What would the better place (in wikipedia) to discuss a matter which is affecting whole Encyclopedia (e.g., if we take naming about all the areas in the wolrd or universe [which has hierarchies in classifications) or, here will be the better place for a discussion? Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shevonsilva, no, unfortunately the latest suite of articles you have just mass-edited at 17:56 UTC today still contain flaws. e.g. Matadjana and c.80 others all contain a url in the published field, which displays red in references. Can't you see this? Please explain why you didn't create one page, check it, and then carry on if it looked OK, or corrected it if not? I think WP:MEATBOT is relevant here - please read it and note that all bots require approval from Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. So, I'm pinging @Cyberpower678: to take a look at this issue, as I believe you've strayed into territory that needs involvement from an administrator with experience in that field. You tell us you are editing manually, but also that "I am using my own automation which is much more technical." Nick Moyes (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Clearly an unapproved bot is at work here, and a very controversial one at that. I approved Qbugbot, and I ran it through numerous stringent trials to ensure the community would accept it once approved. Shevonsilva is to stop using their automation immediately before they land themselves an indefinite block. If they want to run a semi-automated/fully-automated process at such a speed, they need to file a BRFA.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for letting me know about @Cyberpower678:. I am really looking forward to develop some useful approved bots for wikipedia and I may need his support in some point in future. Thanks for letting me know about reference url error (template is not allowing me to add an url, I was trying to find a way to include it in the template). Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

HEY Shevonsilva Multiple people have told you to stop with these mass edits and you are continuing to run your bot at this very moment. STOP. Natureium (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I fixed url issue too. :) Hope things are fine now. :) Anyway, let me know if there is any missing thing. Thanks all for your support. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Ooooops, and, we are still discussing title naming consensus. It will be interesting thing to discuss too. Thanks Shevonsilva (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, kindly refer the following, based on the feedback from some contributors, I have moved some administrative units in the format, for example, ame (department) even though it is directly breaking existing standardards of other relevent administrative units.

Kindly refer:

• Departments of Burkina Faso
• Communes of Burundi
• Departments of Chad
• Districts of Djibouti
• Departments of Gabon
• Districts of Ghana
• Districts of Madagascar
• Departments of Mauritania
• Arrondissements of Senegal

Now these have amalgamated two standards (i.e.: e.g., Name Department and Name (department)). This is not what I expect from my work on administrative units which are missed in the encyclopedia to create less-user friendly-ness during the navigation by an ordinary user who is not aware of the wikipedia formats (here now there are two formats). Kindly, please everyone, present your ideas over this matter. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

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

---

Hi, would it be possible to get this edit removed? I only just stumbled upon it by chance editing the current events page.

While Wikipedia:Revision_deletion/examples states that "User:Example is a jerk" would not normally be removed, I feel this is a bit more inappropriate than that. Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Richard.sutt and WP:CIR

The following discussion is closed. 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 it is about time now to bring to the attention of the noticeboard the actions and edits of Richard.sutt (talk, contributions), a relatively new (<1 year old) account that has in that time completed over 1000 edits mostly under 20 bytes (Edit count and stats by WMF Labs). I would estimate that of the 1000+ edits, 10% are actually constructive while the other 90% are either copy-pasting text between articles (often unnecessary and unneeded) or fixing errors created during attempted constructive edits (A good example is Chasmosaurinae article history). 43 of the 50 edits shown by default on Chasmosaurinae are by Richard.sutt, and of those 11 had 0 change in article size in bytes, 10 were removing content (largest removal was 251 with an average around 50) and the remainder were adding content (largest addition was 336 with an average around 50). This repetitive addition->fixes->revertion->addition cycle is found on most articles edited by Richard.sutt, and has become a great inconvenience to the regular editors of these articles as Richard.sutt has not once replied to a request or comment on a talk page where we try and assist them in learning proper syntax and recommendations for articles (see Edit stats link above). While not an urgent matter to resolve I will now ping Lusotitan, FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK, IronGargoyle, Casliber, Dunkleosteus77, Fanboyphilosopher and Elmidae as individuals who have reverted, tried to talk to, and had an earlier discussion on Richard.sutt. I myself am unsure what actions I would recommend are taken, as WP:CIR is most definitely violated by the edits of this user, but my lack of experience on what would happen (temp/indef block, topic ban or full ban) means I cannot make a judgement. --IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

My calculus at the moment runs something like:

+: well-intentioned, clearly knowledgeable in some areas, fair amount of good edits

-: strongly laced with fatal sloppiness (e.g. that series of edits to WD identifiers starting around here - clearly didn't check a single one), tendency to edit-war about WTF head-scratchers (e.g. [343]), doesn't communicate, cooperate, or take corrections on board one. little. bit.

