Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive958

Bible verse spamming by 68.198.160.243

68.198.160.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), (now blocked 3 months) added quite a few edit summaries such as All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent... These were done during often-disruptive edits to sex-related articles. Would it be possible to have the bible verse spamming REVDEL per DENY? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not only articles related to sex/sexuality/genitals, but also to articles about various religions - and they have been doing it since February. I agree that it is quite disruptive and it should be removed from the article histories. --bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the edit summaries from some of their articles (ones I imagine would cause distress from those edit summaries). I realise in some of my revdel reasons I linked to the incorrect ANI thread, so I'll leave a note on my talk page just in case anyone notices -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed ban for My Royal Young

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

---

Fellow Wikipedians, It is with pleasure to announce that I am proposing a ban for My Royal Young (talk · contribs), as he is nothing more than a cross-wiki socking troll who's main intention isn't to contribute well to Wikipedia, but to destroy it to smithereens. Ever since his indefinite block, he's been doing nothing but restorting to Sockpuppetry, adding massive vandalism texts, persistent addition of unsourced content and nothing more than pure troll-business. In my opinion, this is nothing more than a problematic editor and it's disappointing that such a disruptive editor was never banned in the first place. Hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him, and stop him from being such a troll and shouting 66.87.64.113 (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

And you are ... who exactly? And your proof is ... what exactly? The user is indef blocked. We don't "ban" users unless they meet WP:BMB and there is a community or ArbCom consensus. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Well MRY edits are bad he keep adding Blobbb texts here and I think a ban can impose against My Royal Young for now 66.87.64.113 (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There already exists Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young, so he is de facto banned. I don't think there is any need to waste the community's time by formalizing the wording with a survey. If you are aware of any additional sockpuppets, then please file at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/My Royal Young. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 30 June 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.

Proposed indefinite block for Disneylandlover2006

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

---

• Disneylandlover2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I will going to impose an indefinite block for Disneylandlover2006 and I should ask the SPI clerk or CU for a indef block for a real sockmaster Disneylandlover2006 for this sock pinging NinjaRobotPirate or a Clerk to implement an indefinite block for socking with DobleKaraNumber1Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Disneyworldlover2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please ask Gab to await an admin action at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Disneylandlover2006 for now 66.87.65.139 (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

After I blocked Disneylandlover2006 for disruption, two sock puppets continued the same disruption. It's kind of typical behavior from younger editors who don't understand how Wikipedia works. I was kind of hoping that going easy might encourage better behavior. If people think I'm going too easy on a disruptive editor, I could indefinitely block. Or someone else could. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and GeneralizationsAreBad: I think an indefinite block is possible to do it and wait for GeneralizationsAreBad to await an administrator action for now. 66.87.65.139 (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see Disneylandlover2006 back, as they received what was practically a slap on the wrist for sockpuppetry. My question is, however, has Disneylandlover2006 communicated about the block at all, or shown any comprehension about why sockpuppetry's inappropriate? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:10, 29 June 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.

94.197.120.78

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

---

Could someone please block 94.197.120.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's another sock puppet of Qais13 (talk · contribs). Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Edit war on Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge article

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

---

Hi there! The comment below was placed below on June 25 to the help desk by 101.182.141.22; however, as this is an edit war, I have reposted the query below for admin follow-up. Thanks! Daylen (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Original message I have voiced my concerns on the Talk page of this article - but an edit war is on! User talk:Esemgee is an editor who will not accept the various details - published in respected books (recent and historic) and in many verifiable citations - concerning the Lupton family, who feature on this page. Any suggestions? This warring has been going on for some time. See above "verifiability" query too please. Cheers 101.182.141.22 (talk) 3:52 am, 25 June 2017

I've reverted User:Softlavender's close; it seems to me pointless bureaucracy to redirect someone to another noticeboard. Yes, technically ANEW might have been the best place for this, but since it's here, let's deal with it here.

@101.182.141.22: You're going to have to help us out a bit more here. I've looked back through some of User:Esemgee's edits to that page and I'm not seeing anything terribly objectionable. Have I just not looked far enough? The most likely thing I can see is removed refs to the Daily Mail. You may not like it, but the established consensus is that the DM is not a usable source, especially not for BLP's. I may happen to think consensus is just a bit mental on this point, but that's the consensus and until it changes, that's the way it rolls. If there's something specific you'd like us to look at, please post some diffs back here. GoldenRing (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, ANI does not deal with WP:CONTENTDISPUTES, nor is it a help desk, which is why we point them to the correct venue(s) when content disputes or edit wars are posted here (otherwise, every content dispute or edit war will end up here). Nor can IPs be pinged, nor does the IP even know this discussion is being carried on here. I am going to repeat my close here, as the person who opened this thread (Daylen) appears to lack understanding of how things work:

Daylen, ANI is not the correct venue for content disputes and edit wars. Please report edit-warring at WP:ANEW after WP:WARNing the user on their talkpage. Please utilize the talkpage of the article, and institute any dispute resolution practices desired, for content disputes. Please direct any interested editors to the WP:TEAHOUSE for further assistance if they need it. Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 29 June 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.

177.87.228.37 vandalizing talk pages

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

---

IP 177.87.228.37 The comments are pretty disgusting, probably not much to do about it but it is two talk pages that I have seen in the last 15 minutes of so (two comments on mine and two on StevenJ81‎—just a heads up. If it persists semi page protection would be nice just so I don't have to keep deleting them by hand. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by User:NinjaRobotPirate. Home Lander (talk) 01:27, 30 June 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.

New editor/sock redirecting/blanking dozens of articles without consensus or 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.

---

Resolved

 – More socks put back in the drawer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Timothy S1 (talk · contribs) is a new editor with less than 300 edits, and he is redirecting or blanking dozens of articles without consensus, rationale, AfD or WP:MERGEPROP. Can someone please help me revert all of these actions, and can an admin take action if he does not stop? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There was an editor, 118 alex, who was recently just blocked, as in literally this week, for some shenanigans on similar articles. Looks a bit ducky to me. Blackmane (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is a definite possibility that this is the same editor (118 alex), who by the way had already created several now-blocked sockpuppets that included the name "alex". Someone on the previous ANI thread about "alex" mentioned that the same socking user was interfering in the articles Timothy S1 is now blanking/redirecting, so that's another confirmation that this is probably a sock. The main thing is stopping him now though; whether that's a CU block or a DE block. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that he is now attacking Davey2010 (the target of 118 alex's repeated racist rants) is further strong proof that this is the same user: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I have given him a final warning: [2]; an admin will have to take it from here. We also need a mass reversion. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Gonna go ahead and indef, as well as mass rollback. What a mess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Weirdly some of his edits are not terrible, some are removing stuff like teacher lists from schools. So I'm going to leave those and comb through the rest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PMC! Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ooookay I think I got the majority of the obviously sketchy edits, mainly the huge content removals and the redirecting. If there's anything I missed that should be gotten, let me know, otherwise I think that's it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PMC. There is some sort of odd new message on User talk:Davey2010 that bears looking at, though it could be bogus/trolling/IP-socking. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No idea. He also left it for NinjaRobotPirate, who says he'll keep an eye on the email access. I think that's about all we can do for now. It's weird but not threatening or anything... ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume either me or Davey2010 will be getting some email presents. Who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned!, I thought it was weird they were redirecting everything but thought they were just a random Singapore person who wanted everything saved & didnt think anything of it, To be honest I thought they were a sock of the other Timothy person .... Can't remember the username but they edited singapore articles too...., Well they certainly fooled me that's for sure!. –Davey2010^Talk 13:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to say but thanks Softlavender & Premeditated Chaos for reporting and blocking!, No doubt they'll be back tho.... Ah well thanks both, –Davey2010^Talk 13:02, 30 June 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.

Rangeblock

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

---

Here are some of the IPs below but the /16 range is high traffic LTA, a continuation of this.

• 83.31.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) Annual rangeblock is needed because of: special:contribs/83.31.1.46 special:contribs/83.31.13.56 special:contribs/83.31.43.125 special:contribs/83.31.45.80 special:contribs/83.31.75.34 special:contribs/83.31.80.210 current monthly pattern, it is the same as w:m:Global block of Orange ranges (2015). I suspect that he will be popping out of more IPs soon.

Favonian seems to have some experience with this IP range. Should we range block it? It does seem troublesome. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 29 June 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 "Muck" vs. user "Nephiliskos" and "Dr.Lantis"

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Socks put back in the drawer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Muck (talk · contribs) stalks and threatens user "Nephiliskos" at this page. Please note that user "Muck" has already stalked and mobbed user "Nephiliskos" in German Wikipedia until besaid user left there. Please also take note of Muck's general behavior: instead of greeting the owner of reported page ("Heagy1") properly and offering help, he yells at diligent autors and now even threatens them. Regards;--Dr.Lantis (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Emandation: Now user "Muck" insults "Nephiliskos" and insinuates use of sock puppets. "Muck" had already been warned in other Wikipedias not to do that.

As I already explained and you can see it under User talk:Heagy1#About Narmer tt was never at all my interest to stalk and threaten user "Nephiliskos" in the english wikipedia. My words there: "I have the right with my international accout Muck (the only account i have in the in the whole Wikipedia!) to work at this place Here. The initial reason was to confirm the seriousness of the new user Heagy1 in the Article "Narmer" in the german Wikipedia as well as in the english WP, and nothing else."

But it ist the second time, that @Nephiliskos / Dr.Lantis - (a sockpuppet of Nephiliskos here in the english Wikipedia) try to manipulate a diskussion in the english Wikipedia (see here), this time after he had deleted my contribution under User talk:Heagy1#About Narmer which I had restored already by warnig him to repeat deleting my contribution there. -- Muck (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Frisk lies, Muck. Your insinuations are unproven. And where exactly am I "manipulating" a discussion? All I do is asking you to leave others alone and you? You start such an emberrassing affront in a discussion where you weren't even mentioned. Instead of properly greeting "Heagy1" first and offering help you start an ad personam affront against "Nephiliskos".--Dr.Lantis (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

""Muck" had already been warned in other Wikipedias not to do that." - In the german Wikipedia I never claimed that user Nephiliskos uses his accout Dr.Lantis in the same timeperiod as sockpuppet in the German Wikipedia, but I claimed there, that he already did this in the english WP. In the german WP I was only told that I have not the right to claim the use of a sockpuppet, when a second account from the same person was not used at the same time, specially to manipulate a discussion. But her in the english WP the facts are different, because the accounts of Nephiliskos / Dr.Lantis are accounts from the same person and used to manipulate a discussen, now alredy for a second time! It is no problem in WP to find out if Nephiliskos uses the account Dr.Lantis in the shown cases simultaneously and therefore as a sockpuppet and with this behavior try to manipulate a discussion. -- Muck (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Muck, this report is all about your behaviour. You were asked not to stalk or bugg "Nephiliskos". But you do. You intervene in a discussion where your name was never dropped. You make on diligent authors out of the blue. And in other Wikis you snitch on newbies. You behavoiur is disgusting and a nuisance for this project.--Dr.Lantis (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• What a lovely cross-wiki melodrama, but de-wiki is not my bailiwick. Nephiliskos and Dr.Lantis are  Confirmed. I've blocked and tagged Dr.Lantis, and blocked Nephiliskos for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

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

The user at 86.188.153.19

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

---

The editor using this IP address started to vandalize in May, on the article Dennis Kelly, as seen on their talk page. Since that incident, they have been blocked three times, and will probably continue to vandalize after they are unblocked. It's clear they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and maybe they should be given an indefinite block? Branchofpine (talk) 07:56, 1 July 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.

Various iP vandalise the article Kingdom of France since a few months

The following discussion is closed. 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 In Kingdom of France, a same person behind various ip vandalize the article since a few months. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Enough is enough. Could you warning him and apply a protection for the page (autoconfirmed) ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panam2014 (talk • contribs) 10:50 1 July 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.

Welcoming bot users

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

---

Hey, I'd like to report myself for a prior incident of welcoming a bot account. The incident occurred at 05:50, 30 June 2017 and I did so with Template:Cookie as it was listed on Wikipedia:Welcome committee#Welcome templates. I did so as a joke (giving a computer an Internet cookie) but I know this is not the place for jokes and accept full responsibility for my actions.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 08:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, well, if you're really intent on being punished, go copyedit On the Job (2013 film) so it can pass a GA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:22, 1 July 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.

Zee money's article creations

Many of Zee money's article creations have issues. For example, Zhang Bu (Xin dynasty) does not have many links or sources in it; Liu Yong (Xin dynasty) does not have many sources; and Vasily Flug and Pyotr Lomnovsky have maintenance tags at the top. I thus propose that the user has its autopatrolled right removed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with GeoffreyT2000. Zee money has a habit of creating a large number of unsourced stubs. Quite a few users, including myself, have warned him many times before, to little lasting effect. And I've fixed (and completely rewritten) several of them (such as Zhang Qinqiu, Hu Di, and Qian Zhuangfei), which probably took more effort than starting from nil. His recent creations seem even worse than before, as they are rough machine translations which make no sense. For example, the lead of Zhang Bu (Xin dynasty) says: "The character is Kumon. Chinese is a person from the evil County of Xuzhou. My brother is Zhang Hiroshi". And Pang Meng is the same. I believe the user's autopatrolled right should be removed, and they should be forbidden from creating new articles without adequate sources. -Zanhe (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, this is an experienced editor we're talking about here. Yes, the Zhang Bu article is a mess, yes it looks like he did a machine translation from Chinese to English., however, other articles he started, like Maxim Stepanov look great. I don't think his autopatroller status has anything to do with that , but perhaps a note on his page might be in order.
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 18:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with GeoffreyT2000. I think we need some sort of punishment consequences so that Zee money does more than the minimum on his articles - that is, actually taking the time to find references for his articles, and that the improvements in article creation that he temporarily makes after being warned actually last. By the way, the Maxim Stepanov page was unreferenced at the beginning, too. I've had similar experiences to Zanhe in dealing with this user, as I've fixed some of his articles, like Pyotr Pumpur and 4th Cavalry Corps (Soviet Union). Kges1901 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't do punishment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't, but we also don't give auto-patrolled to editors who are making articles that clearly need attention from reviewers, and being "prolific" is not in and of itself isn't qualifying. Pinging @Schwede66: for their input. TimothyJosephWood 20:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Before we do anything else about autopatrolled, KrakatoaKatie should be given a chance to comment. Schwede66 20:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I see I granted the user right 18 months ago, but honestly, I don't remember it. If Schwede feels it needs to be removed, I have no objection. Katie^talk 22:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: The version of Maxim Stepanov written by Zee money is completely unsourced (see this). It was Kges1901 who fixed it and made it great. I just found another article Liu Yong (Xin dynasty) which is a machine-translated mess. An experienced editor like Zee money should have learned how to create properly referenced articles by now, especially after receiving so much advice and guidance from other editors over the years. -Zanhe (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Zanhe Kges1901 added in a reference, the rest of the article was fine (yes I know we need references) point is, this article wasn't a mess, the chinese articles are. Once again, this isn't anything to do with his autopatroller rights. Still Opposed
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 21:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: According to WP:Autopatrolled: "This permission is granted only to accounts that have extensively demonstrated their knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". After numerous gentle reminders from other users, Zee money has not demonstrated the ability to follow WP:Verifiability, one of the core content policies. -Zanhe (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as autopatrolled goes, it's not a "behavioral issue" per se; it's not a "punishment" at all. It's a procedural issue of whether these articles get some proper maintenance and integration into the project that will allow them to stand alone in the meantime, be connected to interested editors in the long run, and offer a feedback channel to the editor themselves to help them make better new articles in the future. It is, at its heart, a way to make sure we make better articles and we make better editors. There's no prejudice toward whether the right can be granted again in the future, but right now it doesn't seem like it's helping either the project or the person. TimothyJosephWood 22:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, however, since the problem wasn't anything to do with his autopatroller status, removing it would be punative and that's also not right. Yes, the articles mentioned at the top of this report are junk, so a short block may be in order, this would prevent further junk articles, but take away the autopatrolled status , that does nothing to stop the problem.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 22:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I... don't think you understand the purpose of autopatrolled. TimothyJosephWood 23:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Also note that autopatrolled is according to the WP guideline for "prolific creators of clean articles", but the unreferenced stubs that Zee Money is creating half the time are not "clean" articles. If the autopatrolled right was taken away the articles would have to go through the new page patrol review process, where they could at least be filtered.Kges1901 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is no argument that starts as "these articles are junk, but they should not be patrolled" that makes any sense whatsoever. I appreciate that Kosh is trying to play the devil's advocate here, but the right needs to be removed, and it needs to be removed basically now, and it would make everyone sleep better at night if Katie were the one to do it. Too easy, close thread, go back to editing. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

After investigating further, I agree that at least the last few articles created are nonsensical and would require huge cleanup at least and deletion at worst. Accordingly, I have removed the autopatrolled user right. Katie^talk 00:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Too easy, close thread, go back to editing. TimothyJosephWood 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I believe Zee money should also be banned from creating new articles without reliable sources. -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. That's what WP:NPP is for. If you feel that strongly about it, you're welcome to join us. We can use all the help we can get. TimothyJosephWood 01:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I've patrolled thousands of new pages myself, and that's how I got to know about Zee money's creations. It's perfectly understandable for new editors to make mistakes, but not for an experienced user who refuses to follow the WP:V policy year after year, after numerous editors have tried to point him to the right way (see User talk:Zee money). -Zanhe (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Zee money creates many articles with dubious notability. He has created 2009 articles.Some articles have notability. Lack of sources is a major problem. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Well, when an editor has made 2,009 articles, of which nine have been deleted, that's a pretty strong argument against curtailing their article creation. Then again, about half of that has been done since they were granted autopatrolled, so that may skew the numbers a bit.

I think it would resolve a lot of the problem here if Zee money would... acknowledge that this thread exists. Their conspicuous absence here, combined with a less than stellar history of being responsive on their talk page gives me more pause than anything. Machine translation is right out, and needs to stop. But in a lot of the situations, it looks like the biggest problem is that they're just not bringing over the foreign language sources when they translate into English. The most painless thing to do here would simply be for them to just agree to bring sources over in articles that they translate. TimothyJosephWood 12:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability is not the problem, but verifiability is. Almost all articles Zee money created are notable, but he just don't bother to add sources, after repeated prodding over the years. And the situation is only getting worse, now that the user is resorting to machine translation to create new articles. -Zanhe (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually Timothyjosephwood, I"m looking at what will stop the problem. As I said, I'm familiar with the autopatrolled right.
The problem here - Zee money is creating junk articles
The solution being requested - Remove his autopatrolled rights

The problem with that - Per Autopatroller The autopatrolled right will not help you create articles. , so removing his autopatroller right does nothing to stop him from creating new junky articles. It's not a solution, merely a punative strike, if you want him to stop creating junk articles, you could
a.) block him for a determined length of time
b.) place a discretionary sanction on him from creating new articles or
c.) block indef
Any of these things address the problem, removing autopatroller right doesn't. The only thing autopatroller right does is mark an article that he's created as "patrolled" and push it to the new articles pages. Sorry, this is a bad move all the way in that it doesn't solve the problem.
 К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Indef? Sure. I guess you could indef, or I guess you could... I dunno... maybe give them a barnstar or something. I've gone through about 50 of their articles at this point, and... well... I haven't started any AfDs today if that's any indication. In fact they're basically auto-notable because they either blow WP:SOLDIER out of the water, or they're divisional level military units. They pretty much all need tagging for cleanup and stub sorting, which is exactly the kinds of things NPP can do, and is why they shouldn't have autopatrolled.

The recent machine translation articles are right out, and rightfully should probably be deleted if they can't be stubified. There's solid long standing consensus that machine translation is worse than nothing. But if large unsourced machine translations are a persistent pattern then I've not gotten there yet, because what I'm seeing are pretty much legitimate stubs on clearly notable topics that rightfully should be created and linked to their more developed counterparts on non-English projects for translation. 14th Landwehr Division (German Empire), which is what I happen to currently have open in another tab isn't a "junk article"; it's a stub, and if you took it to AfD you'd probably get laughed out of town.

NPP will see any new articles created and address them as needed. But if you want to indef someone because around 0.0044 percent of the articles they've created deserve to be deleted, then you need to get the hell away from drama boards and go build an encyclopedia somewhere. (Indef.. christ almighty.. the user has almost as many articles created as you have mainspace edits...) TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in here in support of Timothyjosephwood's position. Autopatrolled is not a reward or a hat to be collected; many experienced and respected editors don't reach the necessary number of newly created articles, or attract an admin's attention for doing so ... until they pass RfA, it's one of the rights bundled into adminship. It's intended to reduce the work at NPP. (I've been told some NPPers still check my new articles anyway, because I'm so eclectic. And I don't mind because I could always slip and make a mistake on one that needs fixing.) Zee money has been creating articles that need checking; I'm particularly concerned by the mention of machine translations, which need to be reported at PNT as soon as possible before some poor reader tries to consult them (and which impose particularly lengthy clean-up tasks on the community). But the reason we have NPP is that new articles can have all kinds of problems. Apparently that goes for Zee money's work, too, so it shouldn't be automatically marked as not needing checking. @KoshVorlon: It's not a matter of punishment, and it's also not a matter of stopping him. It's a matter of whether the articles need checking, like the vast majority of new articles. However in any case, KrakatoaKatie did go ahead and remove autopatrolled. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

speaking for PNT we do not have any spare capacity and do have a huge backlog, made worse by a diversion of resources to the recent CTX kerfluffle. And Chinese isn't among our strengths. I think we may have a couple of regulars who are zh-1 or zh-2. That's it. So it's not a good problem for us. Withough getting into what I think of the machine translation policy I'll just say that having taken a really deep dive in some bad machine translations I am of the opinion that at least half the problem could be eliminated by better scrutiny of a handful of problem editors. Removing autopatrolled privileges would seem to be a good start in this case. Please keep some eyes out for any future problematic contributions. Zh-->En does not seem to be something that machine translation understands very well yet, at all. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Indef would be gross overkill. As mentioned above, I believe Zee money should be given a formal warning not to create more articles without adequate sources, and not rely on machine translation when creating new articles. -Zanhe (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Blacklist request

Could an administrator please blacklist the images File:Jenni Blaze 385.jpg, File:Fellation Tracy and Rick-1.jpg, File:Sex 5.jpg, and File:Sex 6.jpg which were used for vandalism by an IP, and have no business being used anywhere other than already used locations. Home Lander (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The place to ask is on the blacklist talk page, where admin that are familiar with listing with exceptions are found. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Will do, have done it here before, seemed to take longer over there. Home Lander (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Looks like a few requests over there (including one simple typing error) actually are still pending from earlier in the month if someone could address them. Home Lander (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't really seem like there's much point over an IP with a handful of edits, unless these images are being used in particular in longish term abuse. There are so many dicks on commons that there are separate categories for low quality images of dicks and regular images of dicks. TimothyJosephWood 02:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac

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

---

Following the latest bout of nonsense stemming from an unnecessary almost-edit-war at this MFD page, I am proposing an IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. For some reason they cannot seem to get along. As seen in the above links as well as random sniping at various discussions and this ANI thread, there is some sort of beef between them and they simply cannot agree on anything.

I know the above ANI closed as no consensus for an IBAN, but given the most recent activities I believe it's necessary to avoid pointless infighting on both sides. SmokeyJoe apparently has more/better diffs available to illustrate the issue, hence the ping and slightly-less-than-stellar diffs (my apologies).

I propose the following:

Legacypac and Godsy are hereby prohibited from interacting with each other, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions. In addition, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other user, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote (either by proxy or by inference).

