Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965

Personal attack by EEng

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

---

EEng has made several personal attacks in a rather heated discussion at wt:Talk page guidelines.

Their behaviour on that talk page was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#EEng's editing at WT:TPG, but that notification was vague as to the problem and there seemed to be no attempt to discuss on user talk pages, and was rightly closed as no trouble found.

But please can someone look specifically at this edit which ironically looks back to that previous ANI discussion. I find the question Are you never going to get a clue? offensive and uncalled for, and in violation of WP:NPA and wp:civility.

I have attempted to discuss this at User talk:EEng#Personal comments, and the response seems to be that there's nothing wrong with the edit in question.

So I'd like other opinions on this. Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say EEng's original comment is a 3/10 on the "unnecessarily annoying to other people" scale. His suggestion you bring it here is a 4/10, because it's a waste of other people's time and he knows it. I'd say your actually bringing it here is a 5/10 on the same UATOP scale. Or maybe a 4/10, to match EEng's suggestion you do so. Is that the kind of feedback you're looking for? You really need to not sweat the small stuff; not every minor instance of unfriendliness needs to be escalated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm grateful for the feedback, although obviously not the answer I was hoping for! You haven't actually said whether EEng's comment violates WP:NPA and wp:civility, but I guess you think that the answer to that question doesn't really matter here, is that a fair statement? Andrewa (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Not really the right admin to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I think it's more useful to think of NPA and CIVIL as a continuum, rather than a good/bad dichotomy. Not every unfriendly statement needs to be classified as "good" or "bad", "acceptable" or "violation", "praiseworthy" or "blockworthy". The harsher the comment, and the more frequent the comment, the worse it is. I sometimes use a speed limit analogy. IMHO you're asking "is going 37 in a 35 zone a traffic violation"? It seems like a yes/no question, but it isn't really. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• "Get a clue" is a personal attack in the same sense that I am a shoe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @MPants at work: Saying "get a clue" to someone is calling them clueless because, if they're not clueless, why do they need to get a clue? There's been a lot of this completely ridiculous parsing of people's insults and attacks, where calling you an idiot is a violation but calling your edits idiotic or asking you to stop acting idiotically is a good way to constructively collaborate. It's so counterintuitive but there are editors who will fight to the death for the right to passive-aggressively call people dickheads. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey IP: Needing a clue and not having any clue aren't the same thing, and neither one is even remotely the same thing as calling someone a dickhead. This is the sort of stuff my 4 year old could explain to you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: "Needing a clue and not having any clue aren't the same thing." I never said they were but nice try. Because while describing someone with either is a violation of the policy against insulting people, the first (i.e., "get a clue") is passive-aggressive cowardice while at least the second (i.e., "you're clueless") is blatant. That's the only difference. Both are attacks, both are ways of telling someone you think they're a dickhead, and neither is how you address someone who you think you can collaborate with in your efforts to improve things, which is supposed to include everybody but vandals. Hell will freeze over before you admit you were wrong, which you are, so I need to be careful not to fall into the trap of arguing with the sort of person who drags their child (?!?) into their efforts to defend treating people like dickheads. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• EEng and I have some history regarding civility, and while I think he could use to get a clue himself as to when his levity enriches a discussion versus when it's disruptively offensive, nothing reported in this thread came close to that admittedly blurry line. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There are also a number of editors for whom typing "EEng" on this board is like a dog whistle, to which they respond by showing up often well after the situation has been largely resolved to cause more dramah. Such is the case here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Calling all editors!

-EEng

Implying other editors are dogs sounds like a personal attack. Shall we escalate? EEng 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can I ask you to stop being so damn sensitive, or is that going to be reported as a personal attack like this nonsense? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And may-be you could also altogether do better to de-escalate situations, than posting these type of comments every here and there and build up the usual drama-fest.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I must have missed the lecture where it's my responsibility to entertain nonsense reports such as this. Your comments—yet again—do nothing but derail. Perhaps you should take some of your own oft-unwanted advice? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I too don't see anything even in the blurry zone.Echo Floquenbeam.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@EEng, to answer your original question, Obviously not. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Pi 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 think the bot auto referenced the decimal conversion and it could be incorrect. Doing the calculation I get 3.1428 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.114.83 (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what specific content you're referring to. 3.1428 = 22/7, which is a well-known approximation of pi. Could you please expand on your comments at Talk:Pi, assuming you're referring to content on Pi? power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm also not sure of the context but 22/7 is 3.1429 not 3.1428 --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe this discussion is outside the sphere of ANI. EEng 22:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You mean outside the circle right? Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's just making me hungry. Mmmm, pi. John from Idegon (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeat topic ban violations by Instaurare

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

---

Instaurare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again violated his topic ban from LGBT-related articles by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion and this edit. He has previous violated this topic ban, documented here and here. At some point, this topic ban needs to grow some teeth so that Instaurare will stop violating it.- MrX 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised you remembered these things from 4-5 years ago, because I didn't. Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit.- MrX 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh? Instaurare (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Instaurare: Since the AfD is heading for keep, could you kindly to not comment any further, and file an official appeal for your topic ban at WP:AN, which is still being logged in place? Alex Shih^Talk 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as "no action" since its initiation was improper from the start. Thought SNOW likely would have been the outcome given more time. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Someone violates a topic ban, and, instead of enforcing it, we recommend they file an appeal? That seems... out of place. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that, considering there have been previous violations, and I don't believe that the editor has forgotten about the ban (which is irrelevant anyway), I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but for a topic ban that was placed in 2012 and never officially enforced despite of previous possible violations in 2013 as indicated by the diffs here, I would like to stay put for the next move of this editor. In the meanwhile, pinging @HJ Mitchell: for more information. Alex Shih^Talk 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was never enforced it should be enforced now dammit. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

One can't simply "wait out" an indefinite sanction until people forget about it. At the very least, unless you find out from HJM that the TB has been lifted or has run out, the editor should receive a reminder that it is still in effect, and a stern final warning that any future violation no matter how far in the future from now will be met with a substantial block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Fair enough, final warning has been issued. Alex Shih^Talk 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll just leave these here for further evaluation of the behavior patterns of this editor: SPI of NYyankees51 (his account before renaming, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion ("NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality"). I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I'd like to see what Harry Mitchell says. Mojoworker (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Harry Mitchell EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging HJ Mitchell - I don't know if pinging a userpage redirect works; this is his actual account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much light I can shed. My main involvement was five years ago and I don't think Instaurare and I have spoken recently. A warning and words of advice would have been reasonable in my opinion for the initial complaint since there doesn't seem to have been an upheld complaint since it was enacted, but I can't see any arguing against a block for another violation while the first one is being discussed at ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked - 4 days ago, Instaurare edited Mark Herring, the Virginia Attorney General who famously refused to defend the Virginia Marriage Amendment against same-sex marriage. It is my opinion that this edit falls within the "broadly construed" scope of the topic ban, which has been adequately explained in past discussions (in particular this one) and which Instaurare was warned about by Alex Shih less than two weeks ago (link above). While the edit was constructive, banned means banned, and editing within the scope of the restriction so soon after being both warned and given instructions to appeal is a flagrant violation. It's also neither their first warning, first advice to appeal, nor first violation. The community strongly expressed a desire for Instaurare to stay out of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia no matter how tangentially related ("broadly construed") and there is no indication here that that sentiment has changed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Weird JonBenet Ramsey vandalism?

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

---

I think there's some sort of template vandalism going on at Welcome to the N.H.K., but I can't tell where the problem is. Zagalejo^^^ 00:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. But here is some context. Zagalejo^^^ 00:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There's your problem. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 03:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Gaditano23, warranting blocking (or to the very least admonishment)

Good afternoon, I'd like to show some light on what I deem very tendentious editing on behalf of User:Gaditano23 in this discussion page about the 2017 Catalonia attacks and in the article itself. He (his user name is masculine) has erased a perfectly objective and referenced paragraph. He had posed no objection to it two weeks earlier, but I know he did focus his attention on it, because he had to be corrected (by me) on a major mistake he made then (visible in the discussion, see his paragraph signed 08:33, 5 September 2017).

What I want to impress upon anyone reading this, is that this user is using potentially confrontational language and heavy political editorializing: he labels other users' sentences "silly", calls a Guardian article "idiotic" and like I said, erases a whole paragraph for what I deem to be subjective political reasons. In contrast, my discussion with User:Pincrete is perfectly civilized as can be seen in the talk page. Please read the version dated before 15 September, 16:20 because I don't know what will happen to the talk page

Tensions around the Catalan referendum are VERY high, this was already predicted, by me among others in said discussion days ago, but we all need to make an effort to be objective. And I don't believe in my heart of hearts that Mr. Gaditano23 is here to build an encyclopedia. But I'd like to be proven wrong. I already have a couple referenced paragraphs prepared about this ([1]) and more recent news uncovered by these investigative journalists, but first, with all due respect, the Gaditano23 question needs to be dealt with. What I'm not going to do is start an edit war with someone who is simply distraught at recent news. I'm here to build Wikipedia. Thank you. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

CodeInconnu We have not even engaged in a discussion, let alone an edit war!! This is not how you use ANIs. Also you should warn me on my talk page! Another editor had to warn me about this. Not cool.Gaditano23 (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I did warn you on your talk page seconds after writing the above User_talk:Gaditano23#For_your_information... Not the best way to start this discussion Gaditano! CodeInconnu (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaditano has not done anything even REMOTELY sanctionable and this should be closed ASAP. Some non-Spanish/Catalan eyes (apart fom mine) would help as I think the 'Reactions' section of the article is in danger of going off-topic into matters of very marginal interest to non-local readers. I'm sure there are sources that praise the Catalan authorities and others that castigate them, I am not persuaded that there is any clear pattern yet as to which is going to prevail and whether it is going to influence the referendum AT ALL and how (if at all) that should be included in the 'attack article. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I mentioned you because you also appeared in that discussion but none of the relevant bits of THIS discussion involves you. Please let the administrators take care of this and refrain from chiming in and trying to divert their attention from the germane matters. Gaditano has used insulting language to refer to users' sentences and newspaper articles and it is clear to me and anyone reading his interventions that he was editorializing and using the talk page like a forum. Be thankful that I'm civil and I don't try to add that paragraph again to the main page until this is resolved, and please stay out of this. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I see a content dispute, no conduct issues. @CodeInconnu:, except for very special cases one cannot dictate who may contribute to discussions here. Tiderolls 18:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Tide rolls:, calling paragraphs "silly" or references "idiotic" is as much of a conduct issue as it is content. Otherwise shall I start engaging in the same behaviour, see how that sits with Gaditano? CodeInconnu (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect. Calling editors silly or idiotic is a conduct issue. One would hope for an explanation for how the edits are silly or idiotic; that would certainly help the discussion. Tiderolls 18:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So are you telling me that I can start labeling editors' contributions and references silly or idiotic compulsively like there's no tomorrow, and not be admonished by anyone? Is that your intelligent contribution to this debate?

Concerning your last sentence, totally agreed. Said explanation hasn't come yet (other than a haphazard reference to a potential "battefield", but Gaditano is more than welcome to offer his intelligent reasons before I add that paragraph again. So far no intelligent reasons have been offered. He may be nervous with the international scrutiny on Spain and all, but we're her to be impartial... CodeInconnu (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no debate; there has been no conduct displayed that requires admin attention. Tiderolls 18:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

CodeInconnu, I am involved both because you named me and because I am actively 'watching' the page. I believe you are abusing the ANI process in that you have not really engaged on talk but come here hoping to get admin support, it won't happen. I largely agree with Gaditano and think the whole 'Reactions' section is going increasingly off-topic, so you are in the minority. You are welcome to do an RfC and I have tried above to invite other editors' eyes. You are new here, and have made very few edits outside this topic area, I believe. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I don't think you've thought it carefully before writing this.

I didn't want to focus on you but now that you're begging for my attention, let me remind you that your entire discussion in that talk page was full of assumptions, weasel wording, opinions passed as facts and an intolerant adamancy that led me to believe that you either have a dog in this fight, or are not here to build an encyclopedia (neither is Gaditano). You're making assumptions here as well, e.g. presuming I'm here to curry favor (Tide Rolls says it's OK to label actions but not people, so I guess it's OK to label your assumption idiotic). Most importantly, you keep droning on about not mentioning the referendum but the one edit you left untouched was precisely the one referring to the referendum. Hence your edits have been not only disruptive, but also contradictory. And silly, idiotic, etc.

The fact I haven't made many edits outside of this topic could only be any of your business if I, or anyone else, owed you an explanation. Hang on, I don't. So there.

And finally, being new to a place is sometimes healthier than being old to/for it and losing perspective. When a person, generally speaking, mistakes a public domain for their own private fiefdom, it usually is a reflection of deeper issues that should be addressed face to face with people trained to deal with them. I'm not looking at anyone in particular. CodeInconnu (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So now three editors today have agreed that this material is off-topic and removed it. All of them are wrong according to you! Possibly more should be removed about the Sp/Cat tensions. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's been put on hold until the current political situation takes some shape. Just find some help and stop using wiki as an ad-hoc therapy please. There's better entertainment you can find at the care home. CodeInconnu (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Frustrated Wikicontrols makes legal threat out of ignorance

Wikicontrols seems to have made a legal threat. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. Their other conduct (edit-warring, personal attacks) was bad, too. GAB^gab 15:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've offered a comment correcting a couple of fundamental misunderstandings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Something strange

Hello, folks. I'm not certain that this is the correct place to report this and feel free to direct me elsewhere. But there's something very strange going on at WP:MOSQUOTE. Looks like the page got hijacked in some fashion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like the CSS files could have been messed with, if so, this would be a hack, not just vandalistic editing, I suggest not clicking on the links in the messed up page in case they contain malware. Thanks for reporting this. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it's been fixed now. On a related point, is there a good way to tell which template text comes from? GoldenRing (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I highly recommend this link which can be made on any Special:Contributions page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly, someone changed the template "vanchor" into a brightly colored attack page which was then displayed on any page that used the template? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So it seems. What I meant was that it would be useful to have a way to see what the wikitext would be if every template were substituted - with HTML comments showing which bits were from which templates. GoldenRing (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am slowly but surely working on an off-site tool that would do that. Feel free to occasionally pester me to get back to work on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Range block?

Recently, 2602:306:33C5:1860:409:8219:47AC:C06D (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:F9D3:C1E1:ECA8:83F (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:D877:518F:F573:110D (talk · contribs), 2602:306:33C5:1860:4CEC:BD47:3AFB:629A (talk · contribs), and similar IPs beginning with 2602:306:33C5:1860 have been "spamming" gratutious mentions of a children's anthology called Sing a Song of Popcorn in a bunch of articles (as well as overlinking). It's pretty clear that all are the same person, and in some cases they have vioated 3RR. I know nothing about IP6s and little about range blocks, and I can't even figure out how to give a warning that would be seen. Would it be possible to block the person without undue collateral damage? Deor (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI recent edits by this range can be seen at Special:Contributions/2602:306:33C5:1860::/64. They seem mostly unhelpful, and they have been rangeblocked in the past [[2]]. A /64 rangeblock would seem appropriate, as anything else will likely be useless. See mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6 for more information on this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

He's been using 2602:306:33C5:1860::/64 all year.

Hoax pointed out by Binksternet after a final warning given by Apokryltaros on a previous day. There are other talk pages with warnings.

Binksternet warned him on a different range, 2602:306:33C5:2C90::/64 last year many times. Another example. Also, this looks interesting.

Binksternet, VCV comes to mind but you may recognize this as someone else?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Was checking a couple of things before blocking but Malcolmxl5 already indeffed for a week and that sounds like a good start.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed for a week?? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes! "...and I am unanimous in that..."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for one week is what I imagine Berean Hunter meant to say. It's a step up from the 31 hour block in July but if the disruptive editing resumes, longer blocks may be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've dealt with (i.e., reverting all of its edits and warned) this vandal hoaxer before. I strongly agree with the recommendation of a range-block to stymie its efforts. At the very least, if an IP's edit history contains any mention of "yakety yak," REVERT EVERYTHING, REVERT EVERYTHING.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it be useful to design an edit filter to look for "yakety yak"? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't talk back. EEng 01:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP6 range under discussion certainly looks like a lot of it is the Voice Cast Vandal's handiwork. A week-long block is too short, in my opinion. In any case, the incorrigible person will find another inlet to continue the disruption here. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. I also agree that a longer duration on the block is warranted. Judging by the anon contribs, it looks to be used fairly exclusively by him and no one else. Based on the length of time that he was at the last range and how long he has been at this one, I would expect his ISP to reassign him in early to mid January.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 Rangeblock Request - 2001:5b0:2a67:158:*

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

---

There's been My Little Pony related vandalism coming from this range (2001:5B0:2A67:158:*). They seem to insist on delinking Kingdom of Equestria for some reason (e.g., [3], [4], [5], [6]). Requesting a rangeblock to stop this vandalism. Could also use a few page protections, but made requests at RPP. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

‎Ritchie333 blocked the active IP for 24 hours (thank you for that). Still requesting rangeblock though as this has been going on a few days. Clear vandalism/disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

2001:5B0:2A67:158::/64 blocked two weeks. Katie^talk 01:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, KrakatoaKatie. This can be closed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Junopolo

The following discussion is closed. 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:Junopolo is a promo only WP:SPA that User:Fuhghettaboutit and I have cleaned up after. They're now posting abuse on my talk [7] instead of disclosing their presumed COI/paid as asked by both of us. Seems their WP:NOTHERE time should come to an end before they disrupt more. Widefox; talk 22:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Already blocked: deus ex machina. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Requesting formal interaction ban between myself and SwisterTwister

The following discussion is closed. 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 July, SwisterTwister was advised to stop interacting with me following an ANI discussion because of what both I and the nearly all editors who participated at the ANI saw as his deliberate targeting of my contributions. Unfortunately, he has failed to heed this advice and has recently resumed his wikihounding in the form of either removing tags with little explanation which makes it clear that he is "following" my contributions.

It appears that he is trying his best in some cases to be contrarian and obtuse: this is a classic case of his behaviour where he does not elaborate his concerns, merely stating "Inapplicable". One-off incident? Fine. On a regular basis? Not fine. Here's another case: the article Wrong time was tagged for G11 deletion by me and quickly reverted by SwisterTwister with what I can remember to be a wholly incoherent argument (I can't access the diff because I'm not an administrator) which is why I re-tagged it and was subsequently deleted by RHaworth. Although this behaviour is primarily directed at me, he has done these kinds of things to other users e.g. this. A couple of pending cases can be seen in the histories of the pages currently AfD'd by me. He has, on occasion, reverted tags placed by me with a somewhat coherent edit summary (this and this. Administrators who can see both my and SwisterTwister's deleted contributions will be able to see a wealth of similar cases which have subsequently been deleted.

I haven't been perfectly behaved either: I was a bit snappy towards SwisterTwister at a AfD recently in response to his usage of ad hominem arguments, but I think this systematic harrassment needs to be stopped. Neither am I claiming that my history on speedy deletion is perfect, but things like thisSwisterTwister, this, this and this, none of which involve me, shows that SwisterTwister has at best a patchy track record in this area (note that one active Wikipedian has a topic ban on the usage of speedy deletion tags for similar, albeit much more widespread behaviour).

Recently, I put forward a proposal to limit the removal of speedy deletion tags to administrators in the hope that it would prevent SwisterTwister from further harrassing me. I really didn't want it to come to this but I'm afraid it's the only option left.

Therefore, I am requesting a formal two-way interaction ban between myself and SwisterTwister. If I had the strength and time to do so I think I could successfully argue for a one-way ban (from ST to me) but a "no blame" resolution would be quicker and cause fewer tears for everyone. SwisterTwister has made it clear that he doesn't want to enter into civil discussion on issues with me which is why I think this is a relatively uncontroversial request. I'm very rarely shaken by other people's conduct and I don't want to be high maintenance but SwisterTwister's behaviour which almost boomeranged him at the last ANI was what made me leave the AfC project (which I have recently re-joined), and I really don't want his subsequent behaviour to force me off the project altogether.

DrStrauss talk 19:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Filling in the blanks above: Wrong time was tagged A7/G11, SwisterTwister reverted the tag stating Shows are exempt from A7 criteria and article is not "blatantly unambiguous". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously no one wants to see you leave the project altogether, and if you believe this is the only option left, then I can only endorse it. If ST responds here agreeing to the above IBAN then I don't believe it needs any further discussion -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The first example that you gave was this, which was perfectly correct. The article contained a reliable source that confirms that it was not a speedy deletion candidate. Why should any particular editor be prevented from protecting the encyclopedia from such clearly inapplicable deletion nominations? I have had my run-ins with SwisterTwister before, and have my own opinion about his general competence that I won't state here because it is irrelevant, but in this case he was perfectly correct. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I am saying is that the edit summary "Inapplicable" without saying why, in conjunction with several other similar incidents, is unhelpful and testament to his general character on Wikipedia towards me and other users. I'm saying that this needs to stop now and an IBAN is the only way to do it. I make mistakes all the time - this isn't a question of his competency, it's a question of his temperament. DrStrauss talk 20:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The edit summary "inapplicable" was one word more of explanation than you provided when tagging for speedy deletion. And, by the way, have you really read and understood the book source that was cited in that article as you claimed in the Afd discussion? Sorry, but there is a limit to good faith, because the evidence is clear that that statement was a lie. This thread is pretty obviously based on the fact that your incompetence has been exposed by your insistence on getting this article deleted rather than anything that SwisterTwister has done. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'm incompetent at times: we all are. I've had my screw-ups with AutoWikiBrowser. I've mistagged pages. I have no problem owning up to them because I realise the benefits of honesty and I couldn't give a toss if ST was right on something and I was wrong. This hasn't got anything to do with that AfD, it's about ST systematically stalking my contributions and targeting them, often incorrectly. DrStrauss talk 23:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you finish the incomplete sentence: Unfortunately, he has failed to heed this advice and has recently resumed his wikihounding in the form of either removing tags with little.? As for the substance of the matter, I reserve judgment until I hear from the accused party. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Something like explanation. DrStrauss talk 20:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so either removing tags with little explanation or.....? What? Why is this like pulling teeth? Just complete the sentence in your original post, please. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Then I'd have to do a lot of strikethroughs etcetera. It's really not the most crucial thing in the world and I'm getting to my wits' end with this behaviour. A formal ban with a "no fault" type proviso is all that is needed with standard WP:IBAN provisions. DrStrauss talk 21:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

DrStrauss: You've accused ST of "wikihounding", but your statement of what constitutes "wikihounding" is incomplete, which is why it's important for you to finish your thought and tell us explicitly what actions you're accusing ST of. I don't see how you can expect the community to respond to your request unless you tell us specifically what your request is based on. It is not my intention to stress you further, but I do think you have to "fill in the blanks" and finish your thought. Could you please do that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I'd say it's a textbook case: singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work DrStrauss talk 22:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Strauss, you and I get along well, so you know I'm not coming at this from a bad place, but it really does not help your case that you're being so weird about just finishing the sentence. in the form of either removing tags with little. is an obviously incomplete sentence. It ends in the middle of your point for no reason. To complete it, you don't need to strikethrough anything, you just need to edit the sentence so it doesn't trail off in the middle and your intended audience can understand what you're getting at. Alex Eng and BMK aren't trying to hassle you, we just want to understand your post better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: sorry, I've updated it :) DrStrauss talk 22:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• My only statement here is that I received talk pSwisterTwisterage messages when I had also requested no talk page messages and no pings, and this continued happening into this last week. TheSwisterTwister speedy contesting is something anyone can do and I especially removed them because they did not qualify. I'm of course willing to not visit their talk page or anything involving this user but I hope I'm not messaged again or pinged again. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: it seems from this comment that you would like to continue removing DrStrauss' speedy nominations, but would also like DrStrauss to be prevented from discussing those removals with you? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it better to discuss SD tagging and removal on the article's talk page, so that other editors can be aware of the concerns and comment if they want to? A discussion held on either editors' user talk page is essentially a semi-private one, which does not seem like the best choice for such public actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Precisely, all I want is a standard interaction ban per WP:IBAN. DrStrauss talk 21:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not well informed on these editors' history, but if ST wants "no talk page messages and no pings" then how are they to know of a conversation about one of their removed tags? This seems more like ST wants to be allowed to remove tags without having the burden of answering questions in any forum. Just trying to clarify. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec) If ST hasn't added the article to their watchlist, then they won't know, which will not afford them the possibility of rebuttal of arguments put forward for its deletion, nor would they be aware if the article is PROD'd or AfD'd. My understanding, which could well be wrong, is that the removal of a SD tag, for whatever reason, is a final action, and the tag cannot afterwards be reapplied, so PROD and AfD are the options available for the editor who still believes the article should be deleted. Thus, is not the discussion of what, for instance, "inapplicable", means, completely theoretical? And are not the disadvantages of ST's "no talk, no ping" policy all his? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's PRODs which can only be done once, not speedy, at least as far as official policy goes. A speedy removed in error can still be reinstated, while a PROD removed for almost any reason can't, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith (quoted from WP:DEPROD). ansh666 22:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I knew about PRODs, and I certainly may have been confusing the procedure for them with that for speedy deletions, however, I can't find anywhere in WP:Criteria for speedy deletion anything that says you can or cannot re-tag an article once it's been de-tagged for speedy deletion. If anyone knows where this might be found, I'd appreciate it being posted here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• I specifically don't want any talk page messages despite the talkpage message because it was agreed upon, even by a private message offwiki that we not post at each other's talk pages, but I received week: "FYI or it's worth noting". An alternative I won't object to is taking the matter to the relevant talk page. The "Wrong time" article was a TV show and is therefore exempt from the CSD A7, a section in which the clarification is emboldened. I also want to explain that I'm actually removing the speedies because they're in fact not applicable as by the CSD. For example, there were 2 articles that are now nominated that were unmistakably promo-free (only instances where promotionalism could've applied was because of the detailed musician discography, Marcus Tomlinson is the latest one). Each of my AfDs I've participated in the last week, was because the subject was from over 200 years ago and I'm commenting something that would apply in any subject, which is that online searches cannot be the sole factor of proving non-notability. John Grubesic is an instance where I absolutely assumed good faith and added sources myself. What I'm doing here is simply looking out for the better part of ensuring WP:BEFORE and also in CSD criteria, and when the CSD at Wrong time removed, a speedy cannot be restored as by the CSD policy. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• ST: It seems that it would address at least a small part of this complaint if you were to be more explicit in your edit summaries when you remove SD tags, as you did with the example cited by Ivanvector, "Shows are exempt from A7 criteria and article is not "blatantly unambiguous", but did not do in the one where you wrote "Inapplicable". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, to expand my explanation of "Inapplicable": The article began with "renowned" and so this is a claim of significance and talking with the "Outstanding Japanese Photographers" source. I intended for those 2 parts to self-explanatory given the article is only 1 sentence, but I was happy to answer and clarify. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Still didn't address the G11 which is why I re-tagged it. DrStrauss talk 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification: in case it's not clear, ST's record on CSD interpretations as a whole is a separate issue and one which I'm not raising (yet). All I'm asking for is a standard interaction ban per WP:IBAN because this is making editing Wikipedia unenjoyable for me. I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy it and I'm rapidly losing my motivation to stay on the project because of this. DrStrauss talk 21:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it might not be enjoyable for you if your inapplicable speedy deletion templates get removed with an edit summary stating that they are inapplicable, but the solution to that is for you to gain some competence in the application of deletion policies and stop the inapplicable speedy deletion tagging, not to put the blame on someone else, or to simply realise that your judgement as to what warrants deletion does not accord with consensus and to concentrate on more creative forms of editing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the actual problem here is Dr.S's consistent use of totally inapplicable deletion templates, to the extent that it seems he doesn't really understand the rules or believe in them, or slee doesn't actually read the articles. His approach is illustrated by his recent proposal to let only admins remove speedy tags. There is an immense amount of junk that needs to be speedied, but Dr. S all too often gets it wrong, and is unhappy when people call him on it. Earlier years, ST sometimes showed similar misunderstanding, but they have now learned. I hope Dr. S will also. But one thing is clear--the wrong approach to deletion conflicts is to try to restrict one's opponents. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: um... if you check my deletion tag log most of it is red. I rarely keep Twinkle logs because I do most of my speedying via Page Curation. Seriously, I'm quite good with CSD though I say it myself. And ST isn't an opponent, he's an agitator. I have given plenty of diffs to support my statements. DrStrauss talk 22:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to regard people with whom one disagrees as enemies, or "agitators". They are at most opponents over specific issues. You've already learned what I think of your tagging, but I normally restrict myself to opposing with respect to specific articles, and would never have brought up the general issue except that the discussion of it had already started. Over the years, I've had strong disagreements at times with various people on deletion policy and other matters, but I've never even thought of going to WP:ANI about it or anything else, or ever asked for sn interaction ban with anyone. There are instances where it is necessary, but they are very few. (and, fwiw, that's what I think on arb com also--we nowadays have very few formal cases, and I'm glad of it, and I am almost always found on the side of the lesser sanctions). DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't regard ST as an enemy but he is engaging in the act of agitation thereby making him an agitator. DrStrauss talk 22:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because someone agitates you does not make them an agitator. Often times, it means you need to take a step back and cool down. --Tarage (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• DGG, would you go as far as to suggest DrStrauss needs to be disallowed from placing deletion tags? Drmies (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid making that suggestion; as I said I do not want to prohibit my opponents, no matter how foolish they are. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• @DrStrauss: Thank you for filling in the blanks of your opening statement.
  You've called for an IBan between you and SwisterTwister, and if SwisterTwister had agreed to that, there would be no issue (I don't think) with an admin imposing that sanction on both of you. But SwisterTwister hasn't agreed to it, I don't believe, which means that the onus is on you to provide the necessary evidence to convince an admin that a mutual IBan is justified, and impose it over ST's objection. I don't think you've done that job yet. You've cited a few specific instances, and you've made a number of general accusations, but you have not provided the evidence, in the form of diffs, which I think would be necessary for an admin to agree to your request. That's especially the case because other editors have seen defects in your CSD-related behavior.
  I understand from my own experience that a perception of being harassed can be quite stressful, and get in the way of your enjoyment of editing Wikipedia, but you've got to convince other editors that your feelings are justified by presenting them with sufficient evidence. It would probably be best if you take some time to collect that information and post it here, because I very much doubt any action is going to be taken without it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Voting on 2 way no fault IBAN

• Support I like both these editors and appreciate the work they do in AfC and NPP. ST states they don't want interaction and DrS wants an interaction ban. Let's give it to them and everyone goes back to editing. Perceived stalking is no fun and it is even worse to be dragged through ANi to stop it. Being dragged to ANi is also no fun. Neither are obviously problematic users. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Swister Twister has said that he doesn't want interaction on his talk page, but agrees that discussion with DrStrauss on article talk pages would be OK. However, such discussion would be disallowed by a mutual IBan, so until either Swister Twister specifically agrees to an IBan, or DrStrauss provides sufficient evidence to show that one is justified, I feel I must oppose the sanction. This is especially so since a well-established editor and admin has raised questions about DrStrauss's competency at CSD, which adds a entirely new dimension to the dispute between these editors: if DrStrauss is not properly tagging articles for speedy deletion, then it hardly seems reasonable for him to be rewarded with an IBan with editors who correct those problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose when a CSD tag is obviously incorrect then an edit summary of inapplicable is sufficient. The problem here is some incorrect CSD tagging, and an IBAN would not help that, it might even continue it for longer. ϢereSpielChequers 04:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unless both parties agree. With regards to Dr. Strauss, evidence presented here does seem to indicate that they need more time to understand the deletion process. "Inapplicable" was sufficient and well understood, saying more was not required. Also, the current AfD by Dr. Strauss seems to be ill advised [8]. I feel Sister Twister presented valid rationales during the disagreement between them and NA1000, and I can't find the link for that at this time. ST even offered a compromise on that one.

Another thing, there is nothing wrong with moving a PROD tag [9] when ST indicates there are "Several existing books about the subject". My experience with Sister Twister is that they are a very competent editor and they make a huge contribution to this project. I realize some don't like ST being an editor of few words, but they get a lot done. I am not seeing any evidence here to the contrary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well this has gone well...

To those who have concerns about my CSD tagging: you only have to use WMFLabs and my deletion tag logs to realise that you're wrong and on the whole I get it right most of the time. IMO I've provided more than enough diffs to prove my case plus I'm on the back foot as I can't cite the similar cases where the articles have been deleted.

If an uninvolved administrator wants to close this then be my guest, there's no point sanctioning either of us in any way because I'm taking an extended break from the project and SwisterTwister is clearly untouchable.

On the other hand, if people want to keep squabbling, be my guest, I won't be here to see it happening.

RL commitments have been suffering due to my Wikipedia activities so I'd like to thank SwisterTwister for finally pushing me over the edge and convincing me that I needn't bother for a while.

I'll probably be back next year but I'll still be on IRC if anybody needs me for whatever reason.

DrStrauss talk 08:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Polemic userspace list

The following discussion is closed. 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 administrator review and perhaps delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ImTheIP/NastyWikipedians as it seems WP:POLEMIC?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Precedent allows a user to maintain a list of diffs in their userspace if they're preparing to file some kind of report of a user's behaviour, for example. That appears to be what this is, and was created today, so I don't think POLEMIC applies. It might be a good idea for ImTheIP to explain what they're up to, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Considering the title of the list and that on his user page he is advertising as something he is currently working on it seems doubtful. [10].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Sure he could be compiling diffs but with the title "NastyWikipedians" it's evident he's only going to use this as some sort of "Name & shame" page - Delete & if recreates it then he should be blocked, Simple as that. –Davey2010^Talk 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• I've deleted the page as an attack page. There is no way that was being used to prepare for dispute resolution of some kind, it was an attempt at public shaming. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• This could go further, have you seen their user page? Not entirely sure they're here for a collaborative experience. Canterbury Tail talk 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about the list. I created that page, and all the other in my user space, to keep track of various things. Like rude Wikipedia editors. If I can't have it because it violates some policy, then so be it. But it wasn't meant to attack someone. ImTheIP (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You created a list, that you advertise on your userpage, named Nasty Wikipedians but it wasn't meant as an insult to attack someone?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Being called "nasty" is not exactly a particularly scary insult -- not sure it would qualify as an "attack". On the other hand, I was interested to see if my username was on the list. MPS1992 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Scary? I'm not sure where fear comes in to play. Attack, not as in physical. N o you were not on the list.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Serialjoepsycho, I am glad to learn that I was not the subject of what is apparently being considered an attack. MPS1992 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It was IP who first used the language attack. It also is a personal attack. He suggest it was not meant to be. I'm just curious what it was meant to be. How it was meant to be anything other than a personal attack.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I should stay out of this because I don't think it leads anywhere, but here goes... I asked you a question on your talk page you responded with "So, take it to the talk page of the article and get the hell off my talk page." I thought that was uncalled for and I therefore added you to my "list" so that I would remember to avoid interacting with you in the future. Now I will not comment further on this issue (unless the ArbCom demands me to or something). ImTheIP (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That seems sensible -- although the username and the aggressive material on the user's userpage may have been a sufficient hint on their own. Unfortunately you misnamed your notepage "NastyWikipedians" rather than "NastyConductByWikipedians", thus encouraging it to be viewed as an "attack". (That language was first used by Floquenbeam -- 17:44, 18 September 2017 -- not by ImTheIP, for what it's worth.) Anyway, as you have gracefully accepted, keeping lists of diffs in userspace is not permitted in these circumstances, but that has now been resolved. It seems very unlikely that Arbcom would be demanding you do anything. MPS1992 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I observe that the user page has several prejudicial statements: thou shalt not revert my edits && The best thing about Wikipedia is that you can write about subjects you know about. The worst thing about Wikipedia is that you have to argue with people with no clue. and the user's talk page suggest a remedial "How to work collaberatively" course of study would benefit both the user and the community at large. Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably right, but the "experts are scum" problem on Wikipedia has been well documented. MPS1992 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Except that they aren't an expert, and claim that the whole thing was a joke and that they didn't realize people would take it seriously...which honestly is just stupid IMO. ansh666 21:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and personal attacks by User:DonaldTonald3

• Special:Diff/801015007 | PlyrStar93 (talk · contribs)
• Special:Diff/801012652 | Theinstantmatrix (talk · contribs)
• Special:Diff/801012620 | Yexstorm2001 (talk · contribs)
• Special:Diff/801013714 | Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DonaldTonald

Note: There's already an WP:ANV report for this user, so I'll just link the personal attacks, alongside his edit on the sockpuppet investigation page.

Suspected sockpuppet user DonaldTonald3 (talk · contribs) kept making threatening edits on these user's talk pages, including mine, after we've reverted his edits constituting vandalism. As of right now, he's continues to vandalize articles and making threats on our talk pages (especially PlyrStar93) whenever we revert his edits as vandalism. Please block this user, and if applicable, hide his threatening edits he made on our talk pages. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO a regular AIV case should get this sorted pretty well, it's just a little bit backlogged for the moment. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

and user has been indef'ed. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

User: 81.102.46.190

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

For the past week, 81.102.46.190 has been modifying dates in a couple few lists of historical monarchs, and on one king's page. The dates being inserted have no basis in the historical record, and no attempt is being made to provide verifiability. They have never explained any change, either in the edit summaries or on the relevant Talk pages. This behavior includes changes to multiple different dates and changes to the same dates multiple times. Equally troubling, the majority of these changes are disguised with edit summaries that read simply "Fixed typo". Rather than giving individual diffs, see history: [11] in which every single edit to date by this editor has been a date change (or a tweak to their own date change), most labelled 'Fixed typo', a few as 'Added content', which while not informative at least isn't deceptive. I warned them yesterday about the deceptive edit summaries [12], and later also provided a pointer to WP:BRD [13], but today found almost a dozen more 'Fixed typo' date change edits, including on a new page not previously affected, so I gave them a level three disruption warning [14], and within hours they made five more "Fixed typo" date changes, including to another new page. I would not characterize this as vandalism, because some of them are reasonable dates, just not supportable (or at least supported) ones, so I AGF here, but this can't continue and they show no signs of modifying their behavior. Page protection may help with the most-affected page, but as they keep going after additional pages, that may become a game of whack-a-mole, but they do appear to be using a stable IP. They have been notified [15]. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Accusation and threat by PaleoNeonate over reversion of a reversion

The following discussion is closed. 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 wish to bring it to notice to people concerned about an issue which I consider unjustified use of privileges, and intimidation of new users, by PaleoNeonate.

I did a BOLD edit for an article, which auser reverted without giving any reason. Seeing it as a violation of revert policy - "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." - I cite not citing of any reason as a reason and re-revert for not following BRD, He, then again, re-reverted it, clearly not following the guideline, mentioned herewith. "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle"

However, other than that, the main issue is PaleoNeonate accused me of "disruptive editing" and violating "Neutral Point of View Policy", and threatened blocking me. Also, in a recent clarification, he accused me of not following BRD.

In this situation, may I know what should I do to address the issue and what can I expect from Administrators?

Thanks!

--The scar face (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It would help if you could give the name of the article you're talking about where you are having these problems. Alephb (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that you raised the issue at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Should editors with privileges substantiate accusations against new users?. I also see that none of the responders advised you to bring the issue to this board. I would advise you to listen to what was said there. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I was suggested to raise issue here by PaleoNeonate. Also I don't think, saying me to move on, in any way addresses his behaviour. Like Teahouse, observes, I took the issue to Talk Page. But this is or never was an issue about me changing an article. It was about abuse of privileges, and not following BRD by others, which the advisors at TeaHouse completely miss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The scar face (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It would help if you could give the name of the article you're talking about where you are having these problems. Alephb (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

So he did, here. Fair enough. Clearly he knew from experience what you would be told here. You have all of 5 hours and 14 edits registered editing experience, and I'm going to venture a guess that you don't have a prior long history of unregistered editing. In a disagreement with an editor with 7 months and 5,800 edits, your best approach is "go along now, understand later". This page is not for explaining to brand new editors how things work at Wikipedia, The Teahouse and the Help desk are good places for that. You can also sign up for the Adopt-a-user program for extended one-on-one guidance. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate didn't threaten to block you. They told you that if you continued to be disruptive you may be blocked. PaleoNeonate does not have the technical ability to block you. At this point you need to stay on the article talk page and discuss your preferred version. If you really want to look at WP:BRD, you were Bold, that bold edit was Reverted and that is when the discussion should have started, with the article at the status quo. ~ GB fan 10:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"Fair enough. Clearly he knew from experience what you would be told here." - And I am still trying to find a justified answer, instead of subjective opinion of editors.

"If you really want to look at WP:BRD, you were Bold, that bold edit was Reverted and that is when the discussion should have started" - I was "Bold", that bold edit was Reverted without explanation, which BRD advises against. I re-reverted it not because I disagreed with explanation, in which case, I should have gone to the Talk:Page, but because no explanation was provided. The same user then reverted it again without accommodating my recommendations, which is defined as Edit Warring. The scar face (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

All you are going to get is the subjective opinion of editors. There are few hard and fast rules in Wikipedia and with experience you learn what the community norms are. No one is completely in the right and no one is so far wrong that any sanctions are required. There is nothing any admin needs to do with this situation. ~ GB fan 11:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no way that you should be complaining about anyone edit-warring, scar face. You made at least four reversions in less than a twenty-four hour period, which steps over the red-line rule at Wikipedia we call WP:3RR. I recommend you review that policy. You are only accusing PaleoNeonate of two reversions, which does not cross that line and is much milder than your behavior. I recommend that you read WP:BOOMERANG, which is a helpful essay to help people avoid the kind of thing you're doing right now. Alephb (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

For a moment I thought, "Wow, scar face is a startling way to refer to another editor", until I realized that's actually the other editor's name. EEng 16:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion. @EEng: I had the same impression. The scar face realized later that I was not among the reverting editors and said so on my talk page, where I replied with more details (I did issue a warning during the edit war). Adding: While WP:BRD is but an explanatory supplement, WP:CONSENSUS is policy (which BRD is also about). —PaleoNeonate – 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

About my invitation to use WP:ANI, it was in answer to a request about how to report me; while I assumed that I would not get in trouble here if I was reported, I still considered adequate to answer the question while also attempting not to scare away the new editor with statements like that it would result in nothing or that WP:BOOMERANG was possible (and I knew boomerang was unlikely for a first ANI report). —PaleoNeonate – 17:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Threatening language by user Ohyeahbaby

User:Ohyeahbaby and User:Wikiguyy22 made edits to the article Barry Goldberg (volleyball coach) and American University that I reverted as vandalism, e.g. [16] and [17]. Subsequently, Ohyeahbaby edited the article Loxodes with the text "If you ever mess with Barry again...I will find you and SHUT YOU DOWN." [18] This edit was reverted by ClueBot NG. The article Loxodes is listed on my user page as an article that I have contributed to, which is why I believe that it was an attempt to intimidate me personally. American University and Barry Goldberg are otherwise the only articles which Ohyeahbaby has edited. I would appreciate if you could look into this matter. Thank you. Kbseah (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kbseah: that's probably Jaredgk2008 (talk · contribs). I don't think he's anything more than a nuisance, but you could follow the instructions at WP:EMERGENCY if you want to play it safe. I blocked both accounts. If you see him again, just ping me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Kbseah (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalized articles on Serbian Patriarchs

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

---

Today, in short time interval of just 18 minutes (from 10:18 to 10:36) user @Surtsicna: has vandalized more than thirty articles on Serbian Patriarchs, by removing segments of their official titles in English language, and also by removing all data on their titles in Serbian (Cyrillic) and Greek (Alphabet). He did that unilaterally, without any proposal, discussion or explanation. These are titles of vandalized articles: Kalinik II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Kirilo II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Irinej, Serbian Patriarch‎, Pavle, Serbian Patriarch‎, German, Serbian Patriarch‎, Vikentije II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Varnava, Serbian Patriarch‎, Dimitrije, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo IV, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo V, Serbian Patriarch‎, Pajsije II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Vikentije I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo III, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo II, Serbian Patriarch‎, Atanasije II Gavrilović‎, Arsenije IV Jovanović Šakabenta‎, Mojsije I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Atanasije I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Kalinik I, Arsenije III Čarnojević‎, Maksim I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Gavrilo I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Pajsije‎, Jovan Kantul‎, Savatije Sokolović‎, Gerasim I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Antonije I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Makarije Sokolović‎, Pavle I, Serbian Patriarch‎, Serbian Patriarch Arsenije II‎, Nikodim II, Serbian Patriarch‎. This incident might be just the start of something even worse, and therefore some action of administrators is needed. Sorabino (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time I encounter this user, as far as I remember, and I have no idea why she or he would lie so blatantly. I did nothing without an explanation; a detailed edit summary accompanied each edit, and no data was entirely removed (it was kept where it belonged). I thus kindly suggest that Sorabino chill out. Surtsicna (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no vandalism here (see WP:VANDALISM for the explanation of what vandalism is). I recommend Sorabino not to make baseless accusations against other editors, but to try WP:discussion and reaching WP:consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User SupervladiTM making unfounded edits on "Steaua" disambiguation page

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

---

User:SupervladiTM seems to be involved in the latest rampage against "Steaua" / "FCSB" wikipedia pages (english version). He keeps altering the "Steaua" disambiguation page, providing personal input that has nothing to do with reality. He obviously has an agenda trying to imply that FCSB (former Steaua) has been stripped of its records and history. This statement is unsubstantiated. Lately he is reverting to providing references that can not be taken into account, i.e. announcements made by one of the parties involved. Please see the history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steaua&action=history and also the talk page where I have made efforts to signal the problem and provided references that support my point of view.

I proposed restricting the respective page and imposing a consensus based mechanism before making any subsequent edits. No measure has been taken yet...

Please, let's put an end to this madness!

Taras bulba 47 (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Another thread on this??? This is why footy is on my list of topics we should just drop all coverage of as not worth the trouble. Really. Nobody cares about the Romanian football licensing procedures controversy. EEng 12:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

We do! The fact that you don't care about Romanian football does not justify allowing people to vandalize pages and write whatever they wish. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

We do what? Create a needless additional thread? EEng 22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, this is me, User:SupervladiTM. All statements claimed to be unsubstantiated are provided with clear references and active links. Moreover, all these so-called statements are simply what has been decided by Law in Romania. The FCSB club referred to by Taras bulba 47 is no longer referred to as FC Steaua, as they have officially changed their name. If there is any agenda for this topic, it is definitely not mine - and I am referring to continuous vandalism by users which seem to be upset by the existence of a legitimate Wikipedia page, as well as by its legitimate content, sustained by the several references on this respective page. I have never vandalised any page - and moreover, even reverted some vandalism which had been going on on the FC Steaua București (or FCSB) page. Thank you. User:SupervladiTM 14:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

EEng: ...wait, I've got to take issue with that claim — I'm not familiar with the subject, but it being a "controversy" implies that *someone* cares about it enough to start stressing over it... Just saying. I mean, the article Deflategate is *massive*, and that (to my outsider eyes) even more so makes me tend to think, "really, who gives a fuck?". Just because something seems trivial/inane to us doesn't mean it's not important to people... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Make no mistake, I think American football is the stupidest game ever (other than golf, of course) so I agree with you about Deflategate. But I'm sick of people importing their ethnic and nationalist disputes, over trivia only they see as cosmically significant, to the English Wikipedia. The Romanian football club licensing scandal can be sorted out on the Romanian Wikipedia (if there is such a thing). EEng 06:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I totally disagree: there really should be much more substantial coverage of things from non-English-majority countries, since notability isn't language-dependent, and the quantity and depth of non-English-majority content on enwp is lacking by comparison. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)(fixed link syntax —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC))

All other things being equal, sure. But not when we're just being used as a place for people to expand the attack front of whatever it is they're battling about. Because when that's what's going on, all you get is what we have here (in two simultaneous threads, in fact). EEng 06:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with nationalism or anything else. In fact, the matter has already been solved. A Romanian Court decided that the club now known as Fotbal Club Fcsb had been using the Steaua brand and name illegally. It forbade FC Fcsb from using them. However, some supporters of FC Fcsb choose to ignore the law and pretend that those rulings never occured and that FC Fcsb is still Steaua Bucharest. The real Steaua Bucharest team now plays in the Romanian fourth division. It has the Steaua brand, it's the only one with the Steaua name, and, of course, it has the Steaua records and history. We just want to tell the world the truth. - TPTB (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You are confused! And confusing, mixing fiction and reality! On the one hand you're talking about court orders forbidding a club to use the "Steaua" brand (REALITY), on the other hand you're mentioning invented scenarios where a newly-founded team acquires history and records of an already existing team (FICTION). Nobody asserts that "FCSB is still Steaua Bucharest"! Any sane person admits the fact that FCSB had lost its right to use the "Steaua" brand and therefore is the football team FORMERLY known as "Steaua Bucharest", a team that had to change its name following the court orders you referenced. As such, "the real Steaua Bucharest now plays in the Romanian fourth division" is, to say the least, confusing. A team formed in 2017 can be considered "the real Steaua" only with regard to its rights over the Steaua brand, but it can hardly be considered "the real Steaua" for footballing reasons - and that is because "the real Steaua" formed in 1947, won the Champions Cup in 1986, split from the Army in 1998 and changed its name in 2014, currently activating as FCSB. 80.86.113.226 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Steaua Bucharest never left the Army. It was never sold. The non-profit known as AFC Steaua Bucuresti only acted as an administrator for the football department. When AFC ceased to exist, everything returned to the Steaua Bucharest sports club. FC Fcsb, on the other hand, was never known as Steaua Bucuresti. Its real and official name was SC Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti SA, a long way from Steaua Bucuresti, CSA Steaua Bucuresti or even FC Steaua Bucuresti. And yes, the SC and SA are both part of the official name that team used until this year, when it changed its name to the stupidest name ever: SC Fotbal Club Fcsb SA. You like to pretend that this fcsb team is Steaua, but it's not. The only things it had in common with Steaua were a stolen brand and a stolen name. And it lost those. - TPTB (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You are being contradicted by official documents and by the website of the club you pretend you're protecting. http://www.csasteaua.ro/jocuri-sportive/fotbal/ I quote: "In anul 1998, în urma solicitărilor Federației Române de Fotbal și a Ligii Profesioniste de Fotbal din România – care precizau noile cerințe ale UEFA conform cărora nu mai pot fi admise echipe departamentale– secția de fotbal a fost nevoită să se desprindă de clubul mamă CSA Steaua." Translation: In year 1998, following requests from the Romanian Football Federation and Romanian Football League - which mentioned new UEFA requirements for licensing that forbade state-owned clubs - the football section split from the parent-club CSA Steaua. Again, YOU ARE CONFUSED! Furthermore, your arguments prove again that you don't understand the differences between commercial names and team names. SC, SA, etc. are all commercial names. Letters SA, for example, mean Aktiengesselschaft (German) or Corporation (English), i.e. a society which has shareholders that own shares! This society owns the formerly known "FC Steaua Bucharest" football team. FCSB does not use the Steaua brand anymore. Check your facts.

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

Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks by Bobo192 at AfD discussions

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been a couple of articles about cricketers that have been taken to AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). During these, Bobo192 (hereafter referred to as Bobo, as displayed in signature) has repeatedly made assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. First, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston:

• Against Premeditated Chaos Bobo repeatedly called this user a "vandal". [19] [20]
• Kept commenting over and over with the same things and accusing others of acting like children, for merely opposing his point of view. [21]
• Then, across both AfDs harrassing Reyk, saying that their "opinion is invalidated" [22], that they were having a "childish temper tantrum" [23] and accusing Reyk of "baiting" people [24].
• At the second of these discussions, Bobo also interacted with BlackJack, making demeaning comments about the AfDs and the people taking part in them; "How long has this lasted without having been argued with on this petty a level?", "an article is therefore deleted based on undefined "rules of thumb" and the lack of "basic details" - when the article so painfully obviously passes WP:CRIN criteria", "Note how something as idiotically woolly and contradictory as WP:GNG didn't exist back then as an apparently legitimate delete vote criterion".