It's the last one that makes them a net negative in my opinion. Requiring constant vigilance and damage control on the part of those few editors that know the subject area well enough, and then giving every impression that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely because there's no communication at all, is not a sustainable situation. I'd request a "start talking" block at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what a "start talking" block is, guessing its a temporary block with a warning to start talking with other editors once lifted, but I agree with the pros and cons pointed out by Elmidae above, Richard.sutt has made several constructive edits, but these are overshadowed by the fact that we have to monitor every single edit daily (there have been upwards of 30 recently) to ensure that templates aren't broken or grammar incorrect or information too trivial. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: Richard.sutt has replied for the first time on a talk page, so there may yet be hope. However it will take time to see just how effective communication with this editor is. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Jaco IV

The following discussion is closed. 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 been contacting Jaco IV since Aug '17 about creating articles without sources and many other editors have contacted them on the same topic and also about edit warring [344]. There was a previous block and ANI that I am struggling to find the discussion for. Despite my many messages and other people's, Jaco IV doesn't respond. It has been pointed out that communication is mandatory per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE and the importance of sources, but ten months later, there is no response and they have not addressed the issues raised. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 20:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Iistal

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

---

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

Iistal (talk · contribs) was unblocked in 2016 with an indefinite topic ban "from making edits related to a living person". He was subsequently indefinitely blocked and engaged in sock puppetry. Following this, he was unblocked in May 2018. Since being unblocked, most of his edits have violated this topic ban. I reminded him of this topic ban on 15 June. He said on 16 June, "The thing he linked is from 2 years ago so I can't imagine it would be relevant now." I have no idea why Iistal would think that an indefinite ban would simply expire by virtue of it being old. He then edited Barbra Streisand (diff), another topic ban violation. I think this editor should not have been unblocked, and I suggest restoring the indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Re-Impose TBAN I'm not convinced the topic ban does remain in effect; it was a condition of an unblock, not the result of a community discussion, and there have been further blocks and unblocks since then. Separately, based on the history and edits at pages such as Ursula Andress (revert of Iistal's changes) and Richard Gere (diff) adding gossip about celebrity dating lives, I support re-imposing the TBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: worth a look is WP:CONDUNBLOCK - it's within administrator discretion to impose an indef TBAN as an unblock condition for an indef block. Personally, AGF and give Iistal a final warning, making it quite clear that the TBAN is still in effect. The whole standard offer stuff could legitimately confuse a user.

Relevant policy line: After the blocked user has accepted the conditions and been unblocked, the conditions may be appealed only to the unblocking administrator or to AN.∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• I believe this discussion is unnecessary. Administrators are talking to Iistal on their Talk page. No administrator requires a consensus from the community to block Iistal. I have left a stern warning that I will block them if they continue to edit BLPs. Other administrators may feel differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Note that Iistal has requested that their topic ban be removed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Highlighting harassment by User:Galatz

The following discussion is closed. 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 notified this editor three times not to ping me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=846509245 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=846601617 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Galatz&diff=prev&oldid=846604505 yet he continues to ping me, even dismissing my request on his talk page with this lovely note: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Galatz&diff=846604615&oldid=846604505 As I have exhausted attempts to cease this behavior by directly interacting with him, I am forced to come here to request help. This is harassment plain and simple. --Tarage (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