Old proposal, which some feel is too specific and could lead to loopholes

Legacypac and Godsy are hereby prohibited from: Posting on each other's talk pages Pinging each other or otherwise commenting about the other on a talk page. Undoing any contribution made by the other to any page Initiating a complaint thread about the other at WP:AN or any of its subpages Holding any direct correspondence on an XFD page. In other words, each one may !vote once on an XFD started by the other user, or both may !vote on a third-party XFD, but neither may comment or otherwise respond to the other's !vote (either by proxy or by inference).

As a note regarding point #5 the additional exemption - this is because I noticed that both spend a fair amount of time in the XFD spaces, and completely prohibiting interaction on an XFD page could be more disruptive than useful.

Also, it should be a fairly obvious request, but I expect Godsy and Legacy to keep their interactions to a minimum in this thread to avoid needless back-and-forth, barring gross misbehaviour. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Other relevant diffs as they pop up

• this MfD and the MfD's associated ANI thread

Support

• Support as proposer. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. None of the above prevents either from working with drafts or productively contributing to MfD discussion. These two editors have quite oblique perspectives and approaches, but both are valuable to draft page management. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  I agree to positive sentiment towards both editors separately, and this is not in anyway about "punishment".
  I would add a ban for either to close, or perform any administrative function, on any MfD initiated by the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support not as any sort of punishment, but to stop the fighting. Pretty much every year, there's been a "fight of the season" of some sort where a pair of editors, or more, get all riled up about something and then it's blow by blow on ANI for weeks if not months on end. Usually over some petty thing. This is analogous to bystanders stepping in to stop two people fighting on the streets. The bystanders aren't there to punish anyone, just trying to stop the fighting. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support I have positive sentiment towards these editors separately, but this bickering has gone on long enough. The basic outline here is sound; I suspect there might be minor changes requested and support any changes that Godsy, Legacypac, and Primefac agree on. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes please. Guys, contrary to both your beliefs, you're not each others' worst enemies; you're your own. This is in both of your best interests. —Cryptic 03:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support I do my best to stay away from the ANI dramahz, and also generally stay out of draft space unless it involves copyvios or building articles on 17th century things before moving them to mainspace, but even I've noticed the constant back and forth going on between these editors. Its a mini-feud (maybe a full feud). Support this topic ban to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support a two-way ban, immediately if not sooner. Also strongly support adding a restriction that prohibits them both from editing each other's comments for any reason, indentation issues or not. I also propose modifying restriction 3 from simple prohibition on reversion to some kind of restriction that fully prohibits both of them from editing the any article the other one last edited, or less strictly, prohibiting cosmetic edits to articles the other one last edited, if either of those is feasible. Commenting at XfDs or other discussions would be exempt obviously, I'm talking about going to an article and making a little tweak just so it shows up. Those little "I-see-you" edits were a major cause of the last ANI blowup and I don't see this dispute burning out unless something gets done about that. Edited to add: I also support SmokeyJoe's proposal for no closing of the other's XfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to stipulate that; that is an obvious part of any WP:IBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Struck some parts of my comment in favor of Cryptic's "broadly construed" wording way below. Being specific does invite gaming; "broadly construed" is much better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support Who cares which one is correct—what is needed is for the posturing and disruption to stop. If there really is a problem with Legacypac's work, someone other than Godsy will notice. Just stop, indefinitely, subject to the usual appeals. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - With apologies to both editors, it seems to me that things have gotten to the point where this is the only reasonable solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Even then, it probably won't end, but at least the B.S. comes with consequences. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 04:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: with the proposed prohibitions implemented, I dont see any loss to either of the editors. With the restrictions, they should move on. That will certainly further improve their editing, and it will also put an end to such feuds, and conserve time of other editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above. Net benefit. -FASTILY 05:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Involved Editor Comment in Support I just became aware of this thread 2 minutes ago. I've stated my concerns with Godsy's behavior in the last ANi and will not repeat myself. Since then he has wholesale rejected that he has harassed me or that the Block he received was justified. (many diffs available, start on his talk page). I perceived the community and Admins were unwilling to protect me from someone who has made it a personal mission to make my time on Wikipedia miserable for over a year. Given complaining about Godsy behavior brought no resolution, I decided to deal with his activity well within the bounds of what he defined as acceptable behavior. To the extent that has has offended anyone, I apologize. I should be a bigger person than that. I appreciate User:Primefac bringing this ANi for action and wholeheartedly endorse an IBAN. I'd like nothing better then to edit in peace and this is a path forward that accomplishes that. Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support There seems to be an obsession on the part of both editors to meddle in each other's business. This seems like an unfortunate but needed outcome. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support No doubt one of them will go out via suicide by cop. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Godsy's inability to drop the stick has convinced me that this is necessary. The community cannot waste any more time on this. Softlavender (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Legacypac agrees, judging by his comment above, and unfortunately this appears to be the only way to stop Godsy. It's a pity it had to come to this but I can't say I'm surprised. Yintan  07:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, this dispute has wasted enough volunteer time, spreading to WP:REFUND and WP:MFD. It seems clear that these two won't stop needling each other, so someone needs to step in and put a stop to it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
• Support and admonish Godsy for the canvassing that appeared on my talk page. Nick (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • To be fair to Godsy, I could hardly be said to be a partisan on their behalf, and they still summoned me. I think this was less a case of "canvassing" than it was wanting to get broad input, although that does seem to have backfired from what I think they were expecting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC).
    • I agree considering that there was discussing of an iban only about a month ago, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with notifying everyone who participated with a neutral message. They probably should have said something before doing so or let someone else handle it but meh, it's not worth worrying about. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. They're almost as bad as each other (though I see more intransigence on the part of Godsy), and this horrendous timesink needs to stop. (updated) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support much as I hate to say it, a Iban appears necessary since Godsy won't just voluntarily leave Legacypac alone. That being said, I unequivocally disagree with Legacypac about the original block Godsy received. It was hasty and improper, and I suspect that block contributed to the issue by making Godsy feel that Legacypac was trying to intimidate him into changing his editing habits. Lepricavark (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support I opposed the one way iban in the recent discussion thinking the draft ban may solve things. I was seriously wrong. I initially thought this was about the Draft:Medieval jobs MFD which as I said at the time was silly on all sides but wasn't quite enough for me to change my mind especially since Godsy tends to be seen as the worse offender but their behaviour there wasn't quite that bad. But seeing this nonsense just a few days later is enough to convince me. And frankly I think I should have realised this would happen since their interaction areas and history are too wide to avoid it although I think a two way is probably better than the previous one way anyway. (Even if Godsy is more often the initiator, it does seem LegacyPac responds too much and too severely such that I'm not sure a one way would work properly. And LegacyPac to their credit does agree to the iban unlike Godsy.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Just wanted to note I support the rewording. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, provided that there is some venue where they can report violations of this IBAN on each other's part. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support, with Od Mishehu's proviso, and I would even go further to allow an appeal to an impartial administrator for both sides to raise concerns by the other editor. Errors in wikipedia do need to be fixes, and while I'd prefer if both editors did 100% disengage from each other, the oversight of your greatest critic can ensure that we are upholding our purpose in making the encyclopedia better. I have very few doubts Legacypac will disengage, but I would carve out this further exception to give Godsy an opportunity in which to demonstrate what they care about more: Being "right" or improving the encyclopedia. I think the next stop on the restriction train is a limited cban as their efforts have (in recent memory) been a significant net negative to the entire project. Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I do not work in the spaces that these editors work in, and I actively avoid ANI; and yet I'm still aware that this dispute is wasting the community's time. I'd say this is overdue. Vanamonde (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I suppose we can't send them to their rooms without supper too? All joking aside, this is just a waste of time for too many editors. If two editors can't avoid causing drama about each other, then we have to step in and stop the disruption. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed. This reimagining of Hell in the Pacific needs to stop. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption needs to stop. —MRD2014 14:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Enough. This is taking way too much time, in way too many areas, for way too many editors. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support This should have been proposed last time rather than the ill thought out one way I-ban on Godsy. Wikipedia is a big place. Find something else to do. If something egregious happens, someone else will no doubt spot it. AniMate 19:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support: I supported the one-way IBAN before. Godsy needs to walk away from MfD, and draftspace more generally, because the whole purpose at this point seems to be a campaign to stop LegacyPac's efforts to address stale drafts. Unfortunately, it seems that Godsy took the failure of consensus to emerge in the one-way IBAN discussion as an affirmative authorization of his continuing war against LegacyPac. I don't think LegacyPac has done anything particularly egregious with respect to Godsy, but if it'll take a two-way IBAN to get any sort of relief, then I will support it. I agree with the sentiment above, and have no doubts that LegacyPac will obey the letter and spirit of this restriction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Simply...enough is enough... —JJB^ers 16:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support For the record though, I am highly unconvinced this will work and am almost certain that this will end in tears. Godzy's form of Wikihounding is far too subtle to ever directly violate this iban, a technicality will be found. I wholeheartedly agree with SmokeyJoe's comment below- "It reminds me of the new cat that follows the old cat until the old cat goes nuts and runs away." I personally think that only an ArbCom case will solve this, but the iban is still better than nothing. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is superior to an arbcom case, as that would be likely outcome there anyway. It seems that the bickering and stress caused to each other is worse than the original issue that brought it up. One assuming a motivation for another that is untrue and then acting/writing on that does add to productivity. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Just, stop this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This has been going on for quite some time and it needs to stop one way or another so hopefully the IBAN will do just that. –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose any restriction on Godsy (myself) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac. It has not been demonstrated that I've done anything contrary to policies or guidelines and I've remained civil. Legacypac continues to make personal attacks against me (e.g. here). I started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Legacypac reported by User:Godsy (Result: Withdrawn) because they were repeatedly substantially changing a comment I made at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Dollop. I should not be punished for their continued misbehavior. Legacypac has led campaigns against me including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Godsy Disruption & GAMING the System and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it?. The first led to Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring where the community came down hard against their positions, the second led to them receiving a boomerang topic ban. The community has never found my actions to be inappropriate. Legacypac's false allegations have already led to me receiving a hasty bad block. This sanction would reward them for unduly disparaging me and causing disruption across Wikipedia, and allow them to avoid due scrutiny, by giving them what was basically the goal they stated in their opening post of the second an/i I mentioned which they started against me. Had that not occurred, their egregious moves of inappropriate drafts to the mainspace may not have been brought to light as they were (i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Propose "topic ban" for Legacypac which passed). If they were creating the inappropriate pages instead of moving them from the userspace of others, the pattern would've probably been noticed long ago, and they'd likely have changed their behavior or be indefinitely blocked right now. That aside, this would create complex conundrums due to the nature of my contributions. Just one example: I commonly close discussions at miscellany for deletion; could I close a discussion which Legacypac started when a page has been speedily deleted?; what if they're just a participant?. It'd even be very hard to simply participate in miscellany for deletion discussions without being able to openly address the nominator's and others rationales. All those questions are problems as they've started at least ~50% of the discussions there over the past few months and participated in others. This would unduly inhibit work I enjoy when I've done nothing inappropriate, while its clearly, explicitly been shown that Legacypac has. This proposal would set a dangerous precedent if it passes: it would encourage users to start conflicts with and attempt to provoke those who they often disagree with and who have demonstrably shown their behavior to be inappropriate in the past in the hope that a two way interaction ban will be issued allowing them to continue their sometimes subtle subversions of process that may otherwise go unnoticed and perhaps just barely get away with other more noticeable inappropriate behavior because one voice whose especially familiar with the history has been drowned out. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy, in my opinion you are merely proving the point (the need for the IBan) by your protestations. You have led just as many, or more, campaigns against Legacypac; in fact your interactions filled up nearly a dozen threads on ANI between mid-March and mid-May 2016. May I remind you that your RfA failed because of your vendetta against Legacypac [14]? If Legacypac does something amiss, let someone else deal with it. The sky will not fall, and Wikipedia will survive. Moreover, the community will be spared the endless drama caused by your pursuit of another user. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy, Legacypac is correct that you should not be editing a post after it has been responded to, as you just did here: [15]. Please read WP:REDACT and follow those guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Godsy, the example you mentioned above would indeed be a "huge problem" if you were the only editor capable of closing Legacypac's deletion discussions. Or if you were the only editor capable of participating in one. However... Yintan  07:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Godsy, again, do not edit a post after it has been replied to, as you have done yet again here: [16] and here [17], unless you follow the guidelines at WP:REDACT. The best policy is to post new thoughts or new comments in a separate post at the bottom of the thread. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC); edited 08:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Yes, yes, in regard to my comment here you are correct. However, I've followed the rules here to a T for a long time, and learned that doing so offers you no protection. So, on this one occasion, I'm not going to bother following the "best practice" (which is what the guideline calls it, "best" not "mandatory"). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The mythology of your following the rules here to a T is getting really really old, and your obstinacy and self-justification is why you are accruing sanctions here. At the very least, you need to add ;edited ~~~~~ to the end of your post when you add substantively to your comments, to show the date and time you added new material. Softlavender (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Seems unnecessary, now that Legacypac is banned from moving articles into mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Given that their interactions appear to encompass a lot more than moving articles (eg, this would not have been prevented by Legacypac's ban from moving articles into mainspace), I'd like to understand how you think that ban can be sufficient? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about those edits which were a failed attempt to point out hypocrisy to an editor who justifies his harassment by claiming he is following policy "to a T". Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate edits by Legacypac, regardless of Godsy's edits, but it appears the choices are

1. Block Legacypac. (Not appropriate just for this thread, but possibly, due to the multiple inappropriate complaints being made by, and appropriate complaints about, Legacypac)
2. Block Godsy (and at least 3 other editors, for consistency)
3. Institute some form of IBAN.

I'm not convinced that this is the best solution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Both have valid-sounding complaints about the other, but I am yet to see a complaint worthy of investigation that is not solved by this direct interaction ban. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• I know the current proposal already would prevent them from undoing each other's comments, and this next point would not need to be made under any normal circumstances, but:

please let them be banned from editing each other's comments on talk or discussion pages, for any reason.

Wikilawyering and badgering centered on this particular sensitive spot seems to be to be a huge part of the problem. I can find diffs if necessary, but some of them were posted in the recent AN3. Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Newimpartial, please make sure you're following general THREAD conventions. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think just a 2-way ban on them editing (or reverting) each others' comments on talk or discussion pages would address a big part of this. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

DESiegel and I gave final warnings to Legacypac about this behavior about a year ago, nearly simultaneously and for the same edit. [18] [19] [20]. I'd have blocked had I seen any of the diffs at Primefac's "latest bout of nonsense" link in isolation, let alone together. I haven't seen Godsy doing the same, just diffs of him restoring his own comments, and would welcome evidence to the contrary. —Cryptic 03:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It isn't exactly what you're looking for, but Legacy's latest "Godsy is hounding me" ANI included diffs of Godsy performing unwanted formatting changes on Legacy's talk page, possibly on Legacy's own comments there. Then I believe it was Legacy who then edit-warred with Godsy on subject headings in Godsy's talk page. I am too tired to look for the diffs right now, though. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not. Fixing formatting is permitted by WP:TPG, even if in this case it was extraordinarily stupid to do so. —Cryptic 04:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it permitted to fix formatting on another user's talk page, after that user has indicated that the editor concerned is not welcome to interact with said talk page? I am not sure on this point. Newimpartial (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a "letter of the law" vs. "the spirit of the law" thing. It's technically allowed as in there's no formal rule that absolutely says you can't do it, but it doesn't mean it's not "extraordinarily stupid" behavior, as Cryptic eloquently put it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• The closure history of this MfD and the MfD's associated ANI thread merit mention and linkage. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks. Added to the list. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• In the last giga-thread, I noted this diff [21] (now deleted) by Godsy as a pure-whitespace diff to a doomed page, likely only to annoy Legacypac. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm concerned about gaming the IBan. They both seem to have an interest in some of the same areas. Historically Godsy has generally been the one hounding or harassing Legacypac (in fact, this cost him his recent RfA [22]), and while I do not always agree with Legaypac, his reactiveness around Godsy is in many ways a reaction to this longterm predation. I would therefore recommend, if an IBan is implemented, that it be time-restricted to six months. It seems like that should be a long enough time for them both to attain new interests and learn to lay off of each other. But because they appear to edit in some of the same noticeboards (XfDs and so on), I think the issue ultimately needs to go to ArbCom, because at this point it is quite hard to make out who is the aggressor and who is merely reacting to pressure. Perhaps the solution is a 6-month IBan, and if that doesn't resolve things, then ArbCom. They should therefore both be on notice that if this does end up at ArbCom, they are both likely to come away with sanctions that are worse than an IBan. Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I disagree. I recognise their unfortunate personality and perspective clash. Neither is well labelled as "the aggressor", they inherently antagonise the other. This iban should be indefinite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Well, I would be happy to see it succeed, so we might as well try it. From what I've seen though, including two solid months of endless multiple ANI threads from mid-March to mid-May 2016, it's going to take some brain re-wiring for them to stay away from each other. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Softlavender when I returned to editing after 6 months away largely because of the harassment, I studiously avoided contact with the editor I'd rather forget. He cranked up the harassment. With great happiness I'll be returning to ignoring ... what user what that? I've already forgotten them. I also will not be canvassing editors. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I believe I've notified everyone that participated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Upon further thought, I believe I've notified everyone who participated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? instead of just that section. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Case-in-point. Godsy genuinely can't help it. A hard rule is needed. Godsy's post here will be banned as it includes a direct mention of the other. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Godsy's post here will be banned as it includes a direct mention of the other." What does that even mean? How can you "ban" a post? And you can't grandfather in an IBan that does not exist. Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The point being made is that if the interaction ban were in place, Godsy's above oppose would breach the iban because it includes gratuitous mentions of the other editor. The "case-in-point" was to say that this discussion illustrates the need for an iban. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know that trying to enumerate everything forbidden is a good idea; that just encourages gaming. I'd certainly consider the whole of Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification, when taken in its full context, as breaching any sort of interaction ban, for example. Let's just take a page out of arbcom's book and call the ban "broadly construed". —Cryptic 04:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Cryptic, the main reason why I enumerated the restrictions is to provide the small exception in point #5. I suppose it could be changed to a generic "broadly construed iban except at MFD" but when you start spelling things out you keep finding exceptions that need mentioning. If there's a point above which is missing and/or needs modification to avoid gaming, I'm all ears. Maybe it should be amended to say "they are broadly ibanned, including:"? Primefac (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I thonk it would be best to go with "broadly construed iban except at MFD, where" followed by a rewording of #5 above. This would explicitly deal with one issue which bothers me in this proposal - if one of them violates the IBAN, the other one needs a place to report it. ANI is generally the place where this happens in normal IBAN cases, but the wording above makes it look like that would be no good here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. Enumerating the aspects of the ban just invites wikilawyering and finding situations the drafter didn't think of. "Banned from interacting with each other, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions and a special exception that they may !vote once on MfD discussions started by the other." Or words to that general effect. GoldenRing (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  GoldenRing, I've taken your suggestion and modified the proposal accordingly. Thanks for the input (and to Od Mishehu as well). Primefac (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Involved User Comment. I posted the question of how to report a violation to Primefac's talk page. As drafted, there is basically no way to report or enforce against a violation as I can't mention the user anywhere. I will not be looking for a violation, and don't generally check Godsy's edits except as they pop up on my watchlist or he pings me. Sadly, I have near zero confidence the harassment will stop, so the time to consider this is now. How about this:

  Involved User Proposal 1. Perceived violations of the IBAN may be reported by posting diffs on up to three Admin's talk pages of the user's choosing (to prevent Admin shopping but allow for Admins that may be away or unable to consider the matter. An Admin may take the matter to ANi or discuss the matter with the parties. Any further dispute or the imposition of a block will be decided by three Admins - one chosen by each user and a third chosen by those two Admins. No blocks should be made without a reasonable discussion. I'd hate to see a block over an accidental or purely technical violation.

  Involved User Proposal 2. IBAN includes participation in any XfD started by the other user except for an XfD against a page started by, substantially edited by or handled (reviewed/moved) by the other user where that user is expected to explain or defend their editorial decisions. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Legacypac, we ec'd but I didn't get a warning, oddly enough. I think you'll find the updated proposal meets your concerns. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Yes thank-you. Following WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX is cleaner and clearer, though I appreciate the thought that you put into drafting the first version. Too bad WP:IBAN does not explicitly prohibit WP:HOUNDING in some of the forms I've been experiencing it. Hopefully in any future case the spirit of IBAN rather then only the letter will be considered. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  I was thinking on this. Yes, the perceived hounding is an issue. It reminds my of the new cat that follows the old cat until the old cat goes nuts and runs away. Godsy fills you watchlist with his name. He did it with the notifications, didn't he? Maybe: "One may not make their first edit to a page within six hours of the other editing that page, unless a third editor edits in between. This does not exclude any forum page." This will stop Godsy following legacypac and making little edits immediately in his wake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That does not solve it SmokeyJoe. The time between edits is not the issue. I've removed the long winded explanation. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

ENOUGH. This was exactly the shit that I didn't want popping up in this discussion. It doesn't matter who started it or how they're doing it or why, it's happening and it's driving everyone nuts, and we don't need to continually rehash it. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, it should go without saying (but sadly I feel it needs to be said) that this IBAN will extend to each user's alternate accounts, if they have any. Primefac (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Although I seriously considered whether they are both Ricky, I am completely confident that both are good faith, well-intentioned contributors, just inherently abrasive to the other and with separate interests that unavoidably overlap. But just in case, WP:SOCK is very clear:

"*Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.^{See precedent}".

The precedent statement:

"3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.
Passed 8 to 0 at 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I was referring to legitimate alternate accounts, of which there are two, one recently created. It's a little BEANSy and I was certainly not intending to assume bad faith, but given how deep this issue seems to go I felt that "the record" should show that there are alternate accounts out there. Primefac (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry I was trying respond to a question. I was not trying to rehash anything and I removed the long winded explanation. I don't have any alternative accounts. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Accept IBAN

the Community has spoken and I willingly accept the IBAN. I already commenced compelely avoiding the other party after this thread was started and this should be my last post on this thread as commenting further would violate the IBAN. Thank-you to the many editors who have expressed support for this solution. If you are in Canada or wish you were... Happy 150th! Legacypac (talk) 01:29, 1 July 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.

Odd talk page

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but this is an odd use of a talk page and I don't know if it violates policy User talk:MYRON"BG"ARMSTRONG. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

MfD would be the correct forum not here. Someone already speedy nominated it for deletion. This thread can be closed. Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I fixed some Vandalism from an anonymous contributor

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

---

As seen here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mad_Max_(franchise)&action=history --Knightofjustice123 (talk) 16:51, 2 July 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.