For the sake of clarity, I !voted against Bobo in one discussion, and with him in the other. I feel that in these AfDs, Bobo struggles to debate without resorting to personal attacks and demeaning comments. Harrias ^talk 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As regards Whitehead, the nominator has admitted that he misunderstood the notability guideline and has removed his key reason (i.e., non-compliance) for raising the AfD. Bobo was certainly right to defend the guideline in that case because the subject is undeniably notable. Although I do not think Cranston should be deleted, I admit it is much more borderline. In my opinion, Bobo has been provoked by the attitude of Reyk whom I personally think crosses the WP:NOTHERE line – he was reported to ANI earlier this year, by Lugnuts for that very reason. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment- I agree that Bobo is not taking the existence of opposing views well at all. There's no doubt that he's been badgering participants in those AfD's and trying to bait me in particular into an outburst. I'm not sure why he's singled me out and, though I've made an effort to remain completely civil in the face of this provocation, I do not appreciate being called a liar and a hypocrite. As for an administrative remedy, I would suggest limiting this user to one !vote on individual cricket-related AfDs, and no replies, for a couple of months. It may be that his behaviour will improve once he's accepted that other opinions can legitimately exist. I suggest it's even time to examine WikiProject Cricket as a whole; it's easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia (at least since the ARS faded into obscurity), with a lot of OWNership issues and the same ultra-defensive rhetoric we've seen here. I can think of at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues. Reyk _YO! 19:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so you have a grudge against WP:CRIC which has been evident in comments made by you in at least three AfDs. Your opposition to WP:CRIN, our notability guideline which is part of WP:NSPORTS is worryingly unreasonable, given its wide acceptance by the vast majority of editors and administrators. This is why you are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be NOTHERE – our impression is that you are trying to disrupt our project. Comments like "easily the most toxic place on Wikipedia" are bang out of order and I challenge you to provide a list of all the ownership issues you allege. Furthermore, who are the "at least two" CRIC members? Jack | ^{talk page} 19:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully asking the same question. Who are the "at least two" members with "behavioural issues"? I refuse to descend into namecalling but at the end of the day, if you make a claim and you can't back it up, then the claim is invalid. If you are unable to provide their names here and now, especially in a conversation where I am attempting to remain as rational as possible under questioning, then I suggest you remove this accusation. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The only person I can remember ever claiming I'm WP:NOTHERE to edit the encyclopedia is you. You've also previously called me a meatpuppet of User:StAnselm, round about the time you were vilifying his religion because he disagreed with you. And, of course, anyone looking at my edit history can see at a glance that the claim of being WP:NOTHERE is false. Reyk _YO! 19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Vilifying his religion? That's a new one. Even I'm not aware that I did that... evidence please. Bobo. 20:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Here ya go: User_talk:StAnselm/2015b#Apology_demanded. Reyk _YO! 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought you were referring to me. Sorry. Bobo. 20:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with "opposing views". This is to do with randomly choosing a cricketer with a single first-class appearance, saying "I don't like", and immediately tagging an article which, somehow, has survived on the site for nine years, with an AfD notice. There are thousands of other WP:CRIC articles that any other user could tag for exactly the same reason. Every single similar AfD discussion since the writing of WP:CRIN has been an utter waste of time. Bobo. 20:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Where to start... ayyy caramba. From the top.

• Yes. As I stated on that page, the entry for Church of Jesus Christ Elvis looks like the kind of CSD G1 nonsense created by bored schoolchildren when their teacher's back is turned. I still don't believe this to be false, and I still cannot believe this is anything other than BJAODN vandalism. I considered the fact that this user even pointed out that they posted it on that very AfD discussion to be... to use a polite term, clumsy.
• My "treated like children" comment actually referred to my wish to ask genuine questions relating to notability criteria and people's continued unwillingness and/or inability to answer, having initially criticized my own judgment.
• Generally speaking, if someone has an opinion they stick to it. I was asking for genuine responses to genuine questions and didn't receive a single one. I endeavoured a courtesy ping to the person who asked the question to be the best way to get them to see the answer. Perhaps the need to ping didn't exist. I purely wanted to make sure that the page came up again when I visited. This was more for my own purposes so that I could follow my own comments on an AfD.
• If someone is against the idea of "a single game", then what is the alternate solution? "I find that this is a problem" is not a valid complaint. "I find that this is a problem and here is a solution I propose given my knowledge on the subject", is. The reason for my ping was more for my own benefit. If this was unnecessary, then I am genuinely sorry.
• If you say, "Please stop badgering!" then this feels like an affront to the user in question. And, by claiming themselves that I "may" [only have] "be[en] badgering", is a very embarrassing climbdown, having set out to make me feel two inches tall. Which was the original intent, I guess, so, job done. If the user in question had simply said, "Would you please consider rephrasing your comment?", I may have done so without a second thought.
• You and I both know that people have been sending articles similar to that of Tom Cranston to AfD without knowing the first thing about cricket, or the generally accepted notability guideline which has existed since I have been a Wikipedian, a single FC appearance is satisfactory. I always thought that as long as these criteria were met, then any complaints of the style, "but I disagree with the article because..." when it clearly meets WP guidelines, are not only unnecessary, but time-wasting.
• GNG was never cited as a deletion reasoning back when the S. Perera article was initially deleted. In that debate or any other. I still don't understand how an incredibly woolly-phrased guideline holds any sway when it is patently obvious that the article passes SNG requirements. Doesn't that make all the "Delete 'cuz GNG" comments look a tad suspicious? Bobo. 19:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer):

• "On the evidence we have access to online, the player does not meet GNG, as there is no significant coverage, what we have is purely statistical." (me)
• "Yes, I know at the end of the day WP:GNG trumps them all..." (you, Bobo)
• "This does not pass WP:NSPORT which clearly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline."" (StAnselm)

• As you can see, GNG clearly was cited as deletion reasoning (even by yourself, a proponent of keeping the article) in the S. Perera AfD. But to be honest, that is beside the point anyway. Harrias ^talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is and will be the first and only ever time I will quote WP:GNG within a deletion discussion. I should have said, "I know that according to other people GNG trumps them all." Frankly I was unaware GNG even existed as an apparently valid reason for deletion until a week before this discussion, when people started quoting it willy-nilly... So, poor phrasing from me, I apologize. Bobo. 20:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The irony here is that I barely even contribute to AfD discussions regarding cricketers because I'm fairly sure that all parties involved are aware of the fact that we have very easy to understand criteria for article inclusion. Bobo. 20:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

---

I wish to make a collective apology to all in this conversation. My frustrations are being escalated by the fact that I am going through a crappy time healthwise, and the fact that I am not taking current personal life events very well. I never do. I have personal problems which cause me to escalate every single stupid little thing to a ridiculously large level. I make absolutely zero excuse for these - the fact that these two issues have coincided is, to me and, I'm sure to everyone reading this, simply an unfortunate coincidence, and, I'm sure you can understand from my point of view, a matter of infinite frustration.

I can do nothing more than promise that, as soon as these stupid petty issues have passed, I will be back to normal, strong and ready to go, ready to collaborate, fully, on a project which every single one of us has taken to so passionately over the last several years. Without meaning to deny anyone else equal credit, all of you know that I consider Jack to be a very close friend, who has helped me with so many things over the years, on and off Wiki.

I am sorry. I never meant for it to get this far. I never intended for my frustrations to manifest themselves in such an angry way. And if you choose to take this apology as plastic, then please do. But know that in spite of all this, I still feel we can collaborate strongly together on a project until we have reached every single one of our goals. Bobo. 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would feel better about your apology if you would withdraw your accusations that I am a vandal with some kind of history of vandalizing Wikipedia, which I clearly am not. I fully agree that the article was stupid, but 2003 was a different, and much more stupid time. The article was still live at the time of my 2004 RfA, and no one at that time (or any other) ever accused me of vandalism for posting it, despite it being proudly listed on my then-live brag page for all to see. I mentioned it in an attempt at humor/sympathy and you used it to attack me, just as you have been attacking everyone in that AfD left right and center. Apologizing means nothing if your aggressive behavior remains the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I was completely willing to forget that. It was only the fact that you actually pointed it out on the AfD that I had any idea it even existed... and as I say, I was completely willing to forget. I still am. Maybe this was the kind of thing that happened when we only had, what, 200,000 articles on the site? That was how many it was when I joined. Let's not forget WP:BJAODN was still rife (not that I'm connecting the two, just pointing out something which has been long forgotten in the mists of past). Times change, article notability criteria changes. Except, not for cricket articles! And it never has. Heck, I myself even created some Test cricketers, a subset of articles which we all finished rather quickly.

My point in this comment is merely to remind myself of the way things were when I first joined 13 years ago. Very different times. But I still believe I was doing nothing wrong in creating and defending these articles. The fact that I did so in such an angry way is honestly uncharacteristic. Bobo. 22:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're misremembering on purpose, but I brought it up on my talk page and only on my talk page. You are the one who accused me of having a history of vandalizing Wikipedia as a response. You are the one who then brought it up at AfD in an attempt to smear me. You are the one who was unwilling to forget it. You are the one who still has not struck the accusation on the AfD nor admitted that it was wrong here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Smear you? That's a teensy bit of an exaggeration. The fact that you willingly put your foot in it, quite another matter entirely. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So your "apology" above was just as worthless as you said it was and you don't actually care about being civil to other users. Good to know. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with my apology "being worthless". The fact is that in my 13 years on Wikipedia, sport inclusion criteria has moved on to a stage where we now have rules that are so easy to follow that a child can understand, and yet people going against those rules because the rules make them sad. Bobo. 07:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not that I have the slightest impression that you're interested in actually reading anything anyone here has posted, but are you at all aware of the RfC on the NSPORTS issue from this June which closed with the conclusive statement that there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion? You keep going on and on about everyone else refusing to follow consensus-based policy because we're either dumber than children or the rules make us sad or whatever ludicrous nonsense you decide to toss out next but as I've been saying all along, consensus disagrees with you. NSPORTS < GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRIN has always been the same and not a single person has ever rationally challenged it. Bobo. 09:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I wish I could drop this but it would be hypocritical of me not to say this. Added a question above regarding the "at least two members with behavioural issues". Given that this entire thread is based on my individual frustrations, to call out "at least two" individuals to this extent and refuse to name them is cowardly. I'm sure Jack would appreciate this justification too. Let's face it, if I had made the same accusations, people would probably regard it as me getting on the offensive and making a personal attack.

Reyk, I am sad that I've had to ask this question because I really thought we had reached a point from which we could move on. It should be clear to you and PMC that I consider Jack to be one of my closest Wikipedia friends, a man who knows more about cricket than anyone else I know, and, as you have both seen, a person who is courteous to the level that he is willing to defend me much more readily than I am prepared to defend myself. Bobo. 10:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• comment- check out the last thread on WT:CRIC for a good example of why the wikiproject is toxic. Gossiping and badmouthing me by the three primary people making it a toxic place. Reyk _YO! 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that's toxic, are editors with little or no understanding of a subject area wasting everyone's time with frivolous deletion nominations. Maybe they could spend their time increasing their own knowledge-base, instead of assuming things are non-notable with their ignorance of the topic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly, Lugnuts. The problem is with the users who agree with them, causing articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to be deleted - after six years as a Wikipedia article - and for two years' worth of shenanigans to follow. Everybody who knows the slightest thing about cricket knows that S. Perera is entitled to an article. Doesn't it seem weird that it took six years for someone - anyone - to say "no like, get rid"?

Anyone who knows anything about anything knows that an article will not last on Wikipedia for six years unless its subject warrants an article... we're talking basic common sense now... Bobo. 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - fixed the link for you Reyk otherwise people will be directed to a nonexistent page. Bobo. 16:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not accuse the project of containing "at least two editors of that WikiProject with the same behavioural issues", if you are unwilling or unable to mention who these people are. We have been going around in circles for nearly 24 hours and haven't really gotten anywhere.

Please answer this question at the appropriate place, the statement beginning "Respectfully asking the same question." Otherwise the conversation will be fragmented. Bobo. 16:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal for closing admin. I think User:Reyk has revealed himself for what he is and should be shown the door. He is in breach of WP:NOTHERE because he seeks to disrupt constructive effort on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His approach is confrontational and his deletion rationales are designed to twist and mislead. There is an undeniable example of this in the Whitehead AfD. His reason for deletion is "biographical article about a non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known. I think it goes without saying that WP:CRIN is way too lax in its standards if it encourages the creation of a horde of contentless microstubs like this one". The article has been expanded since then but this is the version he calls a "microstub" about a "non-notable sports person". As anyone can see, the article was a stub with an infobox and a four-line paragraph which states that Whitehead was a patron as well as a player and that he played in fourteen first-class matches, so hardly "non-notable". The bibliography shows that there are several sources, though admittedly unused before the AfD was raised. As Lugnuts said above, Reyk displays complete ignorance when making his illogical and groundless assumptions. In addition to WP:NOTHERE, I would suggest there is a WP:CIR issue too. Finally, badmouthing an entire project because he does not like us disagreeing with him is a serious breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. WP:CRIC isn't perfect but it is constructive, positive and welcoming. It is no different to any other project, no better than and certainly no worse than. Anyone who condemns an entire project as "toxic" should be expelled. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I can do nothing but continue to make an honest apology. My frustration is purely down to current circumstance and I can only promise that given time, I will no longer cause the problems I have been causing. It's simply a shame that these two issues have come up at the same time that my frustrations have exacerbated themselves.

I don't think "expulsion" is the answer, Jack. There's a wonderful phrase on Wikipedia. "Drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass". I believe that anyone who mangles with inclusion criteria by openly admitting to be a deletionist and pushing their own agenda is in fear of ruining the project. There is zero logic for deletionism other than "Me no likey. Get rid. lol." Project criteria for cricket are identical to project criteria for every other competitive team sport on Wikipedia. Soccer, American football, baseball, ice hockey, basketball. Why should one article suffer for the sake of a project? There is no logical connection between believing in NPOV and believing in deletionism as a philosophy. Okay, in the deep dark mists of Wikipedia I added ECC cricketers. Austria, Belgium... I forget who else off hand.

The sad fact is that there is no logical solution to the S. Perera problem. If we are purely relying on secondary sources, the large part of me assumes that we have to treat S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) as two different cricketers. And I still believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) provides no valid consensus when you consider the source of the deletion votes.

1. Suspicious Delete 1: Me no likey. Get rid. lol. (IP address)
2. Suspicious Delete 2: Account for which we have zero reliable information of whether the user exists and whether the nonexistent account was ever renamed because it doesn't show up as a valid rename in the logs.

Personally I think this says it all. If two of the delete votes are "IP" and "as IP" (neither of which would hold sway in a normal AfD argument), then this invalidates the AfD conversation altogether, regardless of the addresses' opinions. Couple this with the fact that by listifying the cricketers by first-class team without providing links to articles about each player is a blatant violation of NPOV. Bobo. 23:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

What do we do about the fact that no matter what happens from now on, there will always be at least one Kurunegala YCC player missing? Well, there are 106 redlinks still on my players list page, let alone those who have appeared for the team since. By my reckoning, there are 29 players who have played for Kurunegala YCC who have a single first-class appearance, and 162 in total. I can update the master list if you like... sometime later, my brain is fried. Bobo. 00:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I would gladly ask that question to the other participants in this conversation as well as Jack. What shall we do about this blatant violation of NPOV, such that we are allowing some cricketers with a single first-class appearance and not others..? Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Summary of AfD delete votes at Tom Cranston:

1. Gave him a go. Definitely notable. But get rid anyway. Even though he meets criteria, this is inconsequential.
2. This cricketer definitely passes NSPORTS. But get rid anyway.
3. Meets criteria, but "insignificant contribution".
4. A single game and a listing in a statistical database are insufficient to show notability. (No. This is precisely the point of WP:CRIN...) Bobo. 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Every single person reading this conversation can be certain of one thing. Regardless of your Wikipedia "philosophy", this and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) will most likely end up being re-evaluated at some point in the future... Bobo. 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Jack, as honest and long-term contributors to WP:CRIC, what's our next step? Bobo. 00:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• With respect, that is completely and utterly false and a complete failure to characterize anybody's !vote on that page accurately. The AfD in question is linked for your perusal here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston. A far more accurate depiction of the delete !votes on that page would be that they summarily agree that the article might (barely) pass WP:CRIN or WP:NSPORTS - for examples; may scrape WP:CRIN on basis of the one match (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and [t]he reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of WP:NSPORTS (User:Hack), but, all decidely also agree that the article does not meet WP:GNG and that the subject is non-notable - for examples; He comprehensively fails WP:GNG (User:Pharaoh of the Wizards) and fails WP:GNG, no evidence article subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (User:Hack). So no, nobody is saying that he is [d]efinitely notable [b]ut get rid anyway. What utter tripe. On a less sharp note; it is highly inadviseable to try and summarize opposing viewpoints when you have a decidely obvious point of view. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Bingo. This is simply a case of some people not being able to accept the existence of contrary points of view and lashing out because of it. I think it goes without saying that the above "proposal" to ban me is ridiculous, and a perfect example of the poor behaviour on the part of WP:CRIC that I've been trying to draw attention to. I'm not sure if it is intended as a genuine request to have me blocked, or merely an attempt to provoke me. If the former, User:BlackJack should start a separate subsection to make that request. If the latter, well, I'm not going to get upset if someone wants to make my point for me. Reyk _YO! 04:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• There's a difference between contrary points of view and having had guidelines we've stuck to for nearly ten years which have done us absolutely zero harm up until now. So in other words, we will have a complete list of every single first-class cricketer... other than one which people disagreed with? How does that work? This isn't about "contrary points of view". This is about going against very easy to understand criteria which we have held to for many years.

The fact that all three of us are agreed that the article passes WP:CRIN is proof of the fact that it's not WP:CRIC members who are the ones trying to make a point. Bobo. 07:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Asking the same question down here for Reyk as I asked above. To cower away from an accusation like the fact that "at least two" WP:CRIC members have behavioural issues and to not have the cojones to tell us who they are is cowardice. Please justify this, otherwise we will slap a "citation needed" tag on it. Bobo. 07:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have already answered this question above. Please stop making personal attacks. If you haven't figured out yet that I won't be baited... Sorry, but I must now concentrate on BlackJack's ban request and preposterous false accusations against me. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reading the admin's closing rationale here is greatly amusing.

"Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria." (What "wider inclusion criteria"? Some kind of non-policy arguments relating to undefined personal opinions?)

"Since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy."

The article was deleted because we didn't know the subject's date of birth. Crazy. Bobo. 08:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Okay. This whole conversation has become a directionless mess. Summarizing my main questions so that I don't lose the points if people are willing to make them.

• If I were to add articles on the 29 Kurunegala YCC redlinks with a single first-class appearance, am I to assume they will all be deleted by people who, against years of collaboration by WP:CRIC, have suddenly decided that a single FC appearance isn't good enough?
• What is the solution to this problem if we are deciding that random cricketers with one first-class appearance will from now on be tagged willy-nilly?
• Where does WP:CRIC need to go as a project if we are forbidden from adding specific articles about specific cricketers, chosen at random, such that our main purpose of building an encyclopedia is invalidated? Bobo. 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Let's get back to the main point of this discussion without being distracted by the voluminous reams of red herrings above. The issue here is the behaviour of User:Bobo192 and, to a lesser extent, User:BlackJack and User:Lugnuts who have subjected me to a prolonged barrage of personal abuse for no other reason than that I disagree with WP:CRIC's standards for notability and inclusion. So far these three between them have called me a liar, an idiot, a hypocrite, a coward, disruptive, incompetent, and childish. I have been falsely accused of personal attacks, falsely accused of not being here to edit the encyclopedia, and threatened with blocks and bans. And this is after I after I attempted to withdraw from the argument, which WP:CRIC was apparently unwilling to permit. Let's not get drawn off track by the distraction of Bobo's (currently) irrelevant remarks about individual long-closed AfDs. The real questions that need to be considered are:

• Does the community accept Bobo, Lugnuts, and BlackJack as the sole arbiters of inclusion for cricket-related articles?
• Does the community accept a protracted campaign of personal abuse and harassment against me for disagreeing with those inclusion standards?

I don't accept either. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You claim that there is just one topic at hand, and then you switch it to a completely different topic. Oops.

Question 1: I, Jack, and Lugnuts all voted "keep" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer). But we are not the only contributors to the AfD conversation. So no, we are not the "sole arbiters", but the fact that we agree with each other is up to each one of us and to our own personal opinions based on long-established guidelines.

Question 2: In this AfD, you are in the minority. Your being in the minority and disagreeing with us is not the catalyst for a campaign of supposed "personal abuse and harassment". You are not against WP:CRIN for any sort of policy guidelines, just because of the fact that you "don't like" Microsoft Excel files converted to articles. Bobo. 10:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Now Reyk is throwing around his own red herring. There are no "sole arbiter", we use the long-established notability consensus. So you should make yourself familar with it to avoid further embarrassment to yourself and stop wasting everyone's time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that articles like S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) get deleted in spite of clearly passing guidelines is proof enough that it's not simply WP:CRIC members who are aware of long-established notability guidelines who contribute to cricket AfD discussions. I still maintain that I believe S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)'s AfD discussion provided no consensus, especially as two of the delete !votes were provided by users who, a, would not usually be permitted to respond to AfDs, and b, belong to an untraceable account. Bobo. 11:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If Bobo wishes to appeal the result of an AfD, the correct venue is WP:DRV. This discussion is about the repeated assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks on me by Bobo and others. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a long-term barrage of abuse just because I disagree with WP:CRIC's interpretation of notability requirements? Let's have some input from someone other than Bobo. Reyk _YO! 14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No need to defend a broken project. If there was no such thing as "inclusionist"/"exclusionist" philosophy this wouldn't be a problem. The only problem would be when we had a bunch of new articles to add. As I say, I could write an article for any of the other 29 Kurunegala YCC players with a single first-class appearance. The hypocrisy of exclusionism is that, in spite of long-held guidelines, they would claim, "not enough"... when the article clearly passed guidelines. I'll find another team and work out stats to show that Kurunegala YCC isn't alone. Bobo. 16:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Lankan Cricket Club, 114 players, seven with a single first-class appearance, all redlinks.

• Nadun Anuradha
• Pasindu Bimsara
• Deshadi Perera
• Dimuthu Ellawala
• Charith Rajapakshe
• Indunil Kumara
• Tharaka Sampath Bobo. 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I please get an answer beyond reams and reams of off-topic commentary from Bobo? I feel as though my legitimate complaints are just being flooded out with this garbage. I repeat: is it legitimate to subject me to a relentless barrage of personal abuse simply because I disagree with WP:CRIC on inclusion and notability standards? Reyk _YO! 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My comment was in no way irrelevant and for you to label it that way and collapse my comment is disgusting. The two questions you asked above, I answered. Straight on. Nine minutes after you asked them. Seven hours ago. Your entire rationale is that you disagree with guidelines for notability and inclusion, something that, for right or wrong, WP:CRIC have defended to the hilt. Just so that you remember, at the beginning of this section, you began to question my behaviour, claimed you were keeping on topic, and then veered off-topic claiming that three WP:CRIC members were the "sole arbiters" of inclusion. Bobo. 17:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it was completely irrelevant. The purpose of the conversation is that you and your friends think it's acceptable to call people names for disagreeing with you and that you've singled me out for special abuse. It's a behavioural issue, and the behaviour of WP:CRIC has been atrocious:

• calling me childish
• and again
• calling me a liar
• calling me a coward
• calling me an idiot
• calling me NOTHERE, incompetent, dishonest, and threatening to get me blocked or banned.

Can we get someone other than Bobo to weigh in here? All that guy is going to do is continue to flood the conversation with irrelevant complaints about long-closed AfDs and lists of Sri Lankan cricketers to discourage anyone else from commenting. I still say I've done nothing to deserve this ongoing harassment. Reyk _YO! 17:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Irrelevant comments"? You know those two questions you asked? I answered them. Within nine minutes. Bobo. 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see the only person who is in danger of being sanctioned here is User:BlackJack. Jack, if you continue to spray PAs like NOTHERE and CIR (not to mention "idiot" and "ignorant") about against a long-term editor who as far as I can see has done nothing but disagree with a number of issues regarding notability, you will be blocked, that is certain. If I see you do it once more, I will perform that block myself. As regards the notability issue, that is not something that is going to be argued here. Unfortunately we do have a lot of issues with local notability guidelines which don't always mesh perfectly with the global ones, but throwing abuse at anyone who disagrees with your project is not the way to do it. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  I hope you don't think I'm pushing the situation aside by saying that how this conversation is going is no longer the real problem. The real problem now is that WP:CRIC has taken a massive hit by this. Not least because no matter how many articles we create we will never be able to complete our true goal of having every cricketer bluelinked as no matter what happens to the Sri Lankan cricketers, S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), which we are all treating as a different cricketer to Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) will never be created without someone slapping it with CSD G4. Someone other than me (conflict of interest and all) needs to take it to WP:RFU and point out that the player meets WP:CRIN. Bobo. 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

---

I think we all agree that this conversation has wandered from its original purpose into other subjects and topics - some of which is my fault and some not. As per a user talk page comment I plan to make to the closing admin, I am thinking of suggesting that I send S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) to deletion review based on the fact that the AfD discussion was controversial (based on guidelines) and consensus difficult to determine, and that the article passes generally accepted criteria. For which, of course, I sympathize.

What is the protocol here? Do I need to wait for a response from the closing admin before I go to DRV? Bobo. 03:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the suggestion here. Bobo. 03:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

---

UPDATE: I have sent this article to deletion review as Spartaz's suggestion. Bobo. 10:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

---

So finally we have an answer. According to the deletion review, the problem is with "inadequate sourcing". Which is an interesting one. Given that for a great deal of cricket-related Wikipedia articles, the "sourcing" is completely identical, does that mean every article is "inadequately sourced"? Bobo. 13:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have followed links to this discussion from the deletion review which I !voted on. Now I am not a major cricket editor, but I follow enough articles and have been here long enough to have a general understanding of the project. It sucks when articles you have been working on have been deleted and there is generally a bit of leeway given as emotions do rise, but this has reached an untenable point. Any outsider who looks at this is going to take a dim view of WP:CRICKET, which would be unfair as there are many good editors involved in it. At the end of the day there is no bright line on notability and different editors hold different views on what makes something notable enough to include here. If you can't except that without resorting to the level of badgering and hostility displayed above and at the linked deletion discussions then you are not going to have an enjoyable time here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is so untrue it makes me wonder what the point is of any cricketing editor continuing to work on our project. One major cricketing appearance. Nothing could be more clear. Exactly the same guideline as every single other professional competitive sport. A guideline we've been following diligently for so long that I'm sure it's not just me who is questioning what the point is of defending guidelines any more. No guideline could be clearer. Bobo. 09:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

A guideline??? Really??? Where is my article? I've made one major cricketing appearance. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

---

• I respectfully suggest that we have moved so directionlessly on from questions about my conduct to that of cricket inclusion criteria that it is now the cricket project which is under more serious threat than me. There is no further point in me attempting to justify my wish to follow some of the most painfully explicit guidelines on the encyclopedia, and frankly I believe the same is true of my friends. And there is no further point in attempting to defend a project which, as is clear from recent debates, both open, dormant, closed, and thrashed like a dead horse, no longer serves its incredibly simple purpose of providing articles for every single first-class cricketer. And that couldn't be less to do with my personal conduct. Bobo. 09:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The "In popular culture" wars apparently never ended

I feel as if I'm in a time warp. Years ago, some editors tried their damnedest to get "In popular culture" sections banned from en.Wiki, but they failed to do so. There has never been a community consensus to remove IPC sections wholesale, but apparently User:BrightR never got the memo, and his behavior on Nude swimming has become disruptive. Two editors (myself and User:ClemRutter) have disagreed with his removal of that article's IPC section, but BrightR continues to remove it. I've invited him on numerous occasions to discuss any specific issue he may have with specific entries, [25] but he refuses to do so, simply removing the entire section numerous times. Although this is, of course, a content dispute, the issue is being brought here because BrightR's behavior has gone well past the point of WP:Disruption and has become Tendentious.

I ask for no sanctions here, simply the BrightR be told that he must discuss the issues of the entries, and that there is no consensus for the wholesale removal of IPC sections without local consensus to do so, which he does not have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Relevant RfCs and quotes from policy that Beyond My Ken is ignoring (all presented on the talk page of the article in question):

• RfC : in-popular-culture "self-sourcing" example - Beyond My Ken participated in this RfC and was pointed to it several times. The RfC provides almost-unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves, and require sources that explain why they're "encyclopedic".
• WP:Local consensus - Beyond My Ken repeatedly assets local consensus (or the lack of it) in order to avoid broader consensus and Wikipedia policies, as the case here.
• Both WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS (sections of WP:V) put the onus to provide citations for restoring challenged material, not on removing it. The removed material was poorly sourced, and until it is properly sourced, Wikipedia policy and RfC consensus support its removal.
• Most recently Beyond My Ken complained that I removed the image gallery. This is a separate issue, but generally galleries should be carefully-selected and are subject to consensus, but again this is a minor issue that Beyond My Ken tacked on just now.

In general it appears that Beyond My Ken is attempting to bully his way out of Wikipedia policies and RfC consensus. Bright☀ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Another little bullying trick that is specifically mentioned in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that Beyond My Ken just used is "reverting to status quo" ("stable version") in order to avoid policy-backed or consensus-backed edits. Bright☀ 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that local consensus cannot override policy, and I've never claimed that it could. What I've claimed (pace the RfC, which was not, and can not be, binding, since it was never made part of the policy, therefore being completely advisory in nature) is that WP:V clearly says that unsourced material can (but not must be) deleted, but this IPC material is sourced by primary sources (not ideal, but acceptable nonetheless) and therefore is not in any practical sense "unsourced", since it can easily be verified by rference to the media material being cited, and therefore cannot be deleted in the manner that BrightR assumes it can.

In any case, however, AN/I is not the place for BrightR and I to repeat the same arguments we've had on the talk page. AN/I is not for the settling of content disputes, and that's not why I brought it here. The relevant question for admins and the community to consider is BrightR's behavior in continuing to remove material over the objections of two editors, without consideration that it might possibly be the case that their position is incorrect.

I have consistently said that I'm more than happy to engage BrightR's concerns about specific problems with specific items, and in that way remove any doubtful or trivial items from the list. I do this all the time, and I agree the IPC lists can grow like topsy if they're not carefully pruned on occasion. I think this is a perfectly reasonable position, but it's one that BrightR refuses to accept. I feel that we can work together, if only he would agree to actually work together and stop removing the section in toto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal in toto

-EEng

• completely advisory in nature - the RfC represents consensus. Broad community consensus, by many community participants, with an almost unanimous consensus that in-popular-culture examples cannot be sourced to themselves or to passing mentions in secondary sources.
• remove material over the objections of two editors - again, local consensus does not override broader community consensus and policy.
• stop removing the section in toto - one item that was properly sourced remained. The rest are not properly sourced, and per consensus were removed. Your insistence on local consensus to override borader community consensus is the problem. Consensus is completely advisory in nature when it suits you... It's not. The issue here is your refusal to follow policy and consensus, which you have done again and again. Bright☀ 19:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• BMK: Most of that section is unsourced. Per WP:V (policy, not just local consensus), "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Please do not restore material such as this without satisfying that burden. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (1) I'm sorry, but that is inaccurate. A primary source is still a source. It's not a preferred source, but it's still a source.
  • (2) That's a comment pertinent to the content dispute, which you're more than welcome to join at Talk:Nude swimming. AN/I is not for determining content disputes, so it's not relevant here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Your behavior in restoring material that has no footnotes at all, after their inclusion was disputed, is relevant here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the paragraph that starts "I feel as if I'm in a time warp" was written. Has BrightR expressed opposition to IPC sections? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - EEng FTW with the Toto pic! Looks like something that should be mentioned in Ear#In_popular_culture. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment 7 reverts is quite a lot, BMK. Fully support removal of these unreferenced sections per WP:V, and editors warring to replace them should be sanctioned. WP:ONUS is worth a look here. --John (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Question I am often confronted with unsourced IPC sections with statements like "Toto was played by Pepe the Prawn in The Muppets' Wizard of Oz". You are not permitted to source them to the IMDb. The argument is that the film itself is a primary source for the statement, so it does not require an inline citation. My personal position is that unless the appearance is significant enough to warrant mention elsewhere, it is not worth mentioning in an IPC section. But what is the official position? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with my colleagues immediately above. It's at least once a month that I see added to a serious biography on some obscure political figure a breathless in popular culture that he's mentioned in a video game. I won't go so far as to say that In Popular Culture sections are the worst plague we have at Wikipedia. But they at least get Honorable Mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I also generally require reliable secondary sourcing for such entries on the articles I've worked on (example: tesseract) not so much to verify that the concept makes an appearance, but to verify that it was central enough to whatever popcult thing it appeared in to be worthy of note. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That's why we have WP:TRIVIA. IPC sections are magnets for truthful but random bits of information. If a secondary source has noted it, then inclusion is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to think of IPC sections as snapshots of the culture, which are of value to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Such snapshots are of value only when reliable independent secondary sources take note of them, saying something like "gorgeous painting A and B movie B made significant contributions to the understanding of nude swimming in popular culture", Beyond My Ken. Otherwise, they are just poorly referenced and non encyclopedic "cruft", if you will excuse the term. Speaking personally, I find this type of content really irritating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How many pictures does it take to illustrate nude swimming?

People don't wait for anything on the internet - unless it's pictures of people in the nude

Are there adults here willing to trim the number of images used in this article? Fifteen images to illustrate the concept of nude swimming seems excessive. We wouldn't put up with this many images in most articles of this length, so why is it ok here? Why is it that anything to do with nudity seems to be controlled by adolescent boys? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

And as a further note, out of those fifteen pictures, there doesn't seem to be a single image showing an older person. There is one image out of fifteen which shows a person of color. Why have so many images of the same thing: young, white people swimming nude? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a different question: apart from posting on AN/I, how should an editor draw attention to a page like this? Neither WP:GA nor WP:AfD is the least bit appropriate for discussion. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have went ahead and trimmed it down further. We did not need thirteen pictures on a relatively small article. I left the most notable piece of art, which was also a featured article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the images. If you wish to remove any particular image at that article, you need to reach consensus for that at Talk:Nude swimming. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Barring a second discussion starting about this, FreeKnowledgeCreator, is there something that fifteen images you re-added provide that the four images I left didn't provide about nude swimming? Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, most of them appeared decorative, and distracting to the content of the article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic. Perhaps some of those images could be removed, but as noted, it is up to you to discuss which images should be removed at Talk:Nude swimming and to gain consensus for removal of those images. Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Further discussion here serves no purpose. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator: I'm not going to make any further comments or start any other discussion about this. It doesn't sound like you either hear me, or want to directly reply. So I'll leave this discussion following this post. However, "The images cannot be "distracting to the content of the article" when they are specifically about the article's topic." is inherently wrong. Staying on a similar topic, if I placed ten more images of random men and women masturbating on the Masturbation article, it is in the scope of the topic, but it's distracting and excessive. Neither this example or the nude swimming article provide enough content or context, especially for the images provided. It is true of any topic though, so just give it a go and attempt it on any other article. Most of the article images are of nude swimming art and there is minimal content, at best. One is a terrible image of a "world record" nude swimming event and it's relevant section is a couple lines. If we're in the business of taking mediocre articles and making them good or featured, then actually following the manual of style of articles that already meet that criteria would be a good start. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I think Commons has too many pictures of dicks

I think we should have a special Wikimania nude swimming gathering, but nobody would turn up because laptops aren't waterproof. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Ghana, dip anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

says who? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have one, take pictures. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nude backstroke, nude freestyle, nude butterfly, and nude breaststroke. Count Iblis (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it distressing that we have no pictures of people engaging in nude underwater intercourse, which is an excellent nude swimming activity. Pandeist (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Only a few people can hold their breath for long enough. Count Iblis (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

People need to lay off and remember Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. WP:LAME much?--Certified Gangsta (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an article on nude swimming might have an image of someone swimming nude. That's what WP:NOTCENSORED means. It doesn't mean that we should have fifteen images of people swimming nude. Reasonable people can see the difference between editorial commonsense and censorship. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No offense but you don't get to unilaterally decide what is "reasonable" and what is not. Just so you know, your self-appointed status as the voice of "reasonable people" and "common sense" won't win you any brownie points. The community here will decide.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You think I'm making a point about the sorry state of editorial oversight here in order to win Brownie points? That's cute. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Why do we even have a page on nude swimming. Is there a page on swimming in a bathing suit? Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Swimming in a bathing suit is swimming. That's like asking why we have women's studies but not men's studies in college (hint: we do and it's called history) or why we have minority student unions but no white student unions (hint: we do and it's called fraternities) or MRA people drawing false equivalence between "men's rights" and "women's rights". The article belongs.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Humorless, much? EEng 04:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7915369.stm Count Iblis (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Towel, and the Throwing Thereof

Towels waiting their turn to be thrown in

Well, clearly I ain't gonna prevail here, not when the anti-IPC editors come out in force, supplemented by those Wikipedians who avoid WP:COMMONSENSE whenever possible. It's a shame that Nude swimming will be degraded as an article, a real disservice to our readers, but such things can't be helped, I guess.

I withdraw the complaint, and BrightR can do whatever he likes with Nude swimming, at least as far as I'm concerned: I've taken the article off my watchlist, and I don't intend to edit it again.

I'll crawl back into my hovel, and begin the repeated ritual incantation of the twelfth canto of my "A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia". Cheers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Folks, please do me a favor, I'm trying quite hard to not comment here, because it would inevitably descend into bludgeoning, since I understand your points quite well (really, I assure you that I'm not in any way intellectually disabled), but disagree with them almost entirely. I'm sure you all know that it's much harder to stay away from a place when you're repeatedly being pinged there. So, unless you're an admin who's admonishing or sanctioning me (and not simply expressing a personal editorial opinion) please avoid pinging me to this discussion. I really have nothing much more to say than I already have, and I feel certain that you don't want to hear that again anyway. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I acknowledge to the community at large that edit warring was a piss poor choice on my part to deal with the dispute with BrightR. I can plead frustration, but that's obviously never an acceptable excuse. I do realize that I'm lucky not to have been blocked, and thank those admins who may have considered it, but showed tolerance to both myself and BrightR.

My biggest regret about this whole sordid affair is that my lack of good judgment in this one incident will most likely be the only impediment to my becoming an admin in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Obviously, this isn't your ORCP, but I thought I'd note I don't consider this one discussion to be a dealbreaker for your future request(s) for adminship - no one should be expected to match consensus all the time. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir: Thanks very much for those kinds words, but it was sort of a joke -- I'm sorry I didn't make that more obvious in the writing. I've been pretty clear over the years that I don't want to be an admin, and, practically speaking, I think I've collected enough people with doubts about me that I don't think I would be successful if I tried. I've even said that I wouldn't !vote for me if I ran, given my record!! In any case, I'm happy contributing to the encyclopedia, despite its occasional frustrations, so simply continuing to do that is fine with me. Thanks again, your gesture was appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Another question

Why are we in the business of hosting image of naked, identifiable, living children? One such image is still up on that page after the cull. The problems are so many that I don't know where to start. How would you feel if someone in your workplace pointed out that there was a photograph of you naked and ten years old on the sixth most visited site on the internet? A child is inherently incapable of giving consent in such an image in every jurisdiction I know of. GoldenRing (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I presume you mean File:Kids skinny dipping in India.jpg. Four of the five subjects are simply unidentifiable because of the directions of their head or because of the water. And even so that the fifth is facing the camera, it's safe to say a fair amount of adults do not look like they did when they were children. Anywho, the Commons is hosting the image, they have had a deletion discussion on this before in 2010, you can head there for more information or to discuss it yourself. Here is a relevant guideline to India-specific consent, because of where this photo was taken. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I'm sure you aren't the first person to ask that question. As Moe Epsilon points out the answer is "because we can". That seems to be good enough for Commons. The problem may be that, just like on the Nude swimming article, there is no one sensible keeping an eye on things. That's why you get images like File:Naturist girl.png (archive) and File:Naturist young girl.png (archive). Both of those were uploaded seven months ago. I don't even know if we can host those, but should we? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be of the only one who is facing the camera, you can see see about as much of the body as the infamous Virgin Killer album cover as featured in the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia dispute. And both show less than the infamous Nevermind album cover. In neither of these cases are the people children anymore, but that wouldn't have stopped us. Actually we've even had an article on Spencer Elden since May 2005 [26] which if the DOB on the current article is correct, means since he was 14 years old. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: yes, yes that is the image I was referring to. Even the guideline you cite says, publishing a photo in a manner that might be "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [depicted persons] activities" is illegal under the CoI article 21.. I think this image ought to fall foul of that guideline, for the reasons I gave above.

Whatever your opinion of the album covers mentioned, I think there is a clear difference between posing for the front cover of an album and having your picture taken by a stranger while swimming. My concern here is not so much people looking at pictures of naked boys, it is more in the spirit of our BLP policy of erring on the side of doing no harm to living people. The people in the photograph are presumably still living. At least one is identifiable; you might not have much luck trying to identify him from scratch, but people who know him will recognise him (and will then probably figure out who the others are easily enough). The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked. The deletion discussion at commons is pretty horrific; the idea that a child has consented to naked photographs because he appears to be smiling at the camera is wrong on so many levels that, again, I don't really know where to start. GoldenRing (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how a baby less than a year old has posed for anything. Clearly someone that young has no concept of consent or even photography whatsoever and can't understand the concept of posing. In other words, if your argument in that the subject although a child may have some slightly more understanding of the implications of the decision when it was a professional work done for an album cover than if it it was some random taking photos, this falls flat when we consider babies since clearly they don't understand more of what's going on whatever the work. Instead you're saying that the parents can make the decision which means you then get a lot of complications, especially in cases where the images were e.g. at a nudist beach or other such places. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The wider issue of course is something you touched on. "The photograph would be embarrassing to most people, I think. I certainly don't much fancy my childhood photos being posted online, much less ones of me naked." Since it was an "I think", no real evidence was provided for the former especially if we are talking about the Western world (particularly parts of Europe). Personally I definitely don't want photos of me naked around although more so as an adult than as a child, but it's definitely far from a universal attitude for people to be embarassed by photos of them doing natural ordinary things like swimming as a child even if naked.

Which gets into your second point. Unless your advocating we remove all photos of children without explicitly consent then you're making a personal judgement about what sort of childhood photos are likely to be embarassing to someone.

I would hardly be surprised if some people are more embarassed by photos here Commons:Category:Street children, Commons:Category:Begging children for example. And I also wouldn't be surprised if for some 18 year olds they may be more embarassed by a photo of their mother or father kissing them as a child (the reverse but I suspect it'll be rare the person is identifiable without further information in that case) than one of them swimming. And I'm sure we have photos of children incidentally caught nose picking, we do have File:Oldwoman cry baby nakba.jpg for example. (Actually I found one which isn't incidental and probably should be deleted that even has the child's name.) I'm sure I could find other examples which someone may find more embarassing but I'm lazy to especially since if anything were to happen this conversation will need to take place somewhere else.

And that's only children. I'm assuming the argument is that a child is less able to understand the implications, such as the possibility of there being a permanent photographic record of it, of doing whatever they may find embarassing in the future in a public place. Still it's clearly not only children who may wish we aren't hosting images which feature them. For example some people may later regret appearing at a white supremecist rally or singing "no means yes, yes means anal" (okay we don't actually have anything from that AFAIK but I'm pretty sure that's primarily because of copyright reasons) or whatever else. Stuff which may have occured when they were young but considered adults, and in some cases possibly drunk. (Actually we do have a Commons:Category:Drunken people and some images I saw there or in subcats looked identifable.) Yet in at least some of these cases, I'm not sure we'd remove the images even if someone appearing in them asks, and even if they aren't iconic. (Well I'd like it like to think we'd always remove images of run of the mill drunk people if they ask, but I'm not sure if we'd do so for photos of a white supremacist rally. Likewise if one of the kids in any of the photos actually asks, I'm assuming we will delete it unless we have very good reason not to.)

Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements, actually I'm pretty sure we and commons already does to a limited extent. I'm simply saying that if you did want to go about this, you'd need to carefully consider under what circumstances we make a value-judgement that a photo is potentially embarassing so should be deleted. That includes issues like what exactly is consent (including who provides it) and whether we only consider such issues for children, and how to handle cases where what's embarassing may be more incidental (e.g. picking the nose in a group photo). Also is this only about these images appearing in articles, because if it's the wider issue of hosting these images, that discussion would need to take place at commons unless you either plan to block these images from appearing on en.wikipedia, or try again to get the WMF so shut down common.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm still thinking through this a bit, but I was a bit surprised to even have to think through it.

I think the difference between an album cover and the photograph in question is that the album cover has been published in its own right and Wikipedia is using an image of a thing to describe that thing; if someone queries the use of a naked child on an album cover in a Wikipedia article, we can reasonably say that we have an article on that album and want to illustrate it; it's not like we could choose a different picture of the album cover which didn't have the naked child on it. The use of the image on an album cover also creates the reasonable assumption that someone consented to the image. It probably wasn't the child, but someone with responsibility for the child was almost certainly involved in the production of the image (and someone in such a position is usually able to give consent on a child's behalf to many things, though maybe we're nearing the edge of those limits here). The case of a just-starting-out freelance photographer who took a photograph of someone he happened to see somewhere and posted it on flickr under a license he later regretted is clearly different. Neither you nor I would ever have encountered that picture in the total obscurity of some Frenchman's flickr stream; the only prominence that image has, it has because it is used on Wikipedia.

I don't buy struck; see below a lot of your argument above; if I could paraphrase briefly, it seems to amount tothe portion of what you say that amounts to, "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever." (I realise this is not what you're actually advocating.) Of course some people won't be embarrassed by nude child pictures of themselves, and of course some people will demand that any reference to them be removed; neither of these should determine our actions. The principle we work by is that of conservatively doing no harm to living people and only publishing things about them that are verifiable in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Why should that standard be different just because it's a picture of them, not words about them?

You briefly discuss the issue of children/adults in similar situations and actually I have many of the same concerns about other images used in that article; they are all of presumably-living people, many of them clearly identifiable to people who know them, and some of them in situations where they may well have a reasonable expectation of privacy. File:FYN 04.jpg, for instance, is an upload on commons by a user who ought to be blocked there for violating the username policy; they claim to represent Florida Young Naturists without, as far as I can tell, any evidence of it. Even if they do officially represent that organisation, I'd really like to see some sort of evidence that they have permission to post naked photos of members to heavily-trafficked websites. File:2014 WNBR Brighton beach.jpg is just about reasonable; these people are adults who've just participated in a naked run and if they didn't realise someone might take a photograph of them in the process then they should have. That kind of reasoning doesn't, as far as I can tell, hold for the other images discussed above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd planned to leave this discussion, but I need to reply since you made highly offensive comments about me. I never said anything remotely like "Some people will find anything embarrassing, while others aren't embarrassed by anything, so we should just throw our hands up and have no standards whatsoever". I explicitly noted that I am not saying so ("Note that I'm explicitly not saying we shouldn't make such judgements") precisely to avoid this but you ignored my comment and instead made offensive comments about me. Please do not make such highly offensive misleading statements about me ever again. I'm definitely done with this discussion now. Good luck ever getting anything changed when you make such highly offensive misleading claims about what people are saying. Just because people think stuff is complicated, and there are a lot of issues to consider and so we need to think long and hard about how, when and what we do rather so that we don't make sweeping judgements without strong evidence or only deal withone minor portion of a wider issue, doesn't mean they are saying that it should be ignored. It's barely tolerable to suggest they are saying so if the person didn't make it clear they are not say that. When I did make it clear? No fucking way. If you are unable of unwilling to look into the wider issues, that's you choice. If you think you can get stuff changed without looking into the wider issues, that's also you choice. But don't fault someone for bringing up some of the many wider issues. If you do want to consider the wider issues, I have no idea why you'd make such offensive comments about me just because I brought up a few of the wider issues. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I am distraught to have caused someone such offence. This is genuinely something I'm trying to think through and I was trying to interact with some ideas you'd brought up; I clearly worded that very sloppily and didn't come across well. I apologise unreservedly. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken wars against consensus - 1RR 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.