At 19:57 he wrote on my talk page [345] yet 4 minutes later he writes a message directed at me [346]. If he doesn't want me writing to him, why is he sending message directed at me, which clearly is not WP:CIVIL stating I am incompetent. If they write to me and I ignore them, would we be here with them complaining I am not following WP:ENGAGE. I have not once just written to this user, only responded to their comments. Thats called communication and responding, not harassment. If anyone is violating policies its Tarage, for making threats for me attempting to WP:ENGAGE. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Galatz, you can respond to Tarage, similar to how I'm doing with you, without pinging the user. If they request not to be pinged, then don't ping. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not get from what they are writing that they didn't want me to ping them. Saying to highlight sounds to me like they do not want to be addressed at all, that I should be ignoring them, even when writing directly to me. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This seems like an extreme response to being pinged. Why don't you just ignore the pings? Natureium (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I was thinking the same thing; I don't understand why Tarage cannot just ignore the pings. But at the end of the day, it's clearly within a contributor's WP:VOLUNTEER discretion to request not to be pinged anywhere, with the one possible exception of a community discussion regarding their conduct (clearly not the context here). But this seems to have been a simple misunderstanding. Like Galatz, I can't recall seeing the "highlight" as a synonym for pinging nomenclature before. Ping, notice, alert, mention...there's a couple of other colloquial variations I can't bring to mind at the moment, but if I've seen "highlight" before, I've since forgotten about it. I take it though that it comes from the fact that, with most skins anyway, one's notice icon is highlighted when you get a ping. Anyway, I don't see any indication that Galataz will not honor the request now that they understand it, do I read the situation correctly, Galatz? Snow ^{let's rap} 21:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to say it would never have occurred to me that highlighting meant pinging. EEng 21:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• If someone doesn't want to be pinged, they can mute the other party. Tarage can do this himself and so no admin action is needed. Andrew D. (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I never knew about that feature. Well that pretty much seals it; I'm going to close this as resolved. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Responding with a ping directly in response to a message about not wanting to be pinged seems awfully pointy, but no user should be expected to remember exactly who wants to be pinged and who doesn't, and it's good practice to err on the side of pinging if you want to be sure someone will see something (and to err on the side of direct communication, being a collaborative project). I say this as a general sentiment -- Tarage is hardly the only one who requests this. You can control whether you're notified by pings, and by specific users as Andrew pointed out. Maybe there's some additional reason to consider a sanction/warning for harassment (as I said, this seems unnecessarily inflammatory), but this doesn't seem sufficient for admin action IMO. As for "highlighting", I think that confusion comes from the optional setting that will highlight mentions and your own posts, causing links to your name to appear in yellow. Maybe worth noting that it would still be highlighted if {{noping}} were used -- just without a notification. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry -- edit conflicted with the closure. Would typically just self-rv, but I object to the closer implying (if I'm reading correctly) that users must keep track of who does/does not want to be pinged, which is not reasonable in the course of normal Wikipedia communication, especially since there is a tool to cancel the effects of that ping. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Rereading amidst the many edit conflicts in this thread, maybe the closure does not say what I understood it to say upon first reading. Sorry, carry on. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• I didn't really mean to imply either way, but it's an interesting question. I think that if someone asks you multiple times in a short span of time (and there isn't the question of confused meaning as there was here) then it is only the courteous thing to do to respect the request as long as you remember it. If someone later forgets that they were asked not to ping, or they reasonably thought that they were only asked not to ping further on that specific topic, then yeah, I agree we cannot just assume a bad faith motive for a (much) later ping, and the complaining party would need to show from context that the action was not accidental but in fact an overt effort to harass (that is to say, our usual high bar for asserting harassment), rather than it being presumed that the ping sender knew it would be received as obnoxious. This is especially so considering that there is a technical means to mute pings from specific editors for as long a duration as the receiving editor would like. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Been out all day so it's fine. In IRC it's called highlighting and I am old, so that's where my statement comes from. My point being at no point did he ask to clarify, and has replied to plenty of other people WITHOUT pinging them, so I find his statement of "I didn't know what he meant" in the face of continuing to do it for every post he replied to me, and JUST to me, disingenuous. I won't fight the close though. And for those suggesting I just turn off notifications, there ARE times I DO want people to ping me. This is just like asking someone not to post on your talk page. Don't sass people who want to be respected in this regard. --Tarage (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think that looking at the exact chain of events here, I'd rather AGF as to their intention, but you're certainly within your prerogative not to, if you so chose. But if they were being disingenuous, they certainly can't feign ignorance further at this point, so you should be fine. Also, it's worth noting that you don't have to turn off notifications altogether; you can mute notifications from specific editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I think from my comments above its pretty clear I thought they didn't want me to address them at all. Even if they used the term not to ping them, in context it still read the same way to me. To me it meant, let me get the last word in and do not reply to me. A simple "I am following this page and will see your reply, so I would appreciate not being pinged as well" would have been more efficient, but now we know. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Egregious personal attacks and other inappropriate conduct by User:Nickag989