Wwallacee continuing unprovoked personal attacks

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

---

Summary: Over a year after I last interacted with him, Wwallacee today used the opportunity of an unprovoked attack on Apollo The Logician to label him and me as a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force". I asked him to withdraw the attack, but he posted to the same page without responding.
Background: In April last year, Wwallacee took exception to an innocuous edit of mine to an article he was editing, and posted to the talk pages of over twenty articles on which he was not previously involved (apparently by going through my contributions), warning them of my "political bias" and asking users to "monitor me". This discussion at ANI followed which led to him being blocked. Far from being deterred, two weeks later he opened this thread at ANI with a 4,000-word essay in which he went through a huge number of my edits on articles and talk pages that had nothing to do with him, claiming that they were disruptive. In both discussions, every one of the responses from neutral editors said that my editing was and always had been unproblematic. The failure to close that second discussion without any admonition to Wwallaccee led me to withdraw from Wikipedia for several months. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that I didn't interact in any way with him again, he continued with his attacks: this, after the second ANI discussion had been archived and I had retired (notice that comments at ANI were "attacks against me by Scolaire's supporters, whom he must have contacted outside of Wikipedia somehow"), this in November ("Scolaire's disruptive and coercive behavior"), and now the "highly political but loutish element" comment today.
Just to re-iterate, apart from a couple of edits on "his" article – which were in no way intended to provoke him – and the ensuing drama, Wwallacee and I have no history whatever. The reasoning behind this persistant campaign baffles me.
I am asking for Wwallacee to be indefinitely blocked unless or until he acknowledges that what he is doing is contrary to WP:NPA, and promises never to do it again. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Having reviewed the threads linked above, I really don't think Wwallacee is ever going to comprehend that his conduct needs to change. His strategy is to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with him, all while accusing Scolaire of doing precisely the same thing. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that was completely uncalled for and his not dropping the stick is problematic. --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In favor of a one-way IBAN? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This complaint appears to be resulting from an edit by User:Wwallacee on his own talk page. i think User:Scolaire probably needs tougher skin. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at the evidence presented in the complaint? Wwallacee has some very problematic editing habits and it is time to address them. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea of the case history, but this has already been on ANI according to the complaint, and the only new edits discussed are on WWallacee's talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know about the case history, you probably shouldn't be so dismissive of Scolaire's complaint. It's not a good look for an inexperienced editor to tell an experienced editor to grow tougher skin, especially when you haven't really reviewed the matter. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I can handle my own look. Do you agree or disagree with my statement that the only action Wwallacee is accused of that hasn't previously been adjudicated here is editing his own talk page? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You didn't review the case, but you did give a far more experienced editor some condescending advice. And let's not use a strawman to distort Scolaire's complaint. It's not a simple matter of Wwallacee editing his own talk page. It's a matter of Wwallacee using his own talk page as a device for attacking another editor. Lepricavark (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

To put it even more bluntly, this board is for editors to seek assistance from admins and experienced editors, which you are obviously not. Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I am belatedly joining this discussion, having only become aware of the complaint today.

I agree with Power~enwiki that Scolaire's complaint concerns only a reference to himself on my own talk page. Moreover, the language Scolaire objects to does not even directly concern him.

The context here is that a constructive edit by User CanK9 to the page Francis Sheehy-Skeffington had been reverted without reason by another editor named Apollo The Logician. CanK9 then wrote to me on my talk page to ask me to intervene, as I had a prior history of editing the Francis Sheehy-Skeffington page, and his own edit had altered something I myself had inserted. I looked over the page history, found I agreed with CanK9's new edit, and reinstated his change using a more diplomatic language. I replied to CanK9's message on my talk page with some reflections as to why his constructive edit had been reverted. In my reflection I wrote that Apollo the Logician's behavior "sounds like behavior typical of a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force. I well remember such behavior from the controversies surrounding Scolaire." This does not in any way imply that Scolaire is a "loutish element" - it merely states that during my prior controversy with Scolaire I came across such loutish elements.

To be clear, I do not regard Scolaire as a loutish element. I do however regard him as having (at least in the past) wanted to exert an authoritarian role in Irish Wikipedia pages. I have provided abundant evidence of this in a previous AN/I complaint against Scolaire.

I feel that Scolaire's message to me, his opening of a new AN/I complaint against me, and his request of an indefinite block against me, constitute threat and harrassment. Rather than discuss this further here, I intend to open a counter-complaint against Scolaire on AN/I. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to shoot yourself in the foot just when you were about to get off scot free. Lepricavark (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So what "loutish elements" did you come across "during your prior controversy with Scolaire"? I don't remember you mentioning them at the time. On the contrary, it seemed like everybody else on "Irish Wikipedia" was a victim of my behaviour. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

IBan Proposal

I am unarchiving this because I think ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Since the problematic behavior is one–sided, and since the community will likely not suffer if Wwallacee is deprived of the ability to continuing commenting on Scolaire, I propose a one–way interaction ban on Wwallacee. Lepricavark (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. All I'm asking is that he not periodically attack me. Scolaire (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Pinging editors who were involved in the previous ANI discussions: Wwallacee, Thewolfchild, JzG, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, OpenFuture, Serialjoepsycho, Onel5969, Edmund Patrick, Hohenloh, Blackmane, TU-nor, Tarage, Power~enwiki. --Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a bit dubious about a one way iban. They tend not to have the intended effect and my experience as a fairly regular passerby on ANI has tended to find that one way ibans escalate more than they de-escalate. I'd be more inclined towards a final warning and escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not really au fait with this dispute, but certainly we all know (or should know) that there is no excuse for personal attacks.Hohenloh ⁺ 11:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support and would add that if the iban is broken it should lead to a block of Wwallacee. It is unacceptable that the kind of harassment displayed towards Scolaire should be allowed to run unchecked, and it is deeply saddening that constructive and productive editors should be driven into retirement through fear of being attacked. --bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Uni-directional interaction bans are only imposed in exceedingly rare circumstances. I don't pretend to know the details of this situation, but a single comment, a full year after any previous incidents, is not grounds for a one-way interaction ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose ArbCom didn't give me one and my case was exceptional. I don't see any evidence that a two-way ban would probably be gamed by Wwallacee, and even if this evidence were present I would still probably oppose as this actually happens quite a bit when two-way sanctions are put in place because of one-way disruption. The proper way of dealing with this, in my experience, is to place a two-way sanction initially, see if it works, and if the one causing the initial disruption continues, and does so in a manner that implies gaming of the two-way sanction (say, for example, claiming that it was put in place because of two-way disruption), then a one-way sanction can be imposed, and the two way sanction perhaps lifted (if that's what Scolaire wants). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Two-way ban?? But I've literally never interacted with the guy except to protest when he bad-mouths me. Why would you slap a ban a ban on somebody for being attacked? Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Scolaire: I have to date been subject to four mutual IBANs. Of these, one was imposed by the community because my disputes with Catflap08 (talk · contribs) kept showing up on various noticeboards and people took the easy way out rather than trying to figure out who was right on the substance; the other three were all the result of me requesting a two-way sanction to protect me from harassment. If what you say (I've literally never interacted with the guy...) is true, then an IBAN could only be beneficial to you. I am not proposing you be "slapped" with any kind of ban you don't want. If you don't want a mutual IBAN, that's fine. You can't have a one-way IBAN without trying a two-way IBAN first, though. Them's the rules. I didn't write them, and (believe me) I wish as much as you do that they were different. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

My proposal may deserve the opposition it is receiving, but a two–way ban is monstrously ridiculous. We don't ban people for being the target of abuse. Preposterous. Lepricavark (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: You either did not read or did not understand my comment. It's not my intention to propose any monstrous or ridiculous sanctions. If Scolaire doesn't believe the disruption is yet at the point where an IBAN is warranted, that's fine. If Scolaire thinks that an IBAN would improve his situation, that's cool too. But we don't make exceptions in unspexceptional cases, and it's difficult to believe that WW, who has made less than 700 edits in the past two years, could have done anything warranting such an extreme exception to the standard rule on IBANs. If you think WW's behaviour warrants any kind of one-way sanction (a TBAN, a block, or some such) then you should propose one of those. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I did read your comment, although I may very well have not fully understood it. It wasn't especially clear. Lepricavark (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose all one-side I-Bans as being prone to being unjust and liable to inflame not calm things. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. This could all be put to bed if an admin would just put a friendly note on his talk page telling him not to do it any more. Scolaire (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I became aware of this complaint just today, and I have posted my reply to Scolaire's complaint in the section above. -Wwallacee (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support Final warning and escalating blocks per Blackmane due in part at least to the retaliatory thread below. This suggests that Wwallacee is not making a concerted attempt at treating the community with good faith, but is unable to WP:DROPIT. If Wwallaccee voluntarilly removed themselves from Scolaire's proximity, than these sanctions would not be nececssary; but it strikes me that there has been plenty of opportunity for this to happen- and it has not. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

O Fortuna, the complaint against me here has to do with a casual mention of Scolaire on my own talk page, in a manner that was not derogatory towards him, and a year after the last interaction with him. My thread below is not a retaliatory thread, but rather an attempt to reframe this incident as an attack on me, by Scolaire, and very much in keeping with his prior pattern of intimidation of other users. It is Scolaire who should be sanctioned for his frivolous use of AN/I as a way to intimidate people. By the way, I had no prior history of any involvement with AN/I prior to my controversy with Scolaire last year, whereas Scolaire has a long history of AN/I complaints both by him and against him. -Wwallacee (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page comment was not derogatory towards him? I hope you don't seriously expect anyone to believe you. I agree that you are attempting to reframe this incident in a manner that portrays you as a victim. I can't say I'm surprised as this isn't the first time you've used that strategy. And it is hardly surprising that an editor with 21.5K edits (Scolaire) has been to ANI more often than an editor with 1.5K edits (you). Lepricavark (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? You think that saying CanK, what you describe in your note to me on my talk page sounds like behavior typical of a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force. I well remember such behavior from the controversies surrounding Scolaire (my emphasis) in [this] diff is not derogatory? I think I the cluebat has been misplaced. Blackmane (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I was pinged again on this topic, so I'll !vote. Wwallacee is not helping his cause and may need a formal warning; but I still don't think any IBAN is needed. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think an IBAN is needed here, just escalating blocks if Wwallacee does not stop the harassment of Scolaire - the current one-week block is a good start. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• In the light of these developments, I withdraw my proposal for a one-way Iban. Lepricavark (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wwallacee responds with more personal attacks

Wwallacee has now opened a new ANI thread, Harassment by user Scolaire, accusing me of harassment because I complained about his continuing attacks. Some quotes from that thread:

• Scolaire has a prior history of disruptive editing and harassment of other users
• I ask that Scolaire be issued a non-removable warning on his talk page, to the effect that he has been cautioned against threatening, harassing, and authoritarian behavior
• Given Scolaire's propensity to erase criticism, something like this is required so that future users are able to learn about his prior history and are empowered to question his authority (emphasis added)
• Scolaire's behavior needs to be flagged so that others are not intimidated by it, as has been the case in the past

All of this is completely untrue. I have no history of disruption, still less harassment or intimidation; I have never in 12 years on WP been cautioned about threatening, harassing, or authoritarian behaviour; and I do not erase criticism, except to delete the blatant personal attacks on multiple talk pages for which Wwallacee was blocked in April last year. Therefore there is no need for "future users to be able to learn about my history" or be "empowered to question my authority". What authority anyway? I'm just an ordinary editor who wants to be left to edit in peace.
What is it going to take for an admin to say "You can't do this. Stop."? Scolaire (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire, you were totally left to edit in peace. It is you who initiated an attack against me for a frivolous reason. As to the statements I made about your prior history of disruptive editing, harassment of other users, and erasure of criticism, all of that is well documented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwallacee (talk • contribs)

Documented where? In that thread where the other participants agreed that Scolaire was not guilty of wrongdoing? I don't see how that helps your case, mainly because it doesn't. Lepricavark (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: As I gave Wwallacee a final warning to drop the stick yesterday [23], but he instead chose to repeat the same accusations [24][25], I have now blocked him, for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest close. Now that he has been unambiguously told by two admins that he is in the wrong, I am happy for this to be closed. Scolaire (talk) 11:26, 29 June 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.

Special goggles needed

Can an admin please compare Assassination threats against Donald Trump with the two previous, deleted versions of the article and let us know if the current article is sufficiently identical either of the previous versions? Many thanks.- MrX 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Mop goggles" ... it's not a thing... but I'm gonna make it a thing. It just rolls off the tongue. TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not substantially identical to the two previous deleted versions, and I do not feel it qualifies for G4. Let the AFD play out. Katie^talk 22:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was just going to say the opposite; it's pretty much the same general thing as the version deleted August 2016 (it is different than the version deleted January 2017). I guess I should type quicker. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll let the AfD play out. Thanks all, and EEng for cleaning it up.- MrX 22:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is a disparity I have noticed with administrators - who tend to fall into one of two camps. Either the article has to be identical, wording, sources etc, to qualify - or some admins take the approach if it covers the same areas even with different wording, its substantially identical regardless of the differences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There's definitely a judgement call to be made with G4. It's particularly tricky because the person nominating it can't see previous revisions, so declining it because it's still rubbish but not substantially identical to a previously-deleted version can be seen as time-wasting WP:BUREAU. It seems pretty clear to me that Assassination threats against Donald Trump falls into this category - at least in the state it's currently in. It has substantially different content to the deleted version, even if most of the new content is actually about something else. In that case, it's up to the community to decide deletion, not an individual admin. There's always the temptation, when you see a really terrible article tagged for speedy deletion that doesn't quite fit the criteria, to think, "It's never going to get through AfD - why waste the community's time? We'll just stretch the boundary of G4 (or whatever it is) and no-one will ever know." In my view, it's a temptation to be resisted. For those who can't see the deleted version - in both versions, the only discussion of actual threats is an un-sourced first sentence, and even then it doesn't mention any specifically. The latest deleted version then goes on to discuss security arrangements, particularly during Trump's candidacy, while the new version discusses an attempted assassination (however ham-fisted it might have been). GoldenRing (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: Before suggesting that people (like me) who think that G4 applies in this case are trying to sneakily delete it out of process, you should compare the version that was there when the current (3rd) AFD was started to the version that was deleted after the 1st AFD. Your description of what the deleted article looked like only applies to what was deleted after the 2nd AFD. While some of the names of the particular people accused of making "threats" are different, the construction of the 1st AFD'd article and this 3rd AFD'd article are essentially the same, and this article has exactly the same problems that were already identified in the first AFD. I don't care too much if another admin thinks they weren't quite similar enough for G4; as OID says, opinions differ on how close they have to be, and it looks like it's about to get redirected and salted anyway. I certainly don't question Katie's competence or motivation. But your incomplete description of the deleted version, and your assumption that I either don't understand the purpose of G4 or (worse) I'm trying to usurp the community's decision-making processes, are not appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
      • And I didn't think Floq was questioning my competence/motivation (competence, I have some; motivation, I have none here). Likewise, I didn't take GoldenRing's comment to be directed at anyone personally. I read it as a general comment about the differences of opinion that administrators sometimes have. I tend to take a relatively hard line on G4 (and on CSD in general) because we have other processes available for deletion, despite the anguished cries I'm hearing in my ears as I type this from those who get frustrated by those processes. Other admins are more like Floq, and believe that a more general approach is sufficient. Still others are more letter-of-the-law than I am. We're not all the same, and that's a marvelous thing, for if we weren't, we'd have nothing to discuss. :-) Katie^talk 00:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • And I am sorry for causing offence. I did not intend my comment as criticism of anyone but myself; it was a reflection on my own mixed motives, not yours. I oughtn't to have connected it with the specifics of this case, and certainly not without first checking all the deleted revisions. GoldenRing (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Picture change on fully protected 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.

---

Hi! I would like for someone change the lock icon from gold to turquoise at Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content. (For background, see this.) I know that this may be an inappropriate venue to ask for such a task to be completed, but I am not quite sure where else to ask for an admin to perform a task for me. If the task can be done and/or someone can tell me a better place to put this question, I would greatly appreciate that. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Edit fully-protected}} on the affected article's talk page. Sorry, but I'm not really willing to go around changing administrative pages when I know nothing about them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The gigantic time investment in selecting those padlock colors represents Wikipedia at its best. EEng 01:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully request a whiter shade of pale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, here you go. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record: Yes, ANI is not the proper place to make administrative requests. But no worries; not a big deal ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks for changing the color for me, and for letting me know that this is the wrong venue for such requests. In the future, where should I make such requests? Thanks again! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:24, 2 July 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 ISurvivor007 is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

• ISurvivor007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Republic of Ecaplieria
• Escaplieria
• Draft:Escaplieria

ISurvivor007 has created and recreated articles about the micronation that he and his friend founded in their school bandroom. He insists that, because he managed to get a link on Google Maps, that the nation is de facto notable, despite notes to him (both on his own user talk page as well as talk pages of the created and now deleted articles) indicating that Google Maps is not a valid indicator of notability. This user has made no edits other than attempts to create this article, is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and appears to be suffering greatly from WP:I didn't hear that. C.Fred has been more than patient with this user, but I think the time has come to put an end to the shenanigans. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:NOTHERE. As for the idea that being added to Google Maps makes you notable, anyone can add anything to Google Maps.

RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

And I've just submitted for removal of that from Google Maps. Impressive website though. Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You too? Did that right after I issued the block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No harm in multiple requests. Canterbury Tail talk 18:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wow! Talk about WP:SCHOOLONEDAY! EEng 16:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice. Good to see that we are not the only ones who get trolled online. Kind of funny though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 30 June 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.

POTD protected version

I've tried to create tomorrows protected POTD but it isn't working due to the random image feature. I've tried creating the subpages but have come up blank with syntax errors. @Anomie: and @Crisco 1492: seem to be offline at the moment (usually AnomieBot does it but it has come up with the error here). I would appreciate someone creating the page before the MP has a blank spot in an hour. Woody (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

User:SERVANT OF THE LINKS EMPIRE

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

---

Persistently added large among of spam links into various articles with nothing. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. WP:AIV would have been appropriate to report them to as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I think should be a possible sock of HENRY APPLEGATE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and it may be a possible puppet of Applegate 66.87.64.113 (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@66.87.64.113: Since the account have been blocked so we just ignore it, unless there was an serious disruption then will have to run an CU check by reporting at SPI. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:22, 30 June 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.

69.47.136.111

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

---

• 69.47.136.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Previous discussion
• Continued disruptive editing

Continued disruptive editing after expiration of block. Please block. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks and all edits reverted. If I screwed something up by reverting the IP, just restore it. From looking at the previous discussions, however, these edits seem to be disruptive/incorrect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 2 July 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.

Johnny Richter (rapper)

The "rapper" parenthetical is unnecessary because nobody else with this name is in any way notable. But this article appears to have been created because its subject isn't notable outside his former membership in Kottonmouth Kings and the two-word title Johnny Richter redirects accordingly. The article's only chance is if CelebStoner.com counts as a reliable source; while it appears to be a self-published blog, its owner, publisher, and primary contributor is is former High Times editor Steve Bloom, meaning it might have a bit more professional heft than a weed fan site. If it can stick as a standalone, the title should be the performer's two-word stage name; if not, both titles should redirect to Kottonmouth Kings. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You have several options. You could tag the article with {{notability}} and hope someone else does something about it. This is a valid option for when you're unsure about what should be done, such as a topic you're unfamiliar with. You could also use the lightweight proposed deletion system by tagging it with {{prod}}. If anyone objects, they can remove the prod, and it will no longer be under threat of deletion. This works well for uncontroversial deletions. Or you could ask a registered editor to nominate it for deletion through articles for deletion. This process can not be aborted like a prod, and it typically runs for a week or two. If the consensus at the deletion discussion is that it's non-notable, it will be deleted, but sometimes there isn't enough participation to find a clear consensus. If you want to get input on specific sources, you can use the reliable sources noticeboard. ANI isn't really the proper place to have this discussion, though the article will probably be examined by a few veteran editors now that you've raised the issue here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Howdy, I took a look at the Google returns for Johhny, and based off what I found I feel he is notable. Regarding the title: plain ol Johnny Richter redirects to Kottonmouth Kings for some reason. I am going to move Johnny Richter (rapper) to Johnny Richter, and scratch the redirect. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I need an admin to do the move for me, please. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Dyke March

This article's subject has been a controversial subject in the news lately, and so I'd really appreciate a couple more sets of eyes. Thanks as usual, GAB^gab 01:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not for the faint of heart. EEng 03:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not written in a very encyclopedic way, but what other issues do you have with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a polemical history, with Mideast nonsense mixed in as well. EEng 10:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's "not for the faint of heart" only if poorly written articles give you chest pains. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to get in the middle of a group of lesbians arguing about whether Zionism is racism, be my guest. EEng 17:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The only discussion one should engage in is whether or not it is WP:UNDUE, the rest is WP:NOTFORUM. I've deleted the excessive blockquotes from non-notable sources and have the thing on my watchlist. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it, too. Yintan  11:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

More eyes might be needed before I run into 3RR. Just saying. Yintan  18:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your last actions in that article were firmly covered by WP:3RRNO as far as I can ascertain. No worries there. Kleuske (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If it was trimmed of all it's unsourced OR etc., it would look like this. — fortunavelut luna 11:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a lot of work. Yintan  12:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. So why did you revert yourself? Kleuske (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Texasbrian vs Natureium

On 29 June, I edited the Fulbright Program page. I edited the section marked "Notable alumni." Specifically, I added a reference to the list "Fulbright alumni have occupied key roles in government, academia, and industry." (emphasis mine) I added that one Fulbright Scholar has now won a title on a US reality show.

User Natureium reversed the edit and posted the following on my talk page: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fulbright Program, you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned several times about this. Natureium (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)"

I added text to Natureium's talk page that said, "I added a factual statement to the page. It was not vandalism and can be sourced in multiple locations. I have also not been "warned" about "this" or anything else. Your tone in reviewing edits is not in the spirit of the Wikipedia project, and your random accusations and actions border on abusive. If you would like to discuss the changes, let's discuss like adults."

N.B. I have never received a "warning" of any kind, not have I vandalized the page.

User Natureium removed my comment from his Talk page, then reverted my edits, making a second comment about vandalism, warnings and blocking. He has not engaged me in a discussion about the content.

As the data I have presented is factual, sourceable and fits within the established criteria of the list, I am at a loss as to why the edit keep being undone. Also, in viewing Natureium's Talk page, I see other complaints from other users on this same sort of reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasbrian (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Texasbrian, I've weighed in on the article talk page, where the other editor had opened a section. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This information has been removed several times and you keep adding it back. And I did post on the article talk page.

Let's see...

• [26] added by an IP
• [27] added by an IP (including "queen of the gays")
• [28] removed by me
• [29] added by an IP, also linked the text "America" to RuPaul's Drag Race
• [30] removed by User:Ravensfire
• [31] added by User:Texasbrian
• [32] removed by me
• [33] added by User:Texasbrian
• [34] removed by me

Natureium (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I added it once, and then again after you removed it citing "disruption" and "vandalism." Please note Yngvadottir's comment "Adding the fact was not disruptive; it was intended as a broadening of the section, so far as I can see. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)" The section affected mentions the numbers of scholars who have occupied "key roles ... of industry." Your objection is that "A drag race is not of the same notability as a Nobel prize," but to my knowledge, it is the pinnacle in that industry, and no other Scholar has won a reality show. If your concern is that the list should only reflect political appointees, then the list should say that. I am following the accurate wording of what the list entails. And I am not a vandal, not am I disruptive to the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasbrian (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What I said was that there are 360,000 participants in the Fulbright Program. Fifty-four Fulbright alumni have won Nobel Prizes and eighty-two have won Pulitzer Prizes. You want to add the fact that one person won a reality TV show to the lede? Statistically, with the type of people to participate in a Fulbright Program, there are probably many people that have participated in reality shows and contests and none of them are as notable as a Nobel prize or a Pulitzer. There are many things that could be a "pinnace in that industry" and are still not notable. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Some will remember that I've repeatedly called for simply dropping all coverage of Ru Paul. And... voilà! Here we are again. EEng 16:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Where can I find this? Natureium (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find it if you really want, but before I do, you do realize I would have been joking, right? EEng 21:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of you have been participants in a slow-burn edit war in violation of policy. Since neither of you appears to have a clue how to resolve content disputes constructively, I suggest you read WP:DR and begin to follow its guidance. No consensus exists on this either way, despite your claim of one, Natureium, because no one has bothered to seek one. The AT thread is too little, too late, and this page is not for the resolution of content disputes. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the page for content disputes. That's why I posted on the talk page before it was brought here. Rather than responding on the talk page, I got a notice that he had posted about it here. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That part was addressed to Texasbrian; I'm aware who started this thread. You have completely ignored the parts of my comment that were addressed to you. And your opening comment in AT, days late, was to assert a nonexistent consensus, which was the wrong way to start this dialogue. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This thread is also about behavior. We can discuss/dispute content elsewhere, but no editor should be accusing another of vandalism or disruption. That is unwarranted.Texasbrian (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right about that, but (in my view) your own hands need to be cleaner before you open ANI complaints. As I said, you didn't even try article talk, let alone the rest of WP:DR. This page is beyond weary of editors who come here without following that guidance first. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the Fulbright Program is only to happy to be associated with this and announced the win and association themselves [35]. Canterbury Tail talk 18:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure J. William Fulbright would be very proud! EEng 21:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Persistent IP-hopping vandalism

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't really call it sockpuppetry because it's not multiple accounts, just multiple IP-addresses, but User:Cooperthebeast, and their associated IPs have been blanking and replacing content on Home Run and replacing it with "the definition".