---

Now that we've established there's sweeping consensus not only in the WP:V RfC but also on AN/I, can we discuss the real issue here, Beyond My Ken repeatedly ignoring consensus, calling it completely advisory in nature when it suits him, ignores it otherwise, and in general employs the very tactics described in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR? He has been on AN/I, again and again, and RfCd at least twice, and generally fought in talk pages over and over due to his refusal to acknowledge that policy and RfC and talk page discussions are more binding than his personal preference or the "consensus" he and a single other editor achieve locally. This is followed (as it is here) with please avoid pinging me. This recurring behavioral problem (deny community consensus, claim local consensus, WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, "stop pinging me") is repeated throughout Beyond My Ken's contribution history. Can we please agree to a sanction that BMK should be subject to WP:1RR in any matter that is not obviously vandalism? Bright☀ 08:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

All I see is one user, with a deep knowledge of policy and procedure bulldozering his pet POV- without leaving sufficient time for anyone who is not permanently on line to make a comment. I would prefer to see that user to back off and do a week or so solid content creation before commenting further. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

without leaving sufficient time - A month is not sufficient time? How about five months? Six years? More? Community consensus (RfC) and repeated local talk-page consensus could not sway you or Beyond My Ken. An AN/I which he initiated could not sway him. Sanctions need to be put in place to affirm that consensus is not bulldozering [a] pet POV. Consensus is how Wikipedia works. Ignoring consensus is the problem here, not the alleged lack of sufficient time for anyone who is not permanently on line to make a comment. Bright☀ 09:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support proposal, as it is clear that BMK still does not "get" it. --John (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - BrightR is very lucky someone requested protection of the page before blocks could be dished out. I find the arguments presented here tenuous at best and incongruous at worst. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Elaborate? Bright☀ 10:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@BrightR: The information you presented here does not show a pattern of edit warring, and, looking at the block log, it's been years since a competent block has been placed on BMK. Going from that to a 1RR is nonsense. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, seems you are not aware of Beyond My Ken's history. I'll add an overview below in a little while. Bright☀ 15:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I just stated that I looked at it and familiarized myself with it before commenting. Please, do not assume opposition to your proposal stems from ignorance. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't get mad; you stated that you looked at his block history; I'm explaining that he successfully avoided sanctions (such as blocks) time and again, and will provide the history below. Bright☀ 16:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The earliest RfC is from 2008, where Beyond My Ken was requested to stop trying to override consensus with reverts to status quo (sounds familiar?). From minor issues like ignoring the MOS (which represents consensus) in 2012, to more serious issues like OWN, 3RR, and ignoring consensus in 2010-2015, to outright claiming clear talk page consensus where there wasn't any in 2016. If you follow these links you'll find that other than the AN/I and RfCs, there were plenty of other 3RR and talk-page discussions where BMK decided to ignore consensus or "revert to status quo" as he overrides broader consensus in favor of his personal opinion, each time avoiding sanctions and blocks. 17:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Both users are very lucky not to have been blocked for this disruptive edit-warring, but as far as I know only BMK has a years-long pattern of this behaviour. Am I wrong? --John (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@John: I am well aware that both should have been blocked, but only one of the editors has proposed ridiculous sanctions on another user. And you are wrong, see my response above. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If you think they are ridiculous, it is for you to propose an alternative. Which response above? --John (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The alternative is to discuss the issue at hand, something that doesn't require proposing. My response sums it up: [I]t's been years since a competent block has been placed on BMK. Going from that to a 1RR is nonsense. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The content issue was resolved almost immediately and should have never been brought to AN/I, since AN/I isn't about content disputes. What remains is the behavior issue with Beyond My Ken, which has been languishing for years without sanctions. Bright☀ 17:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Someone involved in an edit war who reverted seven times and now wants to have their opponent hit with a 1RR restriction might want to consider than ANI discussions generally take all sides' editing into account when considering sanctions. Unless one editor's behaviour in this matter is particularly egregious (i.e. inserting BLP violations), which isn't the case here, it's both or neither. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment BrightR made an edit, which they discussed in talk. They were met there with statements like :"IPC information is sourced by primary sources: the pop cuklture items themselves. It it therefore not "unsourced" and therefore cannot be removed at will. Like any other disputed information, it must be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus reached. This is not a "tactic", this is following Wikipedia procedures, which I suggest you do as well.", and the edit-war ensued. BrightR made six (not seven) reverts; now, I know being "right" is no defence against edit-warring, but it might be helpful if some sort of sanction, or at very least an admonition, was given to BMK, as they need to know they are "wrong" on the interpretation of policy, and "wrong" to edit-war over it, and because I understand this is a pattern of problematic behaviour that has persisted for years. I'd have no problem with a similar admonition being given to BrightR. What we mustn't do here is nothing at all, or we'll be back talking about this every three months forever. --John (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per nihlus kryik and Black Kite. -- Begoon 11:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but BMK does not seem to understand (or follow) the relevant policies and editorial consensus, and continued editing in this fashion may warrant some sort of future action. @Beyond My Ken: please be advised. Paul August ☎ 14:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, "for now" has been going on for about a decade... Each time BMK gets off sanction-free, "for now". Bright☀ 15:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasoning of others here. And Bright needs to stop deleting stuff he doesn't like. This is just a glorified content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite my own view that IPC sections are at least 80-90% trivial crap and that on the whole we would be better off without them, I'm not seeing how BMK's conduct has been so egregious as to justify 1RR across the entirety of the project. A restriction more tightly focused on the problem area (IPC) could be more justifiable. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose BrightR looks to be trying to WP:GAME the system. MarnetteD|Talk 16:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This clearly a political attempt for Bright to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Perhaps he's the one who should be punished for gaming the system and wasting everybody's time. --Certified Gangsta (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite the accusation considering BMK brought the issue to AN/I, not me. You should consider his storied history of ignoring consensus in order to revert to his own version. Bright☀ 17:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a strange accusation, too, in that as far as the content dispute goes, there was almost wall-to-wall consensus here that BMK is in the wrong... on top of the previous RfCs and policies... Bright☀ 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as vindictive gamesmanship. This proposal borders on vexatious to the point that it may merit a WP:BOOMERANG. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose cynical gaming the system. and yes John, you are wrong. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaming how? I'm raising a behavior issue that has cropped up again and again and again... Bright☀ 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Perfectly willing to believe I am wrong, but I'm an evidence-based guy and I don't see evidence for that. Is there some? --John (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose a genuinely bad idea. BMK is hardly an edit warring user. If you have to bring up something from 2008 to support your case Bright, it means you have no case. Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose 1RR bs, Support indeffing Bright for not being very bright. –Davey2010^Talk 18:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose After waiting to see some evidence that is relevant to more recent times, I'm not seeing enough to enforce a 1RR right now. 1RR would more plausible for IPC sections, specifically, but that is not what is being proposed. It's overkill to 1RR BMK for the whole project. BMK has also stated above that he was done engaging in this conversation, editing that article and making further reverts, and that was before this section was started. There is nothing to prevent. That being said, both Bright and BMK should both be admonished for repeated edit warring. Bright and John should also drop the stick and not reply nearly as much as they are here. Your positions on the matter here are understood. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is a bad idea. As Legacypac already said, having to bring up something from almost 10 years ago doesn't support your case at all. It almost looks like BrightR is trying to WP:GAME the system. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 21:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

See this post by Anakin skywalker 825 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). MarnetteD|Talk 03:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a variety of reasons. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: G

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

---

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: G (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I don't know what's going on here, but something seems off.

• diff 1 2600:1:b112:5ec:dc7d:4ee2:f684:3b0d ES: Undid revision 799880279 by G-gollin (talk) Convicted ethics violator George Gollin self-editing again
• diff 1 G-gollin ES: Undid defamatory revision

Editors:

• G-gollin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1:B112:5EC:DC7D:4EE2:F684:3B0D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Yes, the "source" for the addition links to an unsourced attack page. This has been ongoing since July apparently, and they are obviously harassment. I've blocked two of the recent IPs for 48 hours for now, semi-protected the page for 3 days and deleted the revisions for the 3 edits that I can find. Alex Shih^Talk 08:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Hirenny at Talk:Breitbart News

There is currently an edit war going on at Talk:Breitbart News regarding comments that several editors (including myself) believe are inappropriate. This probably merits more than a 3RR report. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have ceased the so-called "edit war" you speak of (and even removed my last installation of my edit you speak of). At no point have I been informed of what guideline I violated (and I'm still waiting for a message from one of the editors to tell me which one). I await to be enlightened....Hirenny (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPG. Article talk pages are not a soapbox for expressions of disagreement or disgruntlement with Wikipedia or its policies. They are a place to discuss improvements to their respective articles. Your post made no suggestions for improvements and no constructive suggestions; yelling loudly that you won't donate to the project unless the content of an article is changed to your satisfaction is not proper behavior for a Wikipedia editor. We don't respond to financial threats, because none of us are getting paid anything from those donations. Your angry talk about money has literally zero impact on any of us. If you believe changes need to be made to the article, you need to politely outline specific, actionable issues and provide reliable sources which support the changes you think should be made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I did make constructive suggestions elsewhere on the talk page. I also raised legitimate concerns about POV in the article. I'm not the only one. It's also clear that I'm not the only one who has had my concerns erased from the talk page. Read what I actually wrote: I did not "yell loudly" that I won't donate to the project. I reprinted the conversation I had with someone at Wikipedia that I cannot in good conscience donate to a project that allows such an egregious bias in the editing of articles. If I need to reword this to get my point across, then fine. But the point of "talk" is to share views and objections about the content and editing of the article, which I did. But, it appears some views on the talk page are not acceptable to the editorial paradigm. You kind of prove the original point I made. Too bad that you feel you need to wield the bigger sword you have to make your point, and silence mine from the arena. If that is your goal (I would hope it isn't, since it goes against the very tenors of Wikipedia that you so vigorously claim to uphold), well, felicitaciones. Hirenny (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not you've been useful elsewhere, your edit warring of a long, whiny diatribe against WP because the content of that page doesn't conform to your own beliefs has been nothing but disruptive. And do not email me again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Since you characterize my concerns as a "whiney diatribe," let me remind you of these stated guidelines: "Be polite, and welcoming to new users; Assume good faith; Avoid personal attacks; For disputes, seek dispute resolution." Let me also state that at no point did I state my personal beliefs on Breitbart News, only that IMHO (which I am entitle to as you are to yours) that there is a flagrant violation of POV in the article. And I'm not the only one to say it. So, if your statement about me is consistent with these principles about being polite, assuming good faith, etc., please explain to me how it is, so I can better learn to follow your preeminent example as a Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirenny (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I never called you a whiny ideologue, so if you object to your comments being characterized as "whiny diatribe" then the best thing for you to do is to stop posting whiny diatribes at talk pages. And certainly don't edit war over keeping them on the page. And if you are a new user, then you have stolen, been given, or purchased your username, which is a policy violation that typically results in an indef block. So are you a new user? Or are you the user who registered your account in 2005? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"at no point did I state my personal beliefs on Breitbart News, only that IMHO" - ummm, assuming that "IMHO" means what it usually does, you're not exactly making sense here. Volunteer Marek  09:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You must be taking the piss because you just complained about supposed bias in regards to Breitbart News. I don't have the time to entertain the reality you believe yourself to be in, and I suggest others save theirs as well. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The bias on Breitbart's website is a separate issue from bias on the Wikipedia page Breitbart News. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I did make a point (this is a reply to your edit summary that didn't match your edit). It's been explained that the wiki is a not a forum for their perceived Conservative plight, and any acrimonious response is very appropriate. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Explain in actionable terms what you believe to be wrong with the article, in terms that enable good-faith editorial discussion about the complaint. "The article omits Source X which disagrees with the sources currently in the article and thus its viewpoint is not fairly included." "The wording of the third paragraph presents an opinion as a fact without attribution." Something like that, and have reliable sources and references to policy handy to support your arguments. If you're not familiar with our policies, read WP:5P. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Here, here. Finally someone speaking some sense into the matter. Too bad that those who have used some of these kinds of terms on the issue of POV in the Breitbart article have been dismissed and smeared as I have been, and am being in this thread. Upholding the importance of the WP:5P, you will now surely be writing notes to the others commenting here, reminding them of point #4. And #2... Hirenny (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You have not been "smeared". Volunteer Marek  09:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hirenny, I think everyone appreciates your self-revert to remove the offending comment. Now, if you are truly here to build an encyclopedia, you'll drop the stick, stop going on about editor behavior that the consensus here finds acceptable, and go back to Talk:Breitbart News with something constructive and substantive to say. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

We've got an IP — 74.243.223.134 — continuing to alter sourced content, via unsourced additions, deletions of sourced material, additions of fringe material, etc., and ignoring all attempts at communication from a number of other editors.

Diffs: [27], [28], [29].

You can easily find more by looking at the user's page if anyone needs them — none of the editing so far has been constructive as far as I can see: [30].

Multiple warnings can be found at: [31]. Alephb (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We have a serious POV vandal at Wavetable synthesis.

So I haven't been paying much attention, but an article that was a clear POV fork, Table-lookup synthesis, that was created several years ago by User:Clusternote was finally merged to Wavetable synthesis (it probably should have simply been deleted). Now Clusternote is changing the lede of Wavetable synthesis to say, in the very lede sentence, that the term is a misnomer. It's totally without merit. I have reverted his changes and he has reverted it back claiming that I am the vandal. This is going to need help because Clusternote is a very tendentious editor. His English is also quite poor, long ago I was able to locate him in Japan.

We're going to need some help here. 173.48.64.110 (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Already looks like a sock puppet has shown up. 173.48.64.110 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You need to discuss it on the article's talk page. The sock puppetry accusation seems to be based on a single revert made by someone who was apparently doing recent changes patrol. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Filipe Oliveira (footballer, born 1995)

BLP vandalism on Filipe Oliveira (footballer, born 1995) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) IP address changing with every edit. PP, please? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The page has been protected by Ymblanter. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

IranianNationalist

The user has kept on making accusations of bias (and other PA'sd long after being asked to stop), as well as other issues.

Accusation of censorhip [32] [33]and of being an agent of a government [34] and prejudice [35]

I asked him to stop

[36]

His response was

[37] and [38]

In addition (just a few more on other pages)

[39]

[40]

[41]

Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There is more but I was letting it go a he clearly is not a native English speaker. The problem is this is over multiple pages and even though he now accepts the point is still accusing me of bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And has now said that my posting of the alert for this ani is disruptive [42] followed up with this [43]Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I want these comments to taken into account:

• "Pahlevun was probably a Muslim :v" [44]
• "We have a proverb says : It's not possible to ride a camel in a bow manner (hiddenly). Having a famous fun superstition(a famous doorway of a mosque) and hidden it?" [45] (Rough translation from Persian language, suggesting that I was doing a "stupid secret job" in case you wonder what's the meaning).
• "I think Pahlevun is censoring... [46]
• "But Pahlevun censors the... [47]
• "I want to add a note, this user Pahlevun has a Persian name... Is it necessary for me to talk about censorship more? Is Wiki an Encyclopedia? Or a political war place? May be wonderful for the staffs in the Jimmy Wales office [48]
• "you can ask why Pahlevun said... I can see prejudices clearly in this talk :v" [49]
• "someone attempts to censor contents... also you can take a whois to find who is behind it. Have some nice dollars :v" [50]
• "Also this is a... fallacy by Pahlevun... Are Pahlevun supporting Islamic Republic? Is Wikipedia for political war?" [51]
• "The problem is when Pahlevun says... this is censorship I told repeatedly"[52]
• "I don't push my IMAGINATIONS to anyone (versus Muslims)... if someone wants to believe there is a Jinn out there or not it is a personal decision based on how much we want to be rational or not." [53]

–Pahlevun (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Profanity and Conflict Escalation

The following discussion is closed. 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 there. I have no other way to describe this—and I am not 100% sure this is the best place to report this—but is it appropriate for an experienced Wikipedia editor (@Drmies:) who is intervening in a case of article vandalism (that I will state has now been resolved), to then—after the dust settles—state the following: “Fuck off, troll.” The articles in question have been a small cluster of articles—Microman, Micronauts, Scarlett (G.I. Joe), etc…—that have been oddly edited over the past month from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Other editors have noticed this and the IP addresses had temporary blocks. Now—just today—the block expires and the same pile of editing happen. Then in the middle of this, a magical new user pops up (@Macro The Islander:) and gets into personal nonsense with Drmies.

Okay, fair enough… The dust has settled and now we all (seemingly) know how to “play” together… I go out to lunch, come back and for no reason, Drmies posts “Fuck off, troll.”. What is this nonsense? And over what and of value to who?!? I am pinging @Floquenbeam: and @Biografer: since they have seen facets of this nonsense. What ultimately disturbs me is Drmies sudden—and unwarranted from my perspective—use of profanity in this. Everything has genuinely seemed to calm down and an experienced editor just drops the F-bomb like that? Why? --SpyMagician (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That was something. There is no warrant for profanity, but in this case I think he just had enough.--Biografer (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? Because of understandable frustration. I was unaware of some of this backstory, or I would have blocked User:Macro The Islander myself; I figured 90% likelihood of trolling, 10% likelihood of being an overzealous Microman groupie. But if there's a history of this pattern of editing on related articles, and the new user jumped into the middle of a resumption of that, then the balance swings to 100% likelihood of trolling. While in Utopia, people react to a constant barrage of trolls with restraint and love and polite mumblings, we normal humans occasionally lose our patience when someone succeeds in pushing our buttons. I don't think an ANI thread over a one-off annoyed comment is productive, or very sympathetic. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) From what I can tell Drmies has had to put up with some unusually bad shit today, I think not related to this, but ... oh I'm just going to say it: a brand new user appears on this article and their first four edits are reverts calling the administrator's edits vandalism. They then open a new thread on the talk page, which contains a blatant personal attack. Then they create a user page for themselves, which contains nothing but an allusion to the "vandalism". Then reports Drmies at AIV. Which part was not trolling? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyway the troll disruptive wikihound has been blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: @Ivanvector: @Floquenbeam: Fair enough of a perspective, but as I state that “F-bomb” came out of left field and after the dust settled and a calm balance was struck. No valid reason for that behavior or language. It was a done issue. Why kick it back to life with an “F-bomb?” --SpyMagician (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it was an edit conflict that made him still say it?--Biografer (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: And thank you for blocking that weird phantom of an editor. --SpyMagician (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh it wasn't me, it was someone who hasn't commented here. Though I thought real hard about doing it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, this is possibly the most badly-sourced article I've ever seen at Wikipedia. If Drmies was trying to clean it up and someone else kept restoring it to this state, I can entirely sympathise with him; an article this bad has no place on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I don't see how it is the most badly sourced article? Yeah, it does have 2 YouTube refs (refs 59 and 61), but the other sources are fine. :)--Biografer (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? You think this (which alone accounts for 26 of the references), Tom's Microman Zone, "Skooldays Memorabilia", "Transformers Wiki" et al constitute reliable sources? ‑ Iridescent 20:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Many of these blogs and fan sites contain information translated directly from Japanese source materials. Source materials that would be inaccessible in non-Japanese speaking countries. Primary sources are provided as well if possible. If there is over citation then let’s deal with that. But I assure you there’s no original research here. But if you are serious about your claims, can we discuss on the talk page for Microman or would you rather assume it’s all trash? I mean maybe just roll it all back to that “stunning” 2014 page, right? --SpyMagician (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I agree with Iridescent here - those sites are not even close to being reliable. A Transformers wiki? A page title Microman Forever that doesn't even give the name of the person compiling the information? And more just like that? Not reliable, and if Drmies is removing them, so much the better. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Biografer: Thank you! @Iridescent: You know what, I am the one who build up that article from practically nothing using respected sources based on what I know about this toy line and it’s history: Which is a lot. Here is what it looked like back in 2014 before I decided to do something positive about it; back then it was less than worthless and ever so slightly better than manure. This whole kerfuffle came when a slew of anonymous IP addresses from British Telecom made sweeping, unexplained changes under the rationale of “copy edits.” Drmies only came in later and—if you see my attempt at productive discussions—I am taking advice to heart. I am willing to help clean this up. But isn’t Wikipedia supposed to be about assuming good faith? These are dead toy lines and my intention is to provide solid details on these lines that might be dead but have strong histories. That’s all. Can we assume good faith and move forward? --SpyMagician (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:PACT. I see no reason Drmies should have assumed good faith with the blocked editor, and he is assuming good faith with you, he does have a difference of opinion regarding what are good sources and what is encyclopedic. I'm "G" rated, but I can understand his frustration with the level of nonsense he's been dealing with lately. Give him a break. What would you have of him? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I was going to make a well-thought-out, patient and polite comment on how curse words are just words that add emphasis to otherwise monotonous statements and subtly point out how ridiculous it is for a mature person to get upset because they happened to read some words (not even ideas, just words) that they dislike reading and go run off to cause drama over it. But then I considered how sensitive people on the internet are, so I decided to just go fuck off and die in fire like the shitty cunt I am. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• A momentary and understandable lapse of decorum from one of our finest admins on being trolled and called a vandal. Troll blocked indef now, sure Drmies has no intention of doing it again. I don't think there is anything here to discuss. --John (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Can I just say it should be clear that "troll" was that Macro person? I mean seriously. I think it is probably the same person as yesterday's troll, whom you can admire on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisgrunrledGrunt, and who in turn is either connected to this editor, or it's an earlier h8er who just jumped on this edit of mine (more fully explained here). So, this doesn't come out of nowhere. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

This user keeps on breaking their unblock conditions

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

---

A user called Darkness Shines was blocked indefinitely and then unblocked in May on some conditions including a 1RR limitation[54]. But they repeatedly break this condition. They keep on edit warring. Some examples[55][56] on Patriot Prayer; [57][58] on Merle Dixon; [59][60] on Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present). They also got a 31 hour block for edit warring [61]. But shouldn't repeated violation of unblock conditions mean the indefinite block should be imposed on them again? @AlexEng: and @Future Perfect at Sunrise:67.181.94.84 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI link User talk:Darkness Shines#September 2017 about talk concerning last block.--Moxy (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this has been dealt with, per the thread on DS's talk page. Yes, there was an issue but this report looks like an attempt to stir things further, perhaps by one of the many socks that DS spotted even while prevented from contributing to articles etc. They've agreed to take on board the many comments made by others in that user talk thread, so let's see how it goes. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That discussion has no reference to the long term behavior of edit warring in just the past month. The discussion is only about his last edit war where he brought up BLP issues and not the other pages he has been breaking 1RR on. 1RR was his unblock condition. And he keeps on breaking it. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTPUNITIVE, until and unless the user demonstrates that they are being disruptive, there is no need for a block. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The behavior clearly shows a disruptive attitude. There are problems with civility too, another one of DS' unblock conditions ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

[62] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

None of your example are from after the recent block. If the behavior is not continuing, why should the community act now? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

DS used the word 'idiot' for another user. That breaks the civility condition of his unblock.[63]67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC) {{ping|AlexEng]} I think the community did not look at all his behavioral issues. They only looked at 1 edit war. The 31 hour block is insufficient for someone who constantly misbehaves. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.94.84 (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems like you're out for blood here. I don't think there's cause to be rehashing this discussion so late after the fact. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. DS pledged to take onboard the advice given. There is no good reason for a block. Dr. K. 04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Copyright violation never stops

The following discussion is closed. 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. Is it time to react about Hakuli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) constant uploading of copyrighted images? Users talk page is FILLED with deletion notices and final warnings spanning since 2016, but it looks like user ignores them. This is now quite disruptive... --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

These violations are not by a newbie. Block. Aspro (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours (to ensure that he see the block and not just the message), with a warning that the next infringement will be met with an indef block. Since the situation's been escalated with a block and not just a message, we can give him a last chance, but if he returns from the block and keeps on going, there's no reason to expect that anything will change, so an indefinite will be reasonable. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Resnjari egging on editor to denigrate an ethnic group on their userpage

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

---

Ilirpedia (talk · contribs) had posted the following quote from a former US president denigrating an entire ethnic group on their userpage [64], following unsuccessful attempts at inserting it in wikipedia [65] [66]. I removed it, and then Resnjari (talk · contribs) reverted me and restored the quote [67]. He then had the nerve to call me a "troll" [68] and then egged on Ilirpedia to restore the quote [69] [70] [71]. Both users have been blocked recently for edit-warring. Any help in dealing with this would be greatly appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ilirpedia also posted the same anti-Greek material on Talk:Greeks and Wikipedia talk:User access levels, so it's not only on their own user pages... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thomas.W (talk · contribs), Ilirpedia is a new user and i advised him as i saw fit within what i interpreted to be the guidelines (WP:TALKO) as being apt. I have had extensive interactions with editor Khirug of deleting other peoples comments like mine in the past under his former username [72](who also has a history of past blocks) so i thought the same was at work here. Its why i did undid them.Resnjari (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• • Even after another user tells Resnjari this is NOT ok [73], Resnjari doubles down [74]. Khirurg (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You have done similar deletions (another example:[75]) in the past based on no reason. My first inclination was that the same was at work here again.Resnjari (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ilirpedia (talk · contribs) apparently realized that this is not appropriate and removed the text from their user page. Resnjari seems to be a candidate for a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter (talk · contribs), there is a misunderstanding here. Its not about a block and what Ilirpedia does is thier choice. This is now a personal query. I have seen many other userpages containing controversial content and quotations. How are they allowed to have that then and no other editor has gone in to edit their page? How is that permitted ? I am asking because its about consistency and rules and of concern to me as i thought a userpage was off limits unless it has swearing (toward someone) or something really vulgar and grotesque and so on. Because if one is permitted in such circumstances to delete, then can i do as Khirug has done when i come across offensive content that i might want to remove?Resnjari (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If you see similar texts at the pages of other editors, please report them to ANI. I usually remove these texts, and if the editor restores, block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ok Ymblanter (talk · contribs), will do. I just want to clarify one other thing then, Khirug did not report to ANI first yet instead deleted [76], [77] that content himself. Would that be an issue in itself or not considering he is not an administrator?Resnjari (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not see any issues here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the advice Ymblanter (talk · contribs). Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

South Derry Republican, 190.52.205.69, Eireabu

Having had a notification seven days ago that someone tried to log into my account from a new device I am now being harrassed by a new editor Special:Contributions/South_Derry_Republican who is also clearly operating from the bare IP Special:Contributions/190.52.205.69 as well. They have also now engaged in edit-warring on my talk page [78] despite being reverted by myself and @Arjayay: and notified in my reverts of point three of the infobox at the top of my talk page which states: If I remove your comments, please don't restore them. The same for a discussion. Please respect and abide by Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. If I removed them I clearly don't want to engage in or continue the discussion. Restoring them repeatedly constitutes vandalism

There are two possibilities: a random editor of obvious strong Irish republican viewpoint takes offense to me as my views contrast to theirs; or secondly and most likely it is an existing user on Wikipedia. In this case I can assume it to be the user @Eireabu:, whose username as well as some of their comments to me in the past suggests they are also someone of Irish republican views. They are the only editor I can assume has a big enough grudge against me, in this case over the Red Hand of Ulster article where I completely shattered their viewpoint and arguments by sheer weight of historical and academic evidence as can be seen by a look at the references and bibliography of this edit of mine. Indeed after @Canterbury Tail: blocked the article for a month to prevent a full edit-war I posted quite a lot of reasonings and justifications for my edits and on the many issues in the article. I even copied the article into my sandbox and posted regular updates of work in progress for Eireabu to look at and comment on, and how I took their concerns into account, however they responded once and it was quite clear they had not bothered to look at any of the stuff I presented or said and was intent on carrying on as before. They had no clear intention of collaborating.

I also believe the harrassing [79] end comment to me backs up it is Eireabu: You say: The 'Gaelic' Ulster flag is actually the flag of the Hiberno-Norman Earldom of Ulster, ruled by the de Burgh family? Me say: False. It is the first recorded use, not the origin. The key bones of contention Eireabu seems to have had with my initial edits to the Red Hand article was over the first documented usage of the Red Hand symbol and the source used for it (slates source as POV as well as adding in their own SYN and OR, source as a unreliable "pamphlet" without any supporting evidence.) They also felt the edit "relegated" the Gaelic history of the Red Hand and implied it wasn't a Gaelic symbol. Whilst the IPs comment is factually flawed (the flags origin—not the Red Hand symbol on it—is de Burgh), it strongly looks like a continuation of Eireabu's viewpoint on the matter.

Whether Eireabu is indeed South Derry Republican and the IP is up for debate however both SDR and the IP are harrassing user accounts that should be blocked as they only seem to exist to harrass me. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not!! Nor do I condone such behaviour!! I've better things to do than to get myself involved in such stupid things and I sincerely hope the person detracts from it, I don't have any connections to Derry! Paranoia over myself is a little rash and unfair and an apology is in order. Eireabu (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

There are grounds for suspicion and I do not apologise for voicing them and I stated that it is up for debate not certifiable fact. You may very well be innocent but these things have only happened since our few interactions over the past couple of months and I can think of no other editor I've interacted with who has a reason to be peeved at me so it is reasonable and quite right to raise the possibility. But as stated it is not fact, just suspicion and suspicion especially raised by the coincidence pointed out above. Anyways the only action I've directly asked for is against SDR and the IP.

Also anyone can make up a username stating anything whether it is true or not, indeed as I enforce the WP:IMOS agreement on the county name it could easily be an intentional choice by someone to have a dig as you cannot enforce IMOS on a username. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Well as I have said on my user page, I hope they stop and I am with you in action against whomever it is. You have made an accusation, for which is wrong, I've better things to be doing than such nonsense!Eireabu (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And as I have done at your user page, I thank you for your condemnation. Yet if there is reasonable suspicion it and the reason why must be mentioned whether it is misplaced or not I hope you understand. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I Don't necessarily understand in fairness, it's a big world out there with multiple people with viewpoints, similiar or not. I haven't even noticed the user till you raised it, linking my own username in the process above. Even the quoted point you made above from this user regarding the Ulster flag wasn't something I agree with!! It was always my assumption the flag was largely De Burgo in design and origin, with an O'Neill crest at the centre. Anyway no point crying over spilled milk and alas we must move on! Here's to contentious free contributions and editing here on in. You might have gathered I'm slow with any sort of contributions and quite the amateur, that will never change unfortunately ;) Eireabu (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mabuska, it wouldn't have hurt to have explained to South Derry Republican on their page, before you took them to ANI, that they're not supposed to restore removed comments. New users — which we're supposed to start by assuming they are — don't know that, and most likely don't read edit summaries. Also, this is not the place to voice your suspicions of Eireabu. The way to do that is firstly to ask them, and secondly, if you think you have good evidence, to open an SPI. I agree it's hard to believe South Derry Republican is a bona fide new user — see them using the <blockquote> template a couple of hours after the account was created[80], though not using it very well — but it doesn't by any means have to be Eireabu. I've warned South Derry Republican about harassing you on your page, and about editing logged out. Bishonen | talk 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC).

Considering they hit the revert button with their last edit it is pretty clear they seen my prior edit summary so it is either a lack of competence or lack of willingness to a) read it or b) follow it. Seeing as I clearly stated it was up for debate as to whether it was Eireabu or not, it should be apparent why I didn't file a SPI, and I would be highly surprised if an editor would admit to using a sock to harrass another editor if asked considering the ramifications. Regardless a warning will have to do, thank you. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Carmaker1 Disruptive edits

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've noticed Carmaker1 engages in disruptive editing and hasn't been blocked, this is likely because most auto pages have information added primarily by single purpose editors who are easily pushed around. He is changing around the years on the Honda J engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) then when I restored them to the original he refers to this as vandalism. He has repeatedly accused me of being a sock of 212.36.194.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another editor who attempted to engage Carmaker1 in civil discussion but was instead insulted and had his edit reverted. Honda J engine talk page. His edit history features numerous insults and threats of admin intervention. For a recent instance [81], DanaWright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited the page on a single occasion but is threatened anyways.

Now he resorts to canvassing for support. He finds the other active auto editor (OSX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have retired from editing) who changes and reverts year alterations and adds underground messages to inform other editors not to bother changing them since otherwise he'll revert them.[82]. Since most of the auto pages are edited in tiny pieces by single purpose editors this is easily accomplished. By tag teaming the article, Carmaker1 (before it was with OSX) expects to change the page the suit his demands. Even more odd since the Honda J engine is built in Alabama for the North American market and rarely found in exported vehicles. Vortex833 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I should point out that the dispute between Vortex833 and Carmaker1 started as a difference between using model years (for the American market) and calendar years (for the rest of the world). Unfortunately, Carmaker1 went in with all guns blazing, insulted Vortex833 and didn't explain his position properly, hence making Vortex833 into a mortal enemy. I'm trying to bring both sides to some form of understanding at Talk:Honda J engine.  Stepho  talk  13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Stepho-wrs - Thank you. That is an accurate account, in my opinion. There was a request filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but I had to close it for various reasons, including inadequate prior discussion and personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure calendar years for the rest of the world even exists? Could be original research and endless reverted edits, noticed they refer to the new Camry as 2018 Camry over in Australia as well. [83], [84], [85], [86], [87]

This looks like a content related dispute, and so long as no edit warring occurs, I can leave the article be and encourage you two to resolve your disputes peacefully and citing policy to support your arguments. The concerns I do wish to ask about is the incivility. Vortex833 - Can you provide me with specific diffs that point out the incivility you're talking about here? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Here Carmaker1 uses derogatory terminology to insult another editor calling him a dunce. The other editor after being insulted didn't respond. [88] Vortex833 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Stepho's comment on the talk page seems to be helpful, and based on your response you seem to understand and agree with the reasonable notion that presenting "American model years" (which don't necessarily correspond with actual years) without an annotation of some sort, can be confusing for readers. Therefore you're essentially conceding that your edits were in the wrong. I see no reason to action a user under these circumstances. Swarm ♠ 05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I understood this board was for informing admins of patterns of disruptive edits and was not used to resolve content disputes?Vortex833 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I accepted adding an MY designation for clarification purposes though I don't see it as necessary or useful. On the page no other editors have changed or shown any sort of confusion in all this time, it's just an invented problem.Vortex833 (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Without an MY designation the Honda J engine would be highly confusing to its visitors, that's why the years have been added in the existing manner up until Carmaker1 and only Carmaker1 decided to invent an issue to solve and change all the years.Vortex833 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm beginning to realize this "dispute" amounts to pushing original research on automotive pages with an agenda. If sourced material isn't referring to these "calendar dates" then neither should the auto pages. Googling Honda J30A [89] returns dates in the original format not the one Carmaker1 is pushing. Did the same for Honda J35 [90] and it's the same. Vortex833 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

That is equivalent to saying that if the source material was written in Japanese then the article must be written in Japanese. CarMaker1 was quite rightly attempting to harmonise the J engine article with the other international engine articles, which the vast majority are in calendar years (although I recognise that whether the article is an American article or an international article is still under discussion). However, he didn't make it clear that he was changing to calendar years (just as the original didn't make it clear it was using model years) and he then responded to reverts in an uncivil manor. His goal was good, but his methods were rough. Be careful to separate the two.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

BG9M0THH8H3

Sock blocked; nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 16:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BG9M0THH8H3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) There is no need to provide diffs, all of this editor's contributions have already been reverted by other editors, except those at Ex nihilo (should probably also be reverted per WP:DENY, SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wittgenstein123) and those where I was reverted at Yahweh and its talk page. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC) I've blocked the account indefinitely for soapboxing/abuse. Re, the SPI, it looks like a clear WP:DUCK to me as well. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)

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

---

It is apparent (to me) that the dispute resolution process has broken down. The moderator has recused themself after representations from the originating editor. I am not reporting misconduct. Rather, I am requesting oversight. I perceive that this oversight may take the form of a direction as to how to proceed from this point. On the otherhand, it may take the form of a decision in this matter. To this extent, I note that the matter has been discussed fully and that it has been generally notified (as indicated in the subject thread). I am notifying the originating editor specifically and posting a notification of this on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As suggested there, I think a proper, neutrally worded RfC at the article talk page is going to be your best option if you can't find consensus. I doubt you'll get an admin here to "rule" on a content dispute or intervene at DR. -- Begoon 11:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response. I have bought this here for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is fairly clear that, unless another moderator takes the reins (unlikely?) the DR process has failed. Secondly, the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process. There has been (IMHO) sufficient "debate" of the issues to establish a consensus but this requires a "close", since the opposing positions (one versus several) decline to acknowledge an "outcome" even though the consensus position has been identified by those offering a third opinion and the DR moderator. In making these comments, I do not per-judge any independent arbitration. I would observe that to protract this matter more than necessary would be disruptive. The originating editor at DR has already unambiguously indicated that they will not be bound by any decision at DR. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you can request a formal close of any discussion at WP:ANRFC. I don't think it has to be an RfC for that: "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one...". I'm not sure how long that might take. Or, if you're confident you already have consensus, and the DR is abandoned, you could just go ahead and implement it, consensus does not mean unanimity. I know you know that, but it does bear repeating. -- Begoon 13:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

With thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Doing this. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw what you did - I meant asking at ANRFC for the article talkpage discussion to be closed, since I looked there and that seemed to be what you were saying needed a close when you said "the processes to date have closely followed the RfC process" - the heading you've used looks like you're asking for ANRFC to close the DR, and I don't think that's going to work... Sorry if I misunderstood/misled you. -- Begoon 14:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• While, I am currently evaluating the DRN disc. itself, as a gen. reminder, please don't post any requests about DRN cases to ANRFC.While technically, every editor in good-standing could be a DRN volunteer, approaches at DRN vary widely from RFCs etc. and techniques of closing disc. or moderation varies. And I have not seen any DRN regular sans me frequent ANRFC either.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah - crossed wires, probably my fault. Sorry. -- Begoon 14:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Begoon:-Yeah! Prob. he got stuck in the little ambiguous phrasing of your 2nd comment and understood it the wrong way! After all, errors can be fairly expected for people who are prob. not so involved/accustomed with the exact intricacies of our abundance of processes.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for my error in that I saw the DR as a continuation of the thread at the ship's talk page. Discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) so this has defaulted to your intention in any case. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No need for you to apologise, I should be the only one doing that. My suggestion was ambiguous and I should have phrased it far more carefully. Sorry again. -- Begoon 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

I tried to moderate this dispute, but it appears that there was rough consensus, to which User:Wingwraith took exception, and first wanted me to express an opinion, which I eventually did (reluctantly), and then wanted a detailed refutation from me. At this point, I withdrew from moderation. I am still willing to assist in the formulation of an RFC. I am requesting administrative attention. I will note that any request at WP:AN or WP:ANI is inconsistent with the way DRN works. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• So, Wingwraith made an edit that was reverted as disputed, and unanimously rejected by the local consensus on the talk page. They then requested mediation, and when the mediator didn't agree with them, WW attacked him. Wow. @Wingwraith: this really isn't looking good for you and I'd be strongly inclined to block you if you engage in any further edit warring. Your proposed edit has been rejected. That's it. That's the reality. Beyond that, no one cares if you think you're "right". Your options are quite simply as follows: Drop the stick and move on, attempt to override the existing consensus by starting an RfC on the talk page (the consensus of which you must abide by), or continue edit warring and get blocked from this website. It's up to you. However this project is governed by consensus. Not individuals who say they're "right". This is not merely a content dispute. You're refusing to listen to existing consensus, which constitutes disruption. Swarm ♠ 05:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I will state FTR that I dispute some of the points that you have made. I wasn't attacking Robert McClenon when I asked him to clarify how it is that my objection had the quality of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and at no point did I say or imply that I had a problem with how he handled his role as the DRM; the fact that he was willing to recuse himself and request that another volunteer take over as moderator instead of closing the dispute resolution process outright is I think proof enough of the lack of any hostilities between the two of us. I understand the rules around consensus which is what partially motivated my bringing the dispute to the DRN, and I made the comment about my being right under very specific circumstances which I stood by then and stand by now. Even though an administrator is now involved with the dispute resolution on the talkpage which renders the RfC and "edit warring" actions moot, I'm not a IDHT kind of editor: I've throughout the process consistently come up with proposed edits, arguments and ideas which tried to carve out a middle-of-the-road approach to ending the dispute. That was my position then and that remains my position. Wingwraith (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Wingwraith in one detail, and that is that I didn't think that I was attacked, at least not exactly, although I did think that the questioning of my mediation was less than reasonable and less than fair. I would suggest that if Wingwraith doesn't want to be disruptive, they either accept that consensus is against them, or request a wider consensus via a Request for Comments. I would suggest that this thread can then be closed, either with a finding of consensus (minus one) or with agreement to use an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As indicated above, this discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). I will add that the admin Buckshot06 is overseeing the discussion there. As the originator, I am certainly happy for this to be closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

/* WikiProject Trains participants */

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

---

Pi.1415926535 and Morphenniel I believe is one of the same person because they have the same edits and most of the time they edit in a hour of each other if I'm wrong I apologise for the inconvenience— Preceding unsigned comment added by P0404 (talk • contribs) — P0404 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you have some diffs that can help show us the evidence? --Jayron32 15:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You just might want to duck that WP:BOOMERANG. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scott19982 is of interest here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand

The following discussion is closed. 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:Fram inserted a lengthy comment into the header of this RfC rather than in the threaded discussion section,[91] with the express motivation that his comment "it should be considered before someone starts on the proposals",[92] thus giving his opinion more visibility than the other opinions in the threaded discussion section. It also fundamentally changed the wording of the RfC after multiple votes had been cast.

When I attempted to move the comment[93], Fram reverted.[94]

I would ask that this disruption of an ongoing RfC be stopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Fram's comments do not alter the text of the RFC, but rather comment on it from a clearly distinct section. It isn't the big deal you make it out to be, and should be left alone. You're creating a tempest in a teacup by even bringing this here, there's no need to do anything except either leave it alone, or refute his points in his discussion. --Jayron32 14:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

No. You are not allowed to insert your comments into the header of an RfC in order to give your comments more weight than the comments of the other editors who commented in the threaded discussion section. Doing that is disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"It also fundamentally changed the wording of the RfC after multiple votes had been cast." That's a bit rich coming from the person who "forgot" that Betacommand socked for years after his second ban, even though you linked to the initial sockpuppet investigation with the comment that it came to nothing in your "neutral" RfC opener. Instead of dragging me here, you would do better to ask BetaCommand why he "forgot" to mention his Werieth account to you while you were drafting the RfC. Fram (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I would also ask that Fram be reminded to WP:AGF. The reason for the "fundamental change" he is complaining about is clearly documented at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Threaded discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If you didn't know about the Werieth case when you opened this RfC, then you did a very poor job researching Betacommand's history and he didn't feel the need to mention it. In any case, it fundamentally changed the unban RfC from "he did nothing wrong but waited patiently since the ban" to "while being banned, he used a sock to continue the same behaviour for another two years or so", which gives a slightly different impression of the chances that this second ban will have changed anything about his behaviour. Fram (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are making arguments about the topic of the RfC in the wrong place. The correct place is in your !vote or the comments section. This ANI report is about your refactoring the header of an ongoing RfC. That's disruptive even if you are right. Stop doing it, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If that account was a sock, and there is no proof, it appears it was a productive contributor for several years with minimal problems. That would suggest we should let him back. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

"No proof"? Have you read the actual discussion? And that account was blocked for their own actions as well. Fram (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the underlying RfC here (AN does not rule on such things) other to say that both Fram and Legacypac are free to make any argument they choose in their !votes or in the threaded discussion section. I want to focus on the disruptive behavior of Fram refactoring an RfC after multiple votes have been cast. Again I ask that this ongoing disruption be stopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• And bringing it here is somehow... less disruptive? It also fundamentally changed the wording of the RfC after multiple votes had been cast. - No, but, this did. I have to agree with Fram. That RfC should be closed or restarted. The RfC failed to present all the relevant evidence and can only be considered tainted. Besides that, no Fram did not alter the wording of the RfC. He created a subsection to the RfC asking that it be closed as biased and tainted. Yes of course it should be considered before !voting on the propsals, that's the whole point. Adding in that I am aware that this change was noted at the bottom of the threaded discussion where it is least likely anyone will see it and where anybody who has already !voted is unlikely to check. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Suggestion - would it satisfy everyone here if Fram's suggestion to close the RfC as out of order were relabelled "proposal 0" in the RfC, so that other editors can comment logically? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with anything to end the juvenile pettiness this thread started. --Jayron32 15:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Move on with Ivanvector's solution--As the initial editor who tried transposing the section; only to be reverted, my view is that there is little point in continuing this ssectin for long.While the desired outcome could have benn easily undertaken in a better manner by Fram, it's not disruptive.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

repeated web hosting, and now a legal threat

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

---

User:Strawhatmeplease was speedied in 2015 as a U5. The page was immediately recreated with no content except a comment about wikistalkers [95]. Not a big deal, but the last two years have seen nothing from the user but more web hosting on that page, with it being blanked by the user every 8 months or so. Versions before blanking were [96], [97] and [98]. The last blanking was undone by the user twice before finally being replaced by a legal threat in the edit summary and on the page [99]. There have been no postings to the user's talk page since the 2015 speedy notice by user:Skamecrazy123 and comment by user:JohnCD , so it seems like the user is trolling for a response. Here it is. The user should be blocked while the legal threat is outstanding, and this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE as well. Meters (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Not really sure it was a legal threat, but in their entire history of editing at Wikipedia, with the exception of the one edit to Skamecrazy123's talk page, all their edits were their talk page. That's absolutely WP:NOTHERE behavior in my book and they have been indeffed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That was the fastest ANI I've ever seen... beat me to the user notification.Meters (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeated reintroduction of copyrighted content at Mont Rose College of Management and Sciences

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

---

Over the last week, MRC123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an IP address which ostensibly represents the same editor have been adding content derived in large part from this page to the page mentioned above. Copyright aside, the content is meant to portray the school in a positive light (thereby violating WP:NPOV) and is written like a press release (WP:NOTNEWS). A few recent diffs in which this content was (re)introduced are provided here: 1 2 3

I and other editors have reached out to the user on their talk page about the various issues involved here, including the copyright violation, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Only one of these editors received a response, once on their own talk page and once on that editor's talk page. There is also an open case at WP:SPI, where it is suggested that this user created their account to continue editing the page after a previous account was blocked for WP:3RR. In the meantime, this user and the IP continue to silently reintroduce the same content. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 13:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This was pretty obviously sockpuppetry, the editor's various accounts have been blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilliamJoshua. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I see you've blocked the IP as well, thanks. Hopefully that'll put an end to this for some time. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 04:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Continual changing of referenced Standings in the 2017–18 Ukrainian Second League competition

ANI is not for content disputes. The IPs need to use the talk page to sort out their issues. Plus, article has been semi-protected. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 00:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User using IPs 185.26.183.24 and 185.26.183.63 continually changes the standings in 2017–18 Ukrainian Second League Group A by adding a team which has been annulled and omitted from the reference provided by the official source. The user has not returned any reason nor discourse in the talk section of the article. Official source provided does not have the team in the standings. There is ample documentation in the article about the plight of this team. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC) This is a content dispute rather than something that needs admin intervention. That being said, you are correct that the official source has completely annulled the results. Page protected for 2 weeks. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrator Kudpung's speedy deletion closure of an AFD

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

---

• Kudpung (talk · contribs)
• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs)

This morning I opened an AFD for U. T. Downs. The article was created by now banned editor Billy Hathhorn. The article had also been at AFD before in 2015. Keep was the result. I didn't know of the past AFD but I made a substantial edit[100]- Note I'm unsure if that is the right link because its been deleted- to this article in either 2015 where I removed a bio of a second person in the Downs article. Taking over 10,000 bytes out a article is substantial. Kudpung deleted the article today. Citing it was created by a banned user. The first problem with that- BH wasn't banned at the time he created the article. Second- That at least one substantial edit was done to the article.

Kudpung defended himself at his talk page when another editor voiced concern[101]. I expressed my opinion[102] on the matter too but he referred me to his first reply[103]. His reply[104] back to me in this edit when I told him I'd take it to ANI is also concerning. "Wrong venue. Discuss it properly and politely, and then we can decide if I restore it or if you take it take it to Delrev if you must. Otherwise you will be at ANI for agressive behaviour, arrogance, admin baiting, and disruption of the collaborative spirit."

I think the article should be deleted but a speedy deletion was dead wrong. The AFD should be re-opened....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I repeat: 'Wrong venue. Discuss it properly and politely, and then we can decide if I restore it or if you take it take it to Delrev if you must. Otherwise you will be at ANI for agressive behaviour, arrogance, admin baiting, and disruption of the collaborative spirit. You have a history of this kind of thing.' And ANI is still the wrong venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• • A administrator who threatens an editor with a boomerang for telling him he did something wrong is deeply concerning. WP:G5 says This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging.

• • To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion.

• Your speedy deletion fails G5 on just one grounds but two. Your behavior to me is troubling and that need addressing too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk · contribs) This is the right forum for AFD closed by an administrator in violation of policy. Here for example[105] and BTW the editor who brought it to ANI was also the editor who started the AFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, since WilliamJE insists on reopennng this thread after I closed it and refusing to use DRV, it is considered disruptive to request undeletion of a page you are seeking deletion on. Waste of time and effort. Legacypac (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion. It was Speedied on grounds of G5 which doesn't apply. Have I ever nominated something per G5 or notified an admin of a article(s) created by a banned user. Countless times. Here is just one example[106]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Looked at your edits and yes you moved text to another article. That does not mean you made substantial contributions to this one.
• There are keep votes from the sock themself[107]
• Agree having someone who nominated the article for deletion bring it here because it was delete. Meh
• This sock was blocked in 2012[108] and the article was created in Jan 2015.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

A edit removing over 10,000 bytes from an article the size of Downs is not substantial? That's absurd pardon my French. As for moving text somewhere else, I recall doing no such thing. What I removed was a second biography. Please point me to my edit that saw me move 10,000 (or any of it) somewhere else....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Cutting out a block of text is an edit, but not a substantial "contribution" to the page, more like a partial deletion. This whole thing make me wonder. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hmmm not me. Ah Billy Hathorn, the gift that keeps on giving. Stubbornly thinking he's doing a good thing. I looked at a bunch of his articles a few weeks ago--the drivel is just mind-boggling, though you have to admire the sheer amount of stuff he can pull from the Weekly Parishioner. It's a walled garden with a big old fence around it, and at some point a team of highly trained commando editors needs to go in and clear that shit out to leave something we might call encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• As I said recently, I had a G5 denied because the speedy deletion template itself was ruled as a significant edit.  Even if that was a questionable ruling, the point remains that G5 is designed to protect any good edit.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• The behavioral aspect of the quote here from Kudpung was overreaction.  Hard to figure what is going on, but Kudpung might need a wikibreak; and this speedy was out of process.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• Wrong venue--Community consensus and approach regarding G5 vary.Take this to WP:DRV.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• "I think the article should be deleted". It was. So what is the point of this thread - to sling mud? If you want me to put U. T. Downs in your userspace so you can improve it, I'm fine with that, but otherwise I can't see what action you want that will actually improve the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Listen here you rabble rouser you. We need to open at least two discussions, undelete the article, file the correct forms in triplicate, and redelete the article. I really don't understand how that isn't abundantly clear. GMG^talk 10:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Move to close: This belongs at DRV, and only at DRV. There is no allegation of either serious administrative misconduct or of a pattern of misconduct. At worst, we have a misapplication of a CSD criterion that resulted in an early closure of an AfD. Because an AfD was involved, the proper forum for review is DRV. Were this a straight CSD, not involving AfD, then REFUND might be more appropriate. I see no plausible claim on OP's part that anything Kudpung did was anything more than a mistake, either of the facts at hand or in applying policy. That does not merit an ANI thread. So let's close this thread and get back to work. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• If you're wise; Withdraw, if you're not wise; Boomerang - You, William, threatened to take this to AN/I in your first reply to Kudpung on his talk page. This board exists for dealing with behavioural issues that require admin intervention. So your threatening to go to AN/I is implying not only that Kudpung is wrong and has made a mistake, but, that you want preventative action taken for some poor admin behaviour. You were told to discuss politely (i.e. not threatening AN/I) or to take it to DelRev (WP:Deletion review). This is not the board for contested deletions. You are at the wrong venue if you want the deletion overturned. This right now is timesink disruption. Please reassess your own participation here and at Kudpung's talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Quick and easy one

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

---

Could someone take a quick look at User:Yihman1's:

1. BLP violations today at Issa Rae
2. 5RR at Issa Rae
3. extreme BLP violations at McNamara fallacy earlier this year (see deleted warnings on his talk page)
4. History of actual vandalism (see deleted warnings on his talk page)

And put him out of our misery? Will notify in a sec. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The guy appears to be on a crusade of some sort, and should be put on ice for a good stretch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nevermind, things were getting worse so I did it myself. Two editors blocked and page protected. Anyone who wants to claim I'm involved is welcome to complain here; I'm pretty comfortable with doing this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You're involved! I'm not seeing the problem though. I'm right on the edge of suggesting a longish block rather than the indef, but you're probably right - it doesn't look like this guy's ever done much productive in two years here. If he seriously wants to come back and contribute, he has CLEANSTART or STANDARDOFFER. GoldenRing (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • CLEANSTART?! I don't think so. Among a long list of scummy edits, I'm particularly taken by his referring to a black pastor, murdered by a racist, as "Pickniney" instead of Pinckney. Classy. I'm actually kind of disturbed this person wasn't blocked 9 or 10 months earlier than this. We give horrible people too many chances to become non-horrible. But horrible people never do become non-horrible. Goof-offs very occasionally become non-goof-offs, bull-headed kids occasionally become non-bull-headed young adults, but horrible people never change. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Hoax vandal at Petr Kellner article

• Petr Kellner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am reporting starting problem at Petr Kellner. In a nutshell vandal using misleading username and various IP addresses is inserting hoaxes to biography of living person. We have same problem at cswiki (see article history) spanning for months resulting in longtime article protection and indef user block. Same problem is just starting here.--Jklamo (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Jklamo, the user has been blocked for a username violation. I guess it would be worth keeping an eye open should he edit using another account or as an IP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

User Leysure, WP:SPA for spamming

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

---

Leysure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), while not editing often, seems to have but one purpose: To spam the Oscilloscope article with news of one particular company's product.

Not shown in its contributions is Draft:Micsig, which was speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising.

Please consider a block. Jeh (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

{{uw-spamblock}} Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat from Wydelabs Law board Govt. of India

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

---

User Wydelabs - claiming to be "Wydelabs Law board Govt. of India" - has left the following Legal threat on my talk page.

As explained at Alliance University#Family feud there is a long running family feud as to who is running the university, which has two people claiming to be Chancellor (Sudhir G. Angur and Madhukar G. Angur) and two web-sites, (alliance.edu.in and allianceuniversity.edu.in) both of which are trying to recruit students.

User Wydelabs represents the alliance.edu.in faction with Sudhir G. Angur as Chancellor.
It appears that the feud is still ongoing, as on 18 September an IP reverted the article to the allianceuniversity.edu.in website with Madhukar G. Angur as the chancellor, as seen here
As there are several claims and counter-claims, I have explained that there is a feud, give both websites and both claimants, and directed people to this explanation in the infobox, removing partisan claims.