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

---

Here is a mere sampling of the deeply egregious, habitual personal attacks made by this user:

• "Fuck you"[347]
• "FU and your mother"[348]
• "Die in fire"[349]
• "You retards"[350]
• "You brainless puppet"[351]
• "You idiot"[352]
• "You moron"[353]
• "You're a dumbass"[354]
• "You jerkass, you still the noobie here"[355]
• "You fucking moronic jerkasses, I'm fucking done with this bullshit"[356]

His talk page history reveals sections created by other users with the titles "Being rude to people" and "No need for the name calling".[357] As seen from Nickag989's edit history, he also has a problem with totally unexplained, WP:OWN and WP:JDLI-style reverts.[358] A block very much seems relevant: I'm stunned there hasn't been one yet. 185.51.228.239 (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow... I may be new-ish here, but I have never seen such language used towards other editors by a long-time peer... Perhaps we should wait for their explanation; give them WP:ROPE, but... wow. byteflush _Talk 05:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Indef Block (Non-administrator comment) Actually, after I took a closer look, no amount of edits could recluse this editor from the PAs they made. If it all happened within a day or two, that might have been a reason to postpone disciplinary actions; however, it seems that it's an ongoing issue with them. So, indef. byteflush _Talk 05:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed my mind to just Block. I realized the user has no blocks logged, so probably a shorter block would get them to act civil. If disruption continues, longer blocks are always available. However, I won't oppose an Indef if that's the community's decision. byteflush _Talk 06:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed my mind yet again, per EvergreenFir. This is Indef stuff. They can take the WP:STANDARDOFFER when they mature. byteflush _Talk 06:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Indef block per Byteflush. Nickag989 has been wreaking havoc with aplomb and totally ignoring others users' pleas for civility. 185.51.228.239 (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Block needed though I'd like to hear from the user. That it's a continuing issue, I don't suspect "editing under the influence". Also:
• 205 Live is part of the Raw brand for the love of fucking god
• The amount of times we've said that this is super trivials, but you're still f'ing dumbass morons.
• What an idiot
• Too many wrestlers on the poster you fucking idiot
• Rv per cite you morons
• You stupid IP, you don't even know what you're doing. Heck, there's no sources regarding the theme song
• Stop with this bullshit already you retards. It's just a joke.
• Guys, stop with these fuckin stupid memes, you morons
• The autocounter exists for a reason you dumbass
• You're not sorry, you're just a jerk. On the official website it's listed as "Woken" Matt hardy and Bray Wyatt

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Support indef block , for the record. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe there's no previous block because the editor supposedly retired in March, more than 1000 edits ago. Time to help the retirement along. Meters (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Indef block - No brainer. Jusdafax (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
• Indef per Judasfax. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the user may be a sock puppet of User:*Treker, who has been indefinitely blocked. The accounts were made around the same time in 2015, compare their edit history, very similar interest both on professional wrestling, editing the same articles , they have also edited each other's user pages a few time, User:*Treker user page last edit after getting banned was by User:Nickag989. Another suspect is user User:WarMachineWildThing see the very similar "i am semi retired logo on user page" very similar edit history in professional wrestling also you can see that Nickage989 constantly reverts user edits from edits by other users to latest version by User:WarMachineWildThing, just one out of many many examples WWE Championship Revision history, see 500 edits for comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Championship&offset=&limit=500&action=history Logan11111112 (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I half-considered blanking the above troll comment from an obvious sock, but then I realized leaving it here to be addressed by someone with a mop would be better: how does someone whose account is one month old and has only ever edited one page know about Treker, who was blocked before that? And accusing an editor in apparently good standing of sockpuppetry based on their being one of hundreds of users with bogus "retired"/"semi-retired" banners is ... bizarre. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Once again wrestling "fans" causing more problems. Is there discretionary sanctions for this idiotic topic yet? --Tarage (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Holy moly why are they not blocked indefinitely or even blocked yet?Marketless (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