Associated accounts and IPs:

• User:Cooperthebeast
• Special:Contributions/2602:306:BD60:4FD0:451F:11D:3ACA:3865
• Special:Contributions/2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:AB
• Special:Contributions/2602:306:BD60:4FD0:FC64:829F:BD19:4147

Diffs:

• Special:Diff/Home run&oldid=788371382
• Special:Diff/Home run&oldid=788036476
• Special:Diff/Home run&oldid=788009110
• Special:Diff/Home run&oldid=788008152

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs) 2:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for three days. Warned the logged-in account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate. So, should this be closed or no? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Resolved" is a little more flexible in my opinion. If Cooper moves on to vandalizing a different article, people don't have to open a new thread. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Tiffersno2

Out of disagreement with the description of HuffPost in the article's lead, I decided to edit the article and attribute sources to it. @Tiffersno2: disagreed with my editing and reverted the edits back, so I started a discussion on the talk page. Instead of discussing it with me on the talk page, the user made several disparaging edits against me on my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CatcherStorm&diff=788426011&oldid=788420445 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CatcherStorm&diff=788420132&oldid=788419201 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CatcherStorm&diff=788418011&oldid=787071727

I'm requesting administrator assistance as I'm unsure how to proceed here. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Around 5:50AM EDT the user edited their comment on my talk page, removing incriminating content from the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CatcherStorm&diff=788428124&oldid=788426011 CatcherStorm ^talk 09:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Dan56 and article ownership

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

---

I'm back here again to request formal administrative action in dealing with Dan56's persistent attempts to exercise ownership over Too Much Too Soon (album). My previous attempt to do so ended in dispute resolution, which was not what I wanted at all, and, after he reverted two more minor edits of mine (see article's history as well as his (very shaky) reasoning here), I figured it was time to try to have him sanctioned without attempting to resolve it at all (this is what happens when you try to have a discussion with him). Apparently, he's brought here quite often anyway, so he clearly needs to be taught a lesson. Esszet (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

May I ask, what do you expect to happen here? Regardless of any past dealing with Dan56 this is still a content dispute, a petty one at that judging by the minor edits that were reverted. AN/I is not here so editors can be "taught a lesson" so, again, what did you expect to accomplish with this discussion after you admit right off the bat you did not do anything to resolve the issue?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

To get him to stop, hopefully. This is not just a content dispute, I'm primarily complaining about his behavior. Look at the discussion I linked to above to show you what happens when you try to have a civil discussion with him, he really does start calling people "stupid" and things like that. If I'm in the wrong place, where do I go? Esszet (talk) 13:17, 2 July 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.

Requested topic ban due to longterm disruptive editing and edit warring

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

---

User:Xenophrenic has been edit warring for a long time in relation to the Category:Persecution by atheists

The user originally attempted to get it deleted via an RFC discussion which ended in no consensus.

When the editor didn't get his way he preceded to remove every member of the category (see his edits in February). He has been banned for this. Look at his block log as well.

In certain cases he has consistently been removing cats from a page over a period of one year.

In conclusion Xenophrenic has been consistently edit warring in this area for a lomg period of time and still has not learned his lesson. I am asking that he be banned from making edits in the area of Religion and Atheism or at the very least on edits related to the area of persecution and religion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I closed that CfD that you linked above, and I closed it with caveats. As I said at the time, I was very, very, close to closing it as Delete, because it needs work and as it stood was WP:OR. Your last diff shows your edit being reverted by a third party with an edit summary referring to the caveats in that CfD. And I note that no-one has posted to the talk page of that article for over a year. So I don't see that this complaint has any merit - it looks to me like you trying to get someone who disagrees with you removed from that area of editing. Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Black Kite already clarified some of this above) - There was a CfD, not an RfC, which ended as "No consensus - with caveats". The closing comments were:

The result of the discussion was: No consensus - with caveats. I came very close to closing this as Delete. I cannot see that any of the Keep votes have given any compelling reasons why the category should stay "as-is". Indeed, the majority of the Keep votes were very poor indeed in regards to policy. There is something of a consensus for keeping a similar category, but not named as such. The suggestion of Category:Religious persecution by secular governments given below is, I suggest, a good one. I suggest all editors who have commented here work towards moving this category to something approaching that one, because as given, the current title is frankly original research. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In the CfD, the category's creator (Jobas, now blocked) and Eliko007 (an SPA with substantial overlap with Jobas) were the most vocal proponents of keeping, and following the CfD they continued to add it to categories. Xenophrenic engaged with them on multiple venues and both Jobas and Xenophrenic were blocked for edit warring for a time. Xenophrenic was blocked for edit warring generally, I believe, not specifically for removing the category as Apollo mentions (also, Apollo is just off a block for edit warring himself and on 1RR).

There has been little appetite to actually discuss the future of the category, apparently in order to pretend the outcome was keep (or simply delete?).

Johnuniq opened a thread about inclusion criteria at Category talk:Persecution by atheists, which saw no participation other than me. I opened a thread at Wikiproject Atheism, which went nowhere except Tryptofish saying the current name is bad. John Carter opened a thread at WikiProject Religion, with the intent, I think, of assessing other possible wording. It drew more participation, but Jobas continued to push back against the alternative wording and it ultimately didn't go anywhere.

Though the premise of this thread omits important dimensions of the dispute, I don't think there's much to be done at ANI.

What needs to happen is just this: the category stays depopulated, because it is OR and there was no consensus to keep "as-is", until which time as an alternative name with clear inclusion criteria can be agreed upon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Also, someone saying "look at his block log" (3 blocks in the last 6 years) when they themselves have this block log (4 blocks this year alone) is ... astonishing. I would suggest this is closed before Apollo finds themselves on the wrong end of an native Australian throwing weapon, which I'm very close to deploying myself. Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: You think continually removing content for about a year is complient with wiki policy? You also think that editing something an editor was told not to edit after being banned is compliment also? Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• He's not removing content, he's removing categories, and he's doing so compliant with the close of that CfD, as you know. Given that it turns out that the main supporters of keeping that category were an editor now indefblocked for sockpuppetry, and a SPA which may well have been related to that editor as well, with hindsight I would definitely have closed the CfD as delete. Perhaps someone should re-file the CfD given what has happened since. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: No this was BEFORE the cfd. Look at the date of the cfd and look at the date he made those edits over nearly a period of a year. Also look at his edit summaries he said "per talk" not "per CFD" so in his mind that was not what he was doing.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You're certainly not going to find anyone to sanction an editor for edits that were made in the distant past, so as I suggested above, this should probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite:About two months ago is the "distant past"? Why does two months matter?Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban for Xenophrenic. He is an unreasonable person given to edit warring.Knox490 (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I'm responding here because I got a notification from being mentioned. I used to be very active in editing this topic area, but have largely (and temporarily) stepped away from it in recent months, because enough is enough. Basically this looks like a content dispute with some mutual ill-temper overlaid. I haven't followed every to-and-fro, but I've been in some recent talk (on some related list pages) in which I found Apollo The Logician to be annoyingly certain that he knows The Truth^TM, so I'm inclined to regard the complaint here as coming from unclean hands. And as for that "persecution by" category, it has long been a vehicle for anti-atheism POV-pushing (all those nasty atheists persecuting people!), so I'm inclined to believe that Xenophrenic has been trying to push back against the POV-pushing while feeling outnumbered, which is not of course an excuse for edit warring. Anyway, this is not for ANI, but it could end up at ArbCom if the parties don't deal with it at other venues. For now, if there are 3RR concerns, WP:EWN is that-a-way. And if there are content or category concerns, and not enough editors to reach a consensus, open another CfD or RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban for Xenophrenic: This user has been editing tendentiously on topics relating to atheism/religion, going through several articles in a short time and excising any information pertaining to state atheism in the USSR and the associated persecution of the religious that is associated with it. This has been going on for months now and is wearing down productive editors. Look, for example, at this discussion, where Xenophrenic was blocked a week for edit warring, specifically removing relevant categories from a bunch of articles. In other articles, he removes entire sections in order to censor information that might not support his worldview. This is another example where he removed an original quote from the article simply because it mentioned the militant atheism of the Soviet Union (his repeated reverts were against consensus on the talk page). desmay (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Thank Xenophrenic for trying to stem the blatant original research evident in Apollo The Logician's astonishing diff where Apollo cherry picks a quote that does not mention atheism, then adds a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice that "Thus, it is clear that Polish nationalists linked their struggle against the Soviet Union with a struggle against atheism." No wonder Xenophrenic has been exasperated when trying to deal with that kind of nonsense. The underlying issue is seen in lots of articles where a small group of editors are adding categories that allege persecution by atheists (example) as if atheism was the motivating force. However, the person in that article was persecuted by a communist government that, like other dictatorial regimes, wanted to eliminate all opposition. People were persecuted for opposing the government. It was not a case of atheists looking for religious figures to persecute. Any claim of persecution by atheists must be supported with a reliable source clearly stating that view. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Even if you agree with his edits even you have to admit that his methods (extreme edit warring) should not be tolerated.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but are you aware that competence is required? The issue is nothing to do with whether I "agree with his edits". The point is that you added extreme original research to an article. Then, rather than thanking Xenophrenic for correcting the issue, you complained at ANI. It is true that, as I mentioned, there is a small group of editors who take every opportunity to label articles as persecution by atheists without any regard for the fact that the labels are not supported with reliable secondary sources. The solution would be to topic ban each of them, although the most extreme offender is now indeffed. The aim at Wikipedia is to develop an encyclopedia—it's not supposed to be a playpen where each side of an issue is allowed a certain number of reverts of the other side. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 3 July 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.

Slow edit war over multiple pags

Not sure why User:Rockypedia and User:Synthwave.94 are having the oddest edit war I have seen in a longtime. Seems to be about vertical or horizontal reference style over multiple articles ....as seen here or here Both making sure not the revert 3 times in 24 hours.....gaming the system? Can we get someone to take a look....see if we can get the edit war ended...lock pages involved..or whatever. Not suggesting blocks....just a resolution to this behind the scenes problem that has zero effect for our readers. --Moxy (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll just move the affected refs away using {{reflist|refs=...}} syntax. May or may not end the war. —Guanaco 06:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. [38][39][40] I think that's all of them. —Guanaco 06:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to help; part of this edit war is over citation style. Anyway, in this post, DrKay already warned them a week ago that they would get blocked if they didn't stop edit warring. Because I'm a pushover, I'll give each yet another warning. And then I'll block them if they continue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record, here's a synopsis: I added valid sources to three particular pages that are on Synthwave's watchlist (and mine). I happen to use the vertical format of the <ref> style for my cites. Synthwave doesn't like vertical format; he likes horizontal. He made no substantive changes to my cites, but insists on changing the format to horizontal. I reverted those changes and started discussions, per CYCLE. He insisted on continuing to make his changes to the formats, without consensus that his changes were valid. I don't change any editor's cites that are horizontal to vertical format; I only ask for the same courtesy in return, as I often revisit cites that I've added, especially pages on my watchlist. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. I'm happy that an admin has taken action and told both of us "leave it alone" - that's exactly what I've been asking of Synthwave the entire time. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars... /thread. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The revision history for "Money for Nothing" shows that Rockypedia first started adding vertical formatting on 3 February 2016‎, with an edit war ending on 25 March 2016 (after a first discussion). Rockypedia then resumed this behaviour on 20 and 21 October 2016‎, and started making other controversial changes since 4 May 2017‎ (I don't even understand why) and haven't stopped ever since. They also started adding vertical formatting in the articles for "Rock the Casbah" and "99 Luftballons" one week ago. In all cases the changes were not discussed at all (in fact I didn't have any other choice than to explain why these changes were not acceptable and not even discussed in the first place !). I recently started another discussion here, where numerous editors confirmed Rockypedia should NOT use a vertical formatting in articles with a consistent horizontal formatting. In other words, Rockypedia should stop reverting my clean up edits that were intended to restore a consistent citation format in all three articles. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO unless it's specifically excepted, CITEVAR (which does not only apply to the way a page renders, e.g. gathered named refs in the references section vs. as they appear) certainly applies. The point of it is to maintain article stability, but also to resolve these disputes so they don't find their way to ANI. Lame edit war, sure, but dismissing the dispute as such just invites it to recur (and I've seen this dispute in particular come up several times before). What matters is precedent on the page, and edit warring over a preferred wikitext style against that precedent is disruptive. i.e. This sort of dispute is exactly why we have CITEVAR. That said, I appreciate there's some disagreement on the matter, and in this case both editors were guilty of edit warring. So while I don't agree with waving off this sort of dispute as a matter as trivial, it seems resolved enough for the purposes of ANI. Let it continue at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, trivial in the sense that both editors should have let the thing go a long time ago, regardless of which way it went, and yet still trivial enough that they're both still here, when looking at the page histories, anyone who happened across it would have been well within their rights to hand out stern warnings, and any admin would have been too to hand out blocks all around if they'd ignored them. TimothyJosephWood 00:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

50.1.100.185

The following discussion is closed. 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 at GNU General Public License I am running into problems with IP editor 50.1.100.185 who:

1. Appears to be editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny
2. Engages in personal attacks
3. Will not say what specific changes he wants to make to the article
4. Appears to have come here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:ADVOCACY.

Could someone please take a look at the situation? And of course I would welcome suggestions about how I could have handled the situation better. I am afraid that my annoyance may be showing and strongly suspect that this has caused me to be biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That IP appears to be not here to constructively build an encyclopedia and should just be blocked. Leaping directly to personal attacks is a good sign of wasteful trollery. I think you handled it as well as anyone could have. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• IP blocked for personal attacks and clear intent to continue treating Wikipedia as a battleground. They admit they're not a new user and that they see Wikipedia as a game to be won by beating down your opponents. We don't need that here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And Guy, I think you did everything just fine here, I don't see much point in wasting time on editors who act this way and double down on rhetoric when confronted. The only thing is you added a signature to one of the IP's comments that didn't refer to the correct IP or timestamp, which I guess was just a mistake. I think I've fixed it. It probably isn't terribly important anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:11, 5 July 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:Apollo The Logician and The Troubles

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

---

@Apollo The Logician made a vicious comment, to wit "west Brits", towards me (see here). This deprecatory (albeit inaccurate as I am a US citizen who holds only one passport, and have never been, nor do I ever intend to go, to any part of Ireland) comment, raises the question of whether Apollo should be sanctioned. Apollo's attempts to link the Irish Republican Army with the American revolutionaries and other historic groups fails because the Irish Republican Army was an internationally recognised terrorist group, and hence their offensive and retaliatory activities (by their own description: defense, offense and retaliation) are necessarily terroristic in nature. I also would point out that the notion that "terrorism" can only be used when applied to civilian targets/victims is absurd. Whether Allied soldiers in Malmedy or American Marines in Beirut (1981), or the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings or countless other examples throughout history, terrorism and crimes against humanity most assuredly exist regardless of whether the victims are civilians or lawful regular troops. (Take a gander at the Geneva Convention or rulings from The Hague one of these days.) The "One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter" is an example of moral relativism and most certainly should not become a guidepost for Wikipedia editors. In the event I did, with great regret, revert my last edit lest I unintentionally violate 1RR (see [43]). Quis separabit? 21:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It was not "vicious" at all. Inappropriate? Probably but vicious is over exaggerating. It is a term that has a meaning and I thought it applied in the circumstance. If this user is so upset about this then I will remove it and apologise for any offence caused.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That is nonsense. The term West Brit and the viciousness and ugliness it represents (see D.P. Moran) are intolerable. If I were to refer to Apollo as a "Fenian" or an "'RA supporter" or a "Taig", I would be sanctioned. Quis separabit? 21:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fenian etc are sectarian, anti-catholic terms which is completely different. The term west Brit was used by a presidential candidate during the 2011 presidential election for God's sake.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you know what "Fenian" even means Apollo? It has nothing to do with religion but stating that the person derogatorily is a member or supporter of the Fenian Brotherhood (though that has obviously been forgot about over the past century). Just like Taig arose out the fact at one time Taig was one of the most common Irish forenames around and became a moniker for anyone Irish just like Paddy and Mickey did afterwards due to the one time predominance of the names Michael and Patrick amongst the Irish. You argue so many points that you seem to have little knowledge about. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Fenian was originally used to refer to supporters of the IRB/the Fenian Brotherhood/Clan Na Gael. Why are you bringing this up? What does Fenian mean in the modern context then?Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK its mildly provocative and its definitely commenting on the editor not focusing on content,, but not in the league of 'Proddy Dog' or "Fenian Bastard' or any number if other epithets. So I think you are over reacting. That said Apollo The Logician has a problem with his general comments and this is yet another example of what is a pattern over a long period of time. I note that s/he is, continuing to revert even after a recent block (keeping to the letter but not the spirt of the law) and is one of those editors who need constant monitoring. There is a balance between making a valuable contribution and creating more trouble than you are worth and Apollo The Logician is walking the edge of that boundary at the moment, and s/he hasn't deleted the term yet. Probably not worth more than a close and few admins keeping an eye out. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have done nothing that could be desribed as edit warring or disruptive so I don't know what you are talking about.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Noting that I gave him a DS alert on The Troubles last month. Doug Weller talk 05:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It didn't take long for Apollo to jump right in and perform highly subjective edits in the Troubles arena, one of which was recently raised here at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1970_RUC_booby-trap_bombing, which follows on Apollo's campaign to remove terrorist categories from attacks committed by Irish republicans (whilst never once doing the same for attacks by loyalists). POV pushing again as before. At least they are (even if under duress) discussing it on the talk page rather than via revert edit-summaries, though as usual with little consistency in their arguments from one article to the next. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Attacks on civilians (which loyalists did) is terrorism that is why.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, attacks on civilians (which Irish nationalists did) is terrorism. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Can you give an example?Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you don't believe or agree, that the IRA committed terrorism in the past, then there's certainly a problem here. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

He wants examples of IRA terrorism. The murders of Ross McWhirter and others comes to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Woah. @Apollo The Logician, are you claiming that Irish nationalists never committed terrorist attacks on civilians? Because competence is required here, you know. Please explain that comment. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite:In my personal opinion the IRA never intentionaly killed civilians that were not "informers". Obviously there were cases were the IRA accidentally killed civilians but I stress they that they were accidental.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Apollo The Logician: -- "but I stress they that they were accidental": are you in a personal position to know? It largely depends upon the definition of "civilian" and the circumstances of the actions -- Mullaghmore; Birmingham bombing which was never officially acknowledged; Bayardo Pub bombing; napalm bombing of La Mon restaurant at Gransha in which a dozen Protestant civilians were burned alive; bombing of restaurants and shopping malls; killings of judges, politicians, retired security personnel, Mullaghmore, etc. -- all unintentional certainly (see my following comment on this thread). Quis separabit? 19:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  @Apollo The Logician, @Baseball Bugs, @GoodDay, @Black Kite, @Mabuska, et alia: This (I.R.A. Apologizes for Civilian Deaths in Its 30-Year Campaign) should be self-explanatory, even for Apollo, although the IRA's definition of what constitutes a civilian is a tad ungenerous and unclear. Does it include the victims of Brighton, Tynan Abbey, the Mountbatten entourage at Mullaghmore, Christopher Ewart-Biggs and Judith Cook (British diplomat and his secretary), judges, politicians, etc, etc, etc?? Apollo is peddling nonsense. He/she reminds me a little of @Vintagekits. Just sayin' is all. also, let's not forget that Apollo got involved because of @DagosNavy's contributions, which I reverted. The world gets smaller. Quis separabit? 19:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have quite a bit of evidence that Apollo is more likely the indef banned sockpuppet Lapsed Pacifist/Gob Lofa... Mabuska ^(talk) 20:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the Tullyvallen Orange Hall or Darkly Gospel Hall massacres by the IRA weren't targeting innocent civilians or where accidental? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Those were by rogue IRA members who acted without the attacks being sanctioned, the IRA have condemned similar terrorist attacks by rogue IRA members.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah according to the IRA who no doubt were trying to cover up the blatant sectarian nature of the attacks by blaming "rogues", just like claiming someone like Jean McConville amongst others was an informer to justify murdering innocents. Like what about the murder of Edgar Graham? A civilian (even if a unionist politician but none the less) who the IRA didn't blame on rogues. You have proved why you are unfit to edit in this sensitive topic area and I would propose that Apollo if anything should be indef topic-banned from Troubles and Northern Ireland related articles. They edit in a few other topic areas so it shouldn't stop them contributing something positive to Wikipedia. Even you Apollo should appreciate that that would better than eventually ending up blocked again and again and again, which will no doubt keep happening. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

'Even if you disagree with me here there is no need to ban me as the vast majority of my edits would not be problematic. For example look at the Ireland section of the "Articles I have created" section on my user page. These are all positive contributions to "Troubles and Northern Ireland". I also find it ironic that a Ian Paisley fanboy would say that about me. I have never been banned for "Northern Ireland" related edits. That is a flat out lie.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No-one lied because no-one said you have ever been banned from Northern Ireland edits. Instead you have been banned several times from editing Wikipedia as a whole! Using the term positive concerning your edits is ambiguous and not always true and does not give you a blank cheque to go on the way you are elsewhere with your blatantly skewed republican POV pushing. Gob Lofa made many positive (if inconsequential just like some of yours) edits but like you still POV pushed and adopted the same demeanor as you yourself have, which was also similar to Lapsed Pacifist. Those two editors are indef-blocked from this site, and considering the fact you and Gob Lofa share an amazingly shared list of edited articles including obscure ones to do with outer space, only makes one wonder are you Gob Lofa, aka Lapsed Pacifist??? Shall we go ahead an file a SPI now or later? The evidence has been building for a while... Mabuska ^(talk) 21:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What obscure edits regarding outer space? Listen pal, either put up or shut up. You have been threatening to "file a SPI" numerous times regarding my supposed similarities to multiple users. If you believe I am a socj account then just report me and shut up about it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:26, 3 July 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.