Could I ask that, in addition to sanctions against Wydelabs, the page is reverted to a neutral stance, and given, say, extended-confirmed protection. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Clear legal threat, so blocked as such. I'm not inclined to get involved in the above content dispute -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• You need to be careful there Arjayay, you don't want to get yourself deformed ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not? someone threatened to "derange" me about 5 years ago - perhaps they succeeded? - Arjayay (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't loose your identity! That's private info. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Could be worse. You could have a lawsuit lunched against you. EEng 21:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Complaints by User:IranianNationalist

User:Mhhossein

Hi there, this is a censorship attempt by Mhhossein in the talk page.

• Special:Diff/801105236 (Talk:2017 Tehran attacks)
• Also when I pinged a Wiki Fa admin to be a 3rd opinion in the talk page (as someone is familiar with Farsi language) Special:Diff/801101452 Mhhossein accused me to be friend with the admin User:Sharaky.
• Simultaneously with 3RR in the article history
• When I reminded the user to avoid such edits Special:Diff/801109515/801117300 this user started to accuse me to WP:PA and threatening to WP:ANI in my talk page frequently to WP:RUNAWAY itself means PA.

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 07:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would someone have to familiar with Farsi language to express a third opinion on an article in English Wikipedia. Also, your having pinged them here invalidates the entire point of WP:3O, which is to get an opinion by a neutral uninvolved third party, not a person chosen by one of the two parties in the dispute. If your Farsi admin has expressed a view, it has literally no values as a 3O "tiebreaker".

Furthermore, with an account name like "IranianNationalist", you should expect other editors to be suspicion that your editing does not adhere to WP:NPOV, since you have expressed your bias right up front. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Because the sources are in Farsi language such as VOA PNN or BBC Persian --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your first diff shows Mhhossein linking to an article version to replace the duplication of that text on the talk page. I see nothing wrong with that. In your second diff you accuse Mhhosein of censorship, when nothing was censored, a link was substituted for text, and of being uncivil when he questioned why you pinged an editor with 11 edits on en.wiki for an opinion. I'd have done the same, as it seems to me to be an obvious case of WP:CANVASSING, in spirit if not otherwise. Then, it was not Mhhosein who accused you of a WP:PA with your repeated claims of censorship, but another editor altogether, User:Pahlevun. Mhhosein then came to your talk page to warn you that the article was under 1RR, and you again claimed that censorship was taking place, and (I guess) was a justification for breaking 1RR. Mhhosein then warned you that if you kept accusing them of censorship, he would file a report here, which he has a right to do, and which you have now done (so how can you chastise him for warning you that he might do it?) - and you didn't notify him that you opened this, as you are required to do.

I have no idea what you mean regarding WP:RUNAWAY.

In all, nothing in this complaint seems justified, unless a BOOMERANG is worthwhile. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Also I have question, when the controversial article is about a Persian subject, why do you ask me to avoid pinging a user familiar with Persian language? (Or I say better why do you accuse me to ping a partial user?! the user is a WikiFa admin(at least must be more impartial if you don't know him)) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You clearly don't get that if you're in a dispute with another editor, your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion. Don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"your calling in someone you know can;t be considered to be an impartial third opinion" Had I claimed such a thing? But it is weird when you think the "someone have to familiar with Farsi language" all have to be far away of neutrality!!! --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You're misconstruing the meaning of BMK's comment. The issue is not that you pinged a .fa wiki editor, it's that you pinged an editor at all. Doesn't matter whether they are a .en, .fr or .fa editor, what matters is that the 3O was handpicked by you. That is not how 3O's work. A 3O is where you ask for a completely uninvolved editor with whom you have no relations to chime in with their thoughts to try and resolve the dispute. By their very nature you don't ask a specific person for a 3O. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude, can you please and provide some evidences to approve the accusation of any relation between me and Sharaky?
@Sharaky:, Hi there, plz come here and defend yourself :D
@Mr rnddude, Ask yourself when I pinged different WikiFa admins such as Darafsh and Huji in different subjects Why do you (or any other one) claim any relation between me and Sharaky? I even had no vote in any RfC for admin or any other privilege grant... How can I have any relation with any Wiki admins? I'm a slow contributer having less contributions from 2014 (only 94 new Fa articles many of them are tiny articles) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 13:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

IranianNationalist did not notify Mhhosein of this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... your ping was your relation to the admin. You have already admitted to pinging the admin in your OP. I am making no claim about what kind of relations you have with any .fa admin. Either your English reading comprehension is too limited, or, you're not reading. I'll try this again with as blunt an instrument as possible. When you attempt a 3O, you go to WP:3O and leave a dated, but unsigned, comment there. That way you improve the chances of getting a completely neutral third opinion. When you ping an editor to the discussion, you make the 3O moot as it is presumed you chose that specific person for a reason. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Also I add : I in different subjects I had pinged different Wiki fa admins such as Darafsh and another admin (I have forgot hist name) for the Farsi-relative articles also experienced non-admin users such as Wikimostafa. But they were busy or not willing to participate in English or they had my gift from other discussions in WikiFa (to avoid conflict of interest. it is rational). @Beyond My Ken So I recommend you have a good view about people talking Persian. Thank you :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, since you don't seem to be understanding what Beyond My Ken is saying, let's try it a different way. Specifically pinging another editor to a discussion, where you are in dispute with another editor, and you expect that the editor you pinged will side with your argument, is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. If you had some content discussion in other articles, but were not in a dispute with another editor, and had pinged another editor for wider discussion then that would not be a problem. Comparing the two situations is a red herring. It is irrelevant s to what languages are being spoken. The same could be applied to disruption caused by editors with a heavily Eastern European/East Asian/Balkan/African/South East Asian/Conservative/Liberal/Theist/Atheist/etc, etc bias. It is not restricted to any single language nor nationality. Blackmane (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism, User:Pahlevun

Having 3RR in the Great Mosque of Kufa and multiple discussions and many other reliable sources added to the article the user Pahlevun doesn't accept (Special:Diff/801055508/801262639) even other user edits such as User:Slatersteven's previous edit here: Special:Diff/801054968/801055508
Also 3RR

• Special:Diff/800487503
• Special:Diff/800642767
• Special:Diff/800732626
• Special:Diff/801262533

And relative consensus discussions :

• Special:Permalink/801346343#Primary_sources_at_Great_Mosque_of_Kufa

Also as a Note : When the article must be merged it was nominated for deletion by this user (I add : all sources about the subject are official or high ranked clerical sources) :

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon gate

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

IranianNationalist did not notify Pahlevun abouut this complaint. I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A related subject: IranianNationalist's signature says "IsNotNationalist, thus contradicting the implicit statement made by the account name itself. Is this a legitimate use of a nickname in a sig? It seems deceptive to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken (no pinging) : Are you trying WP:RUNAWAY ? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken However your criticism of my signature is a WP:RUNAWAY and we should avoid making the discussion busy, but I have to reply to your criticism. I changed my signature to avoid probable prejudices about being a zealot patriot or nationalist like Hitler... DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My edit on Great Mosque of Kufa was made after lengthy discussion (on multiple pages) about your arguing the toss that it was called the dragon gate. In fact you accused me of bias for supporting Pahlevun's claim that your sources were questionable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

See [109].Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't see how three reverts in 72 hours could be a 3RR violation. This is not the first time IranianNationalist falsely files for 3RR violation against me (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive350#User:Pahlevun reported by User:IranianNationalist (Result: nothing)). Moreover, There is now a consensus shaped at RSN to not include the content I removed in those diffs (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primary sources at Great Mosque of Kufa). Pahlevun (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You can be deemed to be edit warring even if you do not breach 3RR in a given 24 hour period if (in the eyes of admins) your edits are trying to game the system (such as making 3 edits in 24 hours and then a fourth an hour later).Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

So how did Notirainainnatioinalist do

[110] (same day as Pahlevun's first revert)

[111]

[112]

Note they both reverted times on the 13th

So if Pahlevun was edit warring so was Iranian nationalist, based upon Iranian nationalist's criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Precipitating disc

-EEng

Details of content-dispute et al thrown about.Nothing productive seems to be precipitating out of this disc.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven AFAIK Pahlevun was (and is) insisting on the official clerical Shiite websites to be not reliable to have their claims they provided (whether Serpent or Dragon) AND I NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH SERPENT or merging the Dragon gate to the main article Great Mosque of Kufa so when Pahlevun removes there are many differences between removing a a Serpent Hadith or a Dragon Hadith. I never tried to show the Hadith to be happened in reality (Can someone imagine Masih ad-Dajjal in reality?! :D But the name of the Serpent Door historically is based on this Hadith whether Serpent or Dragon) AND EVERYONE must avoid editing wiki based on his beliefs means if Pahlevun doesn't believe in the Hadith it doesn't mean to remove the Hadith as the HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DOOR. If I accused you Slatersteven to something , sorry it will not be repeated. Good boy with a good manner :)--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Just as you are insisting we must include (which multiple users have disagreed with) a quote from an Haddith (which has multiple versions). You both have (by your definition) edit warred over this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Slatersteven: Let's call daddy :D @Jimbo Wales: Hi, if you had different reliable secondary sources (Official sources) about Maya civilization calling a historic sacred location as a weird name due to a myth story do you let the mythical story to be removed because it is far away of the reality? @Slatersteven, wrong Hadith or true Hadith there is no difference all versions have a common thing about A CRAWLER(Dragon or Serpent) get inside the Kufa mosque and talked with Ali --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 14:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Slatersteven: User:Pahlevun is trying an original research because I provided many official and high ranked clerical Shiite sources but Pahlevun says the Hadith is unreliable... why? Does he have any source for what he is claiming? @Pahlevun: If you have any source use it in the article and claim the Hadith is not true. Let the reader to decide not us. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: You reverted again and asked Why? due to this reason in this my last 2 comments above --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC) I have already responded to your "Vandalism" accusation. Note that no one is here for the content dispute. Pahlevun (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Did he say the HAddith was unreliable, or that the sources you were using for the text of it were?Slatersteven (talk) @Slatersteven: YESSSS and a couple of times :) : First time in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_gate (Special:PermanentLink/800263755) says : "The article is based on Bihar al-Anwar, a WP:PRIMARY that contains probably millions of hadith" --Pahlevun and again here Special:Diff/800483399/800489013 says: "@IranianNationalist: This is very interesting that when you wrote یه کم بخندیم :D به این منابع معتبر, you have confessed that the source is not reliable. Wikipedia is not your laughingstock. Pahlevun (talk)" Clearly Pahlevun source is my summary in Wiki Farsi article : fa:در اژدها which the clerical wiki users (and also Pahlevun) don't have any problem with it but for them the important subject is to remove the Hadith from an international view But my sources had nothing to do with Bihar_al-Anwar : The first source was the official website of the Mosque itself : https://web.archive.org/web/20130919075523/http://www.masjed-alkufa.net/news.php?readmore=203 The second one was from Hadvi Tehrani the elected member of Assembly of Experts : https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa77393 https://www.imamhussain.org/persian/ahlulbayt-55/19608 sibtayn http://www.hawzah.net/fa/Magazine/View/3301/5343/50193/اماکن-زیارتی-منتسب-به-امام-زمان-(عجل-الله-تعالی-فرجه-الشریف)-در-ایران-و-جهان-(3) الخرائج و الجرائج، ج 1، ص 189; الثاقب، ص 248; مدینة المعاجز، ج 1، ص 141 --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC) I don't contribute to Persian Wikipedia, by the way. Pahlevun (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Ouch!! :D So you check WikiFa article histories to start edit wars in WikiEn to refresh your mood?! In WikiFa you can't claim anything because all users can read the reliable Farsi language sources I provided above and they know I'm right :) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Also here Special:Diff/800475224/800475867 Pahlevun says "Misuse of an unreliable WP:PRIMARY source. Get it back when you have a reliable secondary source." @Pahlevun, How do you conclude the above official clerical sources (masjed-alkufa.net) to be PRIMARY? @Slatersteven DON'T YOU have any reply now? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC) I am not going to discuss a content dispute case here. Pahlevun (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC) @Pahlevun WP:RUNAWAY ? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Absolutly a Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Pahlevun (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

About pinging

@Beyond My Ken, you mentioned many different accusations about me, I don't know answer what one :) I didn't ping the users to let the admins check a more brief of what is happening... and to avoid having a war in ANI before an admin check (however thank you for making a long discussion) --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 09:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@IranianNationalist:--Beyond My Ken is a highly experienced editor and citing policies like WP:RUNAWAY to counter well-established users in a ad-hominem manner without any minimal basis can be considered as intentional disruption and indulging in such activities along with casting personal attacks is not tolerated.Also, please be adviced that ANI is often witness to boomerang actions.Thank you!Winged Blades ^Godric 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not involved in this in any way, just happened to notice that neither of these pings worked, so courtesy ping for Beyond My Ken. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can we close this now with? it is clear both users are POV warriors who are just disrupting the project.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that I was a "POV warrior" nor "disrupting the project". Pahlevun (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Second.And collapsed a part.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

After looking at this entire situation somewhat more closely in the light of day, I agree that both editors are at fault here. And to clarify my "no pings" statement, I wasn't intending to "runaway" from the discussion, I simply didn't want to be called back to it repeatedly at IranianNationaist's whim. In general, I'm perfectly capable of returning to an ongoing discussion on my own, and do not need to have my pants leg constantly tugged to do so. (The ping by Amaury above, though, was reasonable, and I thank them for it.) There was a halcyon era when Wikipedia didn't have pinging at all, and things worked just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang for IranianNationalist

• support the boomerang suggested by Beyond My Ken ([113]) and mentioned by Winged Blades of Godric ([114]). --Mhhossein ^talk 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support; these ranting walls of text have taken long enough. Just so you know, the edit warring continues, despite the rough consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primary sources at Great Mosque of Kufa. On a secondary note, IranianNationalist keeps using that word, WP:RUNAWAY. I don't think it means what he thinks it means... --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have to say congratulations to some specific users (cooperating here in different discussions in different wiki pages we have similar users having similar opinions and the common thing was me :D should I pride to be such a lovely user for this specific users?) they are continuously in the same front to protect Pahlevun and Mhhossein anyway (You can see them in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon gate and all relative discussions up to now including the relative discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard). You can see them in any location I had an Edit for example Slatersteven in the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sina_Dehghan&action=history and it is not a Wikipedia:Hound but previously there were some similar discussions in WikiFa people (users) calling them as a system of campaigning. Yeah continue to support each other (but it is wonderful when we have some permanent users in different discussions supporting each other). AND THE MAIN SUBJECT WOULD BE FORGOTTEN about some reliable official sources have been censored --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A very nice combination of WP:Casting aspersions, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:POV. You really should be blocked for this comment alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So "they" go to every page you edit?Slatersteven (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated bad faith and nationalism-based commentary about contributors

Bishonen warned PAKHIGHWAY about assuming bad faith and alleging nationalist agendas etc. A little over an hour later, PAKHIGHWAY did it again. This has been going on for months now, eg: in August and July. Their targets seem to be random and, while I imagine Bish is aware of the latest example, I suspect PAKHIGHWAY might claim them to be involved, so perhaps it would be better if someone else who has had absolutely no previous conversation with PAKHIGHWAY does whatever needs doing, which in my opinion is a block. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Involved? I'm not involved, , Sitush, and it makes no difference what they might or might not claim in that regard. Warning somebody in my quality as admin is the last thing that would make me involved. I don't think their replies to my post are the best place to plant my foot, though. IMO it's not quite time for a block yet. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC).

• I know re: uninvolved, Bish, but I also know how little PAKHIGHWAY cares about such policies and how quickly they make erroneous connections between contributors. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• BTW, I ought to have notified you of my original post here. Sorry, I forgot on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. --John (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• And now they're coming up with the same nationalist tripe and unfounded allegations of some sort of conspiracy by Indians etc in their unblock request. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• And they dtill don't get it! They've even accused me of being Indian, which is laughable. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've extended the block to indefinite based on their talk page comments. --John (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Asking for a mediation

Hi, i added sources (Encyclopedia.com and Imamreza.com) in the article about ibn al-Haytham stating he was a Persian or Arab scholar and user Thomas W removed them saying i made disruptive edits whereas i previously discussed that issue on the talk page days before making the change... I would like to know if at least one of these source is reliable :

http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/abu-ali-al-hasan-ibn-al-hasan-ibn-al-haytham

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mk_CBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=ibn+al+haytham+persian+polymath&source=bl&ots=OyjAaWfKmC&sig=ZQASTu8Sq3m_tQ6oVrT85ruYinM&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ibn%20al%20haytham%20persian%20polymath&f=false

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.225.246.222 (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• See User talk:89.225.246.222. The editor was warned by me (a level-2) for disruptive editing for repeatedly pushing a theory about Ibn al-Haytham being Persian, using decidedly non-RS sources (while there are plenty of RS sources supporting he was an Arab), in spite of being reverted by other editors, and there not existing a consensus in favour of their changes on the talk page of the article. Editing that has been going on for a very long time, see page history of article (probably by more than one individual though, so I'm not blaiming it all on this particular one...), but is a content dispute that does not belong here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia.com — I don't know. They mention a book published by major reference publisher Cengage Learning, Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery, so I was wondering if they copied that article's sketch of al-Haytham, but a quick Google search of this book is not promising: some of the phrases from the encyclopedia.com article appear there, but others don't, and the ones that do appear are scattered all over the place, so I'm inclined to believe that this is not a Cengage Gale composition. Since we don't know where this came from, we can't consider it reliable. The other one is a book from Springer Science+Business Media, another major academic publisher, so it should be considered reliable, and its author, Harry Varvoglis, is a professor of physics at one of Greece's top universities, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: The book is a new source they've found, not a source they've provided in their edits, the only sources they have provided before filing this report were encyclopedia.com and imamreza.net. And even if the new book, which I haven't seen before, is a reliable source they'll need a consensus supporting them on the talk page of the article, before changing what the article says, since multiple other editors have opposed the changes, and have done so many times... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:ДжингибиЩеГоЯдеПодВода

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

---

ДжингибиЩеГоЯдеПодВода (talk · contribs · count) is a clear attack account: username and edit summaries ("Removed terrorism of the Macedonian Pomp Jingib") are attacks on User:Jingiby (Джингиби in Bulgarian tralnsiteration), edit warring in a number of articles with pointless edits such as this. Clearly a disruption-only account. Please block indefinitely. Constantine ✍ 17:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This is sock from blocked User:PavelStaykov. The name he has registred now is a personal attack against me.Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeffed as not here to contribute.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Accusation of bludgeoning. Article Plimpton 322

I have been accused of bludgeoning by David Eppstein on this page and as per advice raise a notice here. There is a dispute on this page. Recently an article about the subject of the page appeared in a prestigious academic journal to considerable publicity in 'quality' newspapers. Traffic to the page increased greatly. Some long term editors wish to exclude all mention of this article. This appears to be quite against the broad guidelines of wikipedia which says that all mainstream points of view must be represented. Various other editors have stated that the article should be mentioned. I requested comment some days ago but none has been forthcoming. 9and50swans (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify for anyone following along: Plimpton 322 is the article being discussed, not a username. (I have no other interest in this discussion beyond pointing that out).Alephb (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

For clarity I changed the title of this section 9and50swans (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the article's talk page, and this thread simply constitutes yet more bludgeoning by the OP, who possibly deserves a b... a boo... a boom... I won't say it. EEng 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A boom lowered on him? --(signed) Inquiring Editor

Maybe a booby prize? --Prize Patrol

Give him the boot? --Just for Kicks

Boom Bang-a-Bang? --Lulu

• as per advice raise a notice here - Where is this advice? I would be interested to see it, but just from what I see here it looks like bad advice. False accusations of bludgeoning are not actionable and may be shrugged off or resolved by respectful and civil discussion with the accuser. And this page is not for resolution of content disputes; see WP:DR. It's for actionable bad editor behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing someone somewhere said the classic, "If you want to keep complaining, take it to ANI." Maybe we should have a rule against that, 'cause threads like this one are what it leads to. EEng 19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and we can bring people to ANI for violating that rule. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. We'll have a series of meta-ANIs (ANI², ANI³, etc.). See also User:EEng#A_rolling_stone_gathers_no_MOS. EEng 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_bludgeon_the_process#Dealing_with_being_accused_of_bludgeoning_the_process

If you think a policy is being transgressed, ask an uninvolved administrator for their opinion.

Without quoting chapter and verse Wikipedia is supposed to report all strands of mainstream opinion, and it is clearly not happening here. Mention of a recent article in a respected academic journal is being suppressed. I am rather surprised that this can happen on wikipedia. If there is no easy remedy I suggest that this brings wikipedia into some disrepute. Whatever the outcome on this I am grateful for the education in how wikipedia works, which I will pass on to others 9and50swans (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You really are, as you've been told before, bludgeoning. As far as I can tell you're not gaining an education in how Wikipedia works;; rather, the only thing you seem to be learning is that you're not getting what you want. EEng 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

In case the many article talk threads, RFC, and ANI thread here weren't enough, 9and50swans has now started yet another: see WP:NPOVN#Plimpton 322. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note to suggest we keep this open a bit longer as the OP mentioned he'd be traveling a few days, and I anticipate further trouble. EEng 17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Open an SPI: A new form of disruption at an article covered by WP:ARBPIA

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just opened an SPI against two of the three editors who opposed him at Talk:Ali Khamenei. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. He also planned to open an SPI, against the third editor, me, as explained at Oshwah's talkpage. The WP:ARBPIA is rife with conflict and disruption. I consider this to be, a new form of disruption. I request a speedy close of the SPI and a warning to the initiator about this type of behaviour. The Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also needs more eyes and a check for POV, but I am not at ANI to pursue editorial comments about that article. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As background - this began by a series of edits by Mhhossein to Ali Khamenei (some may be viewed as perhaps POVish, some were definitely positive), some of which were challeged and during which Mhhossein performed a 1RR vio ([115] + [116] 1st, [117] 2nd) which he did self-revert upon being warned this was the case [118]. He then removes an-indepth Newsweek piece as "It's just an opinion" which was challenged by several editors, following up with a WP:NEWSORG claim [119] and then claiming Human interest story [120], discounting other opinions [121], followed by an attempt to SPI Dr.K. (which failed on technical grounds due to page protection), and then moved on to SPI me (Icewhiz). And this for an in-depth article on the subject in Newsweek. I might not be available on-wiki for the next few days (travelling on vacation, back next Sunday, probably will check in sparsely).Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

SPI clerk note: I've declined to "speedy close" the case linked above as I see behaviour worth investigating, which I'm now doing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: An admin please close this nonsense and strange report!!! @Dr.K.: Later on, please be careful before accusing others at ANI. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: not so fast, nothing I've said here or at the now-closed case should be taken as an endorsement of your action. I saw something entirely unrelated that was worth checking, in my own opinion. More shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: So what? it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. I beg your pardon? And what does that have to do with Icewhiz, an innocent bystander whom you unjustly accused of socking? Is there no recognition, on your part, of the glaring mistakes you made putting this innocent editor through this ordeal? This is disruptive, because it demonstrates that you do not understand the disruption you have caused and you may repeat it in the future. At a minimum, you owe Icewhiz an apology. You owe one to me as well, but I won't hold my breath that you will apologise to me. Dr. K. 00:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Ok. I see you avoid replying to my request that you apologise to Icewhiz for your error in reporting a good-faith innocent editor to SPI. So, here is the effect of your error: Your creation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz was deleted because: G6: SPI filed in error under an innocent name. So I will ask you for the last time: Will you admit you were in error in filing this SPI using Icewhiz's name and apologise to Icewhiz? Dr. K. 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Related discussions

• I just wish to note that there are now three discussions on AN/I involving the editing of IranianNationalist, Pahlevun and Mhhossein:
  • Complaint by Slatersteven about IranianNationalist
  • Complaints by IranianNationalist about Mhhossein and Pahlevun
  • This complaint by Dr.K. about Mhhossein

This is probably a good indication that this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined in relation to WP:NPOV and WP:ARBPIA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing, the same edds on related (by religion) topics.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken: Just a moment, which of my edits was wrong? Can you elaborate on this? I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Both of the cases opened regarding me are nonsense. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

If I had a specific accusation to make, I would have made it, but what I wrote was "this suite of three editors needs to have their contributions more closely examined". No Wikipedian should object to having their edits looked at if there's an indication there might be problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I can't understand why Dr.K. is so worried about a sockpeppetry being investigated, this is while there's no name of him in the reprot. Please do not misrepresent my words. In fact, I am not worried at all. To prove this point, I quote what you said to Oshwah: I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC). Wonderful. This is your chance. We are at ANI. Can you explain to everyone here, better still, can you submit your evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me? Checkusers, SPI clerks, sockhunter admins are all watching for the big reveal with their fingers at the WP:DUCK-block button. I can't wait. Thanks much. Dr. K. 03:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein - I echo Dr.K.'s request: I would like to see the exact evidence you had supporting your sock puppetry accusations, please. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I never accused Dr.K.. I've already made enough explanations on why I thought sock-puppetry was happening (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz). You see by the admins' comments that I was much right about the report, at least regarding DarkKing Rayleigh. Naturally, Dr.K. falling on the dubious account's side came into mind at the very first step. But later, when I contacted Oshwah, I was leaning toward others and Oshwah knows it well. However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Also, @Oshwah: Had you seen this page before coming to this discussion? I don't think any policy or guideline prohibits me from thinking on the the possibility that a user can be a puppet. FYI, the case of INeverCry who was an admin in Commons (I doubt if he was an admin here, too) and later found to be a Master playing another account whom was admin, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken: You're right and I have never had any objections. Tnx. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mhhossein - Accusing me of having any connection with DarkKing Rayleigh was done without a shred of evidence (which you failed to produce in the report, and here). You did this after a content dispute - in which I would say your actions were questionable (calling a serious article in Newsweek a Human Interest Story?!) - and per your own postings to Oshwah's page - you intended to report Dr.K. on the exact same (lack of) grounds - and moved on to me only following technical difficulties (the SPI page was blocked). I'll note that the timing just after MehrdadFR's block (with whom you've been in contact, and who was making similar off base accusations at AE regarding people who disagreed with him, including me) was also odd. Accusing someone of a serious offense, and sockpuppetry is a serious offense, without any evidence (and in this case - an interaction report limited to some 4-6 pages, and totally different editing patterns (he's editing when I'm asleep!)) - could definitely be construed as quite personal in the sense of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Whether you were correct or not of any misconduct regarding DarkKing Rayleigh (of which I have no concrete opinion - since I do not know much of this new account - though your original report seems to be shaky) - is completely irrelevant to an accusation linking him to me, or accusing me of acting as a sock puppeteer. Regarding policy - this would seem to be fishing as per WP:SPCU. I don't have much to fear from a checkuser (other than what I see as an attack, and entry of my account name in a log) - though from what I read (and see in some account pages) such checks can also find random connections (e.g. multiple editors editing from the same office /library / lab (which may contain hundreds of people or more) - which could be difficult to disentangle (as opposed to a situation in a house with few people).Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: I never accused Dr.K. Remember: This is ANI, not Comedy Central or a forum for alternative facts. Now I have two quotes to help you refresh your memory:

This is your first question to Oshwah: A question Dear Oshwah, how are you? I'm here per your kind offer of help. I was trying to open a Sockpuppet investigations subpage for a user but the page was protected while I tried it for anther user and it allowed me. What's wrong? Tnx. --Mhhossein talk 04:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

This is the followup comment to Oshwah: I was trying to report Dr.K. at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 06:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC).

So, I ask you again. Please supply the evidence that led you to want to open an SPI against me to the point that you had to enquire about it with an admin.

However, I really wonder why Dr.K. hastily acted against my Sockpuppet investigations which had nothing to do with him in practice. Wonder no more. Acting to prevent SPI abuse against Icewhiz, an established and good-faith editor, from someone with a demonstrable lack of skills for opening SPIs, and who seriously intended to open a fact-free SPI against me, was the least I could do to minimise disruption for a colleague, the project and myself. As for your motives, you only know for sure, but if I had a guess, I would think that you were desperate to win the content dispute at Talk:Ali Khamenei. Dr. K. 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: having reviewed the report in probably a great deal more detail than the others who have commented here, I agree that the situation makes it look like you filed this report frivolously to try to "win" a content dispute by making trouble for your opponents, but there is also the possibility that you don't understand what sockpuppetry is. As an example: sockpuppetry is one user making several accounts to make it look like there is additional support for their side of a dispute. Sockpuppetry is not when several users in good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to a topic area disagree with something you're trying to do. I don't think that your report was entirely in bad faith: a suspicious account did participate in the discussion, but I didn't see any good reason to suspect that that account was being operated by either of the two users you reported (or attempted to). Sockpuppetry is something we look on very poorly, and accusing someone of sockpuppetry without good evidence is often considered a personal attack, and I'll repeat the advisory that this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. If you find yourself in a similar situation again where you have a disagreement you can't resolve on a talk page, a good next step is dispute resolution. Please do not file any more sockpuppetry investigation requests unless you have very good evidence; if you feel the need to file, feel free to ask myself or one of the other SPI clerks to review your case in advance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Icewhiz: - I've removed as much of a trace of the SPI being filed under your name as I can without obfuscating the actual report; I think it's very clear from what's left that you were accused in error. The entry in the Checkuser log can't be removed, but it is only visible to users with CU access (not a lot of people) and is considered protected private information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, none of us saw any good reason to run a CU on Icewhiz, so his CU log is currently empty. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It's very interesting to see the you are accusing me of disruption (without hearing my narration of the content dispute) while it was verified that DarkKing Rayleigh was probably a sock of Delotrooladoo and was blocked. It's even more interesting that you, as an SPI clerk, don't know of "good standing who are regular and long-term contributors to [the project]" which found to be committing sock-puppetry. Now my suggestions for you, next time, before doing such basic level preaches see the user's contributions, articles and awards. By the way, please see WP:AGF. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K.:Just stop victim playing and making personal attacks, you have nothing to do with this discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You made two baseless sockpuppeting accusations, and the third that actually existed was identified and deal with by Ivanvector himself. I think you've exhausted your good faith allowance for the time being. It doesn't matter if an editor in good standing had sockpuppeted, you don't go around casting aspersions as to the conduct of other editors with zero connecting evidence, save for that they all appeared on the same page, on the basis of somebody else did it too. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: stop denying that you requested a sockpuppetry investigation of Dr.K. on Oshwah's talk page. You did, we can all see it. My suggestion above that maybe you don't understand exactly what sockpuppetry is was me assuming good faith. Your response that you reported these two users because some other completely unrelated user operated sockpuppets in the past is explicitly a bad-faith argument: you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS based on no relevant evidence at all, and it's an equally specious argument to call these users sockpuppets because you were improperly accused in another entirely unrelated case. I haven't commented on the content dispute and don't intend to, it is entirely irrelevant to the sockpuppetry investigation, which is concluded. You may interpret this as a warning: further commentary in defense of this sockpuppetry investigation and/or regarding the motivations of users in this thread is very likely to be taken as a personal attack. I'll reply to your question on my talk page shortly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It's of not importance whether you believe in what I say. See my comments at Oshwah's talk page. At first I though DR.K. could be a part of the puppetry, later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. Regarding "You may interpret...", do as you wish, my sentences are what I said. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: ...later, after Oshwah asked for concrete evidences and looked deeper into the edits, I realized that the two others are much more involved. No problem. I will settle for whatever little involvement in sockpuppetry that you think I had. Can you specify that little bit of socking you think I did? Dr. K. 03:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: No reply here either. Once more, you said that ...the two others are much more involved. That implies that I was "involved" but to a "much lesser degree". Can you describe my small involvement? On the other hand, if you think I had no involvement at all, what prevents you from acknowledging that and apologising to me? Basic intellectual honesty requires that you provide an answer to this simple question Mhhossein. Dr. K. 15:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Mr rnddude: This is one of the reasons I brought this user at ANI. Mhhossein's inability to admit any fault even for the most obvious of his/her transgressions, while at the same time personally attacking the editors he disagrees with, has manifested itself multiple times at Talk:Ali Khamenei, but without repercussions to himself. However, at ANI, his disruption is under scrutiny by the wider community. That gives me a certain sense of comfort. His refusal to get the point of his disruption clearly manifests itself by his personal comments directed against Ivanvector. By the way, I find Ivanvector's analysis of Mhhossein's actions, consummately professional and even-handed, and I thank him for that. I will not reply to Mhhossein's diatribe directed at me, just above, since it is as transparently fact-free as his botched SPIs. Dr. K. 17:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mhhossein has resorted to trolling on the talkpage of the blocked sock

• Mhhossein gives trolling reply to my ANI notice on the page of the blocked sock: Thanks for informing him, however he's unfortunately blocked because of "the disruption caused by Mhhossein". --Mhhossein talk 04:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC) I had given the ANI notice to the sock, before there was an SPI about his/her socking. Dr. K. 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Now, Mhhossein has resorted to edit-warring adding back the trolling. Dr. K. 06:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Also misused rollback reverting my edit. Dr. K. 06:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Reverted again. Dr. K. 06:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, "This is my right to have this [message]. This message is meant as a sort of response against your accusations". --Mhhossein ^talk 06:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You go WP:GRAVEDANCING on the talkpage of a blocked sock leaving a trolling message and you expect me to reply to it? Dr. K. 06:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Your repetitive accusing me with WP:trolling is deemed as personal attack. Wikipedia is not a battle field. You are wasting the time of every one involved in this topic. Btw, the message was to you, not to the blocked user. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI is the place to discuss your disruption. You try to avoid this noticeboard and you attempt trolling messages at the talkpage of a blocked sock. Let's wait for the admins to handle your disruption. Dr. K. 07:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Look, I really don't want to spoil a clean block log over this, but I'm getting tired of seeing new messages here.

@Mhhossein: above, I asked you (warned you, actually) not to comment on this sockpuppetry issue anymore or cast aspersions about editors here. I realize that my wording "in this thread" may be open to interpretation. However, going to the talk page of the blocked sockpuppet to reply to Dr.K.'s administrative note (a note which is required by policy when posting here) with a complaint about this thread is clearly trolling where it's not grave-dancing.

@Dr.K.: I want to assume good faith and you are entitled to ask for an explanation, but 1) Mhhossein had already given one (not a great one, admittedly) and 2) your continued questioning of him here and on their talk page flies directly in the face of my warning to Mhhossein not to comment on the sockpuppetry issue any further. You're not trying to bait them, are you?

To both of you: I'd like to ask you both to drop this back-and-forth and get back to editing articles. There is only going to be something here worth further administrative action if this continues, and I don't see there being anything to gain from such an outcome. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I replied, as you saw, to his comments as I saw them. Obviously, I did not connect my enquiries to him to your warning about not commenting further on the SPI, because I considered an apology to Icewhiz or to myself to be a constructive step that would indicate this editor's understanding of the error he committed. If your interpretation of the warning to him, includes prohibition of acknowledging any errors he made in the comments on this thread, perhaps you should have made this more clear, because it was not clear to me at all. In that sense, raising a baiting possibility on my part is unfair, because I did not interpret your warning so strictly. In fact, I skimmed through it, and did not read it in depth. Further, if this discussion has become a blocking minefield for good-faith attempts at further resolution, I would suggest you close it. I also find your comment about "getting back to editing articles", to be very unfair and it also indicates that you are not clear about what motivates content creators; such prompts at ANI simply don't cut it as motivation. But I will leave it at that. Dr. K. 21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute at Avatar (2009 film)

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

---

Resolved

 – Editor given 3RR warning

Granito diaz (talk · contribs) added a Non-NPOV and potentially biased piece of information on the film page, Avatar (2009 film). I have attempted to discuss the issue and provided helpful hints, but user has subsequently ignored it.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@TaerkastUA: I saw that the editor has reverted you three times in the last 24 hours, meaning they're at the limit. So I gave him the appropriate warning. I did not revert it myself; what I suggest you do instead is rewrite the material he added in accordance with policy and properly format the source.

If he reverts you after that, then take it to WP:ANEW. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The material is copied from here and thus is a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Closer examination reveals the user has already received a final warning for copyvio, so I have blocked. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Help with commas

The following discussion is closed. 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 I get help w/a MoS question concerning commas?

Wikipedia's MoS says this about commas: "In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical. Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands. Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands."

Concerning the commas in dates in month-day-year formet, using this example from the Father Murphy page, "Father Murphy is an American western drama series that aired on the NBC network from November 3, 1981 to September 18, 1983."

The MoS says a comma is required after the year 1981:

"Father Murphy is an American western drama series that aired on the NBC network from November 3, 1981, to September 18, 1983."

Chicago, AP, APA & AMA says the same thing. All reputable sources agree - it's not ambiguous at all.

So why was my change reverted? It doesn't seem as if this is an optional comma; MoS says it's required; no exceptions are noted. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk • contribs)

IP is a likely sockpuppet of User:Hoggardhigh and has been reported for investigation. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 06:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Request that Rana Jai Singh be deleted

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – AfD started

I just noticed today that an article named Rana Jai Singh is in wikipedia. The article is here since 2011 and does not even have a single book source or external link. I proposed it for deletion and notified the creator of the page, but I just checked and saw that that the creator(Cao Ren) is inactive since December 2011. As the creator of the article has no arguments(or sources) which signify this article's importance or authenticity, I request the administrators that this article should be deleted immediately as having unsourced articles is against Wikipedia's policy, especially if it is the article of a person.Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hagoromo's Susanoo:--Immediate deletions, other than under those explicitly covered under speedy criterion does not occur.And this has a credible claim of significance(commanding officer of a royal army at a battle) and has a chance of prob. decent sourcing which is just missing.Also see that WP has no deadline.Thus, I've declined the PROD.Please approach the WP:AFD route.Thank you!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Its just a claim. It says that he is a commanding office of a royal army at the Siege of Chittor bu th article Siege of Chittorgarh does not have him. Neither do any of the books which include siege of Chittorgarh like Rana 2004, Chandra 2005 or Sarkar 1960. That means that he is in no books. As for claim, anyone can add a claim by editing an unsourced article. And 6 years have passed and no sources have been, given so what chance is left. This article was also out of attention and no one noticed so how could someone improve it? It has rare if not zero links. Even I found it while going through the history of Siege of Chittorgarh in an old revision. As it has no source, only claims, the article is classified for deletion. If it is an article, there should be things told to us, such as what place he ruled or any other fact about him if he is important. e.g It is mentioned in an article(which has its sources) and a number of other books and articles. If not, then it is just a misconception. Even if not speedy deleted, it should be at least nominated for deletion.--Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out, the way to get this deleted is to go via WP:AFD. I see this has been done. Please make your arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rana Jai Singh. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

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

So how do I get a Wikip grammarian to help? 2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2017 (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.

---

So how do I get a Wikip grammarian to help? 2605:E000:35C6:C200:C522:44A:E109:F43F (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Go to WP:Help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Block needed

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

---

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

Please block this user as soon as possible. The user has repeatedly removed a section from an article without consensus. When I reverted them, they accused me of being a vandal, troll, and a malfunctioning bot. They have also started to use hostile edit summaries such as this one. Comfycozybeds (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible behavioral OR problems by myself in The Putin Interviews (?)

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

---

Brief background (And I managed to post it wrong, first time) I've earlier asked for better guidance when it comes to Plots of motion pictures, novels, etc - at the Village Pump as well as elsewhere. As I was looking for information about Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews series, did I notice that the article in question contained very little information. Someone had began at a Summary, which must be the counterpart to a Plot within fiction - film/novels etc. And we are then to use the film/interview or novel as a primary source. Any contributor must take especially documentaries like this one very serious. And report what's observed, without making any own conclusions. Otherwise it would be OR, obviously.

Having said that, am I hereby reporting myself to AN/I, in order to try to find out if I possibly have been guilty of any OR in the summary part of that article or not.

Main issue - If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, then changes subject, and instead makes (for the put Question, in question), a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question." Which can be observed (there was no cut made in the interview there) and isn't anything I have "invented" I would further like to say, from a normal human perspective, is a change of subject a very well-known way to avoid a question. Extreme hypothetical aspects aside. In this case, did Putin avoid to answer at least one of Stone's questions. Some other user, is of a very different opinion, and accuses me of having drawn OR conclusions. And appear to make the argument that "Putin never actually said I avoid that question". While I mean, that I have observed that Putin avoids a question from Stone. And hence have I not been guilty of OR. Not to my knowledge, anyhow. If an interviewed person isn't responding to a specific question, change subject, and instead makes, for the put question, a totally unrelated statement, is normally exactly the same as "avoiding a question" which can be observed (and there was not cut in the interview, there, which may be essential)

An other contributor appears to question just everything, in my humble opinion. Like "Does Putin say 'I avoid that question ?'", If Stone really has put this question or if there are any questions at all, in this 4 hours of interviews. Or at the very least, brings up various hypothetical aspects of as much as he/she just can. If this contributor's general argumentation would be carried out in terms of new guidelines for Plots and Summaries, would it mean the end of our service of to our readers of this kind. Finding a Plot or a good Summary for novels, motion pictures, documentaries and interviews in Secondary sources, don't I really believe to be possible for us. And generally, as far as I have seen at least, are our Plots / Summaries seldom or never abused. I concur with those who say, "in Plots/Summaries is the novel or film a primary source" (The only serious alternative would be to remove presumably next to all of them)

I have suggested to that user to make a complaint to AN/I , but it's just possibly might be so, that endless argumentation over "the Pope's beard - or the Beard's beard" is something he/she prefer. But really don't know. And as no such complaint has been made here, do I feel obliged to do this myself. (But I just happened to put this outside AN/I, at Wiki-No OR, I'm not used to make complaints, and I'm sorry for this mistake of mine.)

And I think an AN/I verdict would be to prefer, in this special case, ahead of endless time wasted at talk-pages over nothings (not just for me here and now, but in general and for the future). In a nutshell - isn't changing subject exactly the same as avoiding a question, normally ? And I really mean e-x-a-c-t-l-y the same, in this case.

And if AN/I find me guilty of intentional OR violation, do I expect some kind of proper punishment, although I have reported myself. If AN/I find me guilty of unintentional OR, would some comments be nice (aside of a possible punishment), something that I could take to heart for the future. And if AN/I find that I haven't been guilty of OR violation, then would this matter still be decided, for other obvious observations related to Plots / Summaries.

I will notify "myself" as well as the contributor who's got a very different opinion, but as he hasn't brought it up, do I leave this up to himself, if he feels like participate in this complaint against myself. I guess he/she will, as he/she was the one who notified me that "this isn't the real AN/I"

Finally, I'm not doing this for fun, I must add. Am I wrong must AN/I punish me as if the complaint came from the other contributor. But the issue is about whether I have drawn OR conclusions in the Summary part of The Putin Interviews article. (I made a WP:BOLD statement in the lead of this article, with the aim to get more contributors interested. Four hour of interviews with a Summary of 1,5 line did I find to be appallingly little. And I guessed t hat the article is somewhat delicate and perhaps may scare contributors. Boeing720 (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOR is a content policy. This page is for actionable violations of behavior policy, thus you can't report someone to ANI for NOR violation, including yourself. See WP:DR for ways to resolve content disputes. Unless you can make a case that you are guilty of disruptive editing, you will have to find your punishment elsewhere. I could suggest some S&M sites. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This miasma of incoherent ramblings is fairly typical of Boeing720's writing. He seems to have great difficulty expressing himself in an intelligible way in English, yet steadfastly refuses to acknowledge or accept any advice he is given in the attempt to help him. Generally, it is quite difficult to work out what he is saying and this applies to main space edits as well, with the consequence that others have to come along and clean up after him. If ever there was a case of competence is required, this is it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all of Nick Thorne's comment. This seems entirely redundant to the WP:NOR/N thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• A remedy is required. I commented at Boeing720's talk regarding a completely unacceptable edit (diff) which changed a straight forward account of what happened in an interview to a slanted assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Putin had avoided a "specific question". Of course such a conclusion would be valid for almost all interviews with politicians, but Boeing720 fails to understand that Wikipedia is not the place for such blog-like commentary. The user has had some support in the past from kind observers who see Boeing720 struggling with English and apply buckets of WP:AGF. However, the user's talk page show that the time for that is past. The problem may involve an inability to comprehend the English explanations that have been given. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• I'll provide some examples of how I've tried to deal with this user. I first encountered Boeing720 on C (programming language) while cleaning up[122] a series of edits he was making. The bad grammar made the sentences nearly indecipherable and for example one reference offered was literally "This was stated by a computer and high skilled Swedish programmer at university level, by 2001". Also on a technical level the knowledge presented was very rudimentary, superfluous to the article, and sometimes wrong. Subsequently I have kept and eye out and these[123][124] are typical of the kind of corrections that are necessary to every major article edit Boeing720 makes. Explaining[125][126] patiently in detail what the grammatical and sourcing problems are has never had any effect, he argues past the point, often asserts his expertise, becomes aggravated and most problematically: continues making the same mistakes. For examples of the conversations see Talk:Register (keyword), Talk:C (programming language)#Recent edits, User talk:Boeing720#Unsourced opinions/commentary (and the section above it) and WP:NORN#Report myself, OR (?). I feel bad about the circumstance; I think Boeing720's intent is good but an inability to process and accept advice regarding original research and fundamental English grammar is difficult to work with. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I recommend a warning and close until another editor reports Boeing720 (if they still persist with OR or become disruptive). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) —PaleoNeonate – 12:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the core of the matter (taken from DIYeditor's contribution above): "I commented at Boeing720's talk regarding a completely unacceptable edit (diff) which changed a straight forward account of what happened in an interview to a slanted assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Putin had avoided a "specific question". " - But I disagree (and from scratch, was it DIYeditor who changed my contribution, just see the history file to article in blue below). Writing "Putin avoided that question" is obvious enough for making that statement. It's not an interpretation, is no change of the actual significance. It's solely an observation. Regarding Edward Snowden in The Putin Interviews. When Stone asks about Putin's views on Edward Snowden and whether he is a traitor or not, Putin replies, "No he is not, as he never has worked for any foreign country," but when Stone then turns that question around and asks "What about if a Russian FSB employee had done something similar ?", then Putin avoids this question by changing subject, and instead says "To spy on ones own allies is dirty, really dirty". I cannot find the words "avoid this question" includes any interpretation or OR. Putin changed subject, he didn't reply to Stone's question, which is exactly the same as avoiding a question. If continue on this line in absurdum: Was, what Putin then said really a reply at all ? Or did he begin discussing something else ? Perhaps he didn't hear Stone or his (possible) question ? If it indeed was a question at all !? Or perhaps Putin didn't listen good enough ? And did Stone actually ask any question at all during 4 hours ? Only at a few occasions did Stone actually say "This is something i must ask..", "People at home expects me to ask this..", so if following in absurdum can no editor at Wikipedia state that there were any other questions, but those ones.. And did Putin say "my reply to your question is..." anytime during the (aired) interviews ? Define "question" , define "reply" etc. etc. In absurdum.

I really don't think I challenge any of our guidelines. And certainly not their intentions. Largely all our Plots and Summary parts to our articles about film /motion pictures, novels, TV-series and TV-documentaries would have to be deleted or heavily reduced, if it's unacceptable to make obvious observations. So what is an "obvious observation" ? One answer is, something that a wide majority share and agree. Absolutely free of own conclusions. DIYeditor has previously pointed out that Putin doesn't specifically say that he avoids that question - but nevertheless does Putin avoid this question. Which all who have watched would agree to, that he does. Not everything must be said in words in order to be obvious enough to observe ! And the use of primary sources isn't my invention, but I can understand if someone should think Stone's interviews are of higher importance, when compared to fiction. But I think I was careful in my contributions to The Putin Interviews. Including in the edit summaries. And including "Putin avoided that question". I think we have arrived at some kind of crossroads. A crossroads between common sense and reason in one corner, and "absurdum" in the other one. At least when it comes to Plots and Summaries. "Carefulness" must however be a keyword in such cases. But I say again, obvious observations, doesn't by default require words. Especially not in filmed dialogues, and as long as secondary sources are unavailable.

• Complaints about my English isn't a part of this imperative matter and formal complaint. (But I've never received complaints like DIYeditor's before, during six years here. I think my self-estimation of my English is correct, compared to others - 3, advanced but not academical. But anyone is free to open an other AN/I complaint, about that matter.) This AN/I complaint is meant to be about whether obvious observations of primary sources necessarily must be said in words or not. (excluding stupid hypothetical possibilities and counter possibilities) - and of course if I have violated our OR guideline. My position is "not by default" and most certainly not, in this case. If am wrong, do I fear most of our Plot and Summary "service" (if I may use that label) for our readers are endangered. Lastly do I humbly ask of those who make comments here, to realize that this is a matter of precedent. Boeing720 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeating the same arguments in great length, verging on WP:TLDR does nothing to promote your cause. We get it that you don't think you did anything wrong. That is entirely the problem here. Despite having several people point out the requirement to avoid OR, you merrily carry on asserting that your interpretation is not OR. If you can't see why this is an issue then I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for you. Once again I must point out that our job here is to reflect what the reliable sources say. You viewing a video is not a reliable source. End of discussion. Oh, and you don't get to decide what is discussed and examined here at AN/I. All aspects of an editors behaviour may and often are examined, including their competence and the amount of work they might create for others even if they are editing in good faith. My advice would be to reconsider your position, to accept that you are required to abide by policy here and promise to listen to advice from others. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No. I'm asking for better guidelines regarding the use of primary sources in relation to our Plots and Summaries. And I'm questioning if my contribution in question is an observation or an OR violation. That's the core. Boeing720 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• This really is looking like serious IDHT at the very least, and CIR quite likely. EEng 00:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick Thorn, for your comment, by the way. But one example: The Candidate (1972 film) - Second line of the Plot: "Bill McKay (Robert Redford), the idealistic, handsome, and charismatic son of former California governor John J. McKay (Melvyn Douglas)." How can we state Bill McKay to be "idealistic, handsome, and charismatic" ? Is it an obvious observation or an OR violation ? I hope you can see my point here. (even if I have managed to create a kind of mess here, for which I'm sorry) Boeing720 (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What's IDHT and CIR ? Jokes ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:IDHT, WP:CIR. How many times do you have to be told that we don't handle content disputes at ANI, and most assuredly not content disputes between an editor and himself? Your rambling opening post belongs in a museum. EEng 01:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not a dispute. Not from my side. We simply have to discuss where the limits go between observation and own conclusions regarding primary sources in our Plots and Summaries, and when that becomes OR or not. Wasn't "Putin avoided that question" solely an observation or was it a conclusion I did. I really think we need a verdict. For the future.