They are. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Follow-on discussion re addressing disruption in the pro wrestling topic area

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

---

• I am no longer half serious about this, but 70% serious. EEng 16:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Every time any article appears on any admin board EEng#s posts stuff like this. It adds nothing to the conversation and derails the entire thing. I would appreciate an admin chiming in here, as to me this goes against WP:CIVIL. Why continually post it and just aggravate other users? - Galatz^Talk 00:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion in chief was closed so there was nothing to derail.
• Not "any article", but rather any article that falls within the areas listed at my link, which have historically attracted SPAs, fans, and other ill-behaved types who have difficulty grasping what Wiipedia is about.
• I am utterly (half-)serious about such a proposal, and as you'll see in the last few posts of the discussion in chief, I'm not alone.
• Tarage's idea of deploying discretionary sanctions in these areas might be a more practical idea than mine, and if my repeated posts helped bring that idea to the surface, then they've been helpful indeed, IMO.

EEng 01:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

EEng's contributions do not in any way breach WP:CIVIL, and Galatz' suggestion that they do is unwarranted. EEng's contributions to ANI threads are, generally, not only a welcome break from the oh-so-deadly-serious tone of discussions here, but also frequently manage to make a salient point while being amusing. Every now and then we all need to be reminded that we're simply building an encyclopedia here, not determining the fate of the world. EEng's contributions do that, and I thank him for it.

I suggest that this sub-thread be closed, and Galatz be trouted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Trouted? Based on? You didn't address my concern at all. He could contribute valuable stuff but still add stuff that derails the conversation. How does saying every professional wrestling article should be deleted add anything to the conversation? Like you said we are here to build an encyclopedia, how do comments like this help us do that? WP:CIVIL states Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. How is he showing any consideration or respect to those working on the professional wrestling articles by continually saying they should all just be deleted? - Galatz^Talk 01:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your inability to comprehend the meaning of my "half-serious" proposal is, ironically, emblematic of the very reasons that editing in topic areas such as pro "wrestling" and snooker and beauty pageants needs special restrictions. EEng 01:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's face the real facts here: Galatz is a member of WikiProject Professional wrestling and doesn't like EEng expressing his opinions about the value of the encyclopedia covering that sport spectacle, given the number of disputatious editors involved in writing about it and the noticeboard complaints it generates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Next you'll be telling us pro wrestling isn't real. EEng 03:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As someone who works in the performing arts, one has to appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into conceiving, staging, choreographing, and rehearsing these shows -- about 15 minutes of appreciation should be sufficient. I still like the line from one of The Thin Man films, where someone tells Nick that he's going to see a great wrestling bout, and Nick replies "Why? Were you at the rehearsal?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Again I understand its not serious. My complaint is the continual disruption to actual conversations and lack of respect for those editors who work hard to improve and fix the articles which get vandalized by those people you are complaining about. How does the constant chiming in every time something about professional wrestling it mentioned in any way shape or form help wikipedia? - Galatz^Talk 02:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I well remember Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom which was a highlight of Saturday early evening television in the 1970's. My grandmother would eat grapes and stamp her slippered feet to the epic bouts of Jackie Pallo and Giant Haystacks, while shooting out pips into a strategically - placed brown bag. Jackie Pallo lived up the road and very graciously allowed me to metal detect in his large garden. He was always chatting up my mum in the co-op in Bush avenue in Ramsgate, where he had retired.It was usually at the meat counter. There are no controversies at the Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom page, as far as I can see. I think I have made my point. Irondome (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Imagine if all that effort were redirected at something useful. Here's an excerpt from Israeli Wrestling League:

"Fitness guru" Udi Fitness went out into the ring and claimed that while training the entire holiday at the gym, the whole crowd was busy eating potato latkas and sufganiyah. Fitness offered a free personal fitness workout to a person of his choice. He brought a boy to the ring and, after he had been harassed, asked him to perform 10 push-ups. Towards the end, Fitness interrupted the boy and shouted at him that he was out of shape and threw him out of the ring. Udi Fitness did not give up and asked if there was anyone who thought he was fit enough to train with him. Then came the mysterious Chinese, who withstood in everything Fitness threw at him and even surpassed. Fitness got mad and attacked the Chinese and left him on the ring after hitting him with DDT.