Unsubstantiated attacks and communication issues with DrStrauss

The following discussion is closed. 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 accept the close was in good faith, but I am unarchiving, because I think more discussion is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(There is nothing in this report by SwisterTwister that is actionable here, I'm closing this before it results in SwisterTwister being sanctioned. I would caution ST most strongly to remember this is a collaborative environment, we expect them to respond to questions and also to be more patient with newer users (to avoid becoming overbearing and intimidating towards such new users). DrStrauss should also be reminded to be more thorough checking for copyright violations, and also reminded that with this being a collaborative project, rapid archiving of talk page posts doesn't always make things run smoothly. Nick (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)}})

All current relevancy is here. I recently asked DrStrauss why he wasn't tagging Drafts as by WP:G11 when there was either clear copyvio or promo, as shown here (yet the only comment offered for this is: "I did not remove our conversation, I archived it. "Removing" suggests the attempt to evade criticism. It wasn't immediate either, you had more than enough time to respond" (as shown by the link, I commented with a question and was never attended to); while he responded and ensure he would check, he maintained G11 was not applicable to Drafts, yet this is countered by what WP:G11 itself says "applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION" therefore keeping advertising even if Draftspace is not negotiable. In fact, following my comments earlier today at this thread, I actually found one review from this morning with both G11 and G12 considerations, Draft:Chef Sarah Stegner (see this). I made it clear to DrStrauss that I was asking in good faith about these concerns and why not consider tagging them for G11 speedy, or at least or in addition to offering the author user an explanation of why our policies won't accept advertising and if they were compliant with our Legal Terms of Use WP:Paid. Also of note, recently, this template is a concern to anyone who may then want to ask about their Draft or perhaps even offer COI disclosure. As exhibitant at his talk page history, it's also clear he isn't well-managing the flow of users needing help intake, see this one and the following with the templated summary: "New system". None of this is hardly exemplary of how an AfC reviewer should work, regardless of differences including when still allowing such copyvio at Draft:Chef Sarah Stegner to stay or at least take appropriate actions. Also, adding to this recent string of concerns, is the cookie-cutter style of "I'll look soon" instead of either notifying someone else to step instead or offering a better explanation, see this. Linked earlier but adding here again for convenience is the specific response here where I asked, only to receive I really don't want to get into an argument and it's clear that you're following my contributions and while you're perfectly within your rights to do so I respectfully ask that you refrain from doing so. I don't mind criticism as long as it's constructive. We all make mistakes from time to time. You've made your points, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It is the community's appropriate concern to know when a user who is both listed at NPP and AfC, is either not taking the responsibility but worse to shrug off when a user twice asked how Draft:Fab Lab Tulsa, Draft:SharingXchange, Draft:Hicare, Draft:Ask Apollo, Draft:Days for Girls International, Draft:Terence Tan and Draft:Pixhug (including ones within this previous morning, there may actually be others in their contribs logs since they've reviewing hundreds and hundreds both on and after my comment dates). Also, this is a response ("messages...clearly ignore the editnotice") given after a user asks about clarification in an edit. Another example of incommunication is here where a user advises them not to remove a maintenance template, and also shown at here with the twice asked question: "Why do you keep removing the template?" (happened in February 2017). Examining all of this, it shows that there's a gap of communication and even, in their AfC Drafts, which show a daily string of are either quick one words, not nearly sufficient enough to show the author the necessary information. In all fairness, I asked for DrStrauss to remove the latest attacks and to say something differently, but there was no response. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• It looks a lot like you've decided to pick on and bully DrStrauss. I also note this behaviour (and far worse) has been considered acceptable by SwisterTwister for several years now. Nick (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• SwisterTwister Can you please provide the exact attacks and also the source for which you claim there is a copyright violation in a draft?. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Fucking bullshit. In fact, you are bullying DrStrauss and inciting him to make comments that are snarky at worst. Stop, before you get blocked. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure what DrS did wrong? They've all been declined. None of them indexed by Google. Telling someone to back off usually means 'back off' Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Both of you do good work at AfC. Yes G11 applies to drafts but as a matter of practice few reviewers immediately CSD tag as promotion for deletion on AfC drafts (that would cut way down on resubmits though). We have an entire category of declined for promotion AfC pages. Since the system only allows us to pick 1 reason to decline, I assume most of us pick the most obvious reason and don't look much further. I suggest withdrawing this ANi and going to the AfC talk page so we can work out better approaches as a team. ANi is going to be painful for all involved. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac I'd normally be inclined to agree with you however this is a continued case of WP:HOUNDING and an editor casting aspersions and ironically, refusing to communicate when questioned about such complaints they have made. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, I dunno, hounding is kind of hard to prove here and editors can say any lies they want at ANi without being held to account. Let's see if a little wider discussion over at AfC can sort this out before the proposals and voting starts. The AfC que is smaller than it's been in a long time in large part thanks to these two editors. Legacypac (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, claiming personal attacks is quite egregious here, as is implying that there was a failure to identify a copyvio and that an editor somehow erred in their "duty" to do so with no substantiation of it (and an obvious ignorance of the direct question being asked all the while claiming that DS is failing to communicate.) There's also quite a bit of history here for the creator of this thread.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• I sincerely would've welcomed and accepted a solution at his talk page before this had there not been a bold and unsubstantiated attack after 2 threads, and I still would've welcomed one despite the quoted link above, "Walk away". Since my initial questions earlier today, there was ample time to respond or amend any comments. As for the hounding, I can personally say I've never interacted with this user before at all aside from coincidental encounters at AfC, and I've never even posted at their talk page at all before these events. Had there ever been one instance of following this user, I certainly would've made it relevant in my statement above along with everything else there. I would've welcomed an intervention anywhere else before ANI but given the issues outside of AfC, it was not restricted to AfC itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @SwisterTwister:So can you please answer the questions you've been asked directly in relation to this? 1.) What is the source for the copyvio you claim and 2.) What are the personal attacks, specifically (either the text or diffs)?CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• This is not the first time "advertising concerns" have been mentioned to this user, here. There's also the noticeable biting a user asking a question, here. They're not extensive ones, but they're still relevant. Starting since January as a new account and into July now, that's more than enough time to accustomize where and which areas G11 can apply especially once getting into the 2 fundamental areas they would be used: NPP and AfC, or by any chance, ask someone before making any edits to the pertaining article. At the same time, an applied "Not a dictionary" speedy was used, so it asks the question why WP:CSD wasn't properly inspected before making edits. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• @SwisterTwister: you've been asked questions directly several times here. If you do not answer any of the questions you've been asked, I intend to block you for disruptive editing. This is a collaborative project, we expect you to actually collaborate, not ignore people or bully and intimidate others. Nick (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• My answer to that is in the second paragraph in my statement shown above, where I link both the original links and URL. Even at the user talk page, I gave the specific page. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • SwisterTwister I must be blind because I don't see in any paragraph or response where you have included the source for the copyvio you claimed here or any personal attacks. Would you mind replying here specifically with these answers, to diffs of the supposed attack (not a generic section link) and to the source for the copyvio. Thanks, much appreciated. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• I meant second sentence and as for the attacks, I've repeatedly noted them throughout of the statement. I made my statement as clear as possible, offering both diffs in past and present form, so I'm not seeing the need of asking me if the evidence all given there. Please don't ping me again since I'm currently aware of the thread. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • • Chrissymad, the sources are in the edit summaries Primefac and I removed on Draft:Chef Sarah Stegner. I'm not commenting on the situation as a whole, but there was copyvio and close-paraphrasing present. One of the sites had a clear copyright mark on it, and the others do not have a clear release into a compatible license. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is anWP:INVOLVED close given the person's statements at the talk page. Also, because this is not alone involving copyvio, but the repeated ignored questions I asked at the talk page amounting to other recent concerns by users, TonyBallioni and StAnselm. Closing this with a clear involvement is unacceptable without currently uninvolved people to suggest solutions. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It's an obvious close. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My involvement is as an uninvolved administrator trying to get you to modify your behaviour today, as it has been previously. I've no prior involvement in dealing with you or DrStrauss (no blocks or discretionary sanctions) and I've no prior involvement in the Articles for Creation process. Nick (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• There were clear personal attacks at me by the DrStrauss at the user talk page and that warrants an ANI, not simply an advisement since I had asked them to retract said attacks. Refusing to is a violation of a pillar WP:Civility. Stating that I will be blocked because of starting an ANI is an involvement as by WP:Involved. In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to....it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards" Before this close, I was amending this by citing the conversation at User talk:DrStrauss#Advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So provide the diffs of the attacks. Apologies if you've provided them before, but to those of us just arriving to this matter, it would be very helpful. Your reluctance to do so is puzzling. I would, however, echo Nick's advice in the closing statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also point out - I did not and as far as I can tell, nobody else has stated that you will be "blocked because of starting an ANI". I have warned you that failure to answer the questions put to you in the section above is something I will block you for, as I consider repeated failures to answer questions concerning the allegations you are making to be disruptive editing. You've been around long enough, you know the drill, making accusations without providing any evidence to back-up those accusations has always been block-worthy. Nick (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• In addition to what I added to my last statement above, see where I edited this one split minute before the close, therefore inappropriate. A request for an uninvolved close from someone still

threatening to block me, is not unreasonable. Also because the user stated they were involved because of a past dispute involving me, it's equally inappropriate. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are not providing diffs for these alleged attacks. I'm extending the close template; you can consider me taking over or endorsing the close that Nick placed, if that helps with your concerns about involvement (which I do not agree with). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reopened, and comment:

• We do extend considerable tolerance for promotionalism to drafts, under the assumption that drafts are in Draft space in order to be improved, and that the editor is acting in good faith & trying to follow our rules & is willing to improve them. But that does not mean unlimited tolerance--something so promotional that it could not reasonably be fixed is better marked G11. So it's a matter of judgement, and opinions can reasonably differ. My own view is that the Draft:Ask Apollo was a clear and unmistakable G11 advertisement for that hospital chain's patient information service, that it has no independent notability and no conceivable place in an encyclopedia, and could at most be included as a single sentence in the main article; I doubt even a redirect would be appropriate. The references are entirely to blatant PR and advertorials. It is presumably a copy of their own promotion, possibly adapted for WP, either by their own PR staff or an incompetent paid editor. RHaworth clearly felt the same way, for he has deleted it. Draft:Days for Girls International is a clearly promotional article, with references written in a manner which obscure their origin. It shows no knowledge of WP, for it mixes in links just to their web site, with a number of mere mentions, some general articles on the problem that do not mention the organization, and a very few that might tend to show notability . that I have noticed this is a number of similar articles, and I consequently consider it rather likely to be a paid article, or at best a paid adaption of their publicity. Since it seems very possible that the organization is notable , an article could probably be written. Very little of the article would be conceivably be usable. I would not advise rewriting it, but starting over, and I would prefer deletion to remove the promotionalism from even the history. It is therefore in my opinion a clear candidate for speedy, though not as obviously so as the other article. I consider Dr.M made a misjudgment in not nominating them both for deletion, but I would not consider these as inexcusable errors.

I have not yet checked for copyvio. Perhaps ST can help by specifying.

AfC will obviously lead to disagreements more frequently than other processes, because of the unfinished state of the drafts, and the lack of clarity about our standards. It's all the more important to avoid personalities. I only mention names here because it's necessary for the discussion. I am checking other aspects of Dr.S's reviewing, and I noticed that he had declined an article for not having the standard form of the headings and using bold face inappropriately (see my comment on his user talk). I consider this a much less excusable error, for it is in clear violation of our reviewing standards, not just a question of interpretation. I can only assume this is due to not g=paying sufficient attention to them. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Since this has been reopened can we please get a clear and concise response including specific diffs (not just links to sections) of the personal attacks? There is great irony about this whole thing being about unsubstantiated attacks and communication issues. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• To answer the copyvio question, I'll say it was two of the ones I listed as part of the others: Draft:Fab Lab Tulsa, Draft:SharingXchange, I mentioned these 2 in my first attempt to speak to DrStrauss about Drafts (in the "Copyvio") thread I linked in my statement. SwisterTwister talk 02:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide specific diffs of the personal attacks you've claimed above? I believe this is now the third time I've asked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be here. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not examined this discussion but there is nothing in that diff which is a personal attack. If you are still claiming that attacks have occurred, please provide several diffs with brief quotes showing attacks, or one diff with a blatant attack bordering on harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether it's an attack or not, it's clear violation of WP:Civility as there was no attempt to acknowledge the concerns given, and why the pages weren't being tagged as G11 or in the other given, G12. Even without a personal attack, I opened this with the general concerns of their recent contributions overall. I do still mean it when I say I wouldn't have opened an ANI if there had simply been a better response or, importantly, no mention of whatever other irrelevance there was about other things, and stick to the questions I asked. This is why I pertained it as an attack, because there was the claim I was "beating a dead horse", when that was never the case at all. Both times I opened a thread, was because they were either answered with a "Yes, I'll check" and that ultimately didn't happen or the second, they were shrugged off. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Words are important (and so is correct indentation, by the way). Anyone starting an ANI report with "Unsubstantiated attacks" in the heading needs to do much better than offer that diff. Are you going to replace "Unsubstantiated attacks" with "Minor disagreement concerning tone of discussion"? If you do not know what an attack or an uncivil comment looks like, please get some advice before assuming the worst. The diff you presented shows no attack and no incivility. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Johnuniq, except for words are important. Rather, words are critical on this page, in particular words like "personal attack" and "incivility". Misuse of WP:STICK, even if true, is hardly PA or incivility. Remarkably poor performance by a 9-year editor, imo. If there is any real case here, it's obscured by the bullshit and I'm not inclined to try to sort that out. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have nothing further to say because other users have said exactly what I think, apart from a request that once this discussion is over I respectfully ask SwisterTwister to leave no further messages on my talk page, now or in future, which is within my rights according to this guideline. I'm now logging out of Wikipedia and taking the dog for a walk. DrStrauss talk 07:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I'm leaving until this is all over. DrStrauss talk 13:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• When I kindly ask for genuine questions and answers are needed, the last solution is talk page banning because it will not help. As for reviewing, Draft:Vivala is yet another G11 case. As part of the AfC acceptance of users, one of the things clearly must be known is how to handle advertising. If not for the user talk page there was no other place than the AfC help desk which would not have helped regarding the policy-based concerns. SwisterTwister talk 14:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Kindly ask? Really? Anyways, what you are saying isn't relevant to the title of "unsubstantiated attacks and communication issues". For the last time, can you provide evidence? Or... is it impossible to provide evidence because there is none? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 15:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on quite long enough, if you have a problem with DrStrauss reviewing drafts, then you need to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and ask that his username be removed from the AFC participants list. Your initial complaint concerning personal attacks (and communication issues) has been investigated by several administrators (and editors) and no problem concerning personal attacks could be found. There were some issues highlighted by DGG and myself concerning DrStrauss communication, such as the premature archiving of talk page posts and leaving incorrect advice when reviewing Draft articles, but those are relatively minor communication failures, given DrStrauss is a relatively new user with around six months tenure. These are issues we would generally expect to see in most new users and which we expect to have to deal with by way of processes such mentoring or just giving a few words of friendly advice.
DrStrauss is quite within his rights to ask you not to post on his talk page and I think, in light of the behaviour you've displayed towards DrStrauss over the last 24 hours here, I would suggest giving DrStrauss the widest of wide berths would be eminently sensible behaviour on your part.
DGG has (correctly) highlighted areas where DrStrauss could use guidance (particularly in what should be tagged with G11 for deletion) but that's a learning process, we will work together to help DrStrauss get their (already very good) accuracy rate up to an even higher standard when it comes to reviewing drafts, helping them if they're unsure whether or not an article should be speedily deleted, whether it should be rejected, or whether it should be approved.
DrStrauss has done nothing which requires the attention of administrators here, the claims concerning personal attacks were determined following investigation to be unfounded, and the relatively minor issues which have been identified do not require either administrator action or indeed any form of sanction, what is needed is the AFC community to give DrStrauss help when he needs it and encouragement when he doesn't. I would therefore like to ask SwisterTwister to finally recognise their initial report concerning a personal attack was unfounded, to apologise to DrStrauss (and the community) for this thread, to accept they will not post on DrStrauss talk page and to return to productive work in the AFC area. Nick (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm staggered by this ANI. Yes, DrStrauss made some mistakes that they need to improve on - they're new and it happens, but I see no evidence offered whatsoever that constitutes an "unsubstantiated attack" or an attack of any kind. Considering ST has been warned numerous times for "communication issues", it's quite a glass house he's building. I strongly support a close with a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:CIVILITY, with a strong admonishment. Waggie (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I'd like to point out one thing regarding this whole G11 issue that I think needs to be discussed before this is inevitably closed. It is my understanding through reading policies, guidelines, discussions and interactions with people who I often disagree with when it comes to speedy deletion, like SoWhy and Ritchie333, that other than attack pages and blatantly obvious copyvio, no editor is required in AfC or elsewhere to tag anything for speedy if they do not feel or have doubts about it meeting that criteria. I for one never thought I'd be on this side of that argument and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows my affinity for CSD tagging, but I find it inappropriate to also chide an editor for not tagging G11, especially when they did not move it to main space and declined it for advertisement. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Again, I opened this because of multiple concerns and, within the last few hpurs, there's been another, Ben Judd has considerable copypaste of this. Had this been closed last night, there would've still been risk, and this newest one is actually in mainspace. I also saw a need from the community's attention given there had not only been several Drafts untagged but the sheer number, we couldn't know which were overlooked. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty active in deletion and AfC but I've never understood we should be CSD G11 tagging pages in AfC. How about the 1245 pages in Category:AfC submissions declined as an advertisement from the last 6 months? Should we bulk delete them G11 now because in mainspace or userspace the same reviewers would have almost always G11 tagged these pages. The existence of these 1245 pages suggests DrStrauss and myself are not the only people not G11 tagging Drafts at AfC. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

DrStrauss did not accept Ben Judd from AfC. He simply nominated it for deletion. Unlike when accepting a draft, there's no requirement to copyvio check every article you touch (even if you're nominating it for deletion). While it would have been nice for DrStrauss to catch this, there's no fault here with Ben Judd, whatsoever. Waggie (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Legacypac, Chrissymad, and Waggie: precisely, that's what's puzzling be about this whole issue. Why is SwisterTwister taking exception to the way I handle drafts when what I am doing is the standard process for most reviewers and indeed overlooks other such actions by other reviewers, example. DrStrauss talk 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Speculation serves no useful purpose here. This all boils down to the fact that ST has not been able to support his position that G11's are required for the drafts in question or that you made "unsubstantiated attacks". I do think it's worthwhile to collaborate regarding your reviewing (though I think, overall, you do a fairly good job of it), but nothing you have done even remotely warrants administrator attention. As pointed out above, the appropriate venue for such a discussion is over at the relevant AfC talk page. I still support a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:INCIVILITY (with an admonishment). ST knows perfectly well that the standard for G11 is higher in draftspace, and that we're not required to copyvio check if we're not reviewing or patrolling. There are likely hundreds of drafts that I would have tagged G11 in a heartbeat, had they been in mainspace, but didn't because there was the chance for improvement. Waggie (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I was concerned because you made unsubstantiated claims that I singled or hounded you when nothing occurred beyond 2 threads, one of which was unresponded to and instead archived. My priorities here are too ensure advertising and copyvio are removed, and I'll remind any other user, as my contributions show a handful of such today. In fact in the last week alone, I've reminded others. However has still not been a policy offering how we do not in fact speedy tag Drafts as a whole, simply because other users aren't taking the initiative. I had asked for you to remove those comments as they are uncivil and were irrelevant, thus becoming personal. For example, this thread is still relevant because you ensured you were going check for copyvio and yet there was another at Ben Judd today. SwisterTwister talk 18:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: the community's consensus appears to be against you on both of those issues. You're the only person who considers what I said to be a personal attack. While there is some disagreement, experienced reviewers have said that G11-ing drafts isn't a "duty" and declining them per adv is fine. That's why we have the option. DrStrauss talk 18:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I get that ST is annoyed at being accused of missing copyvio before, but this reminds me of Matt 18:21-35. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

And the difference between me and SwisterTwister is that I don't bring copyvios into the mainspace. But that's all water under the bridge. DrStrauss talk 19:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• I highly take WP:Criteria for speedy deletion, WP:Deletion policy and WP:What Wikipedia is not seriously, so even if that means having to personally G11 or G12 something, I will since these are policies, so it is our duty to recognize what's best for an encyclopedia. Anyone could start an RfC to sort out the accepts and unaccepts of applying speedy but that would mean changing policies we've had since WP began over 10 years ago. Also, I am still wondering why the copyvio at Ben Judd was in fact not removed, since that should've been an instant accompanyment of G11, had the latter been added. Once again, I would agree to closing but with the condition of actually applying speedy and there being no objections to a new thread if it happens again. As before, merely stating that others have not tagged them even though they later were, is not a convincing defense to why we should allow no taggings. As long as we have the 3 said policies discouraging advertising, there are no exceptions. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 3 July 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:TheMagnificentist

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

---

Seems that User:TheMagnificentist acts against consensuses changing on his own en mass categories "X music groups" to "X musicians" even in cases where article is about a band/group/musical project.[44][45][46][47] He also removed the content of a number of categories: [48], [49], [50], [51], +many other, and a lot of related categories becames empty (e.g. Category:English electronic music groups). Thousands of changes done with AWB - and in a number of pages he made by several consecutive edits,[52] replacing by one category at a time; isn't this a bot task? The summary used is misleading ("clean up", ORLY?). This looks to me like an abuse using mass-editing tools.

Sample of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/TheMagnificentist&offset=20170627110319&limit=500&target=TheMagnificentist

Being controversial, their edits should be rollbacked. --XXN, 11:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Notified TheMagnificentist about this discussion. I think this is controversial categorisation as well and should be discussed first before such wide-reaching changes are implemented by AWB or any other automated tool. Ss112 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, he also emptied categories outside of the WP:CFD process and outright blanked them--I have no clue what the purpose would be of that. I thought that he was trying to change instances of "synthpop" to "synth-pop" since the article was moved but no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I came across one of his edits here when CNBLUE was moved from Category:Electronic rock musical groups to Category:Electronic rock musicians. Not only was the execution messy (the latter is still categorized under a "rock music groups" parent category), it appears these edits were made unilaterally without any prior discussion. I agree that his edits should be reverted and I strongly advise him to suggest any changes to the current category scheme by properly listing them at WP:CFD. ℯxplicit 05:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I was only attempting to combine categories of "X music groups" with "X musicians". I apologize for unilaterally doing this myself without consensus, but it was done per WP:BOLD. I thought it was uncontroversial because many of the categories weren't sorted properly. It was a huge mess and many articles in 'electronic music' had redundant categories. Some had both "X music groups" and "X musicians". I intially planned on cleaning up categories of electronic music because many of its subcategories had little articles so I thought merging them with bigger categories would make things neater. I blanked some of them because they had no pages and I wanted to request speedy after 7 days to have them deleted so that the redundant categories (X groups) wouldn't confuse other editors. I removed or changed categories of "X groups" to "X musicians" per consistency with similar pages.

The edit summary "Clean up" was default and I didn't change it, assuming AWB would update it per my edits. When this ANI report was posted, I wasn't done with the categories yet, which was why the parent categories are still there.

If it is decided that my edits to the categories should be reverted, I am willing to do it myself and undo them all because per guideline, I am responsible for the edits I make via AWB. - TheMagnificentist 06:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Please make note of this WP:AWBRULES when every time you're using AWB, if you think that categories should be request an speedy deletion, you need to via the WP:TALK page to make the new section first, by discussion an consensus with other editors to make an collaboratively decision on that, and should not be blank it like this in anyway, hopefully you'll acknowledgement on that, regards. SA 13 Bro (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III."
This section was about to be archived without an action taken. I can't understand the indifference to this case.
Bad administrative work... XXN, 10:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

...and again this section is about to be archived. XXN, 11:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging BrownHairedGirl - seems that you are an admin intersted in the categorization correctness. What do you think about this? XXN, 11:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@XXN: This looks outrageous to me. It's effectively a mass merger of categories without consensus, and it should be mass rollbacked unless the editor commits to self-reverting it all.

TheMagnificentist claims to have been acting per WP:BOLD, but it appears that they haven't read WP:BOLD properly. See especially WP:BOLD#Be_careful and WP:BOLD#Non-article_namespaces. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll start self-reverting the category edits. - TheMagnificentist 12:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, TheMagnificentist. That's the right thing to do when there isn't a consensus for such widespread changes.

If you think you can make a good case for categorising solo musicians and bands together (at least to some extent), then why not open an WP:RFC on the issue? That way you can find out where consensus lies, before engaging in lots of controversial edits.