My position is, unless AN/I comes to a different conclusion, that we are allowed to observe, listening in this example. Hence can we, without any interpretation, write what's obvious observations. I believe that the border between interpretation and observation goes where we begin to think actively. Boeing720 (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone PLEASE close this before we have to give this guy a smack? EEng 20:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Hillbillyholiday

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHillbillyholiday&type=revision&diff=801754061&oldid=801750293 (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point I'd be fine switching my block to an indef. This is ridiculous to be blunt. And the threat of socking is adding to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't read that as a threat to sock, but as a complaint that he's being accused of socking on flimsy evidence. We typically allow blocked users to vent on their talkpage to a limited extent provided it doesn't descend into disruption. If he starts making nasty attacks rather than just general venting, or if he's actually caught socking rather than just talking about it, then by all means extend it to indef, but expecting people to be perfectly polite when (as they see it) Wikipedia has punished them for trying to comply with policy would be unrealistic. ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you think this sentence means? Well, Rick, I am going to cock a snoot at both "restriction" and "block" per the following policies: Ignore all rules and WP:Anyone can edit. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"I don't agree with my block and I'm going to complain about it". Admins aren't the Wikipedia Thought Police; we sanction editors on the grounds of what they do, not on the grounds of what they might hypothetically do. If he's actually socking (which is perfectly possible) then you should have no problem finding some evidence of it. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

While I agree in regards to the "socking" thing that we'll handle it if it actually happens, HBH has said several times that they intend to ignore the restriction, and in less than a month has proceeded to do just that three times now, even after a warning and then a week's block. I think that in itself merits consideration as to whether they ought to return to editing without agreeing to abide by the restriction. Otherwise, in a little over a month, I suspect we'll be right back here again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I was getting ready to say that Seraphimblade. It's a blatant WP:IDHT on his part with regards to the restriction placed on his editing. I gave a month to hopefully encourage him to stop, drop the stick over this and move on, but he's not doing it. If there is sufficient enough demand to do so, an indef would be warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I'm not asking for a sanction. I'm disputing the dubious claim that he has not broadcasted his intent to violate the block and the editing restriction. If/when he socks, I'll approach SPI asking for a sanction. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you look at the main reverter at Manny Pacquaio by the way - HH is far from the worst offender. By the way, I have disagreed with HH in the past, but the case at hand I think is not quite as clear-cut as some might think. Collect (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: You do realize that HBH is under an editing restriction, right? It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And that does not obviate the issue on the BLP where one editor seems intent on violating WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS which I regard as something which should be of interest. If you do not wish to even note BLP issues, that is fine. Most Wikipedia editors seem oblivious. Cheers. And some folks might consider the use of an IP sock as strongly verging on vandalism, but I guess IP edits which just happen to be exact duplicates of another person's edits are not to be questioned. Collect (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: That's actually exactly what it does. You didn't read it, otherwise you would have seen the part where his restriction takes precedence over any BLP violation unless it is obvious vandalism. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and pure coincidence that the IP geo-locates to the Philippines. I didn't realise it was ok to support accusations of illegal activity with YouTube clips of ESPN's "Teddy Atlas show", or from sources such as "KDramaStars", the personal blog of Gideon Lasco MD, or FightHype TV. But, hey, maybe they're all perfectly acceptable. Also now sure why "Mayweather vs. Pacquiao lawsuit" and "Post Mayweather fight injury" are subsections beneath "Steroid allegations". But then I don't live in the Philippines, Or have any financial interest in boxing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Collect, I looked at the BLPN section, at the archived ANI section, and on the talk page, and try as I might I can't find any argument to support you and remove that content again. Unfortunately then, since we don't even remotely have a consensus on the BLP-violating quality of the material, and the sourcing being not ridiculously wrong or stupid, we are stuck with the content still in there, because--and I don't like this at all--in this edit some IP editor (whose other work is borderline incompetent/disruptive) restored it without explanation. Perhaps another admin, more roguish than me, thinks that disruptive enough to revert, but Samsara protected it eight minutes later, which is time enough for us to consider that protection a sort of a stamp of approval. If you had more supporters in either of those three discussions than the now-blocked editor and a sock I might have acted. Sorry. [ec with Martinevans123 who also comments on the IP...] Drmies (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • In reply to that - we've had an unresolved bug in mediawiki for a while, whereby after a temporarily elevated protection expires, the previous protection is not automatically reinstated, even if of duration beyond the later protection's expiry. So previously active longer protections must be manually restored. The protection carried out on Manny Pacquiao is such a procedural restoration of a previous protection state and should not be seen in relation to any recent conflict at the article - the original indef semi protection stems from 2010. (The technical limitation is also explained here, in a section which - full disclosure - I wrote. The overall document was co-written with two other admins.) Thank you. Samsara 12:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Martin, the BLPN discussion is still open. Had you made a case there, in a bit more detail, well... Drmies (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Had I made one... ? So my contribution here is just a waste of everyone's time? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Maybe your time--not mine. Had you made that contribution elsewhere, in a bit more detail (since I don't know exactly what you're pointing at), this might have gone differently earlier already. Here, we're discussing Hillbillyholiday. I'm glad you're picking up the torch for them and if you plant it on the talk page, well... Drmies (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm only here because HBH's Talk page is on my watch list and I couldn't see any kind of explanation here as to why he may have been so keen to keep removing that article section. I have no interest in that article, or that particular subject matter. I was just suggesting that that section looked a bit borderline or suspect. If all we're doing is counting reverts, then obviously that's irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Martinevans123, you have said more in that one sentence above than I can find on the talk page. OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but come on--have a close look at it, comment and point out the flaws, evaluate the sources: you are good at this and apparently you're neutral. I'd appreciate it. I didn't see the obvious BLP vio in the quick look that I took, or I might have done something. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that all those proposing nugatory material on Pacquaio seem to be Philippine. I consider such material as

In spite of multiple knockdowns and near stoppages, since the allegations Pacquiao has yet to score a knockout inside the ring ,

Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter.",

Well respected boxing aficionado Teddy Atlas has been of the belief that Pacquiao has been on steroids in the past based on what he [Atlas] sees with his eyes. saying the power is the last thing to go in a fighter, and Manny doesn't have his anymore. and the like.

I suspect that third person accusations of steroid use are generally considered a BLP issue, but your mileage may vary.

currently Pacquiao is facing a lawsuit of 5 million dollars by two fans for failing to disclose the shoulder injury in the lead up to his bout with Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

strikes me as something for which a consensus for inclusion should be required.

Pacquiao's promoter Bob Arum stated that Pacquiao suffered the injury back in 2008 causing even more confusion as Pacquiao just stated that he suffered the injury during the fight now that he is facing lawsuits also appears problematic.

The fact is that those insisting on this material have steadfastly refused to start any RfC on it, and instead have a bunch of Filipino IPs doing reverts. I rather think this is sufficient grounds for likely checking out the main proponents of this material in the BLP, in fact. Consider those statements, and ask whether they are of a nature which requires strong sourcing compliant in all respects with WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS and whether an editor who refuses to even start an RfC is acting in good faith. Merci. Collect (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Many thanks, User:Collect. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Blanking sockmaster's userpage allowed?

Regarding this incident after I blanked the userpage of a sockmaster who has been apparently inactive for seven years. My understanding was that such accounts were de facto community banned and such actions were allowed. Or am I mistaken? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Does the user page violate any Wikipedia policy? I'm asking because I saw no violation. I'd say it's wise not to mess with the user pages of others without some pressing reason (BLP vio, COPYVIO, etc.) Tiderolls 14:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm super confused because since I posted, an admin has done the same kind of blanking for the same reason on an unrelated userpage here. So apparently it is allowed? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It isn't always disallowed. But whether it should be done or not is a matter of circumstance. The page you blanked hadn't been edited in over two years; if it has sat for that long without harming anyone, then there's no reason to blank it now. Such actions might not be forbidden, but they shouldn't be done without reason. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Writ Keeper on this. The question shoul never be if you could; it is always if you should. Don't think about what you're allowed to do. Think about what you need to do, and if it serves any purpose. A two-year old unused talk page is doing no harm. --Jayron32 15:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I know this might be an odd thing to say but IMHO if the user contributed before they socked etc then it should be kept, If they're a prolific sock who never really contributed at all here then the page should be blanked but as Writ Keeper says it's all circumstance really. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's always seemed to be the general practice to replace the content with the SPI banner, so that's what I do. If we want a ruling on this, probably Bearian knows best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Berean Hunter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's always seemed to me to be the general practice for sock blocks too, though it's often avoided (per WP:DENY) for trolls who seem to be trying to maximize their recognised sock count. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To me it depends on the contents of the page. I don't normally blank a sockmaster's page unless it contains material I would blank anyway, but I do add a {{sockmaster}} notice to the very top with some details. Sockmasters aren't automatically banned, only repeat offenders end up in a de facto ban situation because nobody would unblock them, and rarely the community actively bans a very disruptive user. Sockpuppets, on the other hand: I consider them to be violating policy from the moment they create their accounts, and so I regularly blank their userpages and replace with a {{sockpuppet}} notice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• I'm in the 'leave things alone unless there's a problem' camp. But taking issue with your original statement, the account is not blocked (and I may be missing something) - you appear to be suggesting that an account that is inactive for seven years becomes community banned. I don't think so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• I undid the blanking. Partly because I'd prefer it not blanked, but largely because the blanking was completely unexplained. If you're going to do this or similar, the least you can do is add an edit comment explaining why you're doing it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• @William M. Connolley: it's part of the Administrator instructions at WP:SOCKTAG.
  • Tag the sockmaster's user page:
  • If confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|spipage=CASENAME}}
  • If not confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|spipage=CASENAME}} if the user has been indefinitely blocked. Do not make any change if the user has only been blocked for a limited amount of time.
• Doug Weller talk 17:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's well and good but Bri is not an administrator so... --Tarage (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Errrm, where's the bit that says "do not explain yourself in the edit comments?" If there isn't such a thing, I don't understand how your comment answers my point William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I should have made a clear edit summary. Actually I thought this editor's story was well enough known that it would be understood w/o comment. But I'm wary of a determination that non-admins can't do documented cleanup that was written for admins. We have few enough to go around as it is without reserving routine clerking to them. Also WP:NOBIGDEAL and all that. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm with Writ Keeper, Davey, and Jayron. Childofmidnight, for all his flaws later on, has given us an immense amount of content, some of it very good (the stuff he wrote with me and Kelapstick, haha--he never learned how to do citation templates). I feel he deserves a user page. The other user, not so much. Doug, I didn't know about that SOCKTAG rule--I do know that frequently we actually don't tag them, to deny recognition, for instance, or to avoid the (related) Streisand effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • True, but I don't think that's written down. We could still blank but not tag I presume. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • So glad I am no longer an admin. Busy and stressed IRL. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Dimitrios Baltzis

Hi, I'd appreciate some help here. I've been the subject of a spurious report for edit warring [127], and am being pressured (harassed) by Anastan (talk · contribs) to restore content that was copyright violation. Thanks for any assistance re: article and user issues. I am, among other things, curious as to how the doctor's website was apparently so quickly converted to free-use, as well as the possibility of COI; I'd also like to confirm from an objective editor whether notability is satisfied. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have send an email to website contact that it would be good to unlock the website for usage, as someone already started it. I have done this numerous times already, as that expand our possibilities to use here. Good faith editors think this is good, unlike other editors who this that editors can have COI with Greek doctor diabetologist. :) Website now have "Licensed under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL." tag, so no reason to remove section per copyright. Simple as that. I asked IP to restore deleted content, as website is free to use on wikipedia. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course good faith was questioned; copyright violation content was repeatedly restored, and an unmerited report was opened against me at the edit warring noticeboard. Since these developments, free use has been obtained. That said, it's still not advisable to copy biographical content directly from the subject's website. I'm requesting both scrutiny of Anastan's handling of this, as well as the content and tone of the article going forward. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are really interested in content of this, you would restore section and sources you have removed. But per your comment, it looks like you are not interested in this subject anymore, so, doesn't matter really. All best. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 21:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Phil Murphy (politician)

Could we get a sysop to nuke the problem editor here and probably clean up the page history... most of the first page is now just BLP violations and then reversion of them. Home Lander (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've done a load of RDing and blocked one account, Maile66 (talk · contribs) already took care of the other. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by Franz Lidz

• FranzLidz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Franz Lidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this edit, this one, and this edit, a person claiming to be the subject of a BLP said, "The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation". This seems like a legal threat to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a legal threat, but I think he has a point regarding his BLP. I'll take a look. (see WP:DOLT) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thank you. It seems the issues are comments by users on the talk page rather than in the BLP, but your review would be appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is Franz Lidz. As I just wrote on the Talk page to my entry, I am emphatically not making a legal threat. I am merely underscoring the recklessness of the edits on the Talk page. I am also requesting that the entry and its Talk page be blanked, per the procedure spelled out elsewhere on this website.50.201.240.110 (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As one of the editors whose comments on the talk page has been blanked, I want to make it clear that I was not accusing Mr. Lidz of any collusion with the paid editing ring, and I think anyone who actually reads my comments in the context which they were posted can see that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I was involved in that discussion as well, and it is abundantly clear that nobody was accusing Lidz of anything. The existence of the sockfarm which edited Franz Lidz and added references to his work in many articles is indisputable, but noone at any time has said or implied that Lidz was a party to it - the accusations of responsibility have all been towards his publisher(s) or PR people connected to the publishers. No one was being reckless, there is clear evidence of the sockfarm's actions, including an admission from one of the participating editors, therefore Lidz (if that is Lidz - until he confirms with OTRS we have no way of being sure) is incorrect in claiming "recklessness". Also, the blanking of the comments is a travesty unwarranted, and should be undone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, why are any of these actions (blanking of talk page comments, AFDing based on subject's desire for deletion) being taken before there's even been an identification to OTRS? Or am I mistaken and his identity has been confirmed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BMK; unless there's been an OTRS confirmation of identity, I think we're jumping the gun on the AfD. I also agree that the discussion that got blanked didn't impugn Lidz personally or professionally, though it suggested (based on what I understand to be pretty clear behavioral evidence) that somebody was engaged in conduct that appeared promotional on our page about Lidz. And, contrary to what the IP above says about legal threats, it was a legal threat. I'm not sure it's to the level of a NLT block, but it's definitely disruptive, and I have no doubt it was made to chill participation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding confirmation of identity, it's a private matter that's being handled offline. As for the blanked section, I agree there was no bright-line misconduct in the section, but BLP concerns shouldn't be brushed aside, and on the balance I felt that courtesy blanking the section was a harmless way to address the editor's concern. If anyone really wants to read what was there it's available in the history. And as for the statement being a legal threat: if it was, it was retracted, so the issue is moot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector: I would never suggest brushing aside a legitimate BLP concern, but I think it was pretty clear that this was being badly misread by the person claiming to be Lidz, most probably based on the "journalism professor"'s characterization of the discussion to them. Regarding the identification of the account and IP as Lidz, if it turns out that they cannot identify themselves to the satisfaction of OTRS, I would suggest that the discussion be un-blanked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd feel much more comfortable with the trusted, trained volunteers who staff OTRS handling identity verification than it being a "private matter" and "handled offline". This is one of the reasons OTRS was created, so we weren't handling potentially private information on an ad hoc basis. Honestly, I'm surprised to hear this suggestion that BLP concerns are being brushed aside: they're certainly not. As to the retraction of the threat: that may be satisfactory from a NLT perspective, but it does not remove the harm done by the editor claiming to be Lidz in making a legal threat deliberately to stifle legitimate discussion about unidentified individuals' promotional activity on his Wikipedia biography. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

In fact I did mean to go through OTRS or send instructions to the editor, except I couldn't figure out from the OTRS pages what to tell them to do. Instead I emailed Arbcom, which I suppose isn't much removed from screaming into the void, but that is what I meant by "being handled offline"; I wasn't intending to provide further details. Arbcom hasn't responded; if someone more familiar with OTRS would like to take over that aspect of this whole thing, please do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not a legal threat - per Wikipedia:No legal threats#Defamation A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. See also: WP:LIBEL. Recommended course of action is an email to: [email protected]. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  The "discussion" of libel – which was decidedly more than a simple discussion, as lawyers have already been consulted:

  The Talk page fantasizing and the finger-pointing templates that blanket both pages of my entry are inappropriate, unprofessional, malicious and, in the opinion of PS&E counsel, potentially libelous. And because the pages are on public display, they impugn my professional reputation ... Wikipedia's bylaws state that it is acceptable to blank an article for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure, as described in the policy on biographies of living persons. [128]

  – is only one issue. Steps are being taken on the basis of the account User:FranzLidz being the actual real life Franz Lidz, so identification is also required, since there's a non-zero possibility that the "journalism professor" who got so strangely upset about the Franz Lidz article being edited and the user "FranzLidz" are the same person. I'm pinging @Mailer Diablo: and @Sphilbrick:, two editors whose names I am familiar with who are listed as OTRS members to see if they have anything to add to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Still not a legal threat. A legal threat (linked at WP:NLT) is a statement by a party that it intends to take legal action on another party, generally accompanied by a demand that the other party take an action demanded by the first party or refrain from taking or continuing actions objected to by the demanding party. That is "(If you do not do X,) I intend to take legal action"; not "I asked my lawyer and they think it's potentially libelous". I realise that this seems like splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction. And, while speculation on the identities of editors is profoundly uninteresting, I am pleased that Sphilbrick is looking into it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because it's not a legal threat that rises to the level of a NLT block does not render it non-disruptive. Going on a website and making it clear you have legal counsel investigating matters published on that website has a distinct chilling effect—no matter how preposterous an actual lawsuit might be, as it would be in this case. And, frankly, this is why people make these statements: to silence speech they dislike and to coerce speech of which they approve. The object of the threat made on the talk page was precisely this. We're not talking about someone unsophisticated here, either. This sort of conduct honestly should draw a block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly right, and although WP:NLT doesn't say so explicitly (but should) it de facto recognizes "chilling effect" as one oif the primary reasons for disallowing legal threats when it says that "Repeats of legal threats on the user's talk page have limited scope for disruption or chilling effect", implying that legal threats elsewhere have a broader scope for disruption and chilling effect. (The policy needs some disambiguation.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I am looking in to it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Identify confirmation I can confirm that OTRS is in receipt of an email from Franz Lidz and I have confirmed his identity.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, it won't surprise anyone that OTRS agents are not permitted to reveal the contents of email sent to OTRS, but it is also true that we cannot even confirm the existence of such an email in many cases. When someone sends a permission statement into permissions, I believe it is okay to acknowledge the existence of the email (although not the contents beyond confirmation that an acceptable license has or has not been provided). I will make the argument that someone writing in to confirm their identity to info EN implicitly expects that this fact can be reported elsewhere, but until I get confirmation from other OTRS admin's that this should be an exception to the normal rule for emails to info EN, we require explicit permission from the subject before even acknowledging the existence of an email. That has happened in this case. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to explore this a bit, if identity is confirmed, but permission to make it public is withheld, do we still entertain changes in articles, etc. at the request of the confirmed editor? It would seem that we shouldn't, as only the OTRS team member would be aware, or the admin they notify to make article deletion, and the community would not be able to participate in those discussions, not knowing that the identity has been confirmed. It would seem to me that part of the "cost" of having one's objections seriously considered is to have the account identity publicly confirmed, since one can simply use a "throw-away" account to do so, at not breach of privacy to the subject. Not an issue here, obviously, but it would be good to know for the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI in order to determine if User:FranzLidz used the three IP addresses (same person) to comment on Talk:Franz Lidz before they created the FranzLidz account. The SPI was filed before I saw Sphilbrick's confirmation above, but does not rest on the question of whether FranzLidz' is or is not Franz Lidz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

In what I feel is the best interest of Wikipedia, I am withdrawing the SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is being vandalised by multiple new users who appear to be socks of User:Bajirao1007. An image which he admits is his brother has twice been uploaded and speedily deleted from Commons here and here then placed on our project placed here here,here here here by Bajirao nd here. Also see User_talk:Bajirao1007#Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Even if his brother, clearly a minor, does have this illness it is unacceptable to be uploading these images to the commons and then putting them in this article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The article has been semi-protected for 2 days, no one has been blocked, so we'll see if the vandalism starts again when the protection expires, you might also consider filing a report as SPI. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Insults by MjolnirPants

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

---

Over the past month or so, MjolnirPants has made a point of insulting me when we interact:

• Calling me a liar here on AN/I: [129] [130]

• Trying to be clever by deploying insults like "moron" and "idiot" with just enough plausible deniability: [131] [132] [133]

I don't feel I should have to put up with this sort of behavior. I am requesting whatever sanction against MjolnirPants is deemed appropriate.

On a note about procedure: I would appreciate it if the people who discuss this request remain limited to

1. MjolnirPants, who of course has the right to speak in their own defense.
2. Whichever admins choose to review this request.

I expect that several editors who edit in the American Politics subject area will want to comment, but this request runs the risk of turning into a massive back-and-forth. I'd simply like the question of these insults to be handled here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This is extraordinary. You wish to exclude the witnesses who have seen your behavior over the past year? Wouldn't that rather limit the information available to who ever closes this matter? SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Point 1 of procedure is that you are put under the same exact microscope as MjolnirPants. So no, this discussion shall not remain limited to MjolnirPants. Point 2 of procedure is that non-admins who are involved or who can present evidence are free to do so and that experienced veterans can provide input or guidance as they deem fit - as I am doing right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• I don't comment here too often, but this is fucking ridiculous. The very method in which this "complaint" was filed should be grounds for dismissal. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Right on top: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." and WP:BOOMERANG: "There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases, a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report." The fact that you request users to abide by your "rules" is fucking ridiculous. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, none of your requirements can or will be met. Anyone filing a charge against another editor on AN/I will have their own behavior examined as well, and AN/I is open to the opinions of any Wikipedian.
  Let me start the ball rolling by looking at your editing history. [134]
  You've been editing here for 11 years, since 2006, and yet you've only made 2,323 edits. Of those edits, a mere 33%, or 765 edits, have been to articles, the things that we're supposedly here to write, expand and correct, the basic unit of the encyclopedia. On the other hand, 66.2% of your edits (1,535 in number) have been to Talk, User talk, and Wikipediaspace. My observation is that you spend a fair number of those edits complaining that Wikipedia's consensus-determination procedure is broken, "not fair", and needs a complete overhaul, much as you did in a current discussion on AN, where you referred to it as "mob rule". You appear to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and in doing so, you exhibit an alarming degree of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, totally ignoring the valid, logical and reasonable arguments of your oppponents -- It's no wonder that such behavior would get under the skin of some editors. I myself have been the victim of your use of gross mischaracterizations of others' arguments in order to attempt to win a point.
  In short, I really think that, overall, you are WP:NOTHERE to contribute to the encyclopedia, your article edits being clearly incidental to your commentary edits. I'm not certain if your behavior is egregious enough to warrant a sanction, but I do think that you are in no position whatsoever to criticize the behavior of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not going to say much, but I will say this. The "insults" linked above were already the subject of some admin shopping by Thuc, when none of the three admins they contacted were willing to block me the way he kept insisting they should. Also, I stand by my accusation that Thuc was lying in that thread. Thuc continued to insist that an admin never provided any evidence for a block, despite dozen of editors and more than a few admins pointing out that the admin in question has provided evidence multiple times. Not to mention the multiple times said admin provided evidence. So I don't, for one second, buy that Thuc honestly believed his claims in that thread to be true. No intelligent person could, and I have opined on more than one occasion that Thuc is an intelligent person. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Pants is one of a long list of editors that Thucydides411 follows around to hurl personal aspersions and attacks and to forum shop seeking sanctions and enforcement. Here's one gratuitous thread [135] where Thuc bludgeons @Drmies: about some more-or-less ordinary comment Drmies made about Thuc's nemesis @Volunteer Marek:. I'll look for similar examples where Thuc goes after me, @MrX: and others. I won't say more without diffs. I will say that Thuc edits article talk and noticeboard pages nearly exclusively -- mainly either to attack other edtiors or to complain that WP is "no fair" essentially because we insist on representing the WEIGHT of mainstream sources, which don't happen to be the sources Thuc particularly respects. I would say that Thuc is WP:NOTHERE. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• The longer this stays open, the more likely a BOOM. I suggest the filer withdraw and stop wasting editor time. Objective3000 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• The whole "you're not an idiot so don't talk like one" or whatever being a personal attack is silly. That entire thread on my talk page was silly too. I have not yet seen this editor's good side. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

German federal election, 2017

Could we have some admin eyes on this please. An editor has repeatedly tried to add some forecast results to the infobox despite there being multiple forecasts around (see the German language article). I have reverted a couple of times but an about to go to sleep and see it's been readded again despite a request to stop on the talkpage. Cheers, Number 57 23:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for Megerflit

The following discussion is closed. 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 I got no response or had taken action from the admin who had blocked this user, I'm going to ask this here.

Can any admin revoke TPA privileges for Megerflit? Looking at the talk page, I see nothing but personal attacks and threats mainly directed at admins who are involved with this user; this user is certainly WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Normally diffs are required as evidence, I'll just offer some select quotes;

• Why am I not astounded that the unbridled arrogance that is the hallmark of your nest of vipers would prevent you from recognizing any of my comments ... as wholly valid OBSERVATIONS about your conduct and procedures, and not just "ranting and insults"?
• Believe me, Shirley, had I honestly intended to "unload" on your squishy tribe of Wikignats, I fear they may have required intensive therapy and warm cocoa for months.
• You people really are twisted in your noggins if you honestly believe you acted in any kind of legitimate and effective manner throughout this exchange - Personal comment; Noggins? British editor? Nick Bougas is an American - Megerflit seems to claim to be Nick Bougas -, I don't know that I've ever heard of Americans using the word noggin before.
• You also seem to have a gigantic chip on your shoulder over being unpaid toadies ... maybe the company should toss your sniffy pack of prima donnas a little folding cash so you can quit taking out your suppressed rage impulses on the hapless Wiki subjects. - Personal comment: Umm, the sniffy pack of prima donnas bit is a bit rich, I mean come on.
• I can't help but suspect that therein lies the rub ... an unaccomplished slug with no social skills, who will undoubtedly never have a Wikipage of his own, is apparently drunk on being in the unique position to banish those who can handily see right through him.

• Oh, and all of the above, is just one comment.

• I would be happy to consider any evidence that Megerflit could provide of this though; I routinely received some real unhinged and nasty displays from your "collegial" colleagues. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• This user also made a legal threat after this report is filed. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the interactions with Mr Bougas, I note that there was hardly any real interaction with him beyond some boilerplate templates and, in the article history, a whole load of fighting with him over maintenance tags, reverts, frustration and not a few insults in edit summaries. I also note that there was minimal discussion with him outside of the edit summaries. Is anyone actually surprised that the subject of the article would explode after having been treated the way he has? Blackmane (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Blackmane:--Did you miss Bri's post?Winged Blades ^Godric 03:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not miss it, but no discussion was borne from that, while the vast bulk of interactions with Mr Bougas was via edit summaries. Hence, my comment minimal discussion. Blackmane (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have revoked Megerflit's talk page access. Nothing productive is happening there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

A35821361 is NOTHERE

Hello, this is pretty much my first time posting at ANI. Basically, A35821361 seems to be only here to criticise the Baha'i Faith and to attack it. His response to being blocked for edit warring was to blame the "members of the Baha'i Faith" for it. He also complained about how "While 36 hours is a brief time to be banned, this complaint is a pattern of intimidation by members of the Bahá'í Faith on those who wish to shed light on historically accuracy, which is not always the narrative sanctioned by the Bahá'í Administrative Order" -- quote from the diff I've linked to, [136], I humbly submit this editor is clearly NOTHERE. I'm sorry for how poor my post looks...just not the best at this.79.66.4.79 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, your diff doesn't work, and I can't figure out what you intended. Please create a diff the way it says here. Also, it might be useful to mention which article he was edit warring on. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Fixed the diff, and A35821361 was edit-warring on the Baha'i Faith page. 79.66.4.79 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A diff from May is not indicative of a current problem. However, poking into User:A35821361's contrib history, I'm not sure WP:NOTHERE is the right issue, but it does look like A35821361 is hostile to Baha'i, and is prone to edit-warring. I don't want to step into this mess, but think some admin or another should. They should probably also notify the user. Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to thank Argyriou (talk) for mentioning my username here, otherwise I would have no inkling that this discussion was underway. In any case, it is true that I frequently contribute to topics related to the Bahá'í Faith. As my contributions are sourced from objective, third-party references they are not always in concordance with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá'í Administrative Order. This has often led to the reversion of these contributions and allegations that they are somehow "hostile," when in fact they are unbiased. If you read the continuation of the quote which 79.66.4.79 (talk) has linked to above, it continues, "In fact, this intimidation has led several prominent academics to leave or be ex-communicated by the Bahá'í Administrative Order (see Juan Cole, Abbas Amanat, Denis MacEoin, and Ehsan Yarshater)." It saddens me that these tactics are now attempted in Wikipedia. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a wikipedia contributor, but just thought i'd chime in to say that some of your first contributions included an entirely uncited claim that Baha'u'llah sold slaves to pay off debts with zero sources, neutral or hostile, given. Getting better at finding citations to support an editorial agenda does not make that editorial agenda cease to exist. None of those academics was actually excommunicated or claimed to have been excommunicated, the closest thing would be Juan Cole claiming to have been threatened with excommunication (with the only source for that claim being Cole himself).UrielvIII (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Not a Wikipedia editor", indeed, considering that was your first edit. How did you find your way here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I lurk pages I'm interested in, (feel I don't have the writing/citing ability to contribute up to wiki standards though), user in question is a fairly active contributor in a lot of them so I've been lurking his contribution log as well (apologies if that's against wikipedia policy. Feel free to delete if it is).UrielvIII (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A35 certainly seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have a theory as to why he so antagonistic to Baha'i, but that would be casting aspersions. Suggest a topic ban. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP you're using began editing today, but you've been around: you know about WP:casting aspersions, for instance. If you have an account your normally edit with, you should have filed this complaint with that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I previously brought this up at the noticeboard here and got no response. I later tried more specific complaints about biographies of living persons here and here, also with no response. I think A35821361 was successful at scaring away any admins from looking past the surface by simply declaring himself to be unbiased. Anyone looking through edits and talk pages would recognize deception, but that takes time. The edit warring on biographies of living persons is still ongoing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 06:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome anyone to look at my edit and contribution history to Wikipedia, and compare it to the edit and contribution history of other editors on the same articles. Aside from being sourced from objective, third party sources, my edits and contributions are entirely compliant with the guidelines of Wikipedia. On the other hand, one should consider what the objectives of some of the other editors are. For example, Cuñado ☼ - Talk has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and called me a "deceitful attacker" on my talk page. More recently, there has been systematic reversions and deletions to the biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing institution of the Bahá'í Faith whose decisions are deemed infallible by believers. The reason given for these reversions and deletions are that the members of the Universal House of Justice lack notability, when in fact in addition to their religious service to the Bahá'í Administrative Order many these individuals have led successful careers as academics, authors, artists, actors, and the heads of award-winning NGOs. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

This is comical. If there is an admin listening I'd be happy to lay out in detail why A35821361's last comment is deception (maybe delusion?) in line with how he has behaved for the last 9 months. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornton Chase may be of interest. Smkolins (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the article for Thornton Chase and the discussion for the AfD is demonstrative. Thornton Chase was an insurance salesman and is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and priod to the AfD proposal almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. This contrasts sharply with the articles of the members of Universal House of Justice members that have been systematically deleted, which were sourced from multiple different sources regarding various accomplishments of the individuals covered in their respective articles. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

Simply false. The biographies were stuffed with references that don't mention the person. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A cursory look at Thornton Chase's article shows citations from a large number of independent newspapers. A skim of the contents of the article also shows that it covers his notable service in the Civil War. (although from the talk page these may have been added recently). By contrast the article for one House of Justice member, Stephen Birkland, contains citations exclusively from either Baha'i sources or Juan Cole, a former Baha'i who leveled accusations of misconduct against Birkland (the article that is not by a Baha'i or Cole only mentions Birkland by citing Cole's statements). Neither of those sources are neutral third parties. In any case the article only contains three paragraphs and could easily be merged into a larger article which is why I assume it would have been deleted (although I can't say that for certain) UrielvIII (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To be fair the Chase article has been developed a ton since it was nominated. But A35821361's skills as a researcher and knowledge are far from mundane. I didn't have to look hard at all for many obvious third party sources. And that's aside from simply looking at the footnotes of Dr. Stockman's research. A35821361 didn't bother while he/she is perfectly willing to spend a great deal of time researching very obscure people for possible personal relationships to other things and beyond. In short he'd rather delete the article on Chase and work on some of these others even if many people agree that Chase is notable and the others several people have found unfounded. Smkolins (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's his prerogative to work on whatever he wants. There is nothing wrong with nominating for deletion. BTW, great job improving the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always tried to research up rather than dismiss down. It's odd to me that he creates the Robert Stockman article and then dismisses a key subject of Stockman's research for decades. Smkolins (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

For added context, it appears the user in question has posted to the following website accusing people of censoring him: https://bahaicensorship.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/bahai-faith-and-slavery-an-example-of-how-bahais-control-information-on-wikipedia/

The most obvious differences between the version of the article in the link and the current "censored" version on wikipedia are that the entirely unreferenced and unsupported claims that Baha'u'llah sold a slave to pay off debts and that attempts were made to have the book 'Black Pearls' suppressed have been removed.

My own thoughts from some browsing the talk pages of some of the more contentious Baha'i articles are that terms like 'official narrative' and 'excommunication' have been used which paints a picture of a point of view being oppressed and marginalized. However repeatedly editing pages to add content deleted/edited by others, dropping out of discussions on said edits/deletions rather than arguing ones point of view until an agreement is reached and adding inflammatory uncited information an is not a reasonable way to participate in a collaborative project.

To my knowledge Baha'is don't actually hold any positions of authority over wikipedia, with everyone being on more or less equal footing, making accusations of censorship and prosletyzing on a third party website seem counterproductive if the goal is to contribute to an unbiased tone on wikipedia. UrielvIII (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time I have heard of this web page. The content therein I had shared on Reddit, relating to a discussion on Bahá’í censorship and information control. The owner of the web site you linked to must have cut-and-paste the content from Reddit into his website. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Which website it was published to is largely irrelevant. You have complained that you have been called a 'deceitful attacker' and your edits interpreted as hostile on wikipedia, while leveling similar accusations against people you're in disagreement with on an entirely different website rather than raising the issue in the context of an article or with wikipedia adminsUrielvIII (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, upon reading the nothere rules, your articles claims of a cadre devoted to eliminating facts to proselytize is an accusation of a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia", something against wikipedias rules. If this 'cadre' does not actually exist (which in my opinion it does not) then editing with the intention of combating their 'official narrative' would in itself constitute a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia".UrielvIII (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

My contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Where appropriate, I have engaged other editors in discussions on talk pages in relevant topics and articles, and if you have read them, you will note that topics such as Bahá’í review, censorship, information control, and the posthumous editing of literature have on occasion been discussed when relevant. What is ironic is that the endeavor of building a comprehensive encyclopedia is undermined not by my efforts but by those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because you keep saying that you're crusading against an "officially sanctioned narrative" with unbiased edits doesn't make it true. Accusing people of deleting under false pretenses is casting aspersions. UrielvIII (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

For added context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_slavery&oldid=737879646 is one of your first contributions which was edited, it includes these sentences with no citations:

"Bahá'u'lláh officially condemned slavery in 1874, by which time he had actually sold a slave to pay debts.", "a book that, despite efforts at censorship by the Bahá'í Administrative Order, was published by the independent Bahá'í publishing company Kalimát Press.". Your inclusion of these false and baseless claims with no sources shows that at the very least you haven't always been committed to defending third-party sourcing, although your commitment to 'exposing' the "officially sanctioned narrative" has remained constant, sources or no. UrielvIII (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also for context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustavo_Correa talkpage on one of the UHJ articles includes a discussion from a month ago of your sourcing, where you're accused of misrepresenting what your cited sources contain. You have not tried to contest the accusation. UrielvIII (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And for even more context, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A35821361#Good_morning discussion on your talk page pretty much sums up every other discussion you've had regarding your Members of the UHJ pages, you only imply that the fact you are correct is self evident, offer very little reasoning for why that is the case and then drop out of the discussion when counterpoints are raised. That behaviour is not conducive to cooperatively making an encyclopedia.

Your lack of willingness to co-operate with certain editors may be tied to your accusations in your article (linked above) of a secret cadre existing to proselytize on wikipedia, so we're back to that point you didn't address. If you are actively seeking to combat a group is that not a "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia"? Conspiracy theories about the Bahá’í Administrative Order pushing a narrative don't prove that you are unbiased, if anything, the fact you bring them up to justify your edits makes you seem very biased. UrielvIII (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Among the examples of problems that may be of interest in this thread is:

• lacking responding to the points raised in edit comments about material attributed to living people. See my edits for example at [137]. It was my understanding that rather than leave the contentious material in the article and tag it with a citation discussion that material on living people should be deleted and discussed to reach consensus. The discussion went precisely nowhere. And this is related to a network of articles that push something A358 really wants out there, judging from the level of engagement, against the input of multiple editors and been going on for a long time.
• There has also been some mis-attibution of sources in the case of the Kiser Barnes article and was part of the discussion of why that article was deleted. See [138]. A358 did not participate but the matter was acted on.

The issues related to the Kiser Barnes article that was deleted have been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice as well as User talk:A35821361#Biographies and in the related material discussed on the talk pages of several of the other members of the Universal House of Justice including Farzam Arbab, Gustavo Correa, and Paul Lample. I apologies if it appeared to you that I was disinterested in the issues that led to the deletion of the Kiser Barnes article. Far from it. I would wish that article had not been deleted, as had the articles for Glenford Eckleton Mitchell, Douglas Martin (Bahá'í), and David Ruhe. I further wish the bulk of material had not been injudiciously removed from the articles for Farzam Arbab, Gustavo Correa, and Paul Lample. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again here and in the linked discussions you haven't addressed any of the counterpoints explaining why the article should have been removed, instead just saying and that the removal is unjust. No proof, just flowery language. UrielvIII (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

To get specific, on the linked discussion on your user talk page your edits are stated to have violated policy, your response is to state that you have addressed it on the talk pages of those articles. An example of such a discussion is present on the Gustavo Correa talk page, which I have mentioned in another post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gustavo_Correa. Your 'addressing' of the points consists of saying your sources are third party, saying they mention the subject or their work with no reasoning or actual discussion of why that is the case, and then not responding when you are accused of misrepresenting what your sources contain.

When the point of the bulk your 'third-party' sources not mentioning the person is raised in the discussion your user talk page you respond by entirely changing the subject, completely ignoring the accusation, and accusing Cunado of hypocrisy for starting the pages ten years ago and then stating he wants them deleted now. You have not, as of yet, addressed Cunado's explanation of his change in position, or the original point of your third-party sources being irrelevant to the subject of the articles. UrielvIII (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As another example of your unwillingness to support your position in discussions of wikipedia policy is discussion of your most recent edits on the 'Criticism of the Baha'i Faith': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_the_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith Here it is stated that there is no notable criticism of the Faiths position on abortion, your response is to restate your own criticisms of the Faiths stance of abortions. I believe that your edits of this page, and discussion on the talk page show your attitude is that of someone attempting to use wikipedia as a soapbox.

My reasoning for this belief is that you essentially added your own personal interpretation of Baha'i scripture to a page, a direct quote: "but there are a few statements by its founders that raise some controversy by contradicting some current scientific understanding." (notably there is no citation of where this criticism comes from, presumably as it is your opinion), and your response to the question of whether this criticism was notable enough for inclusion on the talkpage was to double down on explaining why your interpretation is valid. While this is the most egregious example of your commitment to pushing an agenda (even here you have basically acknowledged you have an agenda of opposing the "Officially sanctioned narrative", justifying it as correcting a bias (with no reasoning) rather than denying you have an agenda), I believe this attitude is present in the majority of your edits, which (while I'm no expert) I think is against wikipedia guidelines UrielvIII (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps people specialized in editing articles on living people should weigh in rather us having to deal with accusations like "those of individuals who engage in such practices as ensuring third-party referenced information is eliminated to bring articles in-line with the officially-sanctioned narrative of the Bahá’í Administrative Order and by their wholesale deletion of the articles related to the individual members of the Universal House of Justice under the pretenses (in my opinion wholly false) that these individuals do not meet notability standards." Smkolins (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC) I beleive the point of this thread is whether WP:NOTHERE applies to User:A35821361. I'd entertain discussion of that. User:A35821361 - care to chime in on those points? Smkolins (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Asima Chatterjee Google Doodle

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected for the duration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asima_Chatterjee

Lots of vandalism since this became a google doodle. I think IP editors should be blocked until the day is over at least. Autumn Wind (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

36 hours of semi has been applied. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats at Talk:James D. Zirin

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

---

Jzirin (talk · contribs), a WP:SPA who has twice posted a copyvio vanity page at James D. Zirin and James d zirin, is now making legal threats here. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I templated "User:Jzirin" per WP:TPO, since the pages getting deleted meant there was no live link to anything in the above post. I hope User:Mr. MacTidy doesn't mind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a bit, thanks. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for the legal threats, though they should've been blocked a while ago for disruptive editing anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:SOCK and WP:SPA at torrent articles

• kickass2.nz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• isohunt.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• torrentproject2.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• isohunt2.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

There is an ongoing problem at these articles: IsoHunt, KickassTorrents and Torrent Project‎. Someone keeps on changing the URLs despite being asked not to do it and the articles being semi-protected recently. It's particularly annoying because it is being done by new user accounts which seem to be a WP:SPA for doing this. Help requested here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Investigation opened: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marylucygril. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The pages have also been semiprotected. If there is further disruption related to this, please advise at the SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Still looking but I can tell you that at least one account is cross wiki spamming right now as seen here. We need this link added to the meta blacklist. Beetstra are you around?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I'm around. Can you give me all domains? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Are these the 4 domains in above tracking templates? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's them, Dirk. I'll list the links within the SPI reports in the future per your comments there. Stewards have locked the accounts due to cross-wiki abuse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Added to meta. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Long-time repeated disruptive/POV editing by Ukrainian IP

Resolved

 – Six-month block

178.165.104.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (sample edits, all made after returning from their latest block: [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145])

For more than a year now (since 27 August, 2016) the above IP, a static broadband connection geolocating to the Ukraine, has been on a relentless campaign to "Ukrainise" all articles even remotely connected to the Ukraine and people they see as being or having been Ukrainians, by changing names, and/or transliteration thereof, etc away from what is commonly used in English language literature and media, to the names and/or transliteration currently preferred in the Ukraine, such as Kiev -> Kyiv, Kievan Rus' -> Kyivan Rus Vladimir the Great -> Volodymyr the Great, making anachronistic changes of place of birth, such as changing the country of birth for historic individuals from Russian Empire to the Ukraine, a country that didn't exist until long after the times of those individuals, etc. And getting blocked four times for it over the past year (with the latest one being a three-month block on 27 April), hasn't stopped them, as shown by them being back at it again just a few days after returning from their latest block on 27 July, making the exact same attempts to Ukrainise articles again on 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 20 and 31 August, and again on 12, 14, 18, 21, 22 and 23 September, showing no signs of ever stopping. All edits ever made by this IP are of the same kind, showing that it's a single individual doing it, meaning that there would be no collateral damage, so could we please have another block? For at least six months... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• For a bit of a background to this see Talk:Kiev/naming, a collection of Requested move discussions spanning almost ten years, every one of which has ended in favour of keeping Kiev, and not changing to Kyiv. An outcome that a number of Ukrainian nationalists refuse to accept, in spite of being told repeatedly that we go by what WP:COMMONNAME says, so this isn't a simple content dispute but deliberate disruption, and an attempt to push the changes through by brute force. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Blocked for six months as requested to prevent further disruption. I note that although the IP address is owned by Maxnet Telecom, it appears to be allocated to Kharkivs'ka city council. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Libraheights97

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely

Libraheights97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of disruptive editing on this encyclopedia. Since joining in August 2017, their continued edits at The Pinkprint have continued to be reverted, as it is not supported by reliable source. User was previously blocked for 72-hours for disruptive editing, however, any additional report is deemed "stale" or "unactionable," despite it being the same repeated pattern of editing. Also, at the Days of Our Lives page, the user continues to update information without changing the access date on the provided source; this alone proves that without updating the access date, the information could be questioned, as the information is provided after the provided access date. Despite multiple warnings (from myself and other editors), the user refuses to acknowledge this, and continues on this pattern of editing. Clearly, they are not here to edit constructively here at Wikipedia, and action should be taken. livelikemusic talk! 13:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Communication is required and this editor has never responded to concerns.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism from Michigan IP

Resolved

 – Rangeblocked

For over two months now, I (along with some other editors) have been reverting vandalism/disruptive edits from multiple IP addresses (although probably the same person). I report it, they get blocked; but usually are back within a few days making the same type of nonsense vandalism across the same type of articles. The IPs in question are (I may have missed a few):

• 50.124.235.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 50.124.238.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 50.105.96.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 50.105.99.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 50.105.115.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All IPs have been warned multiple times and have been (temporarily) blocked at some point within the last two months. The question is, what else can be done? Can something more substantive or preventive be done to stop this persistent nonsense vandalism? According to here, all IPs geolocate to Muskegon County and specifically, per the coordinates at the source, the Mercy Health Hackley Campus in Michigan. Can a rangeblock be issued or what? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• 50.105.0.0/16 and 50.124.0.0/16 both anon-blocked for three months. This is this LTA and he has used both ranges extensively. See Special:Contributions/50.124.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/50.105.0.0/16. This is an excellent candidate for an edit filter.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Article ownership, edit warring over maintenance tags, and less-than-civil edit summaries by User:Megerflit

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely

• Megerflit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nick Bougas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user in question is holding himself out as Nick Bougas. After revamping the article to his preferred version, he takes objection to any maintenance tags being placed on the article—especially anything pointing out that his edits may have affected the neutrality of the page. Further, his edit summaries, while they don't quite rise to the level of personal attacks, are far from civil. His level of ownership behaviour is such that he now is appealing to have the page deleted rather than have maintenance tags placed on it.

He's already been blocked for edit warring, and his first edits when back from the block were to start removing the tags. Clearly this is a situation for some administrator involvement. Can somebody else step in and talk to him? —C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--Anyone for a soft-block (impersonation) at a minimum? Anyways, I've reverted his latest edits.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

C.Fred suggests that somebody talk to him, but having looked at his editing history I think it has gone beyond that stage. I have blocked the account indefinitely. If he is willing to totally change his ways he can make an unblock request, and if he isn't then he is never going to make constructive contributions to the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Dallas to keep a large chunk of data that doesn't belong there in the article

User:Texan44 has a dded a large chunk of economic data etc to the lead of Dallas, greatly expanding what was there previously, data that I removed since it's data for the entire Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex (which has its own article), not just for the city of Dallas which Dallas is about, but is being repeatedly added back again by Texan44, in spite of me telling them on their talk page, and in edit summaries, that is was removed for being outside the scope of the article it was added to, and pointing them to the correct article. I'm at three reverts now and can't revert them again, but I would appreciate if someone else could take a look at it, and make them understand, one way or the other. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The information contained in the article has been present in that article for years. It is nothing new. It has not been added on a whim. It has existed previously for quite some time. I have merely updated that previously existing text, with verifiable and appropriate citations and links, to reflect the latest data. The text is nothing new being added but merely represents appropriate updates to long standing text and long standing existing data. The whole paragraph is prefaced with the fact that Dallas is the central economy and much of that data is only available in the format it is provided in (i.e. GDP data is not by city it is by MSA or metropolitan data). All of the data represented is that type of data. It is not an edit war except that this person has suddenly decided to make this into one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texan44 (talk • contribs)

You expanded it, which is how I noticed it, and as I told you on your talk page, it doesn't matter if it has been there for years or not, it should go anyway, since it's outside the scope of the article. Dallas is about the city of Dallas only, not about the entire metroplex. Period. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Since this looks like a content dispute, the best thing to do is to discuss the matter at Talk:Dallas. I've recommened this to Texas44 when they contacted me at my talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding economic data for the entire metropolitan area to the lead and body of the article about the city of Dallas, which may be the largest city in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex but is still just a part of it (with roughly one third of the population of the metroplex if my memory serves me right...Correction: the population of Dallas is less than one fifth of the total population of the metroplex...), misleads readers, and makes them believe that the economy of Dallas is larger than it is, and is as misleading as very prominently featuring economic data for all of Greater Los Angeles in the lead of the article about the city of Los Angeles. Just to mention one example. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

But there is no intent to mislead, so no administrative action is needed regarding the article. This is a matter for Talk:Dallas. If there's a 3RR violation after proper warning, you can take that to WP:AN3. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're intentionally trying to mislead anyone, but the end result is the same whether it's intentional or not. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated large deletion, with sockpuppetry

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

---

Joeyburton489, with a history of 2 edits, deleted 3,075 bytes from Cognate, with the edit comment

There is no cognates within the same language. Cognates are words derived from different languages.

CodeCat reverted the change within an hour. Then Leonardomicheli297 (1 edit) repeated the deletion, with the identical change comment.

A sockpuppeteer is unlikely to engage in civil discussion. I am going to inform the user on both of these talk pages, but beyond that I request admin assistance here.--Thnidu (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The quacking is strong with these ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnsondrake2607 is probably the same editor too - see their restoration of Joeyburton489's reverted edit on Doublet (linguistics). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The three accounts were created closely together in time:

• Joeyburton489 - 18:37 19 September - 2 minutes before making their first edit, to Cognate [146]
• Leonardomicheli - 19:53 19 September - 2 minutes before restoring Jayburton489's edit to Cognate [147]
• Johnsondrake2607 - 22:23 19 September - 1 minute before restoring Joeyburton489's edit to Doublet (linguistics) [148]

Clearly sockpuppets created specifically for the purpose of restoring reverted edits. Can we get some blocks here, or do I really need to file an SPI for such an obvious and trivial case? (SPI being prety badly backed up). I don't think a CU is needed, given that my ears are bleeding from the quacking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty suspicious. Just the same, I can think of a sort of believable explanation for it. I asked Joey on his talk page for his own explanation. If someone else wants to block, that's fine, but I guess I'd like to hear what Joey says before I do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just noting that the section in question directly contradicts the second sentence of the article's lede and none of its sources employ the term "cognate". – Uanfala 12:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Well, there hasn't been any response yet to my question on Joey's talk page. I didn't want to hand them any excuses, but my thinking was that this could be a class project of some sort. This might explain why a few new users would appear out of nowhere. It wouldn't excuse the edit warring, of course. I guess someone can ping me if the disruption continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I understand your caution, but I think it's highly unlikely to be a class, given the timing of the creation of the accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: On doublet (linguistics),we see Salamanderman4197, Justjared2168 ‎ Tommypinket3987‎ Jojimans347 ‎ Johnnybling7431, and the ever-popular Johnsondrake2607. Pretty clear pattern here. Anmccaff (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Johnsonstewart46821 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SPI case filed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Midght wanna throw @JoeSwatsonWattsonn5: in the creel, too. Anmccaff (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional socks have been found by the checkuser and confirmed. This thread can probably be closed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Flamestech's disruptive reversions, possible block evasion

User @Flamestech: is being disruptive in my opinion. They've messed with the infobox stats on the Second Italo-Ethiopian War ([149])([150]) (an area of the article that is subject to change via talkpage consensus; in spite of a suggestion that they go to the talk page they have refused to do and reverted my reversion with no explanation), have thrice reverted ([151])([152])([153])(a violation of the three revert rule in particularly concerning fashion) my attempts to post a deletion notice on an article they created, and attempted to cover up said deletion process by removing ([154]) the notice I left on their talk page. Their edits to the Second Italo-Ethiopian War are reminiscent of User:Krajoyn, a blocked editor known for their non-communicative edit-warring style who used many socks to try and force such edits upon the page. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• And they continue to change the Second Italo-Ethiopian War article ([155])([156])([157])([158]) without any explanation or discussion. This needs immediate attentions because there's nothing I can do without violating the 3-revert rule. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Flamestech for 24 hours for making four reverts on the Second Italo-Ethiopian War article within a 24 hour period per WP:3RR (0052, 0112, 0311, 0312 h on 23 Sep). Indy, if you haven't already done so, please post a comment on the article's talk page about why you disagree with Flamestech's edits. That way, one Flamestech's block has expired, they can join in the conversation and consensus can be established. If you are concerned about Flamestech being a sock, I suggest filing an WP:SPI. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
    • This person continues to make vandalism and to offend me with personal attacks (see here and here) with many sockpuppets that are already all blocked on italian Wikipedia for same vandalism (see here). --Holapaco77 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I have reverted the personal attack and given the IP a warning. If they continue, please let me know. As I stated above, I feel that this needs to be taken to SPI with a full case outlined there linking the alleged sock puppets. That said, I'm happy to defer to the judgement of other admins if they disagree with this suggestion and feel it warrants different action. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Gross incivility

I am reporting User:Ashwani8888 and unfortunately I think a block may be necessary.

This user has frequently made personal insults, especially to User:Luke Stark 96, who requested my support in this matter.

For example, see a number of recent instances on User_talk:Ashwani8888, as well as using the word b****** in this (non-recent) edit here.