That kind of stupidity belongs at Wikia. Here at Wikipeida there are real articles, on real subjects, on which behavioral issues arise that need straightening out. We shouldn't be spending one minute refereeing disputes among people who think junk "content" like the above is of any value whatsoever. It's complete idiocy. EEng 03:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hear hear. Jschnur (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling is stupid and if you get into an edit war over it you are stupid. I'm not going to sugar coat this. Wrestling has taken up far too much of the community's time dealing with stupid shit like this. If you can't behave, then it's time for adults to come in and set stricter ground rules. Might I suggest 1Revert limits? --Tarage (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely you mean to restrict what you say to pro wrestling, though while I'm at it let me suggest that we add MMA to the pile. Can we enact such restrictions here at ANI or does it take Arbcom? I like the DS idea as well. EEng 11:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Only the arbitration committee can put topics under discretionary sanctions. The community can put articles under general sanctions, which is similar. This is supposed to happen as a result of consensus at WP:AN. Once that's done, admins are authorized to place articles under 1RR or to topic ban editors. MMA used to be under general sanctions; see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Mixed martial arts. This was revoked in 2015. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Those links re general sanctions are a bit vague as to what they are and how they work. But since this seems to be an AN matter, I'd like to hear how much interest there is in raising a proposal there. EEng 17:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm in support of this. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The original 2015 revocation of D/S in MMA appears to have been based on a calming of edit wars and general issues in the subject area. however there was an assumption that D/S would be renewed if shit started again "Support with no prejudice to re-imposing if problems resume. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)." Is one such (qualified) support vote for its scrapping. I would suggest the issue has returned. Irondome (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

When I said wrestling I meant wrestling, as in all of it. MMA, "pro", whatever it is. There's far too much drama in such a small space. If someone brings the case forward I will support it. --Tarage (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe you mean to include high school, college, and Olympic wrestling. But we can worry about that later. EEng 20:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was about to expand my post to include wrestling, as I was unsure if MMA was too narrowly defined. I would support also. Irondome (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• @EEng, Natureium, and Tarage: re general vs discretionary sanctions: The community can impose any sanctions regime it can get a consensus at AN for. Just a couple of weeks ago the community imposed sanctions equivalent to DS at WP:GS/Blockchain. The only difference is, I believe, that violations are handled at WP:AN rather than WP:AE. I think the proposal for the Blockchain GS was worded something like – impose restrictions equivalent to discretionary sanctions plus WP:1RR to the topic area… – so, if you think it would help, just propose the same for pro-wrestling, MMA and/or whatever else. Jbh ^Talk 20:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay seriously please stop pinging me over this. I'm watching the thread. You don't need to ping me every time. I see it. And I've already said I'll support a motion. I don't have time to draft one up myself. --Tarage (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