Personally, I don't think the idea is a runner ... but I haven't yet heard your reasoning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I just think smaller categories mislead readers from finding the right category. They might want to see a whole list of musicians including music groups, but since there's separate categories for that, they might not find it. I have reverted most of my category edits, just some minor cleanups remaining. - TheMagnificentist 14:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: We already have a guideline about that: WP:SMALLCAT.
If you see categories which you reckon should be merged per WP:SMALLCAT, then you could nominate them for merger at WP:CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - I've completely reverted them all. @BrownHairedGirl:@XXN:@Ss112:@Koavf:@Explicit:@SA 13 Bro: - TheMagnificentist 13:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheMagnificentist: Many thanks. Your response to this thread has been first-rate: communicating well, accepting the lack of consensus for your actions, and reverting in good grace.

I wish that all ANI discussions could be resolved so amicably. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 5 July 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.

Scores of possibly frivolous redirects

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

---

I've dropped a note to Comeondowntothe (talk · contribs), and would welcome feedback on their edits. Strikes me as unusual when a new account makes a lot of rapid creations, the mass of which which looks frivolous to me. Further thoughts appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Neelix returns? Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

They are all deleted. I don't think it is Neelix. These don't have the same feel as what Neelix did, they are just differences in capitalization. ~ GB fan 19:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the redirects and posted a warning to the user's talk page. It is just conceivable it may be a good faith new editor who didn't realise that what he or she was doing was unhelpful, so I tried to assume good faith as far as I felt I reasonably could when writing the warning. However, if similar editing continues, we will have to consider whether a different approach may be needed. "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought, humorously, of Neelix, too. But without the, er, titillation. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

His mounds of redirects were such a bust! EEng 19:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I see someone has been keeping abreast of the situation. Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How long do you plan on milking this? EEng 00:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Boobies. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't froget to watch for thousands of amphibian redirects. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not as willing to assume good faith here. We've been seeing more of this lately, people gaming the system to bypass the 30/500 restrictions. I would bet next months lunch money that is the case. Often, it is a sock of a recently blocked editor we are dealing with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dennis, since there are other warning signs besides the useless redirects. The user's other edits are exclusively to their own userpage, and are classic 30/500 gaming. Comeondowntothe, if I'm wrong, and there's some point to your flock of tiny userpage edits, feel free to explain what it is. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC).

I've blocked as a sock. I don't know of whom, but the userspace edits are a classic sign of gaming their way to autoconfirmed/extendedconfirmed. It's very clear what's going on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I too thought it was a sockpuppet of someone. I was also virtually sure that the editing had some underhanded purpose to it, but I didn't know what purpose. However, as soon as I saw Dennis Brown's comment about the 30/500 restrictions I realised that was obviously it. I can't think why I didn't think of that immediately, since, as both Bishonen and BU Rob13 say, the edits are classic signs of that, and I have seen it often enough before. If anyone's interested, I have now declined an unblock request for the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:46, 3 July 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.

Complaint about User:Eric and edits on page Philippe Noiret

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

---

Following a minor edit for clarification on the page Philippe Noiret (please see the revision history), User:Eric has engaged in a diatribe against myself, one which quickly escalated from a couple of reverts to outright personal insults. No doubt, I responded in like, but I would like to request a) my edit remains for reasons of language, b) this user is blocked from interacting with me, due to his being the instigator of a very uncivil exchange. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoldorinElf (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@NoldorinElf: Could you please point to a specific reversion that you feel is diatribe ? Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

FlightTime, I feel that the interaction in its entirety could be considered as much. (Perhaps "diatribe" is too strong a word, depending on one's interpretation, but it was certainly very rude and unprovoked!) It begins with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_Noiret&oldid=788792300 and continues on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eric#Reversing_edits. (I wanted to prevent things escalating by beginning a discussion on his talk page, but then things really got going.) Noldorin (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

NoldorinElf, I'm not sure it's a good idea to open an ANI thread against someone 17 minutes after calling them a "supercilious prick" [53]. EEng 02:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It was not rude or unprovoked. You opened up the conversation by questioning their language and literary skills, which is the last recommended stance to ever take in a content dispute. Eric, though apparently agitated from your rude attack, provided you with a far less snarky reply that stayed on his talk page and kept it relatively private. You only upped the ante by attacking their intelligence and pursuing personal attacks only further. Eric only responded (accurately) by saying he was giving you the opportunity to reel yourself in with a more civil demeanor and not make a mockery of yourself with the personal attacks. You responded by calling him a "supercilious prick", on top of everything else. Before you are blocked, I would like you to read Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh? It was very clearly provocative, and far more sarky than anything I wrote. I responded only in like. Noldorin (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NoldorinElf: After skimming through Eric's talk page who, has been nothing but cordial with you and in one of your responses you say I doubt someone as pig-headed as you will show humility now, but I've clearly demonstrated your usage of the word is inappropriate insofar as it is archaic You're the one the is being insulting and making personal attacks. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@NoldorinElf: Yes, after reading further, you're the one that needs to be block from interacting. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing but cordial? Oh, how you may me laugh. My insults were in response to his insults, and nothing more, that much is quite evident to anyone with their head screwed on. I eagerly await the block/ban! Noldorin (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll echo the observation that the OP is the one who is out of line. This is a content dispute (and the OP is wrong in that matter as well) that turned personal after the OP left a comment on Eric's talk page that began with these words: English may or may not be your first language, but please show some humility when reverting changes in any case. As you can see, it was not Eric who made this a personal matter. Eric has done nothing worthy of sanction while the OP has been rude, condescending, and uncivil... and also completely wrong in the content dispute. I will leave it to others to determine whether this OP is the type of person capable of contributing productively to a collaborative project. Lepricavark (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

---

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. But since you don't care to explain any of your rationale, you can go to hell. I eagerly await my account being blocked by "people" such as you. Indeed, I shall consider it a badge of honour! Noldorin (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Well done Eric, for getting all your similarly braindead friends involved. A grand bunch of keyboard warriors, you are! In real life, you weaklings would all be cowering in fear, of course. Noldorin (talk) 15:08, 4 July 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.

FlotillaFlotsam on List of video game emulators‎

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

---

This is one of very few instances I even ask for administrator input. I think this here is the correct way but please excuse me if I should've gone somewhere else first.

I'm asking for help regarding the conduct of FlotillaFlotsam on List of video game emulators‎. This is a dispute regarding notability of several entries within a stand-alone list or to be more precise: how to decide what rule/guideline to apply. WP:LISTN says: “The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.”

Given that FlotillaFlotsam’s removals of entries has rather major impact and the quoted sentence allows both notable-only entries as well as a more relaxed policy, I sought to find out what other editors think to build consensus and even offered a compromise – which he dismissed. It’s not like he didn’t post on the talk page but I get the vibe of his style of discussion being "I’m right and everybody must follow my lead". I tried once again to find common ground for which there was no direct reply.

Reverts have been made by a number of editors in both directions. For example Chrissymad seems to support FlotillaFlotsam but my request to participate in that discussion was ignored. RickSanchez01 seems to oppose FlotillaFlotsam’s stance but also did not participate in the discussion. LordKaiser00 does occasionally participate but seems to fall in the middle.

As I repeatedly said on that Talk Page, my personal opinion is that I even agree with some (though not all) of the removals, so it is not even much about content, but behavior. I want to seek consensus beforehand rather than "shoot first, ask later".

He claims to do research and only remove entries that have no sources for notability, yet on several occasions it took me a mere 30 or so seconds to google a source for notability (one example is RockNES), leading me to the impression that his removals are more based on gut feeling or personal preference rather than actual research.

To once again come back to WP:LISTN: Is the editor’s discretion kind of like veto power, i.e. a single editor can demand to forbid non-notable entries? Or is it meant that the usual policy of consensus-building is in place? I’d like to think that I act in accordance with WP:CAUTIOUS in the regard that I’d like to discuss such a matter first. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this conversation, at this point I think this dispute can only be solved through arbitration. Before I go into the argument itself, I'd like to address one of the concerns you have.

RE: "He claims to do research and only remove entries that have no sources for notability, yet on several occasions it took me a mere 30 or so seconds to google a source for notability", I try to adhere as closely as possible to WP:GNG when searching for sources. Articles that are nothing more than release notes could be construed as a press release or advertising, which would be undesirable for a citation. I did see the source you added to RockNES while searching for myself, but I was worried it would fall under a press release as it's little more than release notes copied from the emulator's readme.

Regarding the dispute, I agree that in most cases, the individual entries in a list don't need to be notable to be included. However, List of video game emulators is a dynamic list, and there are many thousands of video game emulators. Without enforcing notability guidelines on a per-entry basis (as WP:LISTN permits in cases such as these), this list runs the very serious risk of becoming unmanageably large, and of limited encyclopedic value.

We've had an exhaustive discussion on the article's talk page, and neither me nor KAMiKAZOW have changed our stances or reached a middle ground; I would be very happy if third parties could chime in on this issue. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Has this dispute been raised at [{WP:DRN|the dispute resolution board]]? This looks more like a content dispute than a behavioural one. Arbitration is the last port of call after all other avenues have been exhausted. Blackmane (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The OP has failed to distinguish between notability (which is not required for individual entries in a list) and verifiability (which is required for everything on Wikipedia). This is a glaring example of this misunderstanding -- just because you remember reading something in a magazine twenty years ago does not make it sourced or verifiable. Human memory is a messy thing (ask Bart Ehrman) and something you think you read in the 1990s is not appropriate for Wikipedia unless you can dig up the original source and check it again. FF made this same mistake on the talk page, but he is a new user and can be forgiven for accidentally writing "notability" when he clearly means "verifiability". There is no requirement for reliable sources to be available online, but no diffs were provided of FF saying otherwise so that is irrelevant. In fact, all three diffs the OP provided were of comments by him directed at FF. On top of that, this seems to be a content dispute. I say this thread should just be closed before the OP invites a boomerang on himself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 4 July 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.

Abusive posts from User:2601:581:302:FB9B:FCDD:57CA:D49F:9439

The following discussion is closed. 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 talk page edit (which I have reverted) was abusive of another editor and was made shortly after the expiry of a previous block for harassing other users. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. IP blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Henson

The following discussion is closed. 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 someone please intervene. An article creator doesn't like it that I have nominated his or her article for deletion (fair enough), and has now

• twice removed the AfD template[54][55], one of these after they had been warned not to do this on their user talk page[56]
• moved his "keep" above the nomination[57]
• Archived the AfD[58]
• Archived it again[59]
• Added weird templates[60]
• Removed my reply at the AfD[61]
• Added another weird claim about me[62]
• Removed the AfD template a third time (second restoration wasn't by me, by the way)[63]

Providing some guidance and clue to this newbie would be appreciated. Fram (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Blocked the user as they're being disruptive, and edit conflicted with MrHumanPersonGuy trying to restore the AfD to a readable state -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's hope they can discuss things more constructively after the 12 hour block has expired. Fram (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, the block has expired, and the editor has now gone back to the AfD and changed the vote of another editor from delete to keep[64]. Indef block please as clearly WP:NOTHERE. Fram (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for a week (i.e. until hopefully the AfD will be finished). Not quite sure we should go for an indef yet with such a new account, but I won't stand in anybody's way if somebody else wants to extend to indef at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not very patient with this kind of behaviour, but there's nothing wrong with being more patient and giving another chance of course. Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:30, 5 July 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 TrumpTrain2017 / 69.124.220.251

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

---

This user has made unconstructive edits and has repeatedly undone other editors' warnings left on their talk page. -- Dandv 22:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Diffs of these unconstructive edits?

As to blanking their talk page, then they're allowed to - see WP:TPO. On the other hand, you are clearly edit-warring to repeatedly restore them. Please don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No, TrumpTrain2017 is a new editor ID whose one edit so far has been to revert on an IP editor's talk page. As to whether they are the same guy, that is unconfirmed. However, the behavior of the IP suggests it will not end well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This might be a username violation, but the one edit of this user doesn't look actionable here. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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

advertising paid Wikipedia editing on user page

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

---

User:WikiLodgeOfficial [65] Meters (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – @Meters: The page has been deleted and the editor is indef blocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 5 July 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.

1970 RUC booby-trap bombing

There is disagreement on the inclusion of Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1970 in the article 1970 RUC booby-trap bombing. As this article is subject to active Arbcom remedies and 1RR, I'd like to get wider input. Issues: Do attacks targeting police/security forces constitute terrorism? Do booby-trap car-bombs constitute targeted attacks? Do categories need to be reliable sourced before they can be included? Thanks, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"Do categories need to be reliable sourced before they can be included?" This seems like a no-brainer. Like any other contentious content it should be sourced, categories should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other contenious content when it comes to RSs.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't about content or sourcing (the whole article would need to go if that were the problem), it's about POV-pushing by a long-running anti-GB editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding trivia to multiple articles

Do we need to know how many Facebook followers a professional sports team has per Houndground (talk · contribs)? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This board is not for content disputes like that. You should discuss the matter with the user on the relevant article talk page or WikiProject talk page, and if that fails to settle the issue, move to the dispute resolution procedures available. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I'm not going to take this to each individual article talk page. no one is disputing the accuracy of the content, but this is not what Wikipedia articles are for. I've brought it here as a user competency issue. Feel free to remove it if you think it's inappropriate. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you should take it to each individual page; as I indicated, it could be discussed at the relevant WikiProject or even just one article talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

No, regardless of the fact that this is the wrong venue, this is pointless and unmaintainable trivia; I've reverted all the examples I can find, and left a warning on the user's page. If you find any more sporting club articles with references to "number of Facebook likes", feel free to remove them as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, a number of this user's edits are completely incompetent (i.e. [66]). Definitely worth keeping an eye on. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I was initially concerned over the rate of editing. Mass addition at such a rate would IMO be a problem (although they should be asked to stop before being brought to ANI). But looking more closely it's not so simple. Some of their edits are simply adding Facebook follower numbers. Others are updating those numbers (perhaps added by them before, I don't know). Yet other seem to be changing stadium capacities or other figures, generally without sources not that the figures generally have sources. Occasionally they have added not very good sources [67] [68]. (They've generally sourced the follower numbers to the Facebook page albeit sometimes the mobile variant.) Other times they've added various details. While not as concerning as if they were solely adding Facebook follower figures, IMO the speed of editing is a problem considering the questionable quality and they probably should be blocked if they don't slow down after being given a warning. (Which I'll do so.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I forgot [69]. Technically true but it really needs a source and either attribution or explaination. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

One final point, the changing existing Facebook figures got me thinking. I explored this example Karachi United where it seems it was added here [70] by Special:Contributions/Fussbolfan. This editor was never blocked and has not edited since Houndground started but it's still concerning considering there are multiple warnings on their userpage. I've asked for clarification on their connection and mentioned this ANI case. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

To add my two cents, I am very concerned about this editor which clearly shows lack of competency and no attempts to talk. The editor has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and editors there have expressed concerns but without any response. Qed237 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite, Nil Einne and Qed237 for following up. Admittedly, this was not my preferred venue, but the editor was on a roll and I sought a quick response just to slow them down and revert at least some of the edits, a number of which were made at protected articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This reply: [71]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on what they said there, I've tried to explain again why they need to slow down and also directed them to the teahouse. I've also asked again for clarification on their connection to the old account, as the comment "I only use this account now" seems to imply an old account, but not clearly stating so or which one. The comment suggests perhaps there is hope. Maybe direct mentoring would be particularly beneficial if anyone is willing to volunteer. If not it's on them to read and seek help. Considering how long it took them to say anything in response, it's probably only a faint hope so no major loss either way. (Especially if the other account is them and the timing strongly suggests it is; with only a single comment on talk pages before that I can find [72] discounting a semiprotected edit request.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As a quick update, Houndground has confirmed editing using the previous account and place a declaration on their user page as I suggested so there's IMO not longer any direct concerns about the 2 accounts. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There might no longer be a concern regarding the two account but I am very concerned about the competence. Qed237 (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Houndground once again created bogus article and I am now unfortunately ready to suggest a block. What do you think @331dot, Black Kite, and Nil Einne: who have participated in this discussion? Qed237 (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued LTA

Here are several of the IPs below but the /16 range is high traffic LTA, a continuation of global LTA

• 83.28.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) Annual rangeblock is needed because of: (most recent vandalism) Special:Contributions/83.28.180.93 Special:Contributions/83.28.189.68 Special:Contributions/83.28.192.72 Special:Contributions/83.28.193.149 Special:Contributions/83.28.193.217 Special:Contributions/83.28.61.132 Special:Contributions/83.28.192.236 Special:Contributions/83.28.193.84 current bimonthly pattern, it is the same as w:m:Global block of Orange ranges (2015). I suspect that he will be popping out of more IPs soon.

Masti seems to have some experience with this IP range. We should range block it. It does seem troublesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.162.112.37 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty tired of dealing with this, but an IP editor on open proxies is faking my signature in this thread and reverting my edits. I'm tempted to just close this as further trolling, but I'm going to leave it open in case this request is legit. Just be aware that this thread is apparently drawing trolls. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Link rot template bombing

Could someone take a look at the recent edits from Special:Contributions/207.35.33.162? Is that really useful? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I've left a note on their page about creating an account and using something like reFill to address bare URLs. Some of their earlier edits don't seem bot-like to me, but that kind of tagging is unhelpful and not appropriate. Feel free to ping me or another admin if another slew like this pops up and we can block the account. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:I JethroBT. And thank you for adding a much more polite note than I could manage. Yes, an odd mixture there of what seem to be careless novices and careless experienced editors. I guess it's possible to run a bot from an anon IP address like that? It's all gone quiet now, but still a bit worrying. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting vandal move

A vandalising editor who is about to be blocked moved a Pakistani politican's page (Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Khan) to a new name (probably the editor's) which was then appropriated by changing the content. Please revert the move. Jupitus Smart 09:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to the correct title, I've deleted the individual revisions of the page with the 'new' promotional content for being potential copyright violations, I've move protected Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Khan indefinitely, I've created a redirect from Abdul Rehman Chaudhry to Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Khan and have protected that indefinitely so any promotional accounts will not be able to move pages (or create pages) at that title without first speaking to an administrator, and I've blocked the Infohub.pk (talk · contribs) account indefinitely for being a promotional only account which breaches our username rules. If I've missed anything, please let me know. Nick (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Temporary move protection should be enough, as the page wasn't moved from that title until 17 June; a move may still be needed as the current title doesn't match the source. Abdul Rehman Chaudhry is a misleading redirect if they are different people. Peter James (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

CIR issues with User:Tonton Bernardo

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

---

Tonton Bernardo (talk · contribs) cast a dubious, semi-intelligible RfA !vote that engendered a reasonable amount of criticism. Joefromrandb left a very gracious post on TB's talk page and was met with the following response. TB also went to the RfA page itself to throw this semi-literate tantrum. While the user claims an intention of leaving Wikipedia, I suspect we can't really trust such an irrational individual to keep his word. I therefore recommend blocking this user indefinitely to prevent future childish disruption. Lepricavark (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to make sure, is this a community ban or just an indefinite block?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