As two of the most frequent contributors to List of most viewed YouTube videos, User:Luke Stark 96 and I have also found the majority of the edits by this user on this page to be factually inaccurate.

I warned this user I would report him if further insults occurred, and since then this user has made two further personal attacks. I have left a message on this user's talk page about this report. Tcamfield (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In addition to the PAs, I am concerned about the intent to edit war stated here [159]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Bastard" is not the same as "bitch", but still. Sure these are personal attacks and I can warn them for it. More importantly, can I see some evidence of those supposed invented numbers? That would be a more useful thing, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The connotation & severity of "bastard" is culturally dependent. It is particularly severe an insult in South Asian cultures; far less so in other parts of the Anglosphere. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if culturally dependant, and the edit Tornado chaser highlighted is over the line and demonstrates a battleground, retaliatory mentality. But I agree with Drmies that a warning is appropriate with the understanding that continuation would likely result in a block. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• In culinary circles bastard is a particularly powerful epithet. EEng 06:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The user has since edited my first paragraph (on this page!) with his own message. I will leave it unaltered so you can see. Tcamfield (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• And I'll remove it. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

While this insult got the thread going, discussing its strength won't get anyone anywhere. The alleged factual inaccuracy of the user's edits is a pressing problem in an encyclopedia, and it's a pretty serious accusation. I have yet to see proof of it. If it turns out that the edits were not in fact inaccurate, then we may well be dealing with a seriously disgruntled editor who might actually have a case. So, Tcamfield, please provide some evidence. It needs no arguing that your opponent is acting like a jerk here. User:Ashwani8888, this idiotic edit alone might get you blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not something which I feel is outrageous vandalism which is why I only mentioned it in passing, but it is factually inaccurate and these sort of things mean that most of the user's edits have had to be reverted. This user edits List of most viewed YouTube videos and most of their edits involve moving "Shape of You" (currently 7th on the list) as it climbs up the list. (You are meant to update all the videos at once for consistency, but that's beside the point as many editors make this mistake and its forgiveable.) Unfortunately this user is too hasty on the edits. It is hard to show because the number of views is a moving target which can only be shown to be correct or incorrect at the time, but an example is here which was edited by this user 36 hours ago to show Shape of You as above Shake It Off. Shape of You only overtook Shake It Off about 12-16 hours ago. To see this now you have to find the two videos on YouTube and note the lead of about 2.8 million views at time of writing, then go on a website like | kworb and note that Shape of You is gaining c.5.5-6m views per day, while Shake It Off is down the list gaining just c.1m views per day. A bit of maths puts the overtake at about 12-16 hours ago. I can also confirm that the overtake was about 14 hours ago as I saw that the view counts were very close at the time.

It's a slightly laughable point compared to some bad cases of vandalism (and I certainly wouldn't call for a block for just this!) but as the page gets thousands of visits a day, it does have to be reverted which is how the whole threatening of edit wars and bad language etc kicked off. I am now of the opinion that User:Ashwani8888 deserves one more chance as they have shown some willingness to behave amenably with their latest comment on their talk page. Tcamfield (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the WP:OR mentioned in the above comment. That being said, the reported editor really needs to knock it off, and the actual relative "strength" of the insult they used is completely immaterial. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll say that's not how we source the data in the article. In this instance, it's just the only way of showing what happened a number of hours after the fact. It does say in WP:OR: "(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)"Tcamfield (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

He's doing the same thing on page List of most liked YouTube videos, for example here and here. Shape of You hasn't got 12.39 million likes, now the song has 12.35 million likes--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban by User:Johnvr4

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

---

At [160], [161], and [162] Johnvr4 has violated his topic ban - to avoid editing subjects connected to weapons and Japan, broadly construed - twice within about 24 hours of its imposition. He also appears to have said at his talk page that he intends to continue editing irrespective of the topic ban [163]. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Based on his airing of woes at [164], the last thing he should be doing right now is editing Wikipedia. Support an indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Support indef block, as clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for six months. When someone's been here for 5½ years, it's rather a stretch to say that he's NOTHERE. Since all his previous blocks, put together, add up to ten days and change, going straight to an indef block is extreme, and I don't think this is an extreme situation that needs an extreme response. Since he's allowed to appeal in six months, I figured I'd just do a block for that long; he may appeal it as soon as the block expires. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to him, even though I have no reason to be since he openly lambasted me for his own actions, an appeal will certainly fail if he remains blocked the entire duration of his topic ban. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That escalated quickly. I was going to propose leniency based on having just been kicked in the face by Hurricane Irma, but when someone's been here 5½ years, it's rather a stretch to say they don't know how a topic ban works, especially when another admin made such an effort to explain it and they posted this diatribe in response to a warning to stop violating it. Citing WP:IAR as a justification for ban evasion is a new one for me. I don't know the history here but in the interest of the leniency I started talking about, can I propose significantly shortening this block (say, 2 weeks?) since it's a first for evasion, with the topic ban timer reset from the end of the block? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate your motivation, Ivanvector, but the messages I saw posted give great pause to endorse any shortening of the block period. Assuming good faith, someone with this editor's RL challenges probably shouldn't be concerning themselves with the project. Should they be able to assemble some reasonable request I might be persuaded to reconsider. Tiderolls 18:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"Evasion" really isn't the right word, I think; "ban evasion" to me means getting around a ban, not outright rejecting it and editing as if it didn't exist. IAR really is okay for certain ban-ignoring or -evading situations, e.g. if you're I-banned from someone who starts replacing the Main Page with obscenities, it's perfectly fine to leave a note at WP:BN requesting emergency desysop for the obviously compromised account. However, saying "I won't pay attention to this ban because it's intended to prevent me from improving Wikipedia" is quite different, since there's already consensus that your edits aren't an improvement. If this editor were somehow unaware of the ban or unaware that he was violating it, a short block would be appropriate after a warning, but since he's outright said that he's going to ignore it, we're in a different situation here. Bans are placed when we think you can't contribute positively in some manner but you shouldn't be blocked because you can still contribute overall, and if you demonstrate that the ban isn't preventing disruption, it's time to escalate to the next level of preventiveness. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, mostly. My only concern as a disinterested observer to this drama is that it appears that Johnvr4 is in exceptionally reasonable circumstances to be blowing off steam, for which we usually grant some latitude so long as no disruption is occurring, and I don't think it was outside of his diatribe (and before he was warned). Yeah, he swore up and down that he's definitely not going to respect the ban, but we didn't really give him a chance. I guess Tide rolls makes a good point: if Johnvr4 comes back after some reasonable time and/or after their probably very serious real-life concerns are under control and makes a reasonable unblock request, we can talk about it then. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a reasonable unblock request. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

MjolnirPants and Mr rnddude

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

---

Section header refactored. You don't have to argue your positions in the heading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping not to come here, however, the accusations levelled by MjolnirPants at me yestereday were such that I have no other recourse for action other than to take it to a noticeboard and either be sanctioned, or have those accusations [read: aspersions] addressed. That is, at least true, as MjolnirPants has asked me to kindly fuck off from his talk page if I only intended to accuse him. His exact words to me were; That being said, the meaning of the last sentence you couldn't quite parse is that I actually have better things to do than sit here and be accused of shit by another editor with an axe to grind. So if you have something different to talk about, feel free. However, if that's all you're going to do, kindly fuck off. I replied here and retracted what could reasonably be interpreted to be a personal attack here. The reason I replied was that I had entirely missed his accusations against me and that I noticed numerous factual errors in his post. I did not reply to further accuse him of misconduct, though, I am convinced it was misconduct and mentioned it a couple times anyway. I even made a note that we would not agree before I rudely fuck[ed] off.
If you look at the thread, you will probably notice that things get off badly immediately, but, I am actually only here for one post of his. This is because, if the accusations in his first post are accurate, then I deserve a 48 hour block for edit-warring and exerting ownership. If they are not, then the reverse is true and MjolnirPants has earned a 48 hour block for NPA, aspersions and incivility. I hope neither happens, rather, I'd like a warning instead. That warning would have to be delivered by an administrator or experienced editor other than myself as I consider myself banned from MjolnirPants' talk page - per this plain comment here - not to level bad-faith accusations about misconduct against good-faith editors.

• The issues I have;

• MjolnirPants seems to be under the impression that attributing bad faith actions and motivations to another editor, simply for being pulled up for a poorly thought out comment of his, is an acceptable way to treat other editors. I absolutely do not. That comment was the casting of aspersions against a group of individuals on AN and then his replies to me were casting aspersions about my conduct. It might also be important to note that, whether or not the claims are verifiable (I don't know if they are), this sort of abuse is almost never acceptable.
• The backstory here is that I had hatted a subthread of toxicity. I had included MjolnirPants' analysis in this hat because of the assertion that I think the arguments in support of this unblock request are weak at best, and dishonest at worst. MjolnirPants made a partial revert of my edit and made the bold claim that move collapse: that analysis comes from an involved party, but there's nothing untoward in it whatsoever. I reverted, pointed out that this was untrue, and I then went to MjolnirPants' talk page to explain to them why it was untrue and ask them to remove the NPA and then move the analysis from the hat. I also advised them that their analysis appeared unwise and that it might be best to leave it hatted. This is entirely because of the obvious bias/POV they have with regards to the thread itself. I also don't consider an involved individual to be the appropriate person to be offering the advice. Instead, and I had completely missed this at the time, I was accused of edit-warring and of taking AN hostage (OWNERSHIP) to suit my sensibilities. I do not believe either of these accusations are true and believe that the fact that I had not re-reverted, nor forced their analysis out, to be demonstrative of this fact.

• Lastly, I would like to ask uninvolved editors and admins to take a look at my conduct and MjolnirPants' conduct at WP:AN, User talk:MjolnirPants, and possibly here, and tell myself or MjolnirPants whether or how either of our conduct might have been unacceptable. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Addressing the accusations MjolnirPant's has made;

• Edit-warring (as accurately as I can); My initial edit, MjolnirPants' partial revert, my revert of their change, and MjolnirPants' last revert.
• Ownership; Presumably from my comment on their talk page and AN edits, though, really MjolnirPant's would have to explain themselves on that one.

• Thank you for your time, and I apologize for bringing this here. I hope not to have to do so again.

• Side-note; I have left MjolnirPants a notification for this thread. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You know, I asked you to fuck off of my talk page because all you were doing was stirring up drama. I figured you just had a hair up your butt about something and that as long as I nipped that particular bit of drama off, you could get back to happily editing articles, well away from that jackass, MjolnirPants. But then I saw this, and realized that the only thing you've been doing on WP for the past two weeks is stirring up drama. So I guess I'm not surprised that you felt the need to escalate further. Oh, and you weren't accused of anything. I asked you not to edit war, and I said you don't have the right to hold my analysis hostage to your own personal views of what I should or should not have said. I said that in response to this edit summary, in which you strongly implied that you would keep edit warring your hat back in until I caved to your demands. Pretty much everything you've said here is over-the-top hyperbole. Why don't you go edit an article instead of stirring up more shit? Seriously, WP needs less drama, not more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• No, you asked me not to continue to edit war. Which means that as far as you were concerned, I had started edit-warring. I didn't take ownership of your analysis, and you said I took ownership of the page, not your comment. I did not imply any kind of edit-warring, I asked that you keep it hatted or strike the obvious incivility. Amazing, you somehow think you can read my mind as well. I looked at my last two weeks of edits; DelRev, RfA, ANI, AN, my talk page, a B-class review (still incomplete) and about 40 edits worth of anti-vandalism. So, on top of everything else, now you're blatantly lying about my last two weeks of editing which encompasses a total of about 70 edits (11th Sept - 25th Sept). I'm also waiting for a GA review to be completed for Burebista. TheWizardman is a little bit busy and has asked me to wait a few days. I have absolutely no problem doing so. Yes, I've been more active at AN/I and AN in the past week, if I have stirred up any other drama (aside from this) please point it out and I will endavour not to repeat it. I do admit, however, that my most contributed to page is AN/I with, somehow, more than a thousand edits. Additionally, from my Xtools, my contributions for the past month are 175 edits; 46 to articles (anti-vandalism mostly), 62 to user talk (part antivandalism, part my talk page queries, part MP's talk page, and part other), and 58 to Wikispace (RfA, ANI, AN, DelRev, etc). Not great, but, significantly better than suggested above. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I request an admin close this thread, by WP:IAR if nothing else. The excessive rules-lawyering over the Hidden Tempo stuff really needs to stop. These editors should voluntarily leave each other alone and go somewhere else. I also note the essay WP:PUNITIVE which suggests against the claim that somebody must be punished for what appears to be some editors having a heated discussion (and saying "fuck" on several occasions). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, can we just not? Neither of you appear to have made a mainspace edit in several days. Oh look, Self-flagellation needs quite a bit of cleaning up, and Snarl is a poor neglected stub, as is Self-righteousness. GMG^talk 23:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. Power; I'm not overly interested in the HT stuff, I wasn't involved in the thread until it came across AN/I and I hatted a series of comments that contained sanctionable material. I had hoped that would resolve the conflict, not create a new one. GMG; you are probably right, however, I do not believe I have behaved towards MP anywhere nearly as poorly as he has to me. I really would like that warning. If any action needs to be taken against me, then I have to cop it as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dude. WP:FUCKIT. What exactly here is supposed to be causing a material detriment to the project that's going to outweigh the time spent on exactly this thread? This looks an awful lot like a problem born and raised in project and user spaces, and doesn't affect the actual encylopedia at all. Consider turning off revert notifications. It helps tremendously. GMG^talk 23:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to just "thank" GMG for this comment using the button; I want to advertise my thanks publicly. He is saying smart things that should be listened to. Let things go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you turn off revert notifications? I usually kept it when I did NPP two years ago and had to undo newbie editors removing CSD templates. It's not causing damage to any articles, and yes, I suppose, that's the most important thing. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Uncheck "Edit revert". — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• Since it came up, I just want to say that unchecking "Edit revert" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo is the best thing I every did. Used to be every time I saw that red notification box, my blood pressure would go up. Editing's much more relaxing now. EEng 22:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• I know exactly what you mean. I had to turn it off when it started driving my blood pressure up (figuratively -- I hope), but then eventually had to turn it back on again for reasons I honestly can't recall (read: "senior moment"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

IPs harassing an 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.

---

@Jim1138:2 similar IPs (175.136.227.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 175.140.181.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) from the Singapore area are adding warning and block templates to their own and each others talk pages and edit warring to restore them even after being warned not to, these templates have the signatures of other users/admins, example [165]. It appears that these IPs are all the same person and are not doing any editing except for copying the talk pages of vandals onto there own talk pages. The IPs are also making uncivil comments on the talk page of User:Jim1138 and edit warring to restore them as well. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Dealt with by Alex Shih. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

I am experiencing a personal attack

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

---

• Which Guilopez is has said Here's another saying for you. You may hear it in school tomorrow. "It's your own time you're wasting". Guliolopez (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

,which I don't think is a friendly saying to a newcomers and false accusations. I am feeling bullied by him which I don't think your would say something like that to a real person on the street.

• This nature is unacceptable and an abuse of powers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishRepublic5 (talk • contribs)

As unreadable as this is, I see no personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally believe that he should not say stuff like that to me saying you may hear it in school tomorrowthis is giving me negative information .

@IrishRepublic5: You have an interesting perspective on personal attacks. Please read the following comment: I see you may think you are funny but no one here is laughing at you ,I see you are highly ignorant man with lack of sense of humor.which you may need to get out more ,The way you talk says it all. Do you consider that a personal attack? Lepricavark (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Basing articles on a person's Linkedin / Twitter accounts

THis article Jen Royle disclosing a person's birth date and other personal details based on her Linkedin / Twitter account. Where do we stand on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB GMG^talk 17:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Have nominated for delete

The other question is where do we stand on WP:OUTING? Is adding details about a person based on their personal linkedin, FB, and twitter account outing?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm... not sure outing applies unless you're talking about an editor. As a general rule, the information is okay if it is otherwise public information on a moderately public figure, like something a reporter posted on their public social media. This information is sometimes removed by request as a courtesy, but if they've put it out there themselves, it's only a courtesy, and not an outright privacy issue. GMG^talk 18:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I would add that the key to selfpub there is that it needs to be mundane personal details, the kind for which self published material would be a (and perhaps the only in many cases) reliable source. GMG^talk 18:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would say no. They published it (presumably) on the selfpub site, thus it's not private info. We shouldn't be repeating it (WP:RS) but it's not outing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be repeating it That's not quite right. If the material is sufficiently mundane so as to fall under SELFPUB, then the self published source can be treated as a primary source, in accordance with guidance at WP:PRIMARY. GMG^talk 18:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information we say "Posting... "personal information" is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia... This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." From what I understand we only allow personal information based on high quality sources not a subjects's personal accounts. If someone was to create an article about a Wikipedian based on their FB, Twitter, and Linkedin details that would definitely be outing and I guess the question is do we want to apply this standard to none editors? If we do not want to apply this standard to none editors than we need to remove "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." from the outing policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• An article on a Wikipedian based on (nothing but) LinkedIn etc. will be speedily deleted--either as A7 or as a BLP/outing violation. PS Doc, it's time wrote you up... Drmies (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Drmies not sure to what you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, your cigar lounge seems to be taking off and might pass the GNG... Drmies (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • It was an interesting link, a cigar lounge that tries to look upscale, but has staff, or at least web site developers, that can't spell "Andalusian" right, and believe that Davidoff is located in Geneva, NY, probably never even having heard of Switzerland. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah certainly. Yes and if I add to my twitter account that I own it than that will make it legit right :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there some reason the AfD is not sufficient and we need an AN/I as well? This has the appearance of heavy-handedness.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The harassment policy does not apply to subjects of biographies. It cannot, because as written it prohibits any personal info of anyone unless they post it on Wikipedia first. Which would mean most personal life sections and basic biographical info. This has been pointed out to the people who have been arguing over it for ages, suffice to say ignore that part of the policy if the person is the subject of an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Only in death I have tagged that line in the OUTING policy as dubious and will ignore going forwards. Will trim personal links based on them simply not being reliable instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

DJ: Just to be clear, as noted above, social media is considered reliable for mundane personal details as a primary source when they meet WP:SELFPUB and are treated in accordance with WP:PRIMARY. I don't mean to belabor the point, but if you get a mind to start removing anything that cites social media for a birthday or an alma mater you're gonna have a bad time. GMG^talk 21:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I would argue that the article was "primarily on such sources" however. Stuff like "She is single" supposedly based on a tweet still makes me a little uncomfortable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

primarily on such sources Yes, but that's expressly forbidden by WP:PRIMARY, thus the PRIMARY compliance caveat. GMG^talk 21:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that the statement "both editors and non-editors" in WP: Outing is a wikilink to WP: HNE, which in turn says "Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy;" --Kyohyi (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And that policy says "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I do not feel a single tweet counts as widely published or a reasonable assumption that the subject does not object. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If the Tweet is from the subject, then I disagree. I think that "widely" only applies to "published by reliable sources", and not to "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." If a person tweets their birthday, they've put it out onto the Internets with tacit permission to republish, and so it should be acceptable to use on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: if a person uses their verified Twitter account to tweet their birthday, is it acceptable for Wikipedia to use it? Some of your comments above imply that you do not agree, but it is not clear why. To me at any rate. MPS1992 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It is acceptable, and routinely done. GMG^talk 20:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Star Wars films and television series

At List of Star Wars films and television series, 68.199.145.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been persistently changing the status of two films from not canon to canon without sourced backing: Edit 1, Edit 2, Edit 3, Edit 4, Edit 5, Edit 6, Edit 7, Edit 8. Myself and another user have reverted them each time, and we left three warnings on their talk page. At this point, it's disruptive, and I am unsure if they will stop of their own accord. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit 9, Edit 10 after an additional warning after the ANI notice. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ought to be blocked. Sometimes, blocking is the only way to get through such individuals. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The IP has made the change an additional eighteen times since GoodDay's comment here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's up to 20 times now. IP has ignored both a soft and a hard EW warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

IP has been blocked by Malcolmxl5 and article restored to status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

2x(edit conflict) Yep, blocked for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing copyright and article re-creation issues

Rajasekharan Parameswaran has been uploading oil paintings claimed to be by the user, permissions need to be sent to OTRS, also according to talk page, they have been trying multiple times to create article about self. Did however send an email to VRTS ticket # 2016102610000483 to identify self, ticket validity seems highly suspect. Bringing here as some Administrative action seems warranted. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcc: As you probably realized, the indenitty of the user is not the issue, being the apparent copyright holder of all these paintings, explicit permission must be given via OTRS and must be released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation license or Wikimedia can not use or host the images. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep- my mistake. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Since we have evidence that this user is the copyright holder, there is no copyright issue here. This user has as much right to release the painting as I do a picture that I took with my camera. See how we've handled this with Jerry Avenaim and commons:User:Jerry Avenaim~commonswiki with File:Phil 1.jpg, File:William Shatner.jpg, and other files in Commons:Category:Photographs by Jerry Avenaim. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: None of their uploads were tagged as OTRS received, just that their identity had been confirmed on their user pages and that ticket (IMO) proves nothing, but so be it. I can revert all my edits to the files if needed, but this seems to be real shotty OTRS work in my opinion. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen the contents of the ticket? [This isn't a rhetorical "stupid, of course the ticket confirms it"; I've not seen it either] Unless you're disagreeing with an OTRS agent's conclusion that the ticket confirms identity, there's no issue here. Once we know that you're the copyright holder, there's no reason to dispute anything copyright-related; Rajasekharan Parameswaran has the right to upload Rajasekharan Parameswaran's creations, just as User:Nyttend has the right to upload [my real name]'s photographs, and if we've confirmed that User:Rajasekharan Parameswaran is Rajasekharan Parameswaran, the user's uploads shouldn't be questioned on copyright grounds. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I just chalk it up to having my nose somewhere it shouldn't have been. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

197.48.107.245

197.48.107.245 has made repeated vandalism edits to Nokia, currently at 4th warning, and additionally made a personal attack against Prolog, see this version of the user's talk page. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 22:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, an IPv4 address that is located in Egypt. They seem to have stopped what they were doing at 21:11, which is now four hours ago. If they resume, report them to WP:AIV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am being harassed

The following discussion is closed. 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 you please help me? I am being harassed by the User:Beyond My Ken. This user has recently reverted all of my edits without any reason [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171]. Furthermore, this user has engaged in WP:PERSONAL here and again. Even more, I have been accused of being a sock puppet of a banned user "English Patriot Man" see here. This all started a few days ago with his revert here with the reason given as "sock of English PAtriot Man". I would appreciate some assistance with this very tedious problem I am facing with a very unapproachable Wikipedia user. Thank you.--Henry P. Smith (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, I wasn't notified of this, but I am aware of it, so no harm no foul. Beyond My Ken (talk)

While I was posting this I was notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the evidence for Henry P. Smith being the latest in the long line of sockpuppets of User:English Patriot Man is robust, and @Dianna:, who is rather an expert on this particular sockmaster, filed the SPI some days ago -- but it has yet to see any action. The report is here, and since some days have gone by, I guess I'll go and try to provide some more evidence, as I did for the last sockpuppet User:Sein und Zeit.

In the meantime, as I noted on the SPI and here, the behaviors are the same, and Dianna has pointed out the overlaps. This is a quacking no-brainer that needs to be wrapped up tout suite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

My ping above didn't work, so, @Diannaa: Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes you were notified of it, check your talk page. Right from the get go of my input to the Erwin Rommel article you have tried to impoverish me in every way possible. You are supposed to follow Wikipedia rules and not be typing stuff like "In the meantime, you're not getting that photo of Rommel at the top of any Wikipedia article, if I have anything to do with it, any more then you were successful in cleansing the reputation of Houston Stewart Chamberlain in your last identities as User:Robinson98354 and User:Sein und Zeit." That is a) a direct threat and constitutes a personal attack b) an accusation which is not founded on anything more than an alleged few articles that I have edited on which a previously banned user also did. You don't have the final say in articles and think that it's only what you say goes. I have presented evidence that you are quite clearly stalking me and reverting every single edit I make. You don't have the right to do that and is against the rules of Wikipedia. I think you should step back and have a read of WP:POLICY because you have broken many rules with the way you have been behaving towards me. You have even accused me of being a previously banned user "English Patriot Man" but I'm not even English!!! I'm Polish and live in the UK.--Henry P. Smith (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Per my comment above, I've added additional evidence to the SPI. If an SPI clerk happens to read this, it would be great if some action could be taken on this sockmaster's latest disruptive sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked by Alex Shih, and case closed by SPI clerk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Revdel

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

---

Hi, I'm not sure if I'm missing something but this, this and this should be revdelled shouldn't it ?,
I only ask because I emailed Oversight an hour ago and so far nothing's been done so incase I'm actually missing something I figured I'd ask here and get some clarification, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Good grief I need a shower now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RickinBaltimore, If only "unseeing" things was possible!, God knows why oversight didn't do jack all but anyway thanks for doing that much appreciated, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

AfD spam / vandalism on the rise?

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

---

I recently banned User:INDIAN_REVERTER whose first edits were a bunch of rapid-fire meaningless votes in AfDs. Today I noticed a similar pattern with another brand-new user, User:Leodikap, whose first edits were to a bunch of seemingly-unrelated AfDs. This is either some sock manifestation, or just plain vandalism. Anybody else notice this pattern? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Didn't notice much of such a pattern, although I may be forgetting some AfDs among all that I close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Right, I remember that account. I'm pretty sure it's sockpuppetry; building up AfD credibility by !voting the right way on easy cases with the intent of later !voting in an AfD that's important to the sockpuppeteer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This was one of the issues with Light2021 (now indef blocked for exactly this) and who also socked, there's a few sections in the archives. —SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indef blocked User:Leodikap, to reduce the damage to AfD (at least all their bogus comments will show up as from a blocked user). I've left access to their own talk page and email. If it turns out this was a mistake, it's easy to unblock them if they request. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeated re-creation of promotional user page

This user's user page has been deleted three times. He continues to re-create it in the same form. He's been clearly told what's what on his talk page: Noyster (talk), 09:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Deleted, indeffed; this user is clearly not here to improve Wikipedia. MER-C 09:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinion on edits by new editor

Hi Editor Zocklandy insists on adding this table to a number of articles here and a few others in the Portuguese WP (where an admin has reverted it and is keeping an eye on his edits). Despite Zocklandy messages on his/ her talk page] and multiple reverts in the Portuguese WP and here in the English, the editor does not even bother to acknowledge/ respond or discuss. The problem with the edit is that

• It contradicts all that is generally known of the composition of the Brazilian population, claiming that the French are the primary contributor of DNA factors in the Norte region (52%); Italy the primary one in the Nordeste region (61%). It takes a few minutes to confirm that the French are nowhere near a significant group anywhere in Brazil, the Italians are indeed so, but in the south. Those figures are not stated but are somehow extracted from the information in the source that the user is citing. Does this in itself constitute WP:OR?
• It is at odds with the genereal tone of the artcile, which is of a generalist nature. Tables such as "European and Midle eastern lineages contributions to Y-haplogroup in Brazilian population" and "European and Midle eastern lineages contributions to R1b1a-M269 sub-haplogroups in Brazilian population" and the text in this section simply are way above the tone of the article.

I request input from fresh eyes on this one. The user is being duly notified. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Impedehim has made some intriguing edits.

Not sure what it's all about. Possibly a Nothere. Maybe some sort of sampler/edit bot. I don't know. Impedehim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (Impede him?). Admins can see Wikipedia:Impedehim, deleted as a test page by RHawthorn. I deleted User:Impedehim (WVS). The tagged for deletion under U5 User:Impedehim looks like a Signpost article. Wikipedia:Dahomean Articles has the same content, apparently a fake Signpost article. As is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Lacaidonian. There are more examples, but you get the drift. If someone else could take a look. I dropped them a note saying I was coming here. Will add the permalink.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:--I have moved Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Lacaidonian to his user-space.That's outright disruptive.Since,I don't have the PMover right on this acc., please delete the corresponding redirect.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 18:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Block him.Clueless and incompetent.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 18:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I have given the editor a final warning, and I really do mean it to be final. If I see one more stupid edit I will be very likely to block the account. Please feel welcome to alert me if you see any more nonsense before I do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder if we're the subject of a machine-writing experiment here? The deleted text has that disjointed feel to it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious links

Two users, Memenow (talk · contribs) and Memenow2 (talk · contribs) have created userpages with links pointing to Google drive files. I don't know what's behind the links, and am concerned what could be. Home Lander (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Users reported to WP:AIV and pages tagged for speedy deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute + SPA + possible COI on journalist Kevin Deutsch

Hello,

I'd really prefer to be taking this to a different noticeboard to chat it out, but my compatriot has both indicated they are no longer interested in discussion and is also aggressively reverting. This relates to the article Kevin Deutsch (my preferred revision), a journalist and author who has been accused of being highly sloppy about sourcing and over-anonymizing events to the point of having no relation with the original event (at best), or of repeat fabrication and fraud (at worst).

User:Ballastpointed is aggressively editing Kevin Deutsch to fit his spin (sample diffs: 1, 2, 3, all within the space of ~24 hours). Ballastpointed is a single purpose account whose sole goal on Wikipedia seems to be to communicate what an awesome guy Deutsch is. He's denied being Deutsch himself or a friend/associate (diff), but he has claimed to be a super-expert on Deutsch (diff). At first, Ballastpointed was productively responding on the talk page to pings and somewhat ratcheting his claims downward - allowing hostile material to stand but rephrasing it, and many of these edits have been left in place (e.g. including this article which discusses the New York Daily News investigation into Deutsch's work). However, he's since gone back to just plain reverting to a version that is, in my opinion, not neutral (doesn't reflect the majority of the sources) and overly relies upon self-published sources (extensively citing Deutsch's website and Deutsch's personal explanations for the accusations against him in-line with other sources; example diff), and has thrown in WP:PEACOCK terms as well ("award-winning" in the lede, etc.).

I have done my part in talking it out on the talk page (see Talk:Kevin Deutsch), and offered to bring in a third opinion or discuss on a noticeboard (diff). Since Ballastpointed has responded to pings before, he saw this. He has not replied. If he isn't going to participate, there's no point in bringing this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. (I have also attempted to offer productive avenues for Ballastpointed to apply his preferred slant - if he could find some source, any source, that is not self-published but supports Deutsch's view of things. He has not really provided one, however; the closest is attempting to interpret the NY Daily News article as an exoneration of Deutsch, which it isn't.)

Note that this is a WP:BLP, so Ballastpointed is certainly correct that there should be a very high standard set for negative material. Unfortuantely for Deutsch, there is reams of negative material in reliable sources, and very little supportive material. His "15 year career in journalism" is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article (any more than any other of the many freelance journalists out there), and while Deutsch's own personal explanations and excuses for the sourcing confirmation problems deserve to be mentioned, they do not deserve to be taken as anything more than a denial - certainly in no way as "evidence" that somehow the investigations into him were faulty. Additionally, Ballastpointed has attempted to highlight the many small and noncontroversial articles that Deutsch wrote that weren't challenged, and imply this is somehow an exoneration of Deutsch. But these articles are simply not very notable nor interesting to talk about - as the Washington Post wrote, "Most mainstream news organizations would fire a journalist for a single instance of inventing a source or a quote, let alone dozens and dozens of them."

I ask that Ballastpointed be informed that he needs to comply with Wikipedia policies such as WP:SPS, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, or else have the page protected. If he wants to submit edit requests (a la COI accounts), that would be acceptable. If he doesn't respond at all and keeps edit warring, then he should be blocked. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sir,

You’ve repeatedly deleted my contributions to the page, adding innacuriate/non/factual synopses, ignoring due weight requirements, and inserting language that violates Wiki’s living persons policy. You are a newcomer to the page, and began your work here by reversing my contributions. Since then, I have attempted to correct the erroneous paraphrasing you’ve inserted, and to restore information you removed that was favorable to Mr. Deutsch. Your attempts to construe every line of coverage in the worst possible light deserves to be challenged, and it will continue to be, by myself and others. Perhaps most egregiously, you removed a NY Observer article written by Mr. Deutsch, which contains an extensive, closely reasoned defense/rebuttal. Additionally,

you removed key parts of his response to the Times’ findings and the favorable “no red flags” language in the Daily News finding. In short, you’ve removed everything exculpatory it favorable to Mr. Deutsch, and I submit that you, sir, are in fact the one with a conflict of interest and obvious agenda here.

Wherever there is an allegation, there should be a defense of that allegation if that defense has been published, which it has been. This is how the living person’s policy and due weight work. These are unsubstantiated allegations. The coverage has focused on the same series of allegations. Those allegations take up a majority of this article. I can’t imagine what Moreno you’re hoping to achieve here, short of libel.

Adding quotes about racism from David Simon—who last year used the n-word on Twitter and got a lot of heat for it—is indicative of how far you’re willing to go to libel this writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you are going to accuse anyone of libel, you should be familier with WP:NLT, I am not saying you are trying to make a legal threat, just reminding you how things can be interpreted. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ballastpointed returned to the prior edit war pretty much immediately upon acknowledging this discussion, as well as having previously been warned and asked to build a consensus first. For that reason, I gave him a week block so as to slow down the edit war. If he expresses that he intends to stay on the talk pages going forward, and avoid editing against consensus, anyone may unblock. --Jayron32 03:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we also have a sock/meatpuppet issue. User:AlexVegaEsquire, who is also a single-purpose account whose only activity on Wikipedia has been to edit the Kevin Deutsch article (and create the original, fawning version of it), has suddenly appeared again after the block and has the exact same opinions as Ballastpointed (diff). Note that I'm not the first person; others, over a months-long period, have been attempting to have the article reflect the slant seen in the news media, but AlexVegaEsquire was the one editing it back earlier (as can be seen from notices on his talk page and his edit history). We may need the same treatment for this account as Ballastpointed: defend your points on the talk page in a style consistent with Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor and think Wikipedia admin should resolve the issue of whether or not SnowFire's removals should be restored, specifically the subject's denial of the allegations in the lead. Third party resolution needed. I am all for keeping this article current and reflective of slant but some moderation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs)

Well, the edit war has resumed. I've made my one revert, but AlexVegaEsquire has put it back twice.

Note that it isn't just a dispute with me; AlexVegaEsquire has quarreled with other Wikipedia editors as well (example diff removing sourced (negative) material on fairly specious grounds), e.g. User:Baltimore free and User:Wikihunter6. (Which, granted, also seem to be newish SPA-ish accounts, but... willing to give some benefit of the doubt).

AlexVegaEsquire, for the content discussion about how relevant the subject's denials & explanations are, please edit Talk:Kevin Deutsch. Let's reserve this space for editor conduct. SnowFire (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• "His "15 year career in journalism" is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article..." — Well, let's test that theory, shall we? Carrite (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now nominated for deletion HERE. Feel free to opine, one and all. Carrite (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits IPuser:24.190.40.112

Since 17 September 2017, 24.190.40.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Repeated disruptive edits every days (see user contribs log), including ununderstandable create inappropriate short articles from redirects[172][173], section branking, references removed[174], BLP violations, added unsourced content[175][176], adding strange grammar sentences (missing "[" or space, etc.)[177][178][179], and a disregard for Wikipedia guidelines. As warning from many other users [180][181][182][183] and editing blocked for 36 hours on 19 September is not worked, I think that it is necessary for editing block of six months or more. Inception2010 (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• As of 24 September 2017, This IP user still continues to do pointless edits (see user contribs log). I am disapointted that the editing block has not been done yet, dispite this IP user are Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Inception2010 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Inception2010: It should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marbe166: I know, but If I reported this IP user at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, then users says "It should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". I have experienced such a situation, so I reported this page. Inception2010 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS

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

---

has been repeatedly and inappropriately adding {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} to File:G'sPB expl2.jpg (see here and here) in an attempt to remedy my concern raised here (no license tag or statement of license → WP:CSD#F4 applies) all while making nonsense claims that are not based on existing copyright law. I'm referring this case to the community because this isn't something I want to battle over; I would just like to see it resolved amicably. Thanks, FASTILY 23:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like this is not an isolated incident. See also: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 26#File:G'sPB3.jpg -FASTILY 23:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• "I'm referring this case to the community because this isn't something I want to battle over; I would just like to see it resolved amicably." -- So you thought you'd come to ANI in an attempt not to battle over it and resolve it amicably? Cassianto^Talk 00:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Hopefully you won't prove me wrong :) -FASTILY 00:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fastily: You're pretty quick to jump to ANI, considering you've made no attempt to discuss this with me, and your labelling of my edit as "bogus" in your edit summary to your removal of a valid tag – rm bogus license, needs to be applied by the uploader to be legally binding - is not only rude but untrue. The tag in question:

{{cc-by-sa-3.0}}

does nothing more than note the status of the work, which I believe to be true. There is nothing in policy that requires that note to be added by the uploader, nor could there possibly be. That tag is not a licence. Contrast that with the commons licence {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} as can be seen on c:File:Birmingham New Main Line Canal 11.jpg where I specifically create a licence with the words "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:". Or with the licence at the top of my user page where I license all of my contributions. For someone who wants to see the issue resolved amicably, I have to say you've got off to a very poor start. This discussion belongs at Template talk:cc-by-sa-3.0 or at Village pump. It's disgraceful that an experienced editor like yourself takes an issue that you want to refer to the community to a noticeboard asking for administrator's action. Were you simply hoping one of your fellow admin chums was going to take your side against a mere peon like me? --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I see no issue here. The user uploaded the image, say it was their creation in an image information tags, and forgot to include a license tag. The image is a rendering, and its use seems consistent with a self-made image. Taking the uploader's statement that it is their own work at face value, then RexxS applying a reasonable free image tag is completely in line. The upload probably should confirm that was the license, but that's it. Far from an adminstrator issue, and more a lack of good faith on the OP here to assume RexxS was being disruptive. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masem. The uploader of File:G'sPB expl2.jpg is Giano. Giano did not specify a license tag at upload. RexxS added the Cc-by-sa-3.0 tag, claiming that was what Giano wanted. The problem I'm seeing is that RexxS cannot legally release a file on behalf of Giano without violating Giano's copyright. Of course, if Giano acknowledges that this is acceptable, then we can close this thread. -FASTILY 00:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Giano does not edit as often as he used to. And who can blame him when his work is treated like that. But what's the rush? Give him a few days to get back to Wikipedia, rather than setting a week's deadline for his work to be deleted. That's no way to treat content contributors. Seriously, what do you think he's going to say when you ask him if he licenses the files as CC-BY-SA? My position is that he also created a page, User:Giano/Exploding palazzo, with just the (unlicensed) images that he also created on it. When he clicked save, he licensed the content of that page as CC-BY-SA. OK, so I'm being inventive here, but my logic is sound, unless images are no longer content. --RexxS (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Who's rushing? It looks as if you are the only person who's rushing. If it's likely that Giano needs some time to fix this, then I don't see a big issue with leaving the discussions open for a month or two. That's regularly done if the involved editors think that an issue can be solved but that more time is needed to solve it. Giano's comment suggests that he is confused about what the problem is but that he can solve it if the problem simply is explained for him. However, your comments to the discussions create a wall of text and risk causing extra confusion. Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Stefan2: You tell me who's rushing. See for example, this version of File:G'sPB6.jpg (that you edited) with a great big box plastered across the top saying "Unless the copyright and licensing status is provided, the file will be deleted after Tuesday, 3 October 2017." I simply provided the status as I understood it to prevent the inappropriate deletion. I see no effort by anyone to open discussions, let alone keep them going for a month or two. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That "great big box" was added by User:Jon Kolbert, not by me.

I see no effort by anyone to open discussions If you check my contribution to that file, you will see that I added a box which links to a discussion about the file. In other words, a discussion about the file has been opened. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Would people please resist the must-be-fixed-now bureaucratic approach. Yes, copyright is important but it is obvious that Giano focuses on developing content rather than filling in forms, and a polite discussion when he has some time will see any problems fixed. Also, it would be desirable to find a procedure more likely to benefit the encyclopedia than adding sixteen proposed deletions to User talk:Giano in the last eight days. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• What John said. Fastily, my point above was that ANI is not the place to be thrashing this out. As RexxS mentions, you've made zero attempt to discuss this first and zero attempt to discuss this with the person at the heart of all this, Giano. Giano is not the type of person to go about and flirt with iffy copyright tags in order to see his images up in lights and I would ask you to AGF until you've investigated this fully. How about the numerous tags some idiot has plastered over his page, Banksy style, without a thought for WP:DTTR? Now, for heavens sake, can we please close this and get back to improving the encyclopaedia? Cassianto^Talk 06:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What Fastily did was to start a discussion about the file. You seem to claim that Fastily shouldn't have started a discussion about the file but instead discussed the file. That's just a different way of saying the same thing. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. RexxS should not add copyright notices to files created and uploaded by other editors. It should have been discussed on his talk page first though, even though (judging from the FfD discussions and the reply here) this would have been fruitless.
2. Giano was well aware of this issue before it was brought here, since he replied here on the 19th. He has been editing on the 21st and the 22nd as well. Fram (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Fram You don't get to tell me what edits I can or can't make. There is no policy or even guidance preventing an editor making a note of the copyright status of of a file anywhere. If you think otherwise, then let's see the policy you're relying on. As I demonstrated clearly above, the cc-by-sa-3.0 template does not constitute a licence, merely a notification. Clarifying the status of a file is improving the encyclopedia, and I intend to get back to doing that as soon as this charade is over.
2. Giano last edited on the 22 September, which is 5 days ago. The issue here was not raised until 26 September. Please see his talk page and retract your inaccurate characterisation of Giano. No doubt he was upset by the volume of unjustified deletion notifications bombing his talk page over the preceding week. Since he regularly takes breaks of 1, 2, or 3 weeks, there is every chance that he hasn't even seen the current crop of discourteous notifications - especially as the most recent three taken to FFD weren't even notified to his talk page. If I hadn't intervened, he would quite probably returned only to find that his hard work had been carelessly thrown away by folks who are not interested in improving the encyclopedia, but only in following bureaucratic procedures to the exclusion of all else. Anybody who cared about the work done by one of our finest content contributors would have left a note on his talk page, gently asking him to provide a licence for those images. When dealing with adults, it is generally understood that persuasion is far more productive than threats. --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Let's see Wikipedia:Copyrights, a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations": "Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf." You are not the copyright holder, so please indicate what prior permission you had to "license on their behalf", legally speaking. Giano had not released these, he released a page he created which had links to these files.
2. What "inaccurate characterisation". I indicated that he responded at the file deletion discussion on the 19th, and made further unrelated edits in the next few days. Fram (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. My position remains that I believe in good faith that when Giano saved a page consisting solely of those images, he agreed at that point that his contributions in that edit becomes licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and I made it clear when I added the tag to the description page that was the basis of my edit.
2. You stated Giano was well aware of this issue before it was brought here ... and yet "this issue" concerns the files displayed on User:Giano/Exploding palazzo, all but one of which were nominated for deletion on 26 September, which led me to note the CC-BY-SA status on the same day. Given that he confused the sourcing and licensing in his comment on 19 September, Giano clearly is not aware of the issue here. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. I don't think I have claimed or even implied that you acted in bad faith, and if I did I apologize. Acting in good faith doesn't mean that you can't unknowingly violate a policy. Fram (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that RexxS's argument that when an editor uploads a file and uses it on any page, then he licenses it, is very sound. There may be some twist of copyright law, at which I do not pretend to be an expert, that makes it not so, but it resonates with me. To me that says that RexxS had a good faith basis for what he was doing and this should be closed and there be further discussion as necessary on appropriate talk pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, User:Fastily is absolutely correct here regarding the license. CCBYSA 3.0 is a legal document, and is not just the way to license free images. Even if the image was explicitly intended to be uploaded for unrestricted free use, there are many ways to do that, of which 3.0 is only one, and you can't agree to this on behalf of someone else unless you had something like power of attorney. If the image is deleted, it can always be restored, and all it would literally take is a comment from the uploader to the effect of "unless otherwise stated, I freely license all my image creations under license". But the CCBYSA 3.0 agreement under an edit summary refers to the contributions in that edit, and not to an image upload done as a separate material contribution. GMG^talk 13:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The thing is, if you look at Giano's past file contributions, they have uploaded works they created with CC-BY-3.0 [184] for example. RexxS seeing the missing tags, but all other factors being similar (self-claimed work, etc.) it is reasonably fair extrapolation to apply the missing CC-BY-3.0 tag here. Yes, Giano should be notified and asked to clarify and make sure it is correct, but there is zero need to chew RexxS's head off for taking a completely fair step to make sure contributions are kept under our tight image policy (requiring licenses to be listed). --MASEM (t) 13:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You mean "past file contributions" like File:Man in wig.jpg, uploaded as PD-Self and deleted as a Copyright violation in July 2017 amidst protests from Giano? Fram (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Technically a copyright violation, yes. But if that example (a joke image that the copyright holder was aware of) is a problem, we really need all editors to sign that they do not have a sense of humour before creating an account. We should not rip each other's heads off for not dotting every i in the licensing of our own files. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
        • As far as I can see, the reason for the claimed copyvio was not only that the part of the image taken from LHvU was not attributed, but that the other part of the image (it as some kind of mashup) was not attributed and of unknown origin, even after the FfD discussion. Fram (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
          • As far as I can see, the "protest from Giano" was a joke, and that FFD was (just like this discussion) a complete waste of precious bandwidth. —Kusma (t·c) 14:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean. If it seems stupid and nit picky... that's because copyright is stupid and nit picky. AGF applies to editors, but not to licenses, as much as life would be easier if it did. It really either is or it ain't, and this ain't. There's not much room there for reasonably fair extrapolations. That CC license means that the images are as likely as anything to end up in a book for sale, or someone's professional website. So the legal stuff needs to be right from the start. It's not often things boil down to right and wrong, but only one side here is on the correct side of copyright. But, like I said, have the uploader put some sort of blanket but explicit statement on their talk when they get back, and that should be enough for other's to apply it on their behalf, and to undelete anything that's been deleted. It isn't a crisis. It's just something broken that needs fixed.GMG^talk 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, copyright is important, we shouldn't guess, particularly when there is legitimate doubt that the "self-made" claim doesn't apply. I just think that given the situation before RexxS tagged the images, that putting the images in context of where they were, Giano's past contributions (clearly on classic architecture), and Giano's self-made claim (which we need to AGF for sure on), and that we do not allow users to upload non-free they have self-made (we expect you to contribute any work you make freely), this had to qualify for a free license, so tagging CC-BY-3.0 does zero harm. At worst, Giano may have wanted to put it as PD, but switching from CC-BY-3.0 to PD is not harmful at all (it relaxes the license that much more). It would be a problem if we were "under"-tagging the copyright, and that the uploaded wanted something more restrictive. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this is just something I'm used to from being on commons too much, but these types of discussions are not a matter of consensus. There is only one right answer, and every other answer is wrong, regardless of how many caveats it has. You can't enter into legal agreements on behalf of someone else. Whatever "but", "and", or "also" follows that is irrelevant. I'm not trying to be curt; it just really is that simple. (BTW I'm not really commenting on the interpersonal stuff, just the licensing issue.) GMG^talk 14:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You need to add "... on Wikipedia". There are all kinds of mechanisms for entering into legal agreements on behalf of someone else, but Wiki (rightly) does not allow their use. Anmccaff (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Anywhere, in the absence of something like power of attorney, articles of incorporation, etc., i.e. the explicit consent to allow others to consent on your behalf, or having that decision made legally in a court and legally given over to someone else as a guardian, or having little or no right to consent legally to begin with, such as small children. GMG^talk 14:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, those are several examples of common exceptions, yup, so why start it with "no?" You left out the two commonest, spousal action in common-property areas and a pattern of ratified consent. None of which, except for open, well known agency, mean anything to Wiki. Anmccaff (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

All of the above could be valid on-wiki, but would require an email to OTRS in order to document. I made a caveat for "something like power of attorney" far above, but obviously none of these really relevant to the current situation. GMG^talk 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect we are mostly ferociously agreeing here, but I think the point has to be made that TPTB on Wiki appear to want to keep away from the edge of what is straightforwardly legal. They'd rather lose a picture or two than waste money establishing the exact boundaries of usage rights, and they are rightly aware that their pockets are deep enough to make them a target. Kosher isn't enough; gotta be glatt kosher. Anyway, this is peripheral, your central point, that we have to be more careful with usage rights than we have been above, is absolutely correct. Anmccaff (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In a case as with these images, losing them would not be a huge loss, but let's consider a hypothetical: a user comes along and provides us with a free photo of Kim Jong-un (a living figure we've been striving for one for a long time), stating it as their own work uploaded under their name and stating they are putting up as a free license image, and there's no question of the validity of being their own work or legitimacy of the image, but they forget to include the license tag, and for some personal reason, they do not edit for several months following that. Losing that image because of a missing license tag when all indicators show that we know they wanted a free license seems really really silly. Someone else tagging it with CC-BY-SA-3.0 is perhaps the best solution in this type of case as it assures the most rights retained with the image uploader (under their statement for a free license), and if they come back and really wanted, say, CC-BY-3.0 or even PD (giving away more rights), that license can be changed without harm. It's trying to recapture rights that is a problem, so tagging PD initially would be a problem. There needs to be some common sense here. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The correct course of action is to delete the image, and leave the user a note so that when they come back, they can indicate how they would like to license it. When they do, we can restore it, and use it accordingly. In the meantime, we aren't giving literally everyone in the world permission to reuse, modify, and even sell this image under a license we presumed the uploader had the intention of using. It's the off-wiki use that runs into problems, because these people are legally using the image based on a license that you or I weren't permitted to apply. Copyright isn't an on-wiki rule, and so it's not something we can IAR. GMG^talk 17:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We can't make any assumptions of the uploader's intentions. {{GFDL-presumed}} on Commons is a speedy deletion template for a reason. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed.

Licensing statements are only valid if stated by the copyright holder (or by someone else who holds a valid power of attorney). We don't know what licence the uploader meant to choose or if the uploader even intended to violate WP:IUP#User-created images by uploading a user-created non-free file (which would then be deleted for violating WP:NFCC#6). I assume that the uploader meant to license the files, but we can't add any undisclosed licences to the file information pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Usually I would agree under no circumstances should editors add licences on that editors behalf ... however .... the source does clearly state and I quote "I (Giano (talk)) created this work entirely by myself." so all's one needs to do is go through Giano's uploads and then use the licence on the last own-uploaded image which is exactly what RexxS did - In all honestly RexxS used some initiative and as such should be thanked not dragged here , FWIW I would prefer Giano to use the licences because it avoids this really. –Davey2010^Talk 14:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I can see your point, even if I believe that Giano's saving of the page affirmed the copyright of its contents. I mean, if I created a page using the visual editor consisting of just an image that I had created and uploaded without a licence, why wouldn't my agreement to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence when I saved apply to the image I had created? There's no "wikicode" in that scenario to act as a red herring, and the VE even offers to do an upload for you as you add an image. Nevertheless, I accept you may have a different opinion. For what it's worth, I now have a template at the top of my user page explicitly licensing all my contributions, and I hope I could persuade Giano to adopt something similar to avoid future unpleasantness. --RexxS (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(Which brings up a good point that if the Visual Editor is not prompting editors that upload images through it to add a license, free or not, that is a serious problem for any WMF project and the resolution on image use. License info must be added to any uploaded image and VE doesn't seem to be asking for this). --MASEM (t) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

RexxS It's... just different. The copyright of the image doesn't have anything to do with wiki. It is created when the image is created. You license the "creative contribution" (however small), of putting an image where there was none previously (on the page, not uploading on the wiki) when you click save. But that doesn't address the original copyright assumed to exist when the image began to exist.