OK I will not. Next time, before jumping down my throat, you should probably check whether a) I have commented in the thread before and b) whether I have pinged you in this, or any other thread, in the last month or so. Being ornery is a viable rhetorical tactic at ANI but do please take care upon whom you focus it. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"Being ornery is a viable rhetorical tactic at ANI but do please take care upon whom you focus it." That's a keeper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This-- "Wrestling is stupid and if you get into an edit war over it you are stupid." was not very civil, even if it may be true. Either EEng's or Tarage's proposals would be an improvement. And anyone who thinks EEng was/is incivil should probably have fish for dinner.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes the truth is incivil, and I happen to agree with that sentiment - wrestling is stupid.--WaltCip (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I said that, not EEng. 2. Who is saying EEng was uncivil? 3. What Walt said. Professional Wrestling is entertainment, nothing more. It's in the same category as reality TV shows, and I don't think anyone would be phased if I said those were stupid and people who religiously follow them to the point of edit warring are also stupid. I'm all for civility but time and time again editors in that space have proven to be the most petty and incompetent editors I have ever seen outside of conspiracy theory pushers, so quite frankly, if I offended anyone in that realm I'll wear it as a badge of honor. If you care THAT much about an entertainment show to get into an edit war and bicker like a child, you are stupid and should find a better hobby. --Tarage (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: How do you not see it as being "incivil". If every time we had a discussion here that happened on religion I chimed in and said "Religion article cause too much trouble delete them all from wikipedia", and added nothing to the conversation other than that, would you say I am helping the point of wikipedia? WP:CIVIL clearly states editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably. Are those comments showing consider or respect? No. Do they help improve the encyclopedia? Nope. Do they maintain a pleasant editing environment? Last time I checked minimizing other people's effort certainly doesn't make things pleasant. Being as adding those sort of comment consistently when professional wrestling comes up, I would say its a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. - Galatz^Talk 23:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If you run into a single rude person, then they might be an asshole. If all you ever run into are rude people, you might be the asshole. Such is the case with wrestling articles... --Tarage (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• He's got a point, though. Wrestling is one of those areas like porn where we could dramatically improve the project by excluding all subject-specific sources, and allow articles only where there is significant coverage in mainstream media. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. Natureium (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but I worry this would be a hard needle to thread. It does occur to me, though, that one approach might be to declare that all these subject-specific sources aren't independent, being just part of the promotion apparatus. EEng 22:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

How does that make any sense? ESPN can never be used for sports anymore since thats just part of the promotion apparatus for sports right? WP:PW/RS has a list of sources that are industry specific sources which are independent and deemed notable. There is no policy based argument to disqualify them. To apply auto confirmed restrictions similar to WP:ARBPIA3 thats one thing, but to outright ban all industry specific sources is basis and against the entire point of wikipedia. - Galatz^Talk 23:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous analogy. While there's no denying that there's a fair amount of promotionalism in ESPN's coverage of sports they paid big money for the rights to broadcast, they are not, lock stock and barrel, part of the promotional machinery of the NFL, MLB, the NBA, or the NCAA. The same cannot be said for the kinds of sources which are cited in article about professional wrestling, which everyone has to remember is not a competitivesport but a scripted entertainment spectacle. Using those sources would be the same as quoting from press releases touting Broadway shows, or advertisements for Cirque du Soleil and claiming that these are reliable secondary sources, which they ain't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you look at the page I mentioned, because you comment shows you did not. If you did you would realize they dont just post press releases. They are independent sources that have proven fact checking and editorial staff, just like any WP:RS. There are discussions and work that goes into determining is something should be included or not. You will see the list of non-reliable sources is much longer than those that are, which shows not just any website is being used. I might not be a broadway expert but I am sure there are plenty of website that review broadway shows, you don't disqualify those and say the are promotion pushers, so why disqualify sources that focus on professional wrestling? - Galatz^Talk 23:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

One word: Kayfabe. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• So anyway, can some wise and experienced admin take the lead on crafting an appropriate proposal (in an appropriate forum, if this isn't it)? I'm taking about some kind of behavioral rule (e.g. General sanctions or whatever), not changes to sourcing as described by Guy just above, because I think the latter is a much tougher hill to climb (though I agree with what Guy says), and to get such changes would require first bringing common sense to the discussion i.e. getting some editing restrictions in place. EEng 21:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does there have to be an time consuming proposal rather than once-sentence a la [359]? Or a wise and experienced admin? This inexperienced and doltish editor will start the proposal below. If this blows up in my face somehow, at least I tried to do something. Any necessary edits are welcome. Natureium (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I withdraw my appeal to the wise and experienced. I'll take help from the inexperienced and doltish, or anyone else. Thanks for stepping up. EEng 00:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

General sanctions proposal

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

---

Should the community authorize standard DS + 1RR for all pages related to professional wrestling, broadly construed?