An indef block, although RileyBugz's suggestion is probably sufficient. Lepricavark (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree here. Maybe ban from RfA, but this user should be allowed to continue contributing content. If it spreads over to that though, then that might be something that should be looked at. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, what was all this [73][74][75] about??? If anything like this happens again, I'll support a block. If they don't do it again, a block isn't necessary, though. Linguist¹1¹ 17:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I see they've been warned for trolling RfAs before[76], warnings which they deleted as spam. So this isn't new. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support RFA topic ban - I don't agree with what was said however some of the replying comments (inc mine) wasn't helpful either and are probably what contributed to the meltdown, As the Oppose made no sense I would support a topic ban on it until atleast he can improve his English, That all being said if he makes another Nazi comment or similar then I would support blocking but for now IMHO we should give him some WP:ROPE and help him. –Davey2010^Talk 18:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Indef as per Ritchie, KGirl and Joe - Having thought on it I think indef is the only best option, He may or may not be trolling I have no idea however inshort he could easily go and terrorise another WP and so IMHO at somepoint this year he's gonna end up blocked one way or another, He may well be a new user with CIR issues but either way I don't think they're cut out for this place I really don't, Sure we all fucked up when we came here I sure as hell did but you learn and adjust ... with this user there doesn't seem to be neither and as I said I simply don't believe they're cut out for this place, The RFA diffs above doesn't help his case either, For now atleast I think indef is the best option for us and for him. –Davey2010^Talk 21:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support RFA topic ban - Many of the user's votes at RfA, going back months, show a lack of competence and were arguably made in bad faith [77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]. Linguist¹1¹ 18:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• This seems somewhat excessive to mer. I don't see the point in banning from RfAs in general because of one comment, which, although unclear and apparently not using the right standard for judging , was not abusive. People learn. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: The user has made several problematic votes at RfA - see the diff I provided above. Linguist¹1¹ 18:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support RFA topic ban - in fact in view of the other issues of incivility/PA/trolling, I would normally be looking for an indef and a community ban. However, it would be a shame for lepidoptera. I would certainly advise making him aware, however, that just one more such outburst or nonsense vote to disrupt an RfA that is certainly going to pass, will result in an immediate indef block without warning or discussion if I see it first - other admins at their discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support RfA topic ban - reviewing the user's other RfA votes, they don't seem to be competent enough to participate there. No opinion on a possible block. ansh666 19:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support RfA topic ban - Per Davey2010 and DGG, as many of the user's votes at RfA show WP:CIR. The Nazi, and North Korea comments (diff) were also completely unwarranted, and attacks like that could lead to indef. blocks. I would support blocking if the user makes another comment like the previous one.SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef. block and RfA topic ban - After taking a closer look at this user, they appear to have a history of trolling RfA discussions. Also, I found these diffs[85], [86], they created an article which could be considered defamatory [87], and [88], all of which violate WP:NPA, and after seeing more of this user's history, I would strongly support an indef. block. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 19:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support RfA topic ban, 2nd indef block - Per the above diffs from SophisticatedSwampert, we'd be better off without them -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Indef and topic ban please - I took strong exception to him calling other editors Nazis for the reasons described there - not only is an obvious WP:NPA, but reducing Nazis to a petty insult trivialises everything the Third Reich did, which is dangerous because one can look at the alt right and Britain First and see how easy it is for these things to happen again. Anyway, he pretty much escaped a block because I was upset and upset admins shouldn't wield banhammers. In response for me reverting the personal attack, he accused me of vandalism, to which I gave him some straight talking. Anyway, to sum up I think this is the first actual conflict Tonton has had, as he tends to focus on innocuous biology stubs that aren't the sort of places that attract feuds and dramah, and it appears pretty obvious that he lacks the necessary temperament and dispute resolution skills to handle this project. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Obvious troll is obvious. He seems to be getting on with things outside of RfA just fine, though. I don't see why we can't leave him to it. We could ban him from RfA but I doubt he'd comply and will probably be back with a different name if we block him. I don't think he's being particularly disruptive. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block and topic ban: If he was only topic banned, it is more likely to cause disruption in other areas, otherwise indef block should be warranted. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a sledgehammer. Yes, they've completely fucked up; but then, who hasn't, sometime? I certainly agree that they haven't helped themselves. I also agree that comments about Nazis, Jews, etc., are out of order. I also think that getting bludgeoned at the most recent RfA- which is where this started- for example, is a guaranteed, red hotline to winding someone up. It is hardly likely to defuse the situation. Or do we not, really, want to? This is just IMHO; feel free to carry on with whatever the community feels 'must be done'. — fortunavelut luna 20:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support TB from RfA I thought it would be strange to TB someone from RfA, as editors should be allowed a voice in the choosing of the editors who might block them. However, the diffs provided above inr egards to other RfAs, and the extremly uncivil ***off comment show me that he doesn't care about being allowed of RfA. I'm not going to support an indef block on an 8 year 10K edit editors merely because of longtime trolling of RfAs. If he really is going to disrupt other areas, then we can give him enough rope to hang himself. A 24 or 1 week for the ***off is quite fine with me. Too many admins in same IP range is the height of nonsense. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Had an edit-conflict here earlier. I thought I had fixed it, but apparently I had removed several other posts in adding mine, which caused another user to undo my edit. I went back & tried to fix this, but when I look at it in preview-mode, re-adding my text will still result in my removing others' posts. If anyone knows how to restore my comments here, please feel free to do so. I seem incapable of doing so without wrecking the place. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Done. Restored below. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block: I came across this user's vote the other day and was highly suspicious that it was a satirical or, in the very least, an insincere contribution. Upon seeing their further input, it is apparent that they have no intention to be productive and contributory to the project. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Restored this edit per Joefromrandb's request above. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Not sure what this guy's deal is. I wrote him what I felt was a friendly message that went to great lengths to respect his views, and his response was, "fuck you Nazi". "Fuck you" is water off a duck's back, but calling me a "Nazi" is quite another matter (hence my response to him). Ritchie333 censured him for being cavalier with the term; his position seems to be that since he self-identifies as Jewish, he can use the word as he pleases, further asserting that Wikipedia as a whole is "run by Nazis". I'm hard-pressed to believe he's not a troll at this point. I have an extremely difficult time believing a fellow Jew would use the word "Nazi" as a casual insult, but I truly cannot picture a Jew asserting his or her Judaism as license to use "Nazi" as a synonym for "asshole". This guy trolled Anarchyte's RfA, and now he's trolling the community. There's also the issue of his bizarre, confusing signature, which he's so far refused to discuss, let alone correct. He reminds me a bit of Bonkers the Clown, in that his article-space contributions are excellent, yet he just can't help himself from trolling, complete with racist slurs (Bonkers' hate-speech of choice was a different epithet beginning with 'N'). I have no problem allowing him to continue to contribute here, provided he understands it crystal clear that there will be zero-tolerance for any more "Nazi" comments. Absent that, I support the proposed block. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support RfA topic ban for now, with an indef possible if they don't behave. Miniapolis 22:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• RfA topic ban is all that's needed right now, as that's the cause of the problems. At this point I see no need for a full ban/block from their normal editing, which appears constructive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• RfA topic ban per Boing, and they should be blocked for some duration for unconscionable personal attacks. Capable of good content creation, tends to create in uncontroversial areas, so I'm willing to extend more rope. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• RfA topic ban. Bizarre and unconscionable behaviour from a user who should stick to editing articles about moths. Jschnur (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• 2 questions 1. Will indeffing him prevent him from wreaking havoc on other language wikis? 2. Should his !vote be struck? We all agree it is trolling and in bad faith, so why should the RfA forever have the blot of 1 oppose and 99% success rate, when it could be a 100%? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite RFA topic ban, would also support an indefinite block. They've been here 5 years and have racked up 9k+ edits. If they don't know how things are done around here after that, then that is way beyond incompetence and leaves only malice. Blackmane (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef, but I suppose I can live with the topic ban. That said... there are two compounding I don't see having been discussed that seem clear to me: a) this editor demonstrates poor mastery of English (i.e. is likely not a native English speaker) and; b) the behaviors exhibited are adolescent. I question how mature this editor is, which is why I've some out on the side of an indef; to my mind an RfA topic ban is, at best, a delaying action that will simply allow him time to stir more trouble the next time and RfA comes up. Why give him the opportunity, when he sees being called on his behavior as he does? ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block User is clearly here for the right reasons (his mainspace contributions) and everyone deserves another chance. I also think he should get another chance with RfA - if he acknowledges that some of his contributions there are unhelpful and he'll do better in future, I'd oppose a topic ban. If he's intransigent, I'd support it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose indef, support temporary block, support RFA TBAN. A short block is all that is needed for silly behaviour like this, and his editing elsewhere is indicative of him being here for the right reasons. Patient Zero^talk 10:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • How would blocking now be anything other than punitive? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone know this editor IRL? This doesn't come across to me as an editor who really believes their recent edits, but someone who is hurting, and reacting. I hope the editor takes some time away voluntarily, but I do not support a block.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose formal sanction - this is a textbook example of an inane comment which should have just been ignored, but instead a bunch of users who should know better decided to poke fun at the user's poor English ([89] [90] [91] [92] [93]) which led not terribly surprisingly to a tantrum which has now clearly subsided. I don't see any problems with the user's contributions elsewhere; let's just move on. Although if they come back with more of this Nazi crap then block on sight. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Ignoring stuff that doesn't matter is an underappreciated skill, especially in an oppose vote that is just noise in the signal of an RFA that's at like a gazillion to 2. At the risk of looking like I'm condoning the "Nazi" crap, just (a) leave him alone when he's productively editing about moths, and (b) ignore him when he says something silly at RFA. If we do that, I hope/suspect (c) having to deal with over the top outbursts won't even come up. If ignoring him at RFA just isn't possible given our collective limitations, then I'd grudgingly be OK with an RFA topic ban. But crats aren't stupid, they know how to ignore silly comments at RFA. Really, they do. Not every oppose has to be a Code Red emergency. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Watchlists now contain a link to current RfAs. This was done to attract comment from the general community. The editor in question seems to be a valid member of this community, having created numerous articles such as Amphixystis cymataula in good faith. The candidate in the RfA failed to pass previously as numerous editors found them wanting. It should therefore be no surprise that some editors continue to find the candidate wanting and their comments made in this case seem no sillier than many of the support !votes. It seems outrageous that this editor should now be badgered and threatened for daring to express his opinion when this has been solicited. There are already editors who never, ever post an oppose vote at RfA and it seems obvious that they are scared or otherwise intimidated. Disenfranchising !voters in a one-sided way threatens the integrity of the process and so should be firmly resisted. Andrew D. (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

As Doug Weller points out, this wasn't the first occurrence. I think the motives of anyone who has a predilection for disrupting an RfA that is obviously going to pass by making a lone or near solitary oppose vote should come under scrutiny. What we must not forget, {{|}Andrew Davidson}}, is that this is the kind of behaviour that puts genuine potential candidates off from running at RfA. T-banning of such users should be employed more often, even if the !voters are otherwise well behaved, established contributors in other areas on or off-line. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

First, if people didn't always freak out, it wouldn't be "disruption"; changing a 200/2/0 RFA to 200/3/0 is not disruptive. But second, and more importantly, I very much doubt this is why people avoid RFA; I imagine Anarchyte has lost zero sleep over this particular oppose. It's not the mildly silly opposes - which are not personal, and which will sway no one - that make people avoid RFA, it's the mean-spirited deeply personal opposes and trawling thru many-year-old contribs looking for insult fodder. That's when people say to themselves, "I have better things to do than put up with this". We have to be careful we don't slide into topic banning everyone who dares to oppose popular people, and instead focus on the actual attacks that occur in RFAs. I'm only grudgingly willing to accept an RFA topic ban for TB because of the cumulative weirdness of the other RFA opposes Linguist111 listed near the top of this discussion. And of those, only the one at Brianhe's RFA was mean and actually "disruptive" in any way; the other comments, including the one at Anarchyte's RFA, are just silly, odd, and harmless. In fact, you could make a case that, as Joefromrandb said on TB's talk page, this particular oppose was less silly than it might first seem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The watchlist notice does serve as an invitation to the general community, but that does not mean that anything goes. Furthermore, contrary to what you appear to be saying, there is no connection between Tonton's !vote and the !voters in the candidate's prior RfA who found him wanting. And while Tonton may be entitled to express his opinion, RfA is not a safe space for the !voters. If he leaves a silly comment on a public forum, others are free to point out the silliness. If his response is to blow a fuse and throw around 'Nazi' insults, he's probably not suited for participation in collaborative discussions such as an RfA. As has been pointed out, this is not his first go-around with RfA, so he should know the drill by know. Lepricavark (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• The candidate in this case already had an RfA in which there were over 50 opposes before he withdrew. And, despite this, here he is again asking for admin rights. And he stated explicitly that he wasn't bothered by the oppose. So, there is no evidence for the claim that such opposes scare off candidates. Quite the contrary. It's the oppose voters who are being scared off by this outrageous intimidation. Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from RfA- RfA is a weird place. We seem to be more tolerant of hostile personal commentary there than in other places. The justification for that seems to be that candidates will cop abuse from people if they get the bit anyway. But nowhere else do we tolerate cruel and erroneous personal criticism against someone who's volunteered to help, except possibly against AfD nominators. oppose a block. Reyk _YO! 20:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: My thoughts align pretty well with those of Ivanvector and Floquenbeam. To be honest, although I was disappointed at the hostile commentary from Tonton Bernardo, I was also rather disappointed by the tone of some of those who responded to him. Yes, in many of our eyes, the comment was unfair and silly. But telling someone that "this is the stupidest comment I've ever seen" is not really going to convince them to change their mind, and faced with a long thread of such comments, I'm not exactly surprised that he snapped. Of course, the "Nazi" comments were unequivocally inappropriate and certainly deserve admonishment, but perhaps we overreacted in our initial response to his !vote. Closing bureaucrats would easily be able to assign less weight to this !vote; there's simply no need to pile on with comments ridiculing it. Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban from RfA, oppose indefinite block - the opposition vote was poor, yes, but its ultimately benign and can be safely ignored. I don't see the justification for a topic ban, let alone an indefinite ban. The "fuck off Nazi" stuff is beyond the pale though, so a shorter block (24 hours to a week) is appropriate. Cjhard (talk) 22:48, 5 July 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.

Amalek

I am having a bit of a problem with our Amalek article. Specifically, multiple editors keep re-inserting claims such as the claim that The Book of numbers (5th century BCE) talks about Adolph Hitler. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What the BLEEEP!? I know I'm going to regret this, but I will have a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a serious understatement of what's going on here. Not a lie, but a big understatement. Guy Macon, in a single edit, removed about 70% of the article, with the reference to Hitler being only one small part of what he's removed. Here's a diff: [94]. All at once Guy removed (1) the claim that the Old Testament is accepted by Jews and Christians, (2) a reference to a traditional rabbinic folk etymology for Amalek, (3) link formatting around the word "nomadic," (4) some well-sourced material on whether any Amalekite sites have been found by archaeologists, (5) a bunch of material on Jewish reception history of the Amalek concept, (6) material on the relationship of Haman to the Amalekites and the effect of this association on Jewish tradition, (7) information on the three mitzvot out of the traditional 613 that refer to Amalek, (8) ethical questions concerning the destruction of Amalekites in Jewish law, (9) material relating to the (mistaken) identification of Amalekites with Armenians, (10) use of the Amelekite metaphor in responses to the holocaust, (11) a paragraph of original research trying to tie biblical verses to Hitler, (12) invocations of Amalek by anti-Zionist Haredim, (13) material on Meir Kahane's interpretation of Amalek, (14) Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments relating Iran to Amalek, (15) a paragraph which discusses whether Arabs have any relation to Amalek, (16) two paragraphs on traditional Islamic views on the Amalekites, (17) a paragraph on the invocation of the name Amalek during the crusades, (18) a "see also" link to the concept of Herem, (19) a "see also" link on Judaism and violence, (20) a "see also" link on Rohl's New Chronology, (21) a selection of external links, including one sourced to Princeton.

Meanwhile, I've removed the unsourced material about Hitler. It should be no surprise why Guy Macon is facing some pushback. Certainly, I'm sure Guy Macon can point here and there in his massive list of removals to some things that should be removed. My suggestion would be that we start by removing things that clearly ought to be removed, rather than just gutting the majority of the article at once.Alephb (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. This looks like a content dispute, albeit a serious one.I see a number of issues here including that parts of the article have a distinctly ESSAYish tone. All of which said I think this belongs on the article talk page where it can be discussed by people who are (hopefully) better informed on the subject than I am. I am going to ping some of the relevant wiki-projects and see if we can round up some people with a little expertise. This being a weekend it's possible that we may not get a ton of participation right off the bat. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Back to the talk page we go. Alephb (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I have dropped requests for comment on WP:CHRISTIANITY and WP:JUDAISM. I see a similar request has already been posted at WP:BIBLE. Beyond that I am not seeing anything that is especially urgent so lets see how the talk page discussion develops. Also I really don't think there is anything here that is actionable on an admin level so I am going to suggest we close this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'll note that this editor's contribs of June 4 look every bit of gaming the system towards 500/30 requirement. Add a bunch of lines in and then strip them all back out again in less than two minutes to fluff the edit count and get the ball rolling. Certainly not a new editor, either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That does look fishy. I would be interested to see if User:Arielle JS A has any kind of plausible explanation for that. Alephb (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• What looks fishy is the edit history of Arielle JS A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The first dozen or so edits are obviously to get by the autoconfirm, the first edit was to blue link. This isn't a new user. I am guessing Berean Hunter and I are on the same page here. Gaming the system alone is enough to strip the ext bit or just block as a sock of "someone". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes and would be fine with a detailed discussion on the talk page, hopefully leading to consensus. What I object to is the reverting without discussion. The reverts reinserted a bunch of dubious material. including the claims that "According to the Old Testament, the Amalekites were a nomadic, or seminomadic people" when the Bible passages cited say nothing about them being nomadic.[95] Or re-inserting a claim from an unreliable source that Muslims are Amalekites while ignoring a claim in the same source that Protestants and Catholics are Amalekites.[96] Again, these are content disputes that are best handled on the article talk page, but when faced with editors who revert while refusing to discuss, we have a behavioral problem, as so here we are. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that, as far as I can tell, there's only two editors who have reverted Guy Macon's mass deletion, and I am one of them, the expression "editors who revert while refusing to discuss" looks like it's intended to include myself. I'd like to take this opportunity to deny that charge. I haven't at any point refused to discuss. I've reverted a total of one time so far in this whole dust-up, and I'm more than willing to discuss any edit I've made to Amalek, and I'm doing so over on the talk page, where I'd be more than happy to continue the conversation. Alephb (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Watch out for unexamined assumptions, like here: "Many nomadic groups from the Arabian desert, apparently including Amalekites, have collectively been termed "Arab(s)". While considerable knowledge about nomadic Arabs have been recovered..." Arabs are simply people who speak Arabic, and there's no indication what language the Amalakites spoke. Nor are all Arabs nomads and camel-herders, most are farmers and always have been. (I blame Hollywood).PiCo (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, Hollywood may have its share of blame to take, but whoever wrote Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Isaiah talked about a group of people they called Arabim fighting with the Judahites and living in tents in the wilderness. I don't think we know what language the Arabim spoke. The overlap with the modern word "Arab" is unfortunate, but there are scholarly sources that use "Arab" for it ([97], [98]). The ambiguity is bad on its own, but given the state of politics today it's even more unfortunate. Alephb (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So far as I know (and I'm no expert), the modern word Arab comes from an Arabic 3-letter root meaning something like utter, speak, and so on, implying that the defining characteristic of an Arab is one who speaks (intelligibly, for another Arab). Movement, pace Bruce Chatwin who didn't know what he was talking about, is not the defining characteristic. But that's modern Arabs, of whom I know very little, despite living in Morocco for 3 years; about Hebrew Arabim I know utterly nothing. What's the trilateral root in Hebrew? (Neither of those two books comes up for me, by the way). PiCo (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ayin-R-B. I had just always assumed the two were connected. It's not very scientific, but the Arabs I've known always sounded to me like they were putting an ayin in front of the term "Arab." It sounds pharyngeal. But I've never been to Morocco, so you may have me beat there. Alephb (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure why the books aren't coming up for you. They're still coming up fine for me. Who can describe the mysteries of Google? Alephb (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Berean Hunter and Dennis Brown are correct. Arielle JS A is a  Confirmed sock of Delotrooladoo (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Uyghurology moving page without consensus

After I opened a move request for a page this user created, Tahir imin to Tahir Imin per MOS:CAPS, the user immediately moved the page. No consensus is reached in the current move request and the user continues to move the page without consensus, even after my first reversion of the move.

Page where incident took place
Talk page where move request is reaching consensus
Diff of first move
Diff of my undo
Diff of second move

No other moves were made since this occurrence. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 18:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and link to the user: Uyghurology (talk · contribs). jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 18:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I closed the move discussion. Nothing needs to be done here. You requested the move, the only significant contributor agreed and moved it. ~ GB fan 19:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I missed it earlier, but you warned them about moving the article "against naming conventions or consensus". There was no consensus against moving it and they moved it line with naming conventions. ~ GB fan 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning removed. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 19:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Massive WP:FAKEARTICLE. User edit-warring to remove "noindex" and "userpage" codes, and add "index" code

User:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge is a 300,000-byte fake article that Emijrp (talk · contribs) is hosting on his Wikipedia account. He is editing warring to add and retain an __INDEX__ magic word so that the article will show up on Google, and to remove the {{userpage}} and {{noindex}} codes for the same reason. He has already breached 3RR even after warnings and explanations. The page needs to be deleted, per WP:NOTWEBHOST, and because he clearly has no intention of stopping his efforts to keep it Google-indexed. We can't babysit either him or the page, so it's time for it to go (or him to go). Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The deletion was discarded a few hours ago. emijrp (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

3RR rule doesn't apply. Page is in my own user space. emijrp (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

4IM warning issued. Patient Zero^talk 12:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hate to jump in here, but AFAICT, the article should be allowed to remain. 3RR clearly says A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. I would go ahead and say that includes UP/TP as project pages. I don't believe the index and UP codes should be removed, though. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Although there is an exception for userpages, it says "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." and he's not. That's the issue. See WP:FAKEARTICLE which makes it clear such pages should be noindexed. It's a worthy thing to be doing but I don't think it belongs here, certainly not in his userspace. He is very insistent that the page should be indexed, saying " I want search engines index this page." @L3X1: do you mean that it should be noindexed? Doug Weller talk 12:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I see my mistake now. Google shouldn't be indexing userpages. Perhaps MfD should be user L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• No matter how many warnings are given, this user is still going to surreptitiously enable indexing on the page, and we can't babysit the massive page or the editor. And even if he didn't, the fake article violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:FAKEARTICLE, and WP:NOTPROMOTION. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, U5 doesn't apply to someone who has made 36k edits over 12 years. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 742) I was about to decline the U5 request but I see that Drmies added it, so instead I'll just note here that I think U5 does not apply. I don't know what Emijrp is up to but it does appear obviously intended to contribute to the project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sure he does. I'm just not sure that something in userspace is the best way to go about it, or that he should think he can ignore our guidelines. Doug Weller talk 13:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ivanvector: go ahead and decline. Admins should follow the correct procedures too. Right Drmies? --99of9 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Softlavender:, please explain your reinstatement of the speedy by reverting my edit, calling it "incorrect". I simply made clear that the u5 speedy deletion criteria ("where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace") are obviously not met. You need to justify more than that to justify such a rude reversion. I see above you pointed to WP:FAKEARTICLE but even there it says "inappropriate content created by non-genuine contributors should be tagged with {{db-u5}}.", which again, does not apply to genuine contributors, even if you believe the content is inappropriate. Make a proper deletion request. --99of9 (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• The restoration of Drmies' U5 was my error, because when I checked the user's contributions I accidentally clicked a recent edit he made which was by his bot Emijrpbot, which is 100% userspace edits [99]. When I discovered my error a few minutes later I was going to revert my revert but I had already made several reverts and didn't want to breach 3RR on a technicality. Softlavender (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 97) I have declined U5 (sorry Drmies), full-protected the page due to the massive edit warring from all sides, and listed the page at MfD for further discussion about whether to delete the page or not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• delete This is neither an encyclopedia article, nor a draft for producing them. It is outside the scope of WP, and the scope of WP user pages. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is a long essay - and not even a good essay. It makes no real narrative structure and it relies instead for its bulk on massive factoid tables. If the author wants to host it, then web hosting is cheap. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Subject it to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, I consider the earlier part a valid article, and am willing to move it to mainspace or at least draft space, and I seen o reason why it should not be indexed. The longer list part is not absurd in WP space; Tables of the progress of WP in various fields is excellent use of WP space, and we have a number of them in various places, though not quite as large. . But I'm certainly willing to move it to my user space if there's any question. (the discussion at MfD seems to agree ). DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • And I am wiling to move it back to userspace as a user essay instead of a valid article in that case. Something like "Wikidata singularity will occur in 2040s, in the same date range of technological singularity.[7] It will be the first time in history that all human knowledge is stored in a machine-readable format and ready to be consumed, understood and used by computers or any device." (from the lead) is nonsense which doesn't belong in the mainspace at all. " In this project, we attempt to study how many articles are needed to cover the sum of all human knowledge." (also from the lead) clearly indicates why this shouldn't be moved. The comparison of Wikidata with "all topics in this category" is extreme navelgazing, and shows (as does the whole essay) a profound misunderstanding of the difference between "knowledge" and "having some key facts". Your definition of "excellent use of WP space" is rather bizarre it seems, but your claim that parts of it belong in the mainspace is the most problematic. Fram (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Page is at MfD for those who wish to comment. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary Targeting by a User

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. User:Cordless Larry has been targeting a lot of my articles and some of them I could understand, but under the Bahamian British page he lost the bid for speedy deletion of the page and persisted on targeting my page. There are a lot of pages that existed that are similar that remain on Wikipedia. So when I made the page I thought it was fine. Upon his persistence of targeting my page I asked him why is other pages like the Antiguans and Barbudans in the United Kingdom still in existence? He has clearly shown a strong desire to delete my page. He responded that the deletion of my page has nothing to do with other pages. So the fact that he has no desire to remove these other pages but has dedicated himself to deleting my page. I believe this user is unnecessarily abusing his power and is targeting me intentionally. He also made a statement about Bahamian British should be under African Caribbean British which is ignorant as all Bahamian British people are not Black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreateBahamas (talk • contribs) 20:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's unlikely you're being targeted. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia. We can't deal with them all at once. That means some of them are going to receive more attention than others. New pages tend to receive more scrutiny than older ones, and volunteers may simply go down a chronological or alphabetical list rather than prioritize them based on subjective criteria. If an editor sees that you've created one potentially inappropriate page, they may also scrutinize other pages made. The best way to avoid deletion is by clearly establishing notability when the article is created. If you find this tedious, there are alternatives, such as articles for creation or creating drafts in user-space. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As explained at User talk:CreateBahamas#Nomination of Bahamian British for deletion, I nominated the article for speedy deletion under WP:G4. DGG declined that nomination, as the deletion discussion was back in 2008, so I took the article to AfD. That's hardly "targeting a lot of [CreateBahamas's] articles". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@CreateBahamas: You are relatively new to Wikipedia so may be unfamiliar with how some of our processes work. There are several ways an article can be nominated for deletion in some way some more "bureaucratic" than others. If a reviewer season article that they think ought to be deleted, it makes sense to start with the easiest applicable and least bureaucratic option, which in this case was the speedy deletion option. The reviewing administrator decided the article didn't meet the criteria so decline the nomination. In some cases, a declination of a speedy nomination might be construed as an implicit support for retention of the article although that's rarely the case. It is more usually a simple statement that this particular reason for deletion doesn't apply. However, in this particular situation the declination of the nomination specifically noted that if the article were to be deleted it should go through AFD, our more bureaucratic option. The editor who nominated it for speedy deletion followed that recommendation and nominated it at AFD. This is a perfectly normal sequence of events which happens many many times. I don't see any indication of any targeting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I do see the indication of Targeting because clearly he hasn't take interest in deleting other content that fit the same criteria in which he chose to delete my page even when brought to his attention. My question is, will all the other articles that exist on Wikipedia like Aruba Americans, and many others also be deleted? Or is it that it is only my page that will be deleted while the rest remain. You people don't make any sense, if there is something wrong with my page why are others like it still up on Wikipedia. That to me is targeting! If it isn't then I have no idea what is.CreateBahamas (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well as long as the rest gets deleted also then I am okay, but don't delete my page when there are many others like it on Wikipedia that doesn't make any sense to me. Because if it is that big of a deal then the rest would have already been gone. I saw Macedonians in the United Kingdom under 3000 people and remains in existence if one would want me to write a page along those lines mentioning the History of Bahamians in the United Kingdom then I can. But this is why I feel targeted, Bahamian British was originally deleted in 2008 and gets targeted for deletion again when I make it, while these other group of people remains. If you don't see bias then I think there is a serious problem with this community. CreateBahamas (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User:CreateBahamas I get that you feel targeted because you don't know the bigger picture. There are over 5 million mainspace pages at Wikipedia and tens of thousands more in Draft and Userspace plus other places. Many volunteer editors work to delete pages every day but there are hundreds more unacceptable pages added daily. There is no way we can keep up or get to everything. I'm just one editor who personally nominated over 2400 pages User:Legacypac/CSD_log for speedy deletion last month, plus sent a few hundred pages through deletion discussion processes. Just today I worked with and got consent from another editor to delete almost 1000 pages in one go! User:Cordless Larry is definitely not targeting you, he is just following Wikipedia guidelines. If we did not have guidelines we would have pages on 50 million random people, every one that thought about starting a band, millions of local businesses and so on. Legacypac (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, and that is not the issue I have, the issue I have is I brought it to the editors attention and nothing has been done to the pages I mentioned yet. He took the time to go out his way to get mines down, then why not go after the others I brought to your attention. That is my stance on it and my opinion will not change. Let the page get deleted I just wanted that to be understood. Thank you for your time. CreateBahamas (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is under any obligation to delete the other pages. The situation has been explained to you several times now. If you want to nominate the other pages for deletion, go ahead. Otherwise, I suggest you drop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I nominated Bahamian British for deletion because it was on my watchlist from back in 2008 when it was first deleted, so I was alerted to its recreation, CreateBahamas. I nominate these types of articles for deletion reasonably regularly, but I only have so much time to dedicate to this. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand now, I didn't know the history of it and I didn't feel like you explained to me properly why this was up for deletion and not the rest. But now I got a better understanding as to why this particular page was chosen and that is all I really wanted to know. CreateBahamas (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

unCSDable copyvio

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

---

There's a copyvio of imdb at User:Vanishing sara/modern.css which can't be tagged because it's .css. Would someone oblige please? Cabayi (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

All taken care of. Weird, that's the only edit that user ever made, and it was years ago. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RickinBaltimore. I stumbled across a kid's autobio which revealed personal contact details and have since been working through a search of userspace on "birth date 2004"... there's a whole lot of weird out there. Cabayi (talk) 13:43, 7 July 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:Ardnashee2014 block evasion?