So, for example, when I add a non-free image to a page, my creative contribution of "putting that image in that spot in particular" is licensed under CCBYSA 3, but that doesn't in any way transfer to the image, obviously, because it's a copyrighted image added under a claim of fair use. GMG^talk 14:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the issue seems to be that Giano is not correctly licencing images he uploads. The solution would seem to be a community imposed editing restriction on Giano, prohibiting him from uploading any images unless they are suitably licenced at the time of uploading. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's different when you put in a nonfree image, or quote text from a nonfree source. In that instance, you lack the authority to release that text under any license besides what the copyright holder wants. But when you upload your own images, or contribute text you wrote, you do have the authority to agree to the TOU, including that whatever you contribute is released under CC-BY-SA-3.0. If you have the right to do that, and you click save, you're agreeing to that. Nothing in that agreement says that only text contributed that way is affected. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No. You are exactly wrong. GMG^talk 18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong that editors do not have the authority to release material they don't hold the copyright to, or that they do have the right to release material they do hold the copyright to? And why? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I... really don't want to explain everything again. The licensing of the image requires an explicit license on the image, which is put there by the uploader because they are the ones who own the copyright to it. Explicitly non-free doesn't matter, because every image is presumed to be non-free unless it is appropriately licensed otherwise. Neither the TOU nor the edit summary disclaimer override that. Every piece of media is a separate creation that comes with its own implicit copyright applied in the moment of its creation. The creative contribution made by adding an image to a page, which is covered under the disclaimer, does not actually cover the image itself. Otherwise fair use would make no sense, because every fair use image is added in a contribution covered under the disclaimer. You cannot armchair license something by playing fast and loose with unrelated policies or assumed intentions. The uploader either did or did not explicitly give up their intellectual property rights to this piece of intellectual property in particular, full stop. GMG^talk 20:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of dragging this out, I simply disagree with some of your assumptions and assertions. The licensing of an image requires nothing more than the owner of the copyright agreeing a licence. Nothing needs to be on the image at all. Of course the image is a separate piece of creative work, in that it can be isolated from other elements such as text or other images and may be licensed differently. You say that a creator who makes an image and makes a page can't license both at the same time. I say they can. You bring in the "fair use" red-herring. The creator of a page can't license an image they don't own the copyright to, so fair use is not a consideration here. Just because an editor can't license someone else's copyrighted work, doesn't mean they can't license their own copyrighted work. Our disagreement is merely about the manner in which they may do that. An uploader who agrees to a CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence never gave up their intellectual property rights by that act; they simply allow others certain freedoms with their copyrighted work, and the copyright remains with them. I say Giano agreed the licence when he saved the page; you say he didn't. Fine - we disagree. But you've adduced no more policy or law to your argument than I have to mine. I don't believe either of us can be authoritative on the matter. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(When all you have is a hammer...) Whenever they get back, have them do something like this, and we're fine. If they don't then we delete the images. The only thing this needs is a close. They've uploaded a few hundred images, and a lot of them seem to be fine, unless I'm missing something. Everyone misses a step sometimes. I've done it plenty of times. Plus... that's not an editing restriction... everyone is required to properly license their uploads. GMG^talk 18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mjroots: The issue is not really that Giano isn't licensing his uploads correctly. That looks like an honest mistake which probably can be fixed (provided that Giano responds), and we don't impose editing restrictions because someone makes an occasional mistake. The issue is that RexxS's contributions to the file information pages resulted in a long discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is completely ridiculous. I haven't a clue what I am supposed to do with all these stupid time-wasting forms. If I spend hours and hours making a 3D plan, and then say I am releasing it into the public domain, that should be good enough for anyone. Rather than mounting a barrage of criticism by mindless bureaucrats, simply rectifying an obvious shortcoming is the answer. Anyone who has ever glanced at the horrible plan (also my work) currently on one of Wikipedia's most viewed pages, Buckingham Palace would realize the importance of what I am trying to do here. When one has limited free time, a plan this size takes years to complete, and it is essential I can see on-screen what the finished produce will look like. However, I am frequently reminded why I have almost turned my back on this rule-bound project. Giano (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• We can probably button this up now. Giano has given the nod to using the 3.0 license on their talk page, which is all this really needed to begin with. We can all probably stop arguing over the details and maybe... go figure out exactly which barnstars to give them for uploading many higher quality images than probably most of us have managed to do ourselves. GMG^talk 10:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• There now, you can all relax, reduce your blood pressures and cease hyperventilating, I have plastered this: {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} all over as many images as I could find. Let's hope that suffices and none of you ever experience a really serious problem in your lives. Giano (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Giano: Thank you. As long as you have one license on all your images in the future (either {{PD-self}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, or any number of other appropriate licenses), you're good to go; the images that already had PD-self had no issues). This is a legal requirement, so there's little getting around it. We can't accept images that haven't been formally licensed without it constituting a copyright violation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Mad about Indiegogo funding perks – misleading username

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

---

We have a single-purpose account, IngaSmith, who is apparently angry at the Indiegogo funding effort for Hardcore Henry, and angry at a certain Inga Smith who has managed the film's Indiegogo campaign. The Indiegogo campaign updates posted by the real Inga Smith say that she "sent out the bulk of signed BluRays" along with hats and posters. Our Wikipedia user named IngaSmith contradicts this by writing "In May 2017 Hardcore Henry producer's Inga Smith announced the shipment of some of the perks to the backers around the World, however after several months from that announcement, and years from the crowdfunding campaign, no backer yet has publicly confirmed to have received any of the awaited merchandise, not even the digital copy of the movie." The contradictory text is based on the unreliable reader comments section of the webpage.

To me, it appears that our registered IngaSmith is attacking the real Inga Smith. The username seems to have been chosen to falsely represent the real person. The real Inga Smith would not likely post a self-contradiction in this manner.

The SPA IngaSmith is joined in the edit warring by a sock or meatpuppet friend Panda1001. I think both accounts must be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Both blocked as attack account, impersonation, abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Fast work. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

First day registered user Chrag Lay Fong removing content from 200 pages

• Chrag Lay Fong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Chrag Lay Fong user contributions show that they have removed Arabic/Xiao'erjing script from approximately 200 articles pertaining to Islam in China, mainly articles about Hui people who use this script. They have never provided a rational for doing so, and they never provided any edit summaries. Could an administrator mass-revert these edits or should there be a lengthy discussion first? - Takeaway (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not qualified to judge whether the edits in question were helpful or not, but because it was mass editing, without an apparent consensus, without explanation (not even an edit summary) and from a brand new editor, I have rolledback the edits that were accessible to rollback, and advised the editor to come to this discussion and explain why they made the edits, as wellas to ask where is the best place to go to get a consensus to make mass edits of that type. Any established editor who feels the edits were legitimate and should not have been rolled back may reinstate them without the need to check with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

While it would have been preferred to use a mass rollback tool that allows you to provide an edit summary, I agree that this should have been done. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I provided a rationale on the user's talk page. I don't generally use many automated or semi-automated tools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

These notices were given on 25 September. Since User:Chrag Lay Fong continued to remove Arabic script from more articles on 26 September, I have blocked them for 48 hours. They have never left a talk comment or an edit summary. The affected articles that I've checked all have some connection to Islamic people or culture so the presence of Arabic script has some logic. I have no objection if anyone wants to do a further rollback. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Glamping

There appears to be some edit warring, spamming, and COI concerns at Glamping. I think an admin should get involved because there is an WP:OUTING attempt in an edit summary that should probably be hidden. Deli nk (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary deleted, both SPA blocked for adding spam links. Alex Shih^Talk 13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What spam link did Outdoorsy (talk · contribs) add? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter: I may have blocked in haste, and I would gladly correct my mistake if this was an error. The concern was the insistence on having this link included 3 times while protesting here in edit summary that removing this link means removing those of competitors. This is not taking the posting of personal information (which is being continued at the current unblock request) into consideration. Alex Shih^Talk 13:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Outdoorsy did not add that link, it was added on 30 September 2016 by Mewasevasr (talk · contribs) [185] diff]. Are you claiming Mewasevasr is Outdoorsy? If OUTING is an issue, can you please show me the specific diff where Outdoorsy was advised of this policy? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Outdoorsy may not have been the original editor to add the link, but the behavior in restoring the link and otherwise strike me as pretty questionable. Also, I don't get why it's relevant to know whether Outdoorsy was notified of the outing policy. Ignorance of such a core policy doesn't excuse its violation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but it is in the Terms of Use: wmf:Terms of Use/en#4. Refraining from Certain_Activities under "Violating the Privacy of Others", which is presumably read before creating an account. Alex Shih^Talk 14:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And that's something you could certainly point to when warning him to desist. But we don't block every new user who breaks our interpretation of those rules, immediately and without warning or explaination, the very first time they break them. That's why we have warning messages. But right now Outdoorsy is blocked for "adding spam links" he didn't add, and for breaking the outing rule in a way that a perfectly reasonable and good faith person might well do. Right now no-one has advised him of that rule, of this discussion, or has addressed his unblock request. He erred, certainly, in identifying a user's affiliation publicly; you erred in reading a (complex, sure) diff list; and Deli nk erred in not informing him of this discussion. I don't see any evidence, after some time of asking, that this is in any way someone other than a good-faith user reverting spam, and on that basis I think he's been treated rather shabbily. With a warning about WP:OUTING, he should be unblocked. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

They certainly added the spam link - they may not have been the first user to add it to that article, but they restored a commercial link that had zero informational value, repeatedly, while proclaiming that it was "unfair" that it had been removed. (It is worth mentioning that links to that domain were added by a couple of different accounts to several different articles last September, in what was apparently an undetected spamming effort.) If the account is unblocked, the user needs to be given a strict warning against adding inappropriate links, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was just refspam of a business. Outdoorsy added a ref to an already referenced statement which merely linked the landing page of a glamping business. Generally speaking, it's rare that it's appropriate for a business landing page to be used as a reference, particularly where that landing page would violate the external link guidelines, as it would in this case (specifically WP:ELNO#EL14). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

False accusations of incivility & vandalism

On Talk:Malta Convoys, my comments on an edit were called "incivil" by User:Keith-264, with whom (AFAI recall) I've had no previous contact. Following a content dispute, he demanded "discussion" of the contested edit, but refused to actually enter into any discussion, & when I rv'd (following his rv of the contested edit), he described it as vandalism. (I believe that also puts him in violation of 3RR...which, I confess, I may also be.) I don't appreciate abuse. I don't appreciate false accusations. I don't appreciate being held to a standard nobody else is actually being held to. I expect this complaint will produce just another excuse to air my past bad behavior, however, & provide yet another opportunity for people hostile to me to call for an indefinite block. At this point, I might welcome it. It beats harassment by User:Keith-264, & stalking by User:Andy Dingley, all hollow. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Trek has taken umbrage despite a considerable effort by several editors to accommodate his point of view over the last week. He has reverted good work by defining it as not relevant to the article, refused to heed contrary opinion by two editors and arbitrarily reverted it again tonight, yet again according to a personal view of the motives of others. A quick look at the talk page shows that I have made a considerable effort to seek consensus and am not the editor in a minority of one. Calling me a harasser is a bit rich.Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. Trekphiler, I don't know what your childish whining is about today, but either post some diffs or leave me out of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Both User:Trekphiler and User:Keith-264 have violated 3RR. Interactions between these two editors at Talk:Malta convoys have been strained for going on a week now. In this time, I have attempted to moderate discussion and provide a third opinion to try to keep things running smoothly and to find a consensus but this has become increasingly difficult. My most recent offer to continue stands but any prospect of success appears to be increasingly unlikely unless there is a significant change. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Civility war?. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

My error. There have been three reverts by each in less than 24 hrs (if I got the maths right), not "more than 3", so this is not a violation of 3RR. My apologies to all for my error. It is; however, nonetheless, a situation that requires admin intervention. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"considerable effort"? I've seen you whining about my attitude & calling me a vandal, but not a lot of discussion of the substantive issue--& agreeing discussion with me is "a waste of time".

"leave me out of it" Right after you stop inserting yourself into discussions that have nothing to do with you.

It seems to me Keith-264 has been hostile to my edits on the Malta Convoys page from the start & has been trying to provoke me into saying something genuinely incivil. I believe that's called "baiting", & I understood there was a penalty for that. Presumably it only applies if I do it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one making wholesale reverts without consensus, jumping to conclusions about motive or ignoring third party mediation.Keith-264 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you're claiming vandalism, incivility, & ownership, despite edits like this. Who's got a problem with ownership? And who, evidently, wants me to just shut up & go away? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Trekphiler, you brought this to ANI. As is well recognised, ANI isn't a place for content disputes. Now if you have a concrete ANI-relevant reason for a problem with some other editor(s)' behaviour, then say clearly what that is. Otherwise withdraw this ANI filing, because a fatuous ANI filing against others is not an acceptable use of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This has become disruptive at the subject talk page/article. There has (IMO) been a clear case of WP:GAMING, which I have reverted for this reason. Beyond this, I make no comment regarding culpability. However, if all of the allegations being made here are problematic to sort through, then, I believe it would be appropriate to at least take interim action to minimise further disruption. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

On the matter of an allegation of WP:GAMING, I rely on the edit summary for that particular edit in the first instance. On the nature of disruption beyond that, I have been silent - as to both what and by whom (singular or plural). Similarly, on the matter of interim action, I have also been silent on the nature of such action and against whom (singular or plural) such action should be directed. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"take interim action to minimise further disruption" I was right. You do just want to shut me up. Accusing me of vandalism for making an edit one editor disapproves of is okay, but any edit I make, even one that is allegedly acceptable to him, is "gaming the system"? So much for fair treatment. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

One other thing crosses my mind. Isn't an accusation of vandalism, when it's not a fairly clear example (& not just a dispute over content) a violation of AGF? (Oh, wait, I forgot--no, since I didn't do it...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And after saying on the talk page he wouldn't oppose adding calibers, this, more evidence of WP:OWN issues. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

When you add repeated nonsense like this, "{{convert|15|in|mm|abbr=on}}-gunned battlecruiser" it's no surprise you're getting reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I did think it was reductio ad absurdum. When I reverted Treks second mass delete, I chose [[Help:Reverting|Reverting]] [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] or test edit because it seemed the most accurate description, given all that had passed since his first one. Pity trek didn't ask why instead of jumping to conclusions. It seems to me that Trek is defining the nature and purpose of the article in such narrow terms that he felt justified in cutting the lot rather than questioning it edit by edit. Since I don't agree with his definition of the article we are fundamentally at odds. That's why I've downed tools; I don't want a third day's work going down the Swannee. Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:CCC24243 talking to themselves and creating disruption

Could someone please block this user indef per WP:NOTTHERE? It was created to participate at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation to support an IP and create an illusion of consensus. They talk to each other and say that I must "chill out" and that the "discussion is settled", ignoting policy-based arguments. The only edit of this user outside of the talk page is in the article where the IP also edited. This is really becoming annoying, especially since I can not directly block them for disruption. The text of the article, which is in a highly contentious area, reflects a long-standing consensus which the IP is apparently unhappy with. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Alex Shih^Talk 12:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hacked articles redirect to a Youtube livestream

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

---

Hello. I've just identified at least two pages (Snoop Dogg and Xerox) that have [186] overlaid on top of it, the size of that image seems to be changed to 7000x7000 px. Basically, wherever you click on the article, you're redirected to the livestream of l0de ([187], though now it's offline), who is a youtuber that has less than 300 subscriptions.

There must be something shared by these two articles, because not all articles on Wikipedia are affected. I must admit that I've never seen something like this before.

Pinging @General Ization: if he wants to add something. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I found the cause. See [188]. Have asked that Everettman be blocked immediately. This exploit affected every page that used {{Currency}}. General Ization ^Talk 04:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I reported him to Oshwah, who has blocked him. – Nihlus (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The offending edit has been revdel'd, so unfortunately (I suppose) can no longer be seen at the diff above. But hopefully someone will consider how to prevent a similar exploit in the future. General Ization ^Talk 04:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Think one slipped through the cracks

The following discussion is closed. 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 believe a sysop should probably rev-del this revision, it appears to contain BLP violations and the "source" is completely unrelated. Home Lander (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite correct, and done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive account

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

---

PLease the talk page (User talk:Biplabbala33498) and edit history [189] of Biplabbala33498. Disruptive account. Has just created an article Dion Siluch with '...' as the only content. Tagged it for speedy deletion, and see it's been speedied three times in recent days already, and jsut re-created. Hasn't WP:COMMUNICATED or heeded previous warnings. Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked for 31 hours, thanks RickinBaltimore. Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I gave them an explanation as to why they were blocked as well. They seem to be eager to edit here, but creating multiple throwaway articles isn't the way to go about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Constant vandalism on the page "Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017"

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

---

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

Please check this guy activity, he's been constantly vandalizing the page, I'm just reverting it but he never stops, please check the situation.

The page: Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 (check the edits) His IP address: 212.112.150.123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phospor (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

They seem to have stop editing for now, about two and half hours ago, but they really do need to be warned if they make unconstructive edits - they have had no warnings. I've left a first general caution as they have been edit warring. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking further back, I see RickinBaltimore blocked a very similar IP address on 16 August for block evasion by User:Carsten11.  Looks like a duck to me to me so I've blocked for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Tonmoypaul.71 pagemoves

Not too sure what's going on here, but Tonmoypaul.71 (talk · contribs) has been moving pages in long chains. It appears he is trying to move Datta High School to Dutt High School, but has created a whole mess in the process. Could someone clean it up? (note - before a few days ago, the article refered to the school as Datta, then some IP's changed it to Dutt - may be the same person) – Train2104 (t • c) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The external links, when run through Google Translate, give "Datta High School" and not "Dutt High School". Google Maps shows a location for "Datta High School" but none for "Dutt High School", although it does show a "Dutta Girls High School". Current, the article is at "Dutt High School", but this appears to be incorrect. Someone who is proficient in the language should look this over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be "Datta" in English, but it would appear that it is known as "Dutt" in English. In languages that use Latin script <u> usually represents "ooh"-like sounds. Due to the fact that English orthography basically preserves the way English was pronounced 700 years ago or so, it also represents "aah"-like sounds, like the <u> in the previous name of Kolkata. It also appears that we may well have a young person writing about their own school, as often happens, so be gentle. Remember What the Thunder Said. (Admittedly I wrote about the main administration block at one of my (four) alma maters, and made it the top google hit for "Sydney's ugliest building" for some time.)--Shirt58 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Tonmoypaul.71 has moved the page and Talk page yet again - this time to Dutt High School. (please note stop as part of title) - suggest article needs to be move protected to stop even more multiple moves - but after so many moves, by multiple editors, when does the music stop? - Arjayay (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I considered move protection, but it seems like overkill when there's only one person who's being disruptive. Tonmoypaul.71 blocked 31 hours and warned that further disruption won't be tolerated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Smitty Smitty

I am involved in a dispute at 2017 Presidents Cup. I started a thread on Talk:2017 Presidents Cup to discuss it with the other user (User:Smitty Smitty), and with this edit informed him of the discussion. Another user (User:Nigej) commented on the talk page, agreeing with me. Smitty Smitty reverted my edit. Nigej then reverted his edit, pointing to the talk page; Smitty Smitty reverted again. He has not once provided any reasoning for his edits. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I made the edits because the schedule is set. They just don't like the fact the golfers have yet to be decided for that day. They have provided no reason the edits shouldn't be made, they just don't like the fact I made the edits first.

We have provided what we feel is sufficient reasoning, and you have continued to be disruptive. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Smitty Smitty blocked 24 hours for edit warring, but, Phinumu, you're edit warring, too. It's good that you're trying to discuss this on the talk page, but you can't just indefinitely revert someone simply because they won't discuss their edits. Some people would say that you should be blocked for fairness, too, but I think your attempts to discuss the matter mitigate your edit warring enough for a warning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of that possibility. I should've started the talk page discussion sooner, but I knew that I'd have backing from other users that are heavily involved in that article and similar articles. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Verification

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

---

So I made [190] this edit, thinking it would improve the page but General Ization reverted it for "vandalism" when if you look at that it has NO elements of vandalism. I then undid it and then he redidit it. He probably did that so just so I would break the three revert rule and get blocked. KNOCKXX 22:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems you may have clicked on the wrong link, when what you intended to click on was Talk:Verificationism. GMG^talk 22:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Also see Knockxx's self-reverted [191] edit to Knowledge despite the page notice about editing the initial links. WP:BOOMERANG.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I never checked the talk page. KNOCKXX 22:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See that's your issue KNOCKX. When you have a content dispute, the talk page is always the first place to go. If that doesn't work, then try the dispute resolution process, and if that doesn't work, then come to ANI. GMG^talk 22:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

K then. And I'm pretty sure you meant Talk:Verification. KNOCKXX 22:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Close plz. No upside down ranged weapons needed. GMG^talk 22:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Also please note that the OP's next edit immediately after their edit to Knowledge and two other articles related to it, Verificationism and Quality, was this. This tells me the editor is WP:NOTHERE. General Ization ^Talk 22:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am here to build an Encyclopedia. I was aware of WP:GTP, but I didn't do it because of that. KNOCKXX 23:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

After reading this editor's user and talk page, I think it's possible that this may be a WP:CIR issue. For whatever reason, it doesn't appear to me that Knockxx is currently competent to edit Wikipedia, or that he will develop that competency in a reasonable amount of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Mea culpa. I should've checked his contribs, which would have made it clear that he was NOTHERE. My bad. Thanks, Bbb23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • NP. Subsequently blocked as a sock of Glaxp, which user on review is clearly not 16, or 18, or a new user, so claims of in/competence or innocent ignorance were beside the point anyway. General Ization ^Talk 19:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible indef'd user editing anonymously

204.126.11.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be indef-blocked user Jack Gaines (talk · contribs) editing anonymously, as the IP is constantly changing genres on country music song articles, usually to "bro country", often with no source at all, dubious sourcing that is either patently unreliable or synthesis, or an edit summary of "look at the lyrics".

Sample edits by IP here: [192] [193] [194] can easily be compared to similar edits by Jack Gaines [195] [196]

Can I please get some eyes on this IP address, if not a block? Likewise, if you see "Bro country" in any infoboxes, nuke it on sight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. Blocked for 3 days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Presently 43 instances of "Bro country" in articles - put insource:"Bro+country" into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=0&ns0=1 - most look genuine, but easy enough to keep an eye on. --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: So far, the only inbounds are from the {{Country music}} template, and from linking valid instances of the term being used in context (e.g., quoting the phrase when a reviewer uses it). So long as it stays out of the genre field in the infobox. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

TIL that Bro country is actually a thing. Wow. Anyway, if there's usable sourcing that a song is in that genre, it sounds fine to say so in the article and (depending) in the infobox. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Danish Shakeel creation and recreation of articles

I can seem to look objectively at this issue, so I'm posting this here to essentially wash my hands of it. (Essentially, having put it up for two separate speedy deletions, I am assuming the topic isn't notable. With sources in other languages and a topic well outside of anything I know anything about, I'm wimping out and passing the buck.)

The user in question is a SPA apparently creating the same article multiple times under several variations of the title: [[Samad mir}}, Samad Mir, Kulyaat-e-Samad Mir and, for all I know, others. The articles seem to have been deleted for a variety of reasons: copyright violations, no assertion of notability, inadequate sources, etc. The version up for speedy right now is/was a copypaste from a blog.[197] While it has been somewhat rewritten (better English, some reduction of peacockery), at least some of the sources are clearly blogs. (I haven't checked the others.) I'm thinking a block is in order for the editor.

The other article, Danish Shakeel is clearly the user name. As it is gone, I don't know if it's autobiographical or somehow related to the other article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There's also some socking here: User talk:Danishshakeel17051999, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamdanishshakeel/Archive, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Add User:Shakeel513, another SPA, to that list. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming there is a connection to Moti Lal Saqi, the only article linking to Samad Mir, and the SPA who created it, User:Naveenraina. That article is also a copyvio, up for speedy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The deleted article at Danish Shakeel certainly appears to be an autobiographical vanity page, and was deleted twice by the same admin. The URL from which it was taken is currently offline, and that's a common pattern when vanity pages are deleted as copyvios, as a Wikipedia article is more prized by many than a personal website. Andrewa (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated removal of user talk page content without permission

Further developments being handled at SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Recently, GeoJoe10000 has been removing content from my talk page. Under WP:TPG, "users are free to remove content from their own talk pages". However, GeoJoe10000 has not requested that I remove this content, and he has moved to revert any content that I have restored.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802902891 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802902952 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802902965 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802904175 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/802904322

It appears that he done this because I have been critical of his behaviour—and that of his previous account, GeoJoe1000—and he wants to remove any evidence of it. He never asked permission to remove these comments, and had he sought it, I would have agreed to it as a show of good faith (although given this behaviour, I would be less inclined to remove it now).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisonermonkeys (talk • contribs)

Don't know about all that, but I do know this is totally unacceptable. John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And so is all this - FlightTime (open channel) 06:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not the first time he has done something like this, as evidenced by these personal attacks on Spintendo—attacks which GeoJoe10000 has since deleted. GeoJoe10000's talk page claims that I am only on Wikipedia to bully him, though it appears that anyone who disagrees with him is a bully. He has a long history of conflict with other editors, and aggressive and disruptive editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, he has been blocked as a sockpuppet of his old account, so the problem has been solved. I suspect that his intention was to retire the old account and turn over a new leaf, so to speak. It might have been a new account, but it was the same old attitude. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

---

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

FC Steaua București - CSA Steaua București (football)

The following discussion is closed. 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 one is a little bit complicated. CSA Steaua București is a very popular sports club in Romania. In 1998, the football department separated from the sports society and became FC Steaua București. CSA Steaua sued the football club becaue it used their Steaua brand without permission, so the football club changed its name to the acronym FCSB in March 2017. The sports club refounded their football department, which started to play in the fourth league this summer.

The problem is that some fans who chose to abandon FCSB and support CSA Steaua claim that the team from the fourth league has the honours and the history of the FCSB. Altough FCSB can't officially use the name Steaua, this hasn't changed the fact that the trophies are attributed to them. They currently play in the UEFA Europa League and both UEFA and the Romanian Football Federation confirm that they continued Steaua's history and own the honours.

There are certain users such as TPTB that keep transferring the honours of FCSB to CSA Steaua's article! FCSB's page is protected (or it was, I don't know for sure now) and I think the other article should too. Indefinetely, because this is an edit war which persists since FC Steaua changed its name in March.

Thank you!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Again with the goddam Romanian football? EEng 14:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, no wonder there are less and less fans on the stadiums!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 07:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The point is that these things keep popping up on this noticeboard with monotonous regularity when the appropriate place to discuss them is [a] the article talk page, for content issues, [b] WP:RFPP, for page protection issues, or [c] probably nowhere, and certainly not here, for endless, repetitive, uninteresting arguments about the name/status of a football club. -- Begoon 08:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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

CSA Steaua București (football) - FC Steaua București

The following discussion is closed. 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 in the Virgin Islands once. I met a girl. We ate lobster, drank Piña Coladas. At sunset we made love like sea otters. That was a pretty good day. Why couldn't I get that day over and over and over?" -- Phil Connors

".... oh yeah - don't drive on the railroad tracks!"

This issue was discussed here and I see that the user 8Dodo8 has lied and manipulated you all. The truth about this issue is this. Fotbal Club Fcsb was founded in 2003. The team took over Steaua Bucuresti's first league place illegally and it also started using the Steaua Bucuresti name and brand although it had no right to them. Gigi Becali, Fotbal Club Fcsb's shadow owner, <BLP violation redacted> CSA Steaua Bucuresti, the real Steaua Bucuresti, the team who won the European Champions Cup in 1986, sued Becali and his team and won. Fotbal Club Fcsb is now forbidden to use the Steaua names and brand. They are also forbidden to pretend they are Steaua Bucharest, but <BLP violation redacted> they don't care. Currently, Fotbal Club Fcsb and Steaua Bucharest are involved in several other lawsuits. In one of them, Steaua asks for Fotbal Club Fcsb to pay 38 milion euros in reparations. This lawsuit will probably end next year and will lead to Fotbal Club Fcsb's demise. Becali has even announced that if he loses the lawsuit, he will file for bankruptcy and simply erase his team, so that he won't have to pay the 38 million euros. He has provided no proof that he owns the Steaua honours. He uses them because UEFA and the Romanian Football Federation have not yet issued official statements regarding the matter. On their websites, fotbal club fcsb is still credited with winning the ECC in 1986, but that information comes directly from the club. It's not official information and should not be used as such. All this information is known in Romania. The user 8Dodo8, who is in fact the supporter of a rival team and who probably hates Steaua, has lied to you all. He's using the state of confusion in the Romanian press and Becali's propaganda to deceive you and to destroy an honest page, created with the right information, and that is not based on lies. If you check the history of the CSA Steaua București (football) you will see that what 8Dodo8 did was the same exact thing as what the other vandals did. Some of them had registered accounts, others didn't. But they all made the exact same changes to the page. Some of them even created accounts just to vandalize that page.

The CSA Steaua București (football) page was created by SupervladiTM. He is a Steaua supporter and one of the people who helped create the FC Steaua București page. That was in the mid 2000s, when no one really knew what becali did and that his club is not Steaua. Ask him why he created the CSA Steaua București (football) page and you'll see that the information he added there was correct and that people like 8Dodo8 are just vandals.

I asked for aministrators to protect the CSA Steaua page. Seeing this, 8Dodo8 went to an administrator friend of his and asked him to vandalize the page for him. That's why I ask that his account be deleted and that all his modifications to the CSA Steaua București (football) page be undone.

Please keep in mind that this is the only team that can use the Steaua name and brand. It is the only team with the Steaua honours. There are no others that can use it. Soon, Fotbal Club Fcsb will be closed down and the FC Steaua Bucuresti page will be either deleted or modified to present the correct information. The Romanian justice system has decided that Fotbal Club Fcsb is not Steaua, and there's no way the Romanian press or Becali's propaganda can get around this.

Thank you.

-TPTB (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by 120.17.210.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The following discussion is closed. 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 got an advise to "fuck off" from 120.17.210.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [198] (for the context, I am the blocking admin). Could someone please teach them manners? Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP and extended the block on Cathry (talk · contribs) to two weeks (pretty clear WP:DUCK unless anyone disagrees?). WJBscribe (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

So you're going to call WP:DUCK on Cathry (assumedly in Russia or somewhere Russian speaking?), because some random, with zero similar style, on a mobile carrier in a completely different country said something? Where are all these VPN's terminating over 4G that you speak of? Some quality justice you've got handing out there. Amazing that Cathrys original block decision didn't even take into account evidence from the person who's edit she was undoing deletion of (mine). Even more sad that you don't even care less about how terribly broken Wikipedia is and let admins get away with the rubbish in that WP:EW claim, for her single undos they didn't like. Zero objectivity or accountability. Way to teach Cathry about helping a stranger there. You should be ashamed and Wikipedia should respect a modicum of privacy, instead of discriminating against people without accounts. Anyway, signing off for 48hrs. Or maybe for good. You can guarantee you've kissed away any donations EVER again from me too. 120.18.160.40 (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

p.s. That's also a security vulnerability. You're teaching people to play duck to DoS others. You should think that one through a bit more.

You should probably have disclosed your own connection on the Russian wiki (apparently) too User:Ymblanter. To anyone who was watching (like me), it just had some strange stench of vendetta and likely COI.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.81.238 (talk • contribs)

Since you are explicitly evading a block, I just reblock this IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Will no one think of the bastards?

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/117.246.70.154 Anmccaff (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Ymblanter Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Deeply thinking about bastards.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Man, that was quick; the block appears to have come in after I'd opened their talk page, but before I'd pasted the {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ Anmccaff (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the article history, I expect they will be back soon from a slightly different IP-address. Kleuske (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I protected Tamils for two weeks as a clear-cut case; the other two I would possibly decline if they show up at RFPP.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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

deletion of legitimate article that uses correct WP:MANUAL and WP:COMPANY and accusation that i work for said company.

The following discussion is closed. 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:Seraphimblade has deleted the page Webster Public Relations and claimed (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) there was no promotion NOR advertising at all in the article, the article used well-known news and media sources/refs and the company is even cited for having 16 clients that are in the 100 greatest country artist of all time. This company is legitimate and is widely known in the entertainment industry. Notability standards for this company is a big ole "duh", any google searches done before deletion would have shown.

Although User:Seraphimblade may not like PR companies, the company Webster Public Relations or some of its current pr, that is NOT a legitimate reason for deletion if the company's article abides by the wikicode of notability, non-advertisement and has appropriate ref links.

not all of us like or believe in the values of the KKK article for example and yet it is a factual and cultural existence in our world and thus its article will not be deleted either.

just because the subject of this article is a media/pr company it has every right to be treated with the same wiki code of respect as other notable public relations companies and organizations on Wikipedia like Public Relations Global NetworkPublic_Relations_Global_Network who is not accused of "advertising" in its wiki article.

The press is not automatically the enemy because wikipedia has plenty of notable pr and press companies listed.

The 2nd thing I would like addressed is the accusation by Animalparty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)User:Animalparty that I work for the company Webster Public Relations WP:PAID and WP:DISCLOSE, which I do not. I simply do not. I also work in Nashville in the entertainment industry and have many high-profile clients, I am not a "pr agent" as User:Animalparty has accused me of. and I only have unique access to good solid factual information because of my position. So I am not connected to Webster Public Relations in any sort of conflict of interest.

they, Webster Public Relations have done good things for the country music community and the country music business and they deserve to be listed in an article simply because they are a household name in that world. that's it.

I don't work for them neither did the article have any advertising in it whatsoever.

• [199]
• [200]
• [201]
• [202]
• [203]

Carey James Balboa (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No company has any "rights" on Wikipedia, least of all the "right" to have an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I was gooing to comment that I couldn't evaluate the article because it had been deleted, but you've recreated it, which you shouldn't have done, and will probably get you blocked from editing. But now that you've done so, I agree with the deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Page has been reposted in full. I'll send page Webster Public Relations to AfD as a procedural solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Post-script

The article's been deleted at AfD, and the editor blocked as advertising/promotional only account. This is the post I was working on when all of that occurred, which I'm putting here to be on the record if and when this editor re-appears with a new account:

User:Careyjamesbalboa's user page had on it [204], until it was tagged for speedy deletion, a link to Carey James International, a "A Private Boutique Intelligence Agency" which provides "Premium technology, intelligence and consulting for elite businesses, artists, firms, and creatives." The site has a client list which makes it clear that Carey James International is a PR firm. The editor is the creator of Webster Public Relations, which lists among its clients [205] Dolly Parton, Lifehouse, Kenny Rogers, and Kid Rock. Careyjamesbalboa has made edits to the article about all of these artists, primarily to add the name of Webster Public Relation's principal, and images of that person with those artists. I have reverted all of these edits.

Clearly the editor behind this account had been paid for those edits, and is therefore a paid editor who has not acknowledged being paid.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

FleetCommand and their harassment

Over the past couple of years, FleetCommand, has made it difficult for me to make contributions to Wikipedia. It has come to a point where he now wishes me dead!

Here is the one that really has gotten to me: 1 In this case they:

• called me "our most stupid editor"
• wrote "every time I read his name, it is bad news"
• said I "pulled stupid stunts"
• and stated "When he dies, I will certainly celebrate"

Other examples:

• 2 3 failed to state what I did wrong, reverted redirect, and did not address the ambiguous issue. Yes, the dab page wasn't perfect, but TV (software could refer to apps on TVs
• In this diff 4 he failed to assume good faith, and stated "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" and "his person doesn't know why we do things when we do them." as if WP:ABF and WP:OWN were rules to live by. All I did 5 was add an image. I did it through the Visual Editor, so I did not know that it caused a mobile issue.
• Next was the issue with Microsoft's branding 6 Initially he attacked me for finding sources for Outlook on the web was the name of two services, in fact MS changed their mind, but he blatantly reverted my edits multiple times without backing up his sources
• Previously this year he stated 7 I was "wrong in every dispute so far"

I was hoping s/he would accept that I make mistakes, but all is in good faith. I've been editing for awhile, but this person seems to think I'm a kindergartener editing Wikipedia for the first time. This has gone way too far. WikIan -(talk) 02:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the content dispute or editing competence, stating that When he dies, I will certainly celebrate is completely unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Agree with Blackmane, with the caveat that that particular part of the comment could be an extremely off-colour joke (that should nevertheless be blanked and possibly rev-delled). @FleetCommand: Did you mean that in sincerity? You should, at the very least, strike it -- almost any admin would readily block you for a remark like that, regardless of whether you were right about WikIan's content edits. As to whether you were right about their edits -- they appear to have a clean block log, so if you have tried to bring their "disruption" to the attention of the community before this point you should probably provide some evidence. If it's just your opinion, then you should shut up about it because accusations like that are not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia community necessarily requires a collegial operating environment. This means that we should not be calling other editors stupid or hoping for their deaths, whether or not it was said in jest or in a moment of anger. Such comments should not even be made towards confirmed trolls or the truly disruptive. FleetCommand's comment is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia as a matter of policy. It should be removed per WP:NPA, among other policies. I do not believe a block is necessary based solely on that comment, but there may be other misconduct that I have not seen which indicate that a block is necessary to prevent further disruption to the editing environment. At the very least, FleetCommand should consider himself sternly warned that further such comments can and will result in a block. Pure NPA blocks (as opposed to ones for vandalism, NOTHERE, etc.) are rather rare in this day and age, but I can see one being issued in short order. As to whether further sanctions should lie, in my view this should be based on whether there is a pattern of disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I have notified FleetCommand of this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment by the talk page holder, Codename Lisa: Hello, earthlings! I am away for one day, and you start a war on my talk page! Tch, tch! You naughty, naughty people. Has someone here been a baaaaaaaaaad boy? Joke aside, there is a lot of bad blood between FleetCommand and WikIan. Back in 2016, WikIan tried to merge Outlook.com and Outlook on the web articles into a new Outlook Mail article and had a clash with yours truly, Jeh, ViperSnake151, and FleetCommand. Ever since, I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor.

On this certain occasion, WikIan has made 61 edits involving renaming articles whose titles ended with "(software)", a direct violation of ArbCom ruling highlighted in MOS:STABILITY, a deviation from our naming scheme, a violation of WP:DAB on at least three accounts. After being in Wikipedia for 7 years, does he not know that disambiguation pages end with (disambiguaiton), not (software)? JE98 found it suspicious and tried to notify me. In reponse, WikIan said something that looks highly inaccurate to me, perhaps even dishonest. He more or less denied having done anything dramatic. The provocation theme comes to my mind. At worst, he is engaged in deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and harassment. At best, he is engaged in unintentional disruption rising from lack of competence.

Then again, feel free to dismiss all this as conspiracy theory. I think the solution is still the same: WikIan must accept that he has room for improvements (acres of it, actually) and he is late doing it by seven years. He can't just push everyone's button and come here crying that people whose buttons were pushed didn't treat him well. At one point, someone will come to the conclusion that it is him who must stop button-pushing.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Codename Lisa. So, FleetCommand's comment was completely out of line and should be stricken as a personal attack and they should be cautioned about civility and told to read over NPA again, and we should either sanction or sternly warn WikIan for their own misbehaviour? I am sorry, but I have very little patience for people who deliberately goad and provoke other editors, and then immediately play the victim once the other editors are pushed over the brink. @WikIan: is Codename Lisa's outline of the events leading up to the edit you link accurate? Specifically, can you disprove her feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the [other e]ditor? Under normal circumstances, per WP:AGF, I would not place the burden of defending yourself on you (it's FC and CL's responsibility to substantiate their own accusations), but technically in this case you came here asking for sanctions against someone who posted a comment that looks provoked, so you really can't expect the rest of us to simply assume your side of the story is completeky accurate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) By the way: The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports, one on FC which resulted in a two-way warning, and never been reported himself makes me somewhat inclined to believe Codename Lisa that this is a bellicose user trying to trick other users into getting into trouble. Two-way edit-warring that one party chooses to forum-shop to ANEW should send up red flags, and the fact that the edit linked by the OP shows an intent to report them on ANI makes me very much think this thread was opened in an attempt to get FC before FC got them. I'm sorry if I'm misreading something, but the more I look into this the more I think a BOOMERANG should be coming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: It is not just that. Please see this:

"2 3 failed to state what I did wrong". Well, that's outright dishonest. The following sentence seems not only a good-faith attempt to explain but also an accurate and conscise one:

Partial title matches and items without link are not allowed. If you don't want to read WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, at least read WP:DDD.

WikIan is insulted directly; I understand that. But that does not justify lying to us.

"but TV (software) could refer to apps on TVs". No! It could not. Everyone knows that parenthetical suffixes are for disambiguation only. Furthermore... (Sigh!) Oh, my! There is so much to explain. Yes, WikIan, please study WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, or at least WP:DDD.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw those too. I think WikIan wants us to interpret all of the previous, at-worst-slightly-uncivil, remarks in light of the later When he dies, I will certainly celebrate, when in reality WikIan has not seven diffs of FC harassing them but one diff of FC overreacting to WikIan harassing them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Whatever your view of the underlying content, "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" is an extremely uncollegial way to approach editing and the first diff cited above is completely unacceptable. Per NPA, It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. @FleetCommand: I really hope you're going to refactor/strike those comments when you come back online. GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: Indeed. Unacceptable is the word. I've already removed the whole "unacceptable" thread, so there is nothing for FC to do.

As for my view of the matter, we have two unacceptable things, neither of which justify the other. Both should be addressed for the good of Wikipedia. We must make it a point that we tolerate neither. I think it would be best for both editors to shake hands, one promising no future insults and the other promising a sincere attempt to improve self and learn from our veterans. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well said. GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. I think FC should apologize, but there's no tradition of forcing people to apologize for off-colour remarks that have already been blanked, unless they actively try to restore them. There is the problem, though, of WikIan's behaviour; I think if this thread gets closed as Offending comment has been blanked. Nothing more to be done. (read: implying the disruption was one-sided) that will just embolden them and encourage more disruption. That said, unless more evidence is forthcoming I'd say a strong warning, specifically a promise of a block next time they make another of the offending edits, might be enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am thinking a little beyond that. My role in this is what I must not neglect. (There was a reason all this happened in my talk page.) For now, I have disengaged from all Apple-related software articles and have removed them from my watchlist, except for two cases where my involvement was a matter of the elephant in the room. (I participated in one before noticing this dicussion. I also granted a template edit request; monitoring the aftermath in Apple Wallet is simply my responsibility.) Still, 14 less items in my watchlist should help WikIan see less of me and de-escalate matter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• First, I don't edit Wikipedia for a living. Yes, I make mistakes, but I do think my positive contributions have outweighed those. @FleetCommand: is the only user to specifically target my edits and either revert them or challenge them on a regular basis. CL and others have reverted edits (this is natural due to WP:BRD cycle), but not in a way that personally insults me or aggressively challenges all edits because they may do drastic changes. There is no guideline against drastic changes if they improve Wikipedia.

• Furthermore, I am not super involved as CL or FC are in Wikipedia's guideline or ArbCom rulings. Furthermore, I have taken CL's advice on many of my edits. I checked the backlinks to make sure the page moves didn't break anything. This is when I ran into a problem with the double redirects, which logically seemed to be solved with dab pages.
• I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong (though not at the time) for the Outlook.com/OOTW debacle. I'll admit that was due to Microsoft not knowing themselves. And who, might I add, have the time to specifically target a single person unless they edit a lot? If I was targeting FC, I'd be all up in his watchlist and ONLY editing whatever he edits with vandalism.
• If you want to know my thought process this time around, I (as usual) was looking for Article Title Consistency according to WP:CRITERIA and also don't you guys realize we are violating WP:NPOV by favoring Apple with the "software" redirect?
• The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports I'm sorry... but now I'm a fault for reporting people? I'm pretty sure others have opened up reports for me too. Check the logs. For both WikIan and my old username. Whatever I bring to the Administrators attention is within Wikipedia guidelines. There is no fault in doing so. Also, isn't this an admin noticeboard? I'd like an admin to handle this actively as well.

• @Codename Lisa:, why do you think I haven't read WP:DDD? Shall we read it together?

1. Target link at start? Check. All of my links were at the start (except one, TV (software)). Whoops, but that doesn't that aside, TV (software) is obviously what someone would look for if they are researching apps for their TV. (read: ambiguous)
2. Keep descriptions short. Check.
3. Sections. Don't need.
4. Primary topic: well, TV (software) is incredibly ambiguous. Talk:TV_(Apple), see that discussion. I mean come on, seriously, this is just ambiguous. Yes, it was a change, but many of the other Apple articles used (Apple) parenthetical disambiguation. that user had to ruin it according to the talk page. Yeah? So what? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you WP:OWN Wikipedia. As also stated "Too many apps/services" is subjective Emir of Wikipedia, not me. CL and FC, your prejudice against me also opposes other editors.
5. Wiktionary and incoming links weren't needed, and I didn't think it needed cleanup. There were not multiple blue links, (there was one piped link), I didn't add an entry w/o a blue link or w/ a red link. I didn't include EVERY article containing the title.
6. I also didn't include any dictionary definition or external links.

• No! It could not. How so?
• implying the disruption was one-sided If you wish me off of Wikipedia I will leave. I don't want to go, but if you are turning this against me, I will. I haven't caused disruption, except to those editors who are just used to the way things haven't changed, even though they directly violate WP:NPOV, and then turn around and yell I'm violating WP:DDD

Good day to you all, WikIan -(talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @WikIan: You wrote: "Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong" Very well. Let's say I believe you, as Hanlon's razor says. But understand this:

1. It does not matter how you assess your level of activity; given your level of participation in Wikipedia, length of service, and the troubles in which you have been (mentioned above by yourself, I and Hijiri88), your knowledge and understanding of our rules, guidelines and practices is insufficient. Improve it. Pretexts save you once, not twice.
2. Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong. Make it you mission to find out why.

Feel free to ignore all I said or protest. Time is a cruel mistress. She will see to it that you will learn the hard way in due course.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Again, I'm not trying to "play dumb" here. If I were, I'd say that I didn't know WP:DDD existed. My interpretation of what I did (for the reasons above), though not perfect, is that it contributed in a positive way to those articles. Tell me, is Health (Apple) more ambiguous than Health (software)? If not, I'd like to know if that's what you are referring to in the case of Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong.

Again, looking at WP:DDD, which I did in the above list, I don't see what I did wrong, except not put a blue link at the start of the entry. JE98 said (paraphrasing here) "there were too many entries to list in the DAB page", which led me to believe I made a mistake. However, according to the guideline, you don't have to list every entry with that title. WikIan -(talk) 06:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Lesson one: Stay on topic. The topic of this thread is "harassment", you, and "FleetCommand". To begin your learning, drop me a note on my talk page. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the underlying (article title) content dispute, there are open move discussions at TV (Apple) and Wallet (software). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• I just had to remove an attack on FC by WI in this thread. FC's previous comment was completely unacceptable as well. Both of you cut out the personal attacks or you'll be blocked for a month (this is my go-to solution to feuds, and it has had some minor success in the past). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wait ... I agree with Floq that blanking that was a good idea, but ... well, look at it. The image has apparently been taken down, but did WikIan just admit to "recruiting" people (his real-world friends?) to harass FleetCommand off-wiki? That's way more serious than saying on-wiki "I wish he were dead". WikIan claimed on his talk page that he did not support or condone the posting of that stuff that he linked (whatever it was), but the fact that it disappeared at apparently the same time as Floq told him off indicates that either he was the one who posted it or he was in contact with them. It might be my own history with off-wiki harassment (which literally included posting images of me on a website similar to tinypics and linking them on-wiki) biasing me, but this certainly feels like the worst thing that has come up in this discussion so far. WikIan, Floq let you off very easy by not blocking you; most admins would not be as kind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Off-wiki harassment is a serious matter, because it can easily misfire at the wrong person. During the time that FA was pressuring me to bring FleetCommand out of retirement, I discovered that the user accounts of "FleetCommand" registered on @hotmail.com, @gmail.com, Wikia (it is "Fleet Command" with a space), SourceForge, GamesFAQ, GameSpot and a couple of other place (I've forgotten) do not belong to our FleetCommand. These people even have the same avatar because that certain avatar is originally distributed by Relic Entertainment. If the harasser is lucky, the person harassed is a high-ranking official of the United States Fleet Forces Command and he just laughs – unlike in the films, where he calls CIA black ops.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow. Okay. I think FleetCommand's statements make a bit more sense, even if they're still contrary to policy. I don't quite understand what WikIan posted, but the pivot away from the properly objectionable matter (the comment) to more grey policy questions gives me the impression of someone who grabbed hold of something in order to bring a tangentially related dispute to this forum. I'm not to the point where I think a boomerang is appropriate, but I'm definitely becoming less impressed with WikIan's participation in this thread as it drags on. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:, you seriously need to stop implying things. You're almost becoming like FC, assuming I did things for bad intentions. The image was a screenshot (privately linked) to a screenshot of what could be considered vandalism, so I removed it because it was in bad taste. As for what he assumed I did wrong, may I remind you all WP:BURO. If I believe my content contributes to Wikipedia, then I have the right to do so. What happens next is up to consensus, not one user targeting another. And to quote the topic of this thread is "harassment", specifically my case against FC's rude comments and request for multiple administrators consensus. Not Hijiri88's. Floq let you off very easy by not blocking you, if I posted vandalism or doxxing content to a publically accessible, non-removable website, this comment would make sense. But again... I did not do that. I simply screenshotted what I saw here on Wikipedia.

someone who grabbed hold of something in order to bring a tangentially related dispute to this forum Perhaps, I provided evidence of FC's aggressiveness to other users. It was in bad taste (screenshot of resulting vandalism), that's why its gone.WikIan -(talk) 22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So... you admit that it was you who posted the image (whatever it was)? Have you engaged in any other off-wiki discussion of FleetCommand? Because you should know that, if this is a recurring problem as User:Codename Lisa implies, while it doesn't excuse "When he dies, I will certainly celebrate", it does mean that if FleetCommand gets a block or any other editing restriction out of this, your own will likely be harsher. I agree with User:Mendaliv that it still is not necessarily at that point. You could strike everything you've written here, apologize to FleetCommand, request that this thread be closed, and get back to building an encyclopedia. Or you could let the discussion drag out and see what happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: There you go again, implying I had contact outside of Wikipedia... I have not, that was a screenshot of something HERE on Wikipedia, and I don't even know who FC is. What you're saying is that I was doxxing him, and as I already said I didn't. Stop implying bad faith again. The recurring problem is that FC is targeting my edits and insulting me directly. If this community chooses to ban people who report offensive language to the people who can handle it, why should I want to be a part of this community? If this community chooses to follow its own guidelines, and punish inappropriate behavior, and disregard any prior bias, I will proudly remain an editor here. I'm not sure why your own will likely be harsher would ever become a reality. I have never EVER posted anything that is outside the scope of Wikipedia anywhere else. WikIan -(talk) 22:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You posted an image of some kind on an off-wiki forum, then linked it on-wiki, explicitly claiming that it had been posted by someone else (And, no, I did not create those entries/accounts. A bunch of people know about the borderline hounding) and that you condemned them for it (I support absolutely no harassment or vandalism of any kind. You were then forced to admit that you were the one who uploaded the image (whatever it was) onto tinypics when I pointed out that the image had disappeared as soon as Floq called you out for it. Forgive me if I am missing some key component of this that makes posting an image to tinypic.com -- with the apparent intention of attacking, demeaning, intimidating or otherwise harassing a member of the Wikipedia community -- not exactly what happened here, but you don't appear to be able or willing to deny that. You are instead focusing on attacking me with strawman arguments: I don't know what the content of the image was, nor have I "implied" that I do know, and I don't even know what "doxxing" is, so how I could have accused you of it is beyond me. If something about what I actually said (rather than what you think I "implied") was in some way inaccurate, please explain. Remember, I was entirely on your side here until Codename Lisa told her side of the story, so I'm definitely willing to change my mind if some aspect of my assessment of the situation is wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see Floquenbeam's comments below. If you are inclined to believe CL, I want you to know all that facts. While I respect s/he as a dutiful editor, as stated they br[ought] FleetCommand out of retirement and have interactions in an IM chat off-wiki not to mention CL and FC come in paris. CL is not in question here, as I have never been directly insulted multiple times by this person. WikIan -(talk) 04:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am so tired of people at ANI assuming they know what they hell they are talking about when they don't. I actually dealt with it yesterday, so don't need people suggesting things that should be done to address their imagined problems, but to prevent the inevitable question on my talk page: WikIan took a screenshot of on-wiki personal attacks on FleetCommand by other people over the course of several years, posted the screenshot to an image hosting service, and said he thought it was funny and evidence of how FleetCommand angers people. No off-wiki harassment, no recruiting others. Now, that was a real dick move. But not, IMHO, as bad as saying you'd be happy to see another editor dead (and, to be fair, it was done in partial retaliation for saying that). The image was removed by WikIan from the hosting service, I issued a warning, and we're done. As I said before, if this doesn't stop I suggest 1 month blocks for either editor at the next hint of personal attacks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I never assumed anything. I asked a question and WikIan's repeated dodging of said question and hurling nonsense accusations back at me was beginning to incline me to believe the worst. And collecting screenshots of people attacking him from over a multi-year period and posting them to an image-hosting site is still harassment, and it is technically off-site. The only real difference between that and what happened to me is that there was apparently no on-wiki outing involved (and I never said or even implied that there was). Everything I said still stands even now that I am no longer "assuming [I] know what the hell [I am] talking about when [I] don't", and WikIan's evasiveness (or, rather, deflectiveness) is just as disruptive whether the assumption I wasn't acutally making was right or wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, screw it. I have better things to do with my editing privileges than get blocked for expressing an opinion in a dispute I'm not even party to, and I've seen such things happen too much lately. Put more poetically, that's not the hill I want to die on. I guess I'm in for another month-long self-imposed ANI PBAN. If this dispute does continue any longer than it already has (and I agree with Floq that this should have already ended), the closer can feel free to either ignore everything I have said or read it and take it for what it's worth, but I would appreciate not being pinged anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• More evidence back in 2015 FC called my edits "hostile", when in fact through consensus, the infobox stands closer to what originally was there, than the changes that FC made and reverted my "hostile" revert. WikIan -(talk) 05:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Diffs from two years ago are not generally actionable, and if you want to convince us that he was wrong to call your edits hostile, behaving in the very hostile fashion you have in this thread is not going to help. Calling a fish a fish is not a personal attack, and it's not harassment (unlike going back over someone's edits from years ago desperately looking for "dirt" on them). And even though this is not about your content disputes from two years ago -- yes, you were wrong to blankly revert an edit to reinsert bad changes as well as good, and claiming that consensus later decided that some or even most of your revert was good completely misses the point. You should learn the law of holes: if every piece of "evidence" you post makes your own actions look worse (in this case, you apparently don't understand that consensus retroactively deciding to reinstate a lot of your edit doesn't conflict with FC's saying that while a lot of your edit may be good, it reinstated bad material as well), then you should stop posting said evidence. And only about half of your edit related to the infobox anyway. On top of that, you reverted FC's edits with an edit summary that solely cited BRD, as though BRD was a blanket rationale for reverting any edit you don't like without explaining what you thought was so "bold" about the edits, when ironically you have been freely making large unilateral edits to that page consistently. And the talk page discussion has been pretty inactive ever since November 2015 when this "incident" occurred, so it seems very much like "consensus" means you waiting for FC to get tired of reverting you, then coming back and unilaterally reinstating your edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See above. The "not being pinged anymore" is in reference to WikIan's repeated/uninvited pinging of me further up the thread, in case it isn't clear. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Participation here is not compulsory. Please consider whether engaging further has any benefit before clicking save. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88 seriously needs to stop contributing to AI. Once again he has waded in to something which doesn't concern him, failed to understand the issue properly, issued poor advice and spammed the page with screeds of waffle which he inevitably ends up having to strike, and has only escalated things. Why is he consistently allowed to do this? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Avaya1 disruptive editing

Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a subject of Arbitration Enforcement in the past with result: "Avaya1 now subject to 0RR on articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.", so initially I posted my complaint at WP:AE#Avaya1. Admin decided that the edits at issue are not in the WP:ARBPIA topic area and took no action, so I'm moving it here, with updates.