Edited to specify as DS + 1RR. Natureium (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, due to the unreasonable amount of drama brought by editors of article related to professional wrestling. Natureium (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  Based on the discussion above I suggest the proposal be reworded to say Proposal to place professional wrestling, broadly construed, under community authorized general sanctions equivalent to ArbCom authorized discretionary sanctions. Specifically:

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

Jbh ^Talk 01:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Limited support - Certain things such as requiring auto-confirmed similar to WP:ARBPIA3 I would support, however certain things such a WP:1RR I would not. Most major professional wrestling shows/events, of which there are multiple per week, things can change rapidly during live broadcasts and certain things could easily be misconstrued as a 2nd revert when they are not. I would be afraid WP:1RR could hurt wikipedia, while requiring auto-confirmed on articles in this project could help it since they are frequently vandalized. - Galatz^Talk 00:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah see, that's the thing, articles shouldn't carry the kind of detail that requires updating during broadcasts. Wikipedia isn't a news crawl. EEng 00:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

See thats the problem, you are commenting on a topic you do not understand. Set aside the fact that you clearly do not like the topic, and think of professional wrestling as a male soap opera rather than an attempt to mimic sports. Things are done to create controversy/drama. For example, tonight Dolph Ziggler won the WWE Intercontinental Championship, however he cheated behind the referees back. This occurred 30 minutes into a 195 minute show. Based on your logic that shouldn't be updated because its still being broadcast, but that does not make any sense, how does that help anyone by waiting until its over to update it, almost 3 hours later? There is often times a title changes more than once in a show, and these edits could be misconstrued as your one revert. Do you think MMA or boxing shouldn't be updated during a broadcast? When do we update the Olympics, do we wait until the entire multi-week games are done? Do we wait until game 7 of the World Series is over before we include anything on the series? What about movies, should we not include anything about their time in theaters until every last theater removes it from their screens? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

tonight Dolph Ziggler won the WWE Intercontinental Championship, however he cheated behind the referees back. "Cheated"? Are you kidding? You do know that pro wrestling is scripted, right? What in the world does an attempt to mimic sports mean? It is indeed a male soap opera. We don't live-update the plots of movies as their premiere showings proceed. Quite frankly we shouldn't be live-updating any breaking event – in fact I, and a large number of others, have discussed at length not covering any subject until it's been out of the headlines for several days, weeks, or even months – but for now we'll start with this topic area, which has been the locus of an amazing amount of disruption over things only children and young adolescents would be expected to care about – superheroes in capes, schoolyard taunting, girls with big boobs, that kind of thing. EEng 01:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Natureium, would it make sense to extend this to cover MMA as well? I can't bring any recent examples to mind, but I must have added to "my list" for some reason in the past few years. EEng 00:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you thinking the MMA that kids participate in or the professional kind? (I haven't noticed a lot of conflict related to MMA articles.) The professional MMA realm seems like it should fit under professional wrestling broadly construed, but I can add that if needed. Except that now people have voted. What do? Natureium (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, let's stick to just pro wrestling, which I think everyone remembers as a problem. We can move on to MMA, beauty pageants, snooker, Catalan separatism, Ru Paul, and all the rest later, one at a time. EEng 01:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• While ANI posts on pro-wrestling do tend to acquire lots and lots of sections, I suspect you may have meant to name this section "General sanctions proposal", Natureium. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks. Natureium (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral on this, but Natureium, you should describe what type you want (standard discretionary sanctions, standard DS+1RR, etc.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think DS would be sufficient, but DS + 1RR was suggested in the conversation with Jbhunley, EEng, and (I won't dare ping) Tarage. If others disagree with this, we can change it.

Now that I'm rereading the GS page for the third time, I see that maybe this be moved to WP:AN? Here's more of the inexperienced and doltish showing. Natureium (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. I think AN would be more appropriate for this discussion. The DS+1RR was just from the GS/Crypto discussion. Unless there is a lot of edit warring in the topic area 1RR is probably excessive. GS/DS should give enough flexibility initially. Jbh ^Talk 01:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As this just opened, and no one has actually supported or opposed, would it be inappropriate for me to just start a new topic at AN? Natureium (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest archive boxing this and placing a note that it has been moved to AN. At AN make a clean proposal and link to this thread for reference. Jbh ^Talk 01:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, including dropping the 1RR part. A clarification: in the AN discussion, are only admins welcome or can the little people participate as well? EEng 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

At least 5 non-admins voted on the blockchain one and no one stuck them, so I think it's fine. Natureium (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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