On 14 September 2017, a consensus was reached on Talk:Israel to remove an image from Israel article, with three in support, one neutral and no oppose.

1. 15 September 2017, I removed the image, citing talk page.
2. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
3. 18 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.
4. 26 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
5. 26 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.

First, Avaya1 cited a year-old consensus regarding the issue ignoring the new consensus. Then, on the talk page he stated that I am forcing the change and no one else supporting it, although clearly it's another user who initiated the request. Now he's telling lies there, that I implemented the change before the new consensus was reached.

Also, I added photo of IDF soldiers instead of photo of a beach, that Avaya1 added earlier this year to the military section of Israel:

1. 14 September 2017, I added appropriate photo with explanation.
2. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 removed it with summary "rmv aggressive img" (although this is perfectly non-controversial photo showing soldiers in the military section of the article) ...
3. 18 September 2017, ... and added back photo of a beach.
4. 18 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.
5. 26 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me citing "No consensus to include this img", although there's no consensus to include his image, either.
6. 26 September 2017, and then he added another photo without explaining.
7. 26 September 2017, which I reverted.

Overall, for a user, who's on Wikipedia for over 10 years with 20,000+ edits, Avaya1's behavior is very unprofessional and disruptive. He's often ignoring other editors, leaving no edit summaries, and making technically clumsy edits like a newbie. I went through some of his latest contributions:

In Kurds, he blatantly ignores other editor, like he did in Israel:

1. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 made series of edits
2. 20 September 2017, other user partly revert him, with summary: "restoring more recent cited figures to box"
3. 20 September 2017, Avaya1 perform full revert, with summary: "removed for some reason"

In Valerie Plame, he made 75 (!) edits in one day, most are without summaries. Look how insignificant the result is, and keep in mind that there's almost no changes by other users in-between:

1. 22 September 2017

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Triggerhippie4 has copy and pasted his arbitration request which yesterday was closed down as not actionable. I will copy and paste my comment on the matter from yesterday's arbitration request.

“ Triggerhippie4 ignored the only kind of consensus in the talkpage about the image, and removed the image. He has deleted the image and without yet gaining a new consensus at the time of his edits. The image was re-inserted according to and after we had got explicit consensus that is on the talkpage, which is within the 0RR restriction. The 0RR restriction states that there needs to be consensus for the revert- and there was. I'm not sure how Triggerhippie4's write-up about unrelated articles and edits on Valerie Plame or Kurds is relevant to the dispute, it appears more like border-line wikistalking. I used edit summaries for any notable edits on the Plame article, and likewise for the Kurds article. The image of Oz is included in the Israel article - again, only because it was according to the only consensus in the discussion page we yet have about it and because there is no new consensus yet. Also I am not sure how Oz (or the Kurds or Plame) is directly relevant to Israel-Palestine conflict. Avaya1 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC) ”

The full discussion was viewable here. Avaya1 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

On the off chance that somebody is actually interested in looking into this—and nobody could blame you for wanting to turn away—I recommend that she or he review the edit history of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where these two editors have been engaged in a slow-moving edit war since March 2016. Remarkably, it has nothing to do with the Arab–Israeli conflict, just two editors who have different visions of how to "improve" an article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, Malik Shabazz, it's about Avaya1's conduct. Did you actually look into this yourself? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The article has been on my watchlist for more than eight years, so I'm very much aware of the cat-and-mouse games the two of you have been playing for the past 18 months. I recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Explain with examples, please. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about 8Dodo8's use of rollback

Earlier today I got a notification that my edit to remove deprecated image syntax was reverted by 8Dodo8. Upon looking further into who 8Dodo8 was - I discovered an unfortunate pattern of 8Dodo8 using the tool to give themselves an advantage in a content dispute on FC Steaua București. There seems to be a disagreement on what to use for the name of the football club between User:GrizzlyBear2002 and 8Dodo8 - both editors have been edit warring at the page.

Regardless of who's "right", using rollback on multiple occasions doesn't help settle the content dispute; let alone when coupled with an all-caps edit summary early on in the dispute.

In separate occurences, 8Dodo8 has used rollback to revert constructive edits that they disagree with.

Given the several occasions where the 8Dodo8 has misused the tool, I do not think the user is fit to retain access to rollback. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. User has already been informed of the purpose of it at Special:PermaLink/775775488#User:8Dodo8. I also don't see them using it for anti-vandalism efforts. Misuse of rollback is probably my biggest pet peeve, so I fully support removal for both the lack of need and misuse of the tool. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

1. I reverted your edit because all the big football clubs use the 190px or something like that for their club badges.

2. I used the rollback tool many times on the FC Steaua page because GrizzlyBear and multiple users are constantly vandalasing the page. The name of the club is Fotbal Club FCSB as seen in the source I provided, but Grizzly kept changing it. I also used it because many vandals change the content on the page, as there isa division betwen its supporters. I actually requested for the page to be indefinetely protected so we could avoid this issue.

If you guys animously consider that I used the tool in a right way, I will understand and you can remove it from my account.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is misuse of the rollback tool. Both of these are content disputes. WP:NOT VANDALISM. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I incorrectly considered the second issue as vandalism and I also thought the tool can be used for other thinkgs other than vandalism. I should have read the policies more carefully.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• 8Dodo8, are you aware of the policy now, and can you tell us if you'll abide by it? If you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you think you can use the tool and use it properly you might could keep it. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy now and I always wanted to abide by it, it's my mistake that I didn't pay attention. I will only use it when there is a clear sign of vandalism, not good faith edits or anything like that. You decide if I deserve to keep it.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• And yet more Romanian football silliness. EEng 15:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed move based on personal opinion

I would like to report that editor IbrahimWeed moved the article 1991 uprisings in Iraq to 1991 Iraqi coup d'état attempt without discussion, just a month after finding no support for his previous move attempt on the article's talk page, nor providing any sources for the move. Also, in the previous discussion, the editor expressed a desire to move the article based on his personal opinion of the conflict and ignoring what sources were most commonly naming it. He also has a history of making undiscussed and unsourced move attempts based on his personal opinion, like with Iraqi Civil War (2014–present), where he was reverted two times and found overwhelming opposition on the talk page to his actions. He has also moved Hawija offensive (2017) to Battle of Hawija (2017–present), again without discussion and despite sources mostly referring to the operation as an offensive and not a battle. Both moves should be reverted and the editor should be made aware that he should rather engage in discussions on the talk pages instead of making unilateral moves, as well as providing sources for any future moves. I have also made @DrStrauss: aware of his actions. DrStrauss reverted him one of the two times before when he made his unilateral/POV moves that were against consensus. DrStrauss also closed his previous move request for 1991 uprisings in Iraq with the result being not moved. @El C: also previously reverted him and warned him of his actions, but apparently to no effect. I have notified the editor in question of this discussion as well, however, I should also note during previous discussion attempts he showed no desire to engage. EkoGraf (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Being bold is fine but being unconstructive is not. I believe WP:CIR is the appropriate thumbrule and his refusal to engage won't get him further. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLPPRIVACY violation by Redheadsworld

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

---

This user disclosed a phone number in their edit at an NFL player's article. -- (Radiphus) 19:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I revdel'ed the edit as it contained personal information (someone's private phone number). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I think your finger slipped and you got the edit summary instead of the text. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well it's been suppressed so....RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• A gentle reminder that reports like this shouldn't be further advertised by posting them here. Either quietly contact your friendly neighborhood admin, or email [email protected] . EEng 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I should have thought of that. -- (Radiphus) 19:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Single purpose account for mass adding articles by a number of PhD students for paid experiment on Wikipedia

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

---

Had already been warned.[206]. Continued. This is what they call science... (I know it does not belong here, but read the article, one author is at MIT, and the quality is laughable, just as the encyclopedic quality of many articles added here - which is why so many were deleted.) User_talk:Carolineneil#Single purpose account for experiment on Wikipedia: should be banned. Antimanipulator (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Antimanipulator: Carolineneil hasn't edited in three months, blocking here would be punitive - I'm interested how a new editor came across this though -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would assume they came across it by way of this paper which they linked on the user's talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"Blocks should encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". An account used by a group of PhD students with a poor understanding of encyclopedias (hence bad citations, lemmas) and no respect for rules on disclosure of paid contributions, single purpose accounts, and conflicts of interest should be banned. Antimanipulator (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The paper suggests that the project had the WMF's blessing (it credits Dario Taraborelli), so presumably the implications of what they were doing were considered... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Paper may suggest whatever it does, the project blatantly violates Wikipedia rules, and contributions were poor, hence many articles not even created: Draft:Conjugation in ultraviolet–visible spectrometry, Draft:Tethered Intramolecular (2+2) Reactions, Draft:Generation of Carbocationic Synthons, Draft:Use of pi,pi, CH-pi and pi-cation interactions in supramolecular assembly, Draft:Substrate Control: Asymmetric Induction By Molecular Framework in Cyclic Systems, Draft:Glucose Chain Shortening and Lengthening, Draft:Stock Sampling (Stock of Data), Draft:Reagent Control: Addition of Chiral Allylmetals to Achiral Aldehydes, Draft:Reagent control: chiral electrophiles, Draft:Heteroskedasticity and nonnormality in the binary response model with latent variable... - sorry, but who could even think that some of these are suitable lemmas for an encyclopedia? - and many nominated for deletion. One commenter could not have guessed better: "*Ultra specialized with little effort to contextualize. Reads like a essay from an student who is being forced to contribute to Wikipedia but the supposedly supervising faculty member has not bothered to read or understand policy and standards."[207] This account drew hundreds of administrator actions, reminders to choose adequate lemmas, discussions about deletion, reminders to improve poor referencing - to no avail, and they are academics!

I think a formal reprimand to the poor supervisors Neil Thompson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Sloan School of Management; MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), and Douglas Hanley, University of Pittsburgh, is in place.Antimanipulator (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide some additional context about WMF's involvement in this research. This is an independent study conducted by academic researchers, and is not endorsed or sponsored by the WMF. It is also not a formal collaboration with WMF or with Wikimedia Research, subject to WMF's collaboration policy. As a general rule, the Foundation is not in a position to "approve" or "decline" individual research proposals, unless there are security or legal reasons to escalate them. Editorial decisions about content, in particular, are not an area the Foundation has any say about. The authors reached out at the time of the proposal to ask about best practices to follow in setting up the proposal and two WMF staffers (Aaron Halfaker and I) advised them on discussing and documenting it in the appropriate spaces. We have been offering this support on a volunteer basis for a few years, and on an ad hoc basis, to help researchers follow best practices around participant recruitment and understanding community norms and expectations. As for outreach initiatives involving students and professors creating or expanding Wikipedia articles, which some comments in this thread brought up, you can read more about Wikipedia:Education program if you're not already familiar with the program. --Dario (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the account as that of an undisclosed paid editor. As all edits from the account were paid, this is preventative in the sense that it prevents future paid edits before such a disclosure is made. (And as a side note, the quality of research here is downright awful.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

And as a side note, the quality of research here is downright awful Honestly, I think that's an insult to the word "awful". According to their introduction, they checked scientific papers from 1995-2001 (in addition to later papers, but still) to see if those articles stole text from Wikipedia... AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY DID!!! My guess is that you won't see this work showing up in Nature anytime soon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they have time travel. It's MIT, after all. EEng 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Time travel, robotics and artificial intelligence? We may have to take them out before they cause the singularity, though I'd be wary of any bikers with Austrian accents we encounter on the way to do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Is a mass delete of the articles in order? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just getting my head around this, but who is alleged to have paid the editor to create the articles? - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The authors of this paper. Who shall forever be known as the creators of possibly the worst experimental structure I have ever encountered in my entire life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, these are in no way promotional, right? The editor was simply paid to contribute a number of science articles? I'm seeing some sort of need for disclosure, but I'm having a hard time seeing justification for a mass deletion of non-promotional and supposedly accurate articles on scientific topics. And yes, it looks like an oddly formed methodology to me as well. - Bilby (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• 2 cents: I see junk like this all the time from students. I can see the temptation for teachers and professors to have students do a Wikipedia article(s) as an assignment (got to admit it's good practice), but all the results I have ever seen have been uniformly bad, and I've never seen anything good come from a homework assignment. I am strongly opposed to homework assignments getting anywhere near being posted on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• This was raised in the past, but ignored: Concerns about the user were raised twice at ANI- here and here- so before blaming any potential WMF involvement, we should probably look at why the case of this editor was raised here, and just ignored. This line from Robert McClenon was particularly prescient: "either she is a human, but isn't trying to pretend to be either a human or a bot, or it is a bot, and isn't trying to act like a human. At this point, I recommend a block, in order to get the author to make an unblock request". jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Bizarre. As is noted, I thought that there was something peculiar about the account in June. Am I to understand that the conclusion is that the account was conducting an experiment involving Wikipedia? We don't have a policy that explicitly prohibits conducting experiments with Wikipedia; maybe we should, because such accounts are not here to improve the encyclopedia as a collection of knowledge even if they do improve overall human knowledge about encyclopedias. I will add that, when I understood the articles, which I usually did, they appeared to be good science, but they needed improvement, in particular in the addition of links to other articles, and I repeatedly tried to request that the drafts be improved. If my understanding is correct, the account should be blocked (as it is), but for the subtle reason that they aren't here to improve the encyclopedia but to experiment on the authors of the encyclopedia. So I think that I was right in expressing puzzlement about behavior that didn't seem exactly either human or robotic, but something in between. Am I understanding correctly? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As to why the concerns were raised and not acted on further, I think that is clear, that it is because the behavior didn't fall into any of the known types of bad behavior. For instance, even if the author (if there was a single human author) was being paid, it wasn't paid editing in the usual sense, which means paid editing for promotional purposes. (One type of "paid editing", which is editing by a professor about their field of knowledge, is good. It is promotional paid editing that is bad, and this wasn't promotional paid editing.) This really was a sufficiently strange type of misconduct that there is no way we could have expected to recognize it immediately. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not directly promoting their supervisors but indirectly through producing results that they use to promote their career. Paid editing is always bad because it makes the editors edit for reasons other than providing knowledge. In this case, the students just wanted to get a job done and did so by chosing ridiculous lemmas and not caring for proper citations or relating theirs to existing articles. Antimanipulator (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Antimanipulator - You say that paid editing is always bad because it makes the editors edit for reasons other than providing knowledge. In that case, we need to clarify the definition of paid editing. Professors editing in their subject areas are good because they are only sharing their knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• The single purpose account here is Antimanipulator – an account created just today to complain about this and which doesn't seem to have created any articles at all. Why are we punishing the content creator in this case? Do we really prefer having complaints at ANI rather than articles about advanced chemistry? Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is criticizing User:Antimanipulator. At least, they shouldn't be. They should be thanked for reporting this again. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I just clean up the mess left over by the misguided PhD students. Have you looked at those articles? It caused a lot of work to many administrators and other users, and they never even bothered to properly cite. I can only write again, their supervisors and their institutions' ethics comittees should be informed about this. (Also about the fact that they only report the positive results in their summary and that they suppress information on how most of their articles were not even accepted here for poor quality). Antimanipulator (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree that their supervisors and their institutions' ethics committees should be informed about this. If it is thought that students need to become familiar with how to edit a wiki, MIT can install one on one of its own servers – rather than allow and invite its students to cause disruption on WP. MIT would probably blow-its- top if another educational institution was found to be experimented on MIT servers. The MIT governors should be able to quickly acknowledge that this behavior has brought MIT into disrepute in the cyberworld. Especially as it was by young hopeful PhD's guided buy a MIT employee. Aspro (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro:, @Robert McClenon:, @BU Rob13:: this was led by two young professors who write they use articles of the publisher Elsevier. The article Mesembrine that was largely written by the PhD students has nearly only Elsevier citations. I am trying to check if this is a pattern. If so, this is a much more disturbing case than I already thought initially. Antimanipulator (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost on where you are coming at on this. The ethics committee would have had to approve this research, and ethically it seems sound - add a number of accurate and useful articles to Wikipedia, then look at how those articles are used elsewhere. This wasn't a breaching experiment, the content was accurate, and the disruption seems fairly minimal. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hell, I think their frikkan parents should be informed of this. My 4 year old could structure a better experiment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Think we ought to have a 48 hour hold on this before going further. It will allow other editors to get up to speed. Something is amiss alright but this needs more eyes because there maybe a third and unseen party at play and trying to pull our strings. Aspro (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This is a very odd case. The single purpose account here, as Andrew Davidson points out, is Antimanipulator who may or may not hold some personal grudge with the researchers. The research was conducted ethically in consultation with WMF staffers as outlined by Dario (WMF) above. The experimental design was interesting and very sophisticated. The block on Carolineneil should be lifted. And we should encourage well-planned and ethically conducted research to continue on Wikipedia's impact on the world. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The experimental design was interesting and very sophisticated. So examining papers which were published before WP even existed and concluding that some of them had copied text from WP is "sophisticated"? There's another S- word that seems more appropriate to me. That being said, I agree that there's something fishy going on with the filers, and that the "experiment" seems to have been done ethically (they weren't creating fake articles, or anything of the sort). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

They actually did several analyses. The fact that their experimental design was interesting and sophisticated, doesn't mean that their results were as good as they claim. The effect sizes (R^2) were so small that it is difficult to believe that Wikipedia is having much more than a negligible influence on the words used in scientific publications.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, "sophisticated" in this context suggests things like "not being completely ignorant of the concept of time", so I still disagree. Perhaps the germ of the idea behind it might charitably be called "innovative", but sophistication generally requires some, well, actual sophistication.

Though I haven't mentioned it before, I will say now that I noticed the small size of the effect as well. Small enough that it might be nullified or even reversed if you were to, maybe... Remove about 6 years worth of papers from the published science data set. It seems far more likely to me that WP articles would have taken text from pre-2001 papers than the other way around, but then just because I don't know anyone who's built a time machine doesn't mean no-one has... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether the reporter of the issue has a personal motive in reporting it is irrelevant. The problem report is legitimate. The PhD students' SPA's work on-WP was terrible, and wasted a lot of other editors' time, and the off-site work about WP is also terrible; WP was abused to make a WP:POINT, with unsound research methods, and with on-site fallout.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--Don't see any need to nuke.I was checking the accuracy of 4-5 org-chem drafts and not much was wrong.I also fail to get why this is described as unethical support in describing this as unethical.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Edited at 11:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As a side-note, the block seems to be good.The accounts were after-all paid SPAs.And obviously, as MPants said the research is a dis-service to the word awful.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Godric on Leave and Winged Blades of Godric: Could you clarify? Those two statements appear to completely contradict each other: "I was checking the accuracy of 4-5 org-chem drafts and not much was wrong" but "the research is a dis-service to the word awful"? And "I also fail to get why this is described as unethical" but "The accounts were after-all paid SPAs"? Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely.That their method of research was seriously flawed and utterly _______ has hardly to do anything with the quality of the info they have put at the drafts that they have written here.Whilst they doesn't have a ssnowball's chance in hell to be mainspaced, I personally thought about using selected info and add them with copyedits and referencing et al to a few articles.That being said if consensus is to nuke, I won't stand in the way.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As to the second point, I don't know how I used the exact antonym of what I wanted to describe!Oops!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, Godric on Leave. However, please do not alter a post after someone has replied to it. Please instead WP:REDACT it by using strike-outs, etc. and adding a second time stamp (using five tildes) to indicate when you altered it. See WP:REDACT for details, and please return and re-add the original wording you had (that I quoted). Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I know:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly perplexed by a lot of criticism of the paper above. I mean I'm not saying the research is good, I only skimmed through the paper so I have no idea. But people seem to be making a big deal over the 1995 thing yet AFAICT, this info wasn't used. The authors specifically note Since we are interested in the interaction of the scientific literature with Wikipedia, we use only data from 2000 onward. AFAICT they didn't actually use pre 2000 data at all. I'm not certain why the authors mention 1995 at all, but I think it's because it's the data that Elsevier provided them so they just mention what data they had, and then later explain what they used, how they chose it (including how they decided the publication data since some are just Spring 2009) etc.

Of course looking at data from before wikipedia is not necessarily wrong. There is an obvious reason to look at data from before wikipedia namely to rule out false positives. The primary reason I even looked at the paper was just to see if that's what the authors were doing but it doesn't seem like it. However they may have used some data from before wikipedia I think. If I'm understanding correctly, their methodology was actually a bit like what I was thinking and they chose papers from 6 months before an article and 3+6 months after an article, with the hypothesis that the the papers after will be more similar to the wikipedia article in the 3+6 months after (because they were influenced by wikipedia) than they were in the 6 months before (since they obviously couldn't have been). This of course means they may have looked at some papers from before wikipedia itself existed.

So have I missed something or is this specific criticism of the paper completely off base? If I am right, should we now start to discuss what to do with content from anyone who made this criticism. Particularly since as I said, I only did a very, very basic skim through the paper to uncover this. At least it seems the logical conclusion to me if people are suggesting we remove content from the PhD students just because the people who hired? them may have published a poor quality research paper. Note I'm specifically not commenting on any other criticism of the paper, I'm not really that interested hence a very, very basic skim. I'm not even saying the before/after thing was good methodology, simply that it doesn't seem to me to be the case that the authors assumed papers would be influence by wikipedia before that content existed on wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(EC)There are certainly a few questions on whether they violated our rules, but I consider them to be minor. Please check out the FAQs for the Terms of Use change at How does this provision affect teachers, professors, ... It states that "These requirements shouldn't keep teachers, professors, or people working at galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM") institutions from making contributions in good faith!" and

For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. However, if that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by their university to contribute generally without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose their affiliation with the university.

So the rules regarding researchers are pretty loose, like those for Wikipedians in Residence and other GLAM contributors. Perhaps the major question is whether the authors of the paper told the grad students what to write in the articles. I suspect not - as I understand it the grad students were PhD chemistry students and the authors are management profs. Best to let the experts write the articles. The second question - and I consider it to be definitely minor here - is whether the students used a joint account rather than individual accounts.

As far as criticisms of the paper itself goes - that's not really relevant here is it? But a review in Nature gives a description from an outside researcher calling it “ingenious”. I do find some of the criticisms of the paper on this page to be rather amateurish. In particular, those that cite the low R-squared are way off base. Perhaps they are mistaking the authors' hypothesis to be "Wikipedia is the only source of terminology in scientific papers."

So we have experts (PhD students) writing on the subject they know, apparently without direction on the content of the articles. The editors were probably new to Wikipedia and made some newby mistakes. What's the big deal? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• To explain the methodology problem to those who don't get it, they had subject matter experts write Wikipedia articles and then found that the language of those articles matches the language of the scientific literature. You know, the literature written and read by the same subject matter experts. There's crazy reverse causality there. Further, they created only 43 chemistry articles, posting half of those. Their sample size is inflated up to 664,790 because each paper they compare the articles against is an observation, but this ignores the possibility of random variation in how closely the Wikipedia articles they wrote mirror existing terminology in the literature. With a treated group of only 22 and a control of 21 articles, the variance in how closely the articles are written to mirror existing terminology in the literature between the two groups is fairly high. The underlying assumption of their model is that there is no difference in how closely the Wikipedia articles they wrote match the existing literature, but they offer up no evidence to support this. Their p-values are completely invalid as a consequence. This is a horrible study, and MIT in particular should be ashamed. Berkeley Haas should be as well for allowing someone who thinks this is robust to get a PhD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to accept the views expressed in Nature on scientific matters over the views expressed on this page. Nevertheless, I think we all have to accept that whether you like the research and its methods or not, that that's irrelevant to whether they broke our rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It isn't relevant to whether this broke our rules. (Based on the design of the experiment, which did say the researchers picked the topics, this did break our rules.) I'm just rather offended that someone with a PhD in a field related to mine is publishing this crap. There is a reason they haven't published this in a journal. They're missing basic robustness checks, and given the background of the authors, they know they're missing basic robustness checks. I must presume they ran them and the experiment didn't hold up. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What rule was broken by researchers asking people to write on particular topics where we had gaps? I can't see where the problem lies. - Bilby (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne:I didn't see that text you quoted, but even if it is there, it only minimizes the problem, not eliminate it. Papers published in 2000 were all almost certainly written at least 6 months and up to 2-3 years prior to publication. Also, see below where I point out some other problems.

@Smallbones:The qualities of the paper matter because it's a powerful indicator of the qualities of their interactions with WP. If they set out to prove something (which they certainly seem to have done, instead of setting out to disprove their hypothesis), then their entire methodology is suspect. That is a strong indicator that we should review the articles they created. Whether we find problems or not, we have no reason to trust the folks who wrote them.

As to whether or not someone called it "ingenious" in a column (not a peer-reviewed article, nor even an editor-selected letter) in Nature; it doesn't matter. The author is free to have his opinion, and is no more qualified than I to give one. I can even see where Zastrow was coming from; the hypothesis could very well be described as "ingenious" and the most fundamental basis of their experiment design could be referred to as "innovative" without me contesting it. But the methodology they used was shit. This is pretty clearly a sociology/psychology-of-science experiment by a couple of guys who don't have any expertise in that subject. The lead author was part of the schools of management and AI. The second author is an economist.

Tell me; how could that methodology have possibly shown a negative correlation (that scientific literature influence WP's language)? Even in their creation of articles and subsequent search for matching text in later peer-reviewed articles, did they account for the fact that to make those articles, they needed pre-existing sources to begin with? How does one eliminate the possibility that their sources influenced the literature, instead of the WP article? And finally, how does writing a WP article and not publishing it help? They "withheld" half of the articles they wrote. How is that functionally different than only writing half as many articles for the purposes of this experiment? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hard as it may be to believe, BU Rob's and MPants' evaluations are far too charitable. It's not a matter of questionable assumptions, because questionable assumptions implies you understand what the assumptions mean in first place, even if you make a mistake in evaluating them. Numbers were blindly plugged into formulas, and statistical machinery set into motion, with no apparent understanding of their function or the meaning of the results. The paper is a complete joke. David A. Freedman, in his elementary statistics textbook, describes his hopeless attempt to enlighten the authors of a similarly meaningless paper:

We went... to discuss these issues with the investigators. They insisted that they had taken very good statistical advice when designing their study, and were only doing what everybody else did. We pressed our arguments. The discussion went on for several hours. Eventually, the senior investigator said, "Look. When we designed this study, one of our consultants explained that some day, someone would arrive out of the blue and say that none of our statistics made any sense. So you see, everything was every carefully considered."

That was fifty years ago, when people committing statistical suicide had to use mechanical calculators and books of tables; as seen in the instant case, today the internet allows statistical nonsense to be performed on a vastly larger scale almost effortlessly. With respect to Mark Zastrow's (unrefereed) review (in Nature) of this (unrefereed) article – well, standards are slipping everywhere. Zastrow writes short, uncritical pop summaries of other articles taking their assertions and conclusions at face value. EEng 17:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC) P.S. to MPants: Keeping half the papers back actually does make sense. It's just that nothing else about the design makes sense, so there's no point discussing it.

EEng then what was the point in writing them? Why not rely on something that already exists, but which scientists are almost certain not to cite, such as brand-new textbooks? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Why can't school projects, homework, students and instructors be limited to sandboxes or create a "homework" namespace instead of live articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That would completely defeat the purpose of the experiment, knuckleheaded though it is. EEng 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's difficult to discuss because the rest of the design is so confused, but I'll give it a go. We're trying to test whether new released WP articles (R) cause the literature of chemistry (L) to become "more like" R. But L is evolving anyway, and maybe it would become more like R anyway, just because the R articles are on things chemists today are interested in (I), and meanwhile L tends to gravitate toward things chemists today are interested in -- in other words, maybe it's not R affecting L so much as I affecting both R and L. By having a set of new unreleased articles (U), we can try to check for that, by seeing whether L becomes more like U in the same way it becomes more like R. We can't use a textbook instead of U, because the authors of the textbook – their interests, their attributes as writers – might be quite different from the authors of the R papers. Drawing R and U randomly from a single pool "assures us" (omit side discussion) that the R articles and the U articles are similar. Does that help? EEng 18:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Good points there. I concede the point that writing the unpublished articles conveyed a benefit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Most people find that following this advice saves time. EEng 19:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Your evaluation as well as anyone else's evaluation (including mine) is irrelevant to the discussion. The issues for Wikipedia are whether the research was conducted ethically, which it was. Were unacceptable articles created in doing the experiment, which appears not to be the case. Another reason to leave out the merits of the research is that unless one is familiar with the rapid development in statistical approaches in big data social science, such work does appear mysterious and very difficult to understand.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrap-Up

I think that the discussion of the "experiment" either is finished, or its discussion at this noticeboard, which is for administrative action, is finished. We do need a policy or guideline that states clearly that the use of Wikipedia as an experiment is inappropriate, because the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize human knowledge, not to play around to produce new knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: @Aspro: @BU Rob13: @I am One of Many: @EEng: @MjolnirPants: Sorry for taking some time. I looked at some of the draft articles and could not find more examples than Mesembrine where Elsevier journals are cited more often than what seems reasonable. In total about 100 draft articles were created in chemistry and econometrics, and I do not have the time to look at all of them. I find that one example very worrisome and hope someone with expertise in the subject can take care of it. I do not have any relationship with the authors but find it an insult to economics that they do a randomized controlled trial claiming that they found what they were looking for when they only (think they) found it in chemistry while they did not find anything in econometrics and just leave that out in in their abstract and title and media campaign, as does the Nature news author who seems to be a natural scientist without any expertise in the methodology. I also find it an insult to Wikipedia that PhD students of highly prestigious institutions are paid to write (without disclosure) such poor articles with ridiculously specialized lemmas and continuously poor citations in spite of many attempts by volunteers to give advice. This is a waste of our time, and violations of ethics, especially the undisclosed paid editing, should be pointed out to the ethics committees of the institutions in order to prevent future violations and in order to stop reckless researchers from making a career out of their recklessness. That being said I think there will be some valuable content in the drafts and added articles (those that were originally held back were added after the conclusion of the experiment but no care was invested in actually getting them to become articles, so most of the drafts were rejected and the work so far was just lost) but I don't have the time (and regarding chemistry expertise) to work on it. Antimanipulator (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Communication problems with IkbenFrank

IkbenFrank (talk · contribs) seems to be one of those editors who doesn't seem to talk much. His talk page is full of unanswered complaints and he never uses edit summaries. I've had a go at getting through but it's fallen on deaf ears. I wonder if anyone else can succeed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, have tried before, even left a final warning before I went into semi retirement but he just never listens or learns. Think it’s time we blocked him to be honest, most of his edits are non constructive as it is. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 - He has no interest in communicating or discussing and no amount of warnings will change that, Personally I'd support a 2 week block and if it carries on then the block would get longer and even indef if need be. –Davey2010^Talk 13:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This isn't just a communication problem but also WP:COMPETENCE, apparently. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Could Ritchie333 please explain what Ikbenfrank is meant to have done wrong? The guy's quiet but is he actually disruptive? I should mention I was canvassed by Ritchie because I reverted one of IkbenFrank's edits three years ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer as well. Yes he's not using edit summaries, but I'm not noticing anything in his edits that's disruptive. And there's nothing recent on his talk page to indicate there's a problem. If there is then no one has engaged with him. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can see complaints about unconstructive editing on Gloucestershire and Cheltenham, original research Rail Safety and Standards Board and Southern Railway strike (2016-2017), alleged hoaxes on Glastonbury, plus this earlier ANI thread. Individually, there's not a lot, but put it together and it all seems to boil down to him not discussing things during content disputes. Anyway, at least here provides him the ability to tell his side of the story. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'd not be neutral on this. And I'm not perfect and have made several errors dealing with user, including raising the aforementioned ANI thread. A typical problem issue might be revision 801553383 on Paddington (This is Paddington the area of London - the station has its own article) for example. Now within the context of the Paddington area article it may be (just) relevant to mention Paddington is the London railway terminus for Fishguard the and ferry to Rosslare (though there are no longer direct trains). However the actual edit made is over the top with regards to detail in my opinion; and the article will likely need to cleaned up sometime. Some edits by user are useful but the over-emphasis on e.g. railways can mean articles are in my opinion disproportionality railway orientated. Newtownforbes would be an example of a useful contribution. It feels like the user pops up every 2 to 4 weeks, does some minor edits that will be passable and does others that seem how far his pet interests can be pushed into articles; then lies low (I may be unfair in saying this). As a number of people revert his edits without warnings or have given up putting stuff on his talk page it tends to not have many current issues, or perhaps just one. There is a real risk he is relying on wikipedians assuming good faith and doing monthly edits to avoid recent warnings. As some may/should have noticed he has communicated with me on my talk page with regard to a previous issue following my reversion of a number of edits ... I don't really have an answer. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC). Please be aware that after becoming aware of Newtownforbes and mentioning it above I decided to work a little on the article .. initially because of tweaking some of IkbenFrank's content and restoring/reworking content deleted by Ritchie333 and subsequently to work on the Castleforbes demesne section. While somewhat serving as an example of how article improvement works I was not expecting to work on the Newtownforbes when I first mentioned it here and would not have given it as an example if I was expecting that, this being a slight distraction in this ANI section.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC) I've also just done a fairly bold edit on the Paddington article for reasons far deeper than IkbenFrank's contribution.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Extremely unfair you creep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs)

Not helpful IkbenFrank. Do you have anything constructive to add to this conversation instead of calling people names? Wikipedia is a community and if people raise questions about some of your edits you need to respond to them otherwise admins etc will only get one side of the story. Canterbury Tail talk 11:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for responding IkbenFrank (talk · contribs). I assume you are referring to my possible explanation of your pattern of timelines of contributions. I accept it is perfectly possible that you may simply allocate say one or two days a month to Wikipedia contributions. I think what people are finding is that you are making large proportion of (non-trivial) edits that are needing to be reverted or reworked. I think other contributors to this section would wish you to make more positive comments. For example I suggest a good start is to ensure you sign your talk page contributions with 4 tildes and as Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) has suggested ensure you use edit summaries - You can set an auto-reminder for those by : Perferences, Editting tab, Then checking: Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Responding positively in this way this will likely stand you in better stead with others. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked user using a dopelganger - Fake Amusement Parks

Blocked user AmyWeatherspoon63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be using her account at AmyWeatherspoon63 (doppelganger) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to create draft articles. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's because I love creating articles about fictional amusement parks and attractions. That's why I created Draft:Yellowstone Sky Seeker. Not to mention I'm Mothra's biggest fan. ----AmyWeatherspoon63's doppelganger (Talk to my main account) 01:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, good. You might have thought she was violating policy but no, she loves creating articles about fictional amusement parks and attractions. That's why she created Draft:Yellowstone Sky Seeker. Not to mention she's Mothra's biggest fan. And she's also obviously not a grody old man roleplaying as a braindead teenage girl. Nothing to see here, move along. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's give her a fictional Wikipedia to play with. Count Iblis (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• We don't allow the creation of alt accounts to evade a block. Sock blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please also block MothraFanGirl1763 (talk · contribs), who has also popped up. --MuZemike 22:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Unhatted. I'm not done and will find out who this is. Will report back shortly.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• I believe that I have found him and have filed the SPI case.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just CSD G3 a series of Draft pages, rolled back a bunch of edits to mainspace and reported additional socks as vandals . Check my edits before this post if interested. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

IBM PC DOS, etc.

Involved articles: IBM PC DOS, TRS-80 character set, VGA connector, VGA-compatible text mode

Relevant diffs: [208], [209] (reversion of removal of redundant link and reversion of italicization of computer/video game title, respectively)

It seems as though I've fallen into a case of rules lawyering and "policy" enforcement from User:Deacon Vorbis. He has decided that he must (at all costs) revert my edits to articles that he personally dislikes (per WP:NOTBROKE)), even if it fixes punctuation or redundant linking. This really is quite passive-aggressive on his part; I've tried discussing the matter politely with him but he seems to think that whatever his thoughts on policy are are the final word and no other action by other editors are valid. As a long-time editor and administrator, this doesn't really sit well with me having my proper (not merely good faith) edits reverted by an editor with less than two years of editing experience. I'm not going to play games here and get sucked into WP:3RR and other childish editing games.

He also seems incapable of any non-"black-and-white" thinking on objective matters (such as Wikipedia guidelines (which are not rules or laws) governing this project. I suspect I stumbled into editing articles in his "pet" area (math and technology) and that he feels the need to invoke "Protecting the valor of Wikipedia at all costs", which is a wreckless sort of mindset; we're all supposed to be working together toward the common goal of making information avaiable to people on the internet worldwide, not working against each other.

Involved party (Deacon Vorbis) needs to re-evaluate his view of Wikipedia policy and not act rashly before reverting experienced non-vandal editors. Bumm13 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's a dispute, and a guideline says to do things one way, why not just follow the guideline? I don't understand why you're making a big deal of this. Instead of escalating this to ANI, you should have said, "Oh, so I don't have to waste my time changing links that aren't broken? That's good news. Thank you for pointing that out. Cheers." In fact, it's not too late for you to say that now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand: it's not okay to revert edits involving removing redundant links and italicization of video game titles (per the diffs posted above). Also, this has effectively prevented me from editing any articles until this issue is resolved. That isn't acceptable and is borderline harassment. Bumm13 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, I was a bit overzealous on a couple of those reverts; I should only have reverted the parts I was objecting to. Let's gloss over whether my actions were "passive-aggressive" or whether or not I've actu[[User:Deacon Vorbisally "decided that I must (at all costs) revert your edits". I'll try to be brief here; I can go into more detail if anyone wants. I said it might be actually be helpful to escalate, but that first you should explain why your edits were okay. My view is that the gist of WP:NOTBROKEN is pretty much just, "If a link works, then don't screw with it without a good reason". But you didn't explain; you just tried to throw around the fact that you've been here longer (I guess?) and then went ahead and escalated here.

Guidelines make it helpful so that us poor, misguided, inexperienced editors can actually have some frame of reference when we see someone making changes like this. If you find it necessary to go against the guidelines on such a regular basis, then you can always modify the guidelines so it's clear for those without the vast accrued wisdom to see why it's okay.

Seeing as how this was barely discussed, I think it would be best for this matter to just be closed and let it try to sort itself out. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The matter can't be closed if you don't at least undo the part of your reversions to IBM PC DOS and TRS-80 character set involving my removal of redundant links and italicization of a video game title link, as those are legitimate edits regardless of our views on WP:NOTBROKEN and avoiding redirects. Bumm13 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's goodness sake. If you really want to make me do it, then fine; it's done. But if you're going to continue editing in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, then you should really update the guideline. The rest of us aren't psychic, especially when you won't explain why you're doing it. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the merits of the edits for a moment, let's look at: "As a long-time editor and administrator, this doesn't really sit well with me having my proper (not merely good faith) edits reverted by an editor with less than two years of editing experience." Hmmm. That "doesn't really sit well" with me at all. Some folks could view that kind of statement as an attempt to "throw your weight around". I'm sure that's not the intention, but you might bear it in mind, nevertheless. I agree with NRP that there was no need to escalate this to this noticeboard. -- Begoon 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing in the OP's approach to this whole issue sits at all well. I know standards for granting adminship were pretty lax in 2005, but I didn't realise that they were that lax. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Talk:IBM PC DOS has not been edited since February 2017, and the last substantive comment made at that page was in July 2012. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• In the light of the behaviour shown in this whole dispute, including the ongoing failure to explain why the WP:NOTBROKE guideline shouldn't be followed in these cases, should Bumm13 continue to be an administrator? That editor has obviously displayed an inappropriate temperament for that role per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:CIR. This behaviour is akin to that of a D-list celebrity who says "do you know who I am?" when refused a table at a fully booked restaurant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you should prejudge me any more than another other editor here (including myself not prejudging others). At least take a look at my previous edits over the years and my ability to (mostly) avoid on-site controversy. After a day of reflection, I know I didn't handle the situation as well as I could have, but I don't think that this episode should define my ability to be a competent admin. I also find it somewhat curious that you bring these character issues up given you don't have an actual username; it's okay to be to edit anonymously as an IP but it seems odd that you seem so interested in on-site policies without bothering to even register a username. Just a small thing, though. Bumm13 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea that User:Bumm13 was an admin. This filing was preceded by a filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard that appeared to have been filed by a clueless newbie who did not precede the filing by discussion on an article talk page. It appears to have been filed by a clueless admin. I suggest that this report be closed as the filing of a clueless admin who doesn't know how to be an experienced editor, and I thought admins were supposed to be experienced editors. Is there a remedial course for admins who don't know how Wikipedia works? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, he really is an admin. That's disturbing. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Pretty much a c/paste of that DR filing, now you point it out. I'm concerned though, Robert, that Bumm13 might "find it somewhat curious" that you and I bring issues up here, or that it might not "sit well" with them. I'm trying to understand the 'caste system' they appear from their comments in this thread to apply to such judgments. We are neither of us IP editors, having both "bothered to" register usernames, so that seems to be a pass; we have both edited for well over 2 years, so that looks ok; but neither of us are admins, so that could be a stumbling block, I'm not sure. -- Begoon 04:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

My reply was to User:86.17.222.157, not you or User:Robert McClenon. Bumm13 (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. (Mine and SBHB's were to Robert - which was apparent until you "top-posted" above them with the wrong indent.) Not sure why that's relevant to what I said, though? -- Begoon 04:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Robert, I would be delighted for you to "show me how Wikipedia works"; clearly I'm completely unable to understand very simple concepts (like responding to you at this page). Not really sure what your "remedial" comment was trying to accomplish, but it sure doesn't seem like WP:AGF or anything of the sort. So I don't know all the ins and outs of how specific noticeboards work here on Wikipedia? Dealing with user or content disputes isn't where I choose to spend my time when editing. I posted here after finding out that, sure enough, WP:DRN was the wrong place for dispute resolution with another editor. Let's stick to the purpose of this noticeboard (dispute resolution) and consider toning down the snarky comments. Bumm13 (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bumm13 - The first rule about posting to noticeboards is to read any instructions at the top of the noticeboard. That isn't really a difficult rule.

The instructions at the top of DRN say: "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN." You posted almost the same complaint about the editing of links as you posted here at DRN, with no discussion on article talk pages. It is true that my comment about remedial education was snarky, but it was deserved, because experienced editors, whether admins or not, are expected at least to know to read the instructions. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but it does matter to the DRN volunteers, and you wasted our time by filing a complaint without the preceding discussion. I assumed, in closing it, that you were a clueless newbie who didn't yet know to read the instructions, but who had (after a little reading) found a place to complain. You are not a clueless newbie. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Bumm13, the problem isn't just your competence, but also your attitude, which you displayed again in that post, that arguments can be won by pulling rank rather than by explaining your actions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And I'm not the one doing any prejudging here, but have only based anything that I have said on your actions. You are the one who is prejudging people on the basis of their non-admin status, their shorter history of editing than yours and my unregistered status. Why the fuck (I have a shorter fuse than User:Deacon Vorbis so won't redact that word) didn't you follow User:NinjaRobotPirate's advice above that "it's not too late for you to say that now". It now is (or at least should be on the basis of your intransigence) too late. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Proxy IP's constantly undoing recent changes

Since a few hours ago, an IP user has been constantly undoing recent changes, either made by a user/IP or a bot. Meanwhile, this user issues bogus user warnings claiming the reverted user's edits were unconstructive. Admins have been working hard blocking them, but once an IP gets blocked, the user simply switches to a new one. Examples include these IP's contributions:

• 153.163.97.60
• 98.200.10.137
• 60.112.23.195
• 118.96.201.85
• 46.150.88.31
• 114.17.235.146
• 184.22.210.191

There are a lot more I won't be listing, as they can mostly be found at WP:AIV's edit history at least since here. It's been over 3 hours and still ongoing, so posting this to request attention from admins, as well as anyone willing to revert similar edits made by new IP's. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 03:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jastorga vandalism

Resolved

Special:Contributions/Jastorga - 4th warning. Thanks. (WP:AIV is protected) 174.17.207.124 (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for WP:SOAPBOX violations. Probably not here to constructively contribute, but the worst that happens is that we end up back here tomorrow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The event in question will be over by tomorrow. 174.17.207.124 (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yonggary vandal from Sandy, Texas

Can we block a particular vandal who keeps disrupting articles related to Yonggary (character)? Multiple IPs are being used, all from Sandy, Texas. Armegon has been particularly plagued by this vandal. A rangeblocks should do it, on 2602:306:839B:77F0:x, plus a single block of 104.57.183.127, who was previously blocked for three days in June.[210]

An example series of edits may be seen here, where the vandal writes his own unreferenced analysis of the filmmakers' motives ("Made to cash in on Pacific Rim and The Upcoming Godzilla remake") along with a copy/paste of some plot text taken word-for-word from online sources published a month earlier. Another example of the vandal's original analysis was placed here, comparing multiple films, unreferenced, written poorly. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

2602:306:839b:77f0::/64 is the range. I also collapsed the lists above to make this section more legible. – Nihlus (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet summarized it perfectly. There's nothing else I can say except that I (and others) have been playing whack the mole with this person for the past few months with no end in sight. This person's edits are unconstructive. Just today, I even left a warning on this person's talk page and an hour or so later, proceeded to restore his previous unconstructive edits that I reverted before warning him on his talk page. Enough is enough. Action must be taken against this person. His edits are not benefitting the affected articles. One 3-day block didn't teach him a lesson, perhaps a permanent block will do the trick. Armegon (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked 2602:306:839b:77f0::/64 and 104.57.183.127 for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User fabricating AFD discussion closures

The following discussion is closed. 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 review the past hour's contributions from User:Thebigs2update ([211]). Many articles created by this user were nominated for deletion today, and the user has removed AFD tags from the articles and redirected the discussions to spurious "keep" results, exemplified by, e.g. [212]. Thanks, y'all. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Update: Upon further investigation, I'm not sure the user is creating redirects, at least not effectively (that may have been the intent). Unfortunately I don't have any more time at the moment to figure this out in any greater technical detail, but nothing good is going on here, and I felt it best to bring it to teh authoritez' attention sooner rather than later. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:El cid, el campeador, who reported this user to AIV this morning with the rationale SPA to promote Kasey Ryne Mazak. All edits are regarding him or creating pages for movies he's been in or editing pages he was involved in.. He's also been uploading many non-free movie posters and claiming them as his own. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I've tidied everything up, and have sent the remaining two articles they created to AfD. If they continue to disrupt, a block is in order. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've sent two articles to AfD. There are still seven creations by this user not marked for deletion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And, a day later, this just appeared on the Kasey Ryne Mazak talk page: [213]. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, and sorry for being MIA. As noted, the user continues to take the same actions, interrupting AfDs by deleting notices. He has been notified of this discussion twice, and warned multiple times, but continues to take the same actions. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just given this user a warning that they'll be blocked the next time they disrupt Wikipedia by messing with AfDs, removing templates or promoting this non-notable actor they'll be blocked. I don't know why they haven't been blocked earlier, all they're doing is promoting this non-notable person in every way they can. They may even be them, but that's not actually important. The main thing is they're not here to build an encyclopaedia, just promote this person. If they don't find another topic lets cut them loose. Canterbury Tail talk 02:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, Alex Shih has just shown them the door. Canterbury Tail talk 02:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I have left a note for this editor about instructions to be unblocked. Contribution history shows nothing but single purpose account (sole purpose is to promote Kasey Ryne Mazak) participating in undisclosed paid activity. Alex Shih^Talk 02:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

All creations not tagged for AFD have been prodded except for Health Nutz and WWE Byte This!, which make no mention of Kasey Ryne Mazak. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed Mazak from Health Nutz because he was listed on IMDb as "waiter" for 1 episode which doesn't confer someone as notable for the cast. However I think it's pretty obvious it was only added because he did appear in a background role once. Canterbury Tail talk 11:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

These two topics probably meets the notability guideline, although the subject is involved in both of these two topics also, as small, insignificant roles. Alex Shih^Talk 03:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

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