Just looking for some other admin's views. I've come across User:Ardnashee2014 who has been removing references from articles without any commentary. Fine, that can be dealt with. The reason here is I checked their userpage and came across this comment "This is my third Wikipedia account as I can't remember the password to my first one and my second was blocked. 'Nuff said. (drops mic)." Should we just be blocking this account for block evasion straight off? Thoughts? Canterbury Tail talk 19:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think people are welcome to a fresh start (assuming they are editing constructively). It's worth running by a checkuser though. -- John Reaves 19:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming I found his other account (just searched for his name on user pages), it looks like his blocked account (Ardnashee School and College) was done for a username vio, so they're probably ok. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Judging by the contributions yes they're the same editor. Okay, I'll just keep an eye on them for the reference deletion and see if we can sort that. Their other edits are good, just no summaries (I'll drop them a line) and randomly deleting references. Canterbury Tail talk 22:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• User is clearly engaging in rampant vandalism. Removing citations or content without the least bit of explanation. I have just now given them a final warning; if they do it again, I'm all for blocking. Softlavender (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ugh, we have a whole set of them: Education Program:Hanyang University/Audience and Media Strategy (Spring 2017). Some haven't edited yet, but Markx121993 (talk · contribs) is doing the exact same thing as Ardnashee2014 (talk · contribs): massive removal of citations: [100]. I've given him a final warning as well. Piotrus, can you please help deal with this group? I ask because they are from Hanyang University, and your doppelganger account is Hanyangprofessor2, which is on the student list and is editing on the same articles as some of the students. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: As far as I know not a single student from that course has chosen to do a Wikipedia assignment. The accounts from Dlwjd9393 to Feel940 were created on April 17, during the day I was showing students Wikipedia and how to enroll in the course. All other accounts - User:Laru0004 and User:Weatherseal india and above - were created or enrolled afterward, and have no connection with the course. I am not sure who Laru0004 is (the list should be chronological, but that one enrolled in June). All others are sama vandal/newbie accounts; I've noticed there are always people (new accounts) enrolling in random courses - maybe some of them think Wikipedia is some sort of open MOOC, maybe some think it will help them bypass vandal checks, maybe there is some vandal bot/soft somewhere doing this, but a fact remains that seeing that User X is enrolled in Course Y doesn't necessarily mean they have any real connection to the course. Anyone can click the enroll button, and the 'token/password' feature is broken (I reported it last year, but Education namespace extension seems abandoned, so no-one is fixing it, so we cannot lock courses with student passwords, so the problem will continue in the foreseeable future). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Contentious behavior on Trans woman by Colonial Overlord

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

---

Colonial Overlord has been arguing for weeks on the Trans woman talk page that Wikipedia should not be referring to trans women as women in the lede of that article, stating that this is a "POV" issue that Wikipedia should not be taking a side on (1, 2). Multiple editors have countered their arguments but they are dismissing those arguments. They have suggested that other editors who disagree with them might be doing so because we are "LGBT movement activists" (3). They restored their preferred wording to the lede without consensus to do so (4).

The editor is now impugning my integrity based on my user page, suggesting that ""representation" is a higher priority for Funcrunch than truth and verifiability."(5) Funcrunch (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, my pronoun is "they", as stated on my user page (Colonial Overlord referred to me as "he or she", I will give the benefit of the doubt that they did not see that userbox. I'm referring to them as "they" as I do not know their gender or chosen pronouns). Funcrunch (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have tried engaging in rational discussion with Funcrunch, who has ignored almost all of my arguments and then declared that "editors are not required to engage with you to your specific satisfaction" when I pointed that out. Funcrunch is now refusing to discuss the issue at all, despite continuing to revert my edits. Oh, and the edits in question were not a restoration of my preferred wording but compromise wording that multiple editors in the discussion expressed acceptance of, and which nobody (including Funcrunch) has made any argument against.

When I originally raised my objections to the wording, several editors immediately accused me of having a "POV mindset" and "a fringe POV push" without any evidence at all. Now I'm getting reported for pointing out that Funcrunch does not seem to be impartial on this issue, using evidence from Funcrunch's own user page. That seems a bit much.

And finally, accusing me of making a personal attack by calling someone "he OR she"? Seriously? That is really grasping at straws. Colonial Overlord (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: (after (edit conflict)) This section was removed by 71.198.247.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the edit summary "rv troll". I have restored it. A quick look at the IP's talk page shows blocks and warnings, including for disruption here at ANI. If an admin wants to take some action, I think that that would be appropriate. EdChem (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) I have some doubts whether this is ANI-worthy at this point, but since we're here I'll say that Colonial Overlord's questioning of Funcrunch's impartiality is unwarranted and their unwillingness to disengage—even after this thread was opened—is troubling. At the very least, their comments suggest a lack of understanding of consensus. Lack of understanding is not a cardinal sin per se, but refusal to accept consensus and move on is a problem. We're definitely in dead horse territory now. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm... This looks a lot like a content dispute. CO has only ever edited the article twice that I see, and if For all I know, all of you could be LGBT movement activists is the high-point of incivility in the discussion, then that's... just fairly lame. It would be arguable that every member of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism (note: both userboxes I myself have sported for years) are a type of activist in their own way, and I think most people in those projects would probably consider it a compliment. While respecting pronoun preference or a universal neutral pronoun may be considered good form in mostly anonymous polite company, not doing so isn't a gross violation of CIVIL, unless maybe the pronoun someone reaches for is "it", in which case you may have a good case for clear "intent to offend" there.

They've been given all the DS warnings that are applicable. Copy/paste both versions of the lead and open an RfC. Then buckle down and present sources in favor of the side you prefer. Neither of those requires use of administrator tools or the extensive input of experienced uninvolved editors. TimothyJosephWood 17:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not accuse CO of incivility or personal attack when noting my pronoun preference; I specifically said "I will give the benefit of the doubt that they did not see that userbox" (with reference to "singular they"). I decided to post at ANI after the """representation" is a higher priority for Funcrunch than truth and verifiability" statement. I also suggested some time ago that CO start an RfC, but they refused. Funcrunch (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this is the second or third time this has come up in about a week, but a talk page is to an edit war what an RfC is to an exhausting talk page discussion. The onus is generally on one side to start the discussion, but that doesn't absolve the other of doing so if they fail to. It generally takes about as much or less time than an ANI thread, it usually results in some clear outcome either way (even if you or I may think it's a forgone conclusion), and it establishes a lasting consensus that usually needs another RfC to overturn. In other words, it's better than an ANI thread in basically every way. TimothyJosephWood 17:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you're saying, but when one user is the only user who keeps arguing for something that the consensus is already clearly against, don't you think it's asking a bit much to suggest that the other users start an RfC to accommodate that one user? In any event, various RfCs on transgender-related topics have been unpleasantly contentious (sometimes more so than the average ANI thread), and I wouldn't be inclined to begin one unless I thought it was absolutely necessary. And, given that one user's unwillingness to accept regular old consensus, what assurance would we have that they'd accept RfC-based consensus? It sounds like a potential waste of time. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A public relations business is not a consensus, no matter how many admins and WMF staff you have on payroll. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

After there is an RfC with a solid consensus, and they refuse to accept it, then come to ANI. At that point you've done WP:DR and the user has refused to let DR do what it does and settle the issue. At that point it becomes behavioral.

And anyway, the argument seems to be substantive on its face (i.e., not God hates fags™, therefore lead), and given the nature of the topic, it's reasonable that the argument will come up repeatedly, and so it will be useful to have an RfC to point to and say "consensus". That's the part that makes it not a waste of time.

Let's face it, trans in 2017 is probably somewhere around where gay was in 1987, and the argument that Wikipedia here is getting slightly ahead of the arc of the moral universe (bending toward justice as it does) is not a completely unreasonable one. Open it up, let the chips fall where they may, and go back to building an encyclopedia. Even if this thread somehow ended in a decisive block, we'd probably be back here within a year anyway. TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason I have been reluctant to start a RfC is because the ones I have seen are usually just treated like votes, with people simply declaring their opinion, often without providing any reasons, and almost never engaging with the reasons provided by others, ignorant of the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy. But the talk page discussion in this case has been like that as well, with all but one or two editors refusing to engage in rational argument and just declaring their opinions. So if you think I should start a RfC I will do so, but what I should do to get editors to engage in rigorous rational argument instead of just declaring their opinions? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the thing: you're not entitled to decide what is rational argument and what is opinion, and you're not entitled to say that peoples' opinions don't matter. A neutral, uninvolved, experienced editor (usually an administrator) will close the RFC after it has run its course and determine where consensus lies, based upon both the number of supports or opposes and their policy-based arguments. You're correct that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither is it a debate club. The personal belief that someone's argument is invalid does not render that argument invalid, and nobody is required to "engage" in "rigorous rational argument." Sometimes, people are just not going to agree with you, and if the consensus disagrees with you, you can either edit in accordance with that consensus or stop editing that topic area. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Allright...well I'll admit I wasn't aware RfCs were resolved by a neutral administrator taking the strength of arguments into account. That seems reasonable then I suppose. Regarding rational argument, it might be subjective whether a given argument is sound or not, but it isn't subjective whether someone is attempting to engage in rational argument or not: the difference between "I think your argument fails because x" and "nah I disagree". If things just came down to weight of personal opinions that would allow organised activist movements to skew the result. Colonial Overlord (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Funcrunch and I have clashed at times over what our motives might be; this section is the main example. But I have found Funcrunch to be a solid editor; they have grown as an editor and understand our rules. Funcrunch doesn't always agree with our rules, but Funcrunch does understand them and abide by them, as they have done in this case. Although I've noted that LGBT editors should be mindful of WP:Activism, questioning an editor's motives in this regard can inflame a situation. I did start off with obvious suspicion of Colonial Overlord, which perhaps was not the best route to go. It can be argued that Colonial Overlord is, however, being WP:Tendentious at the moment and should take a step back and reevaluate. Others have suggested an RfC; he can take that route. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: IP account 71.198.247.231 (contributions • talk) has posted on my user talk page objecting to my description of their removal of this ANI section as trolling as disruptive. I have declined to strike my comment, and noted that I believe the IP is possibly editing inconsistently with the policy on sock puppetry, as well as casting aspersions and disrespecting gender self-identification. I have suggested that the IP editor is risking another block. The thread can be read at user talk:EdChem#ANI. EdChem (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

With comments like "disrespecting gender self-identification" and this [101] it is clear that EdChem is not here to build an encyclopedia.71.198.247.231 (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Number of article space edits by EdChem ~ 7300. Number of article space edits by IP 71.198.247.231 = 0. And I'm not here to build an encyclopaedia? Why don't you go back to your main account, and perhaps count yourself lucky not to have been blocked (again)? EdChem (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The anon has a point. Using the term "deadnaming" is as inappropriate as the action, if not more so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: How is mentioning or using the term deadnaming remotely inappropriate? I may be misreading, but it looks like you are suggesting that using a single term is somehow worse than harassment of trans folks... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Using the pejorative term "deadnaming", to refer to an editor editing in good faith, is worse than the activity which some trans consider "harassment". Use of the term is a violation of WP:NPA, even if it were accurate. Using it to refer to off-wiki activities may be acceptable—I wouldn't think so, but I've been wrong before. (As I've noted before, the only trans(s) I know refer to themselves before transition by their former name and pronoun. In one instance, he was offended by a reference to his former self as "him".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to derail the purpose of my ANI report further with this discussion, but you seem to have some peculiar notions about what deadnaming is and why it is harmful to trans people. Deadnaming is deliberately calling a trans person by their pre-transition name, and can cause serious distress. I am trans and know many trans people and it is definitely considered harassment if done deliberately (and without explicit consent). However I have not accused anyone of doing this here, nor has anyone else that I can see, and I don't know why the subject is even coming up as it has nothing to do with my report. Funcrunch (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Funcrunch, Arthur Rubin is referring to my comment on my talk page to Colonial Overlord that noted that deadnaming and deliberate gender misidentification is inconsistent with the BLP policy whether directed at an article subject or an editor. I did not state that Colonial Overlord had engaged in deadnaming, though I do see denying that trans women are women is in the same territory of denial of transgender identity as deadnaming. Further, Arthur Rubin is supporting the IP's claim that I am not here to build an encyclopaedia and claiming that I have violated the prohibition against making personal attacks. I don't want to derail your thread, but I don't think what I said to Colonial Overlord constituted a personal attack, and I would prefer it if Arthur Rubin struck that comment and the suggestion that I am not here to build an encyclopaedia. EdChem (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I had only seen the term "deadnaming" used as a pejorative, but I see there is an credible alternative definition, and EdChem doesn't seem to be using it in the pejorative sense. Hence, I withdraw my comment. If someone wants to hat this subthread, I have no objection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, thank you for striking your comment that supported the IP's suggestion that I am not here to build an encyclopaedia. I found it very strange for an admin to make that suggestion given my editing history. You have left intact your post where the edit summary declares that I had clearly violated WP:NPA, and I ask that you also strike and withdraw that comment, please. I would also ask that you be more careful in declaring experienced editors as WP:NOTHERE or as having violated behavioural policies like NPA – as an admin, your words carry substantial weight. EdChem (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, thank for striking your other comment. EdChem (talk) 23:36, 4 July 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:Magioladitis high speed editing

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

---

User:Magioladitis has been continuously editing at a high speed by performing magic word replacement edits (ISBN) from his editor account. This is continuing despite complaints that he is flooding watchlists. Editor User:Justlettersandnumbers has complained on his talk page multiple times, yet this action continues. The most recent conversation is here: Special:PermaLink/788254672#ISBN_replacement. This is despite knowing this is a task better suited to be run under a bot account (and is open for discussion here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 54) that will specifically avoid flooding recent changes and watchlists. The edits appear to be designed to just avoid the restrictions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis - so I'm bringing this here for administrator and community review instead of the AE. I think I'm too close to this issues personally so will not be making any blocks/etc and would appreciate review by uninvovled parties. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 11:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux the things I am doing right now are not even done by bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Example. I fixed Magic Bot's edit. No bots fix hidden tabs right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux what is my speed exactly. Do you have numbers? Whch restriction is realated to that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

General disruptive editing by flooding watchlists and recent changes by making insubstative (in my opinion) edits without a bot flag. As I said in the introduction above, I'm a bit too close to this and am leaving it open that these edits are not consider insubstantive by a consensus of others and that the rate is acceptable. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Check my edit rate again please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux See that in most of my today's edits Magic Bot failed to fix the ISBN error and that PrimeBOT stopped 4 days ago. Moreover, Yobot would not ix those case neither since I ve been tild to use the same regex with Magic Bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Note also that there are less than 100 pages left in mainspace right now and that Magic Bot stopped 30 minutes ago exactly because they can't fix the rest. The cases contain hidden tabs or the ISBNs are in places not fixed by the bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux The main complain was not about the high speed but it is worth to do something like that by normal account since it is done by bots. My arguments are: a) ot all of these edits are done by bots. b) It enables finding edge cases (e.g. example of ISBN fix not related to the bot task) c) There is a workaround for watchlists d) If Yobot does it with general fixes it could save me time by checking edits instead of making them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, I just think that it is not appropriate. Thus leaving this open for some feedback. I would like to request you cease this activity for at least 12 hours unless this discussion shows significant support for your continued activity prior to then. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux OK. 63 pages left. You can ask the bot owners to modify their code to fix thee 63 pages if it is worth. Opening an ANI for that and relating to the ArbCom case it is intresting though. Recall, that I have not worked on fixing ISBNs for 4 days waiting for the BRFA approval. Today, I worked mainly with pages unfixed by the bots. So I did not exactly resume the past work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis, your edit rate is 13 edits per minute. If you're not running an unauthorised bot on your main account, you should consider entering the World's Fastest Typist contest. ‑ Iridescent 12:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent I use AWB to load the pages which provides list of pages. After saving it proceeds to the next page. Please check WP:AWB for Wikipedia's most popular tool. These edit rates were never a problem afaik. Recall this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

At 13 edits a minute (4.6 seconds a page), an editor is not checking the page to examine their edits before pressing "save changes". We're back here again, only six days (?) after the last ANI episode - this really needs to stop. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 I am checking only the changes not the entire page. Are you going to ask the same from every AWB editor? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

As you see I have a lot of follow up edits. This is exactly because I check the page. Not many AWB editors can claim this. What was the last ANI about? Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have indeed asked Magioladitis on several occasions to stop making these edits, at the very least until the two bots that are working on the same (important) change have finished their respective runs. Unlike bot edits, which can be hidden with a single click, these semi-automated are swamping my watchlist. Perhaps I am unreasonable, but I don't feel that I should be obliged to install a script just to hide the edits of one user. I know and never doubt that Magioladitis wants to improve our encyclopaedia; I'm perplexed and disappointed at his disregard of the concerns of others when he does so without consideration. It'd probably be good if we had a guideline to prevent editors from using semi-automated tools to make edits that have already been approved as automated bot tasks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers PrimeBOT has not edited for 4 days and the last edits I did were not done by Magic Bots neither. Still, I provided some workarounds to avoid any disruption. One was to get approval to use my bot account (I could even use this in manual mode if asked) and the second was the script trick that was recently advertised as a solution by others. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note once more that I stayed away from this task for 6 days after I was asked, I seeked bot approval and that today I mainly fixed pages that remained unfixed by the bots. Another example. I also did a bunch of follow-up edits to improve exisitng fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that thanks to me and not only me this list was reduced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The problem I see here is that the BAG and other bot-related admins are so involved in dealing with Magioladitis' nonsense that none of us can feasibly take action without appearing involved. Mag is blatantly throwing policy in our faces, toeing the line of his ArbCom restrictions and ignoring simple requests from other editors to just slow down a bit. He is constantly pestering BAG to get approval for tasks that aren't vital (that link is to his ISBN fixer, which as stated is exactly the same as the others). At some point there won't be any uninvolved admins who are familiar with the case to actually do something about it.

I'm not saying that Magioladitis doesn't do good work (he does), I'm just saying that we're getting to a point where he's barely listening to anyone, barely following the rules, and annoying many people in the process. I obviously can't speak for the rest of the bot-running admins but I'm certainly getting tired of this shit. If an editor can't be collaborative and insists on "his way or the highway" something needs to be done. It probably won't happen in this case, but I have a feeling it will be happening soon unless he changes his ways. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't recall commenting about Magioladitis's editing before (other than formatting this section earlier), but I have gathered something from reading the various complaints over time. Magioladitis, you seem to think that whatever it is that you're working on at the moment needs to be fixed right now. (See PrimeBOT stopped 4 days ago[102], there are less than 100 pages left in mainspace right now and that Magic Bot stopped 30 minutes ago[103], I stayed away from this task for 6 days after I was asked[104] above.) Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see any of these edits as being particularly urgent, and Wikipedia is not under a deadline. Why not just wait for consensus for your edits, or for a bot task to be approved, or to at least slow the editing rate and reduce the number of articles touched to something reasonable? Why the hurry? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • DoRD There would be no hurry is we plan a strategy to make the edits with a clear plan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I have to be honest here - I have no idea what you're trying to say with your reply. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
      • DoRD I do not edit faster than I used to edit. In fact, I edit less. Moreover, we have two bunhces of my edits discussesed here a) The edits of 6 days ago which the bots were already doing but without other fixes. and b) Today's fixes where the bots were not doing because they were uncovered cases. For example, tabs inside ISBNS causing the ISBN to break. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Primefac makes a good case for filing another ArbCom case, since the community continues to struggle with this disruption. These edits violate AWB Rule of Use #3, in my opinion, as they are extremely minor. More importantly, editors have objected and consensus has not been obtained before continuing. I predicted we'd be back at that venue within three months. It appears to have taken four. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• If my eidt are extremelly minor imagine the edits done by the bots. And don't ignore the fact that I did edits not done by the bots.

• As a side note, 13 edits per minute seems like a lot, but it's actually pretty doable with AWB when not making too many changes. The problem is the repeated edits after being asked to stop, which places the burden on the editor to obtain consensus, not the actual rate of the edits, in my opinion. Editing against consensus is serious on its own. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• The edits have consensus since they wre approved to be done by bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to do them without a bot flag as an exception to AWB Rules of Use #3. You had many editors come to you on your talk page disagreeing with the edits, which is a sign you should stop until the edits are discussed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• You again seem to ignore the fact that the last bunch of edits was not exactly posisble for a bot but it needed some human attention. So also seem to ignore the fact that both bots have failed to fix those pages. I see a pattern here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: My problem with the sorts of ridiculously unimportant and unnecessary edits Magdiolatis does, is that when I check my watchlist it fills up with these edits and I have to check every single article affected to see if the useless edit is hiding a substantive edit that I missed since the last time I checked my watchlist. This becomes singularly unfeasable when one has a lot of articles on one's watchlist and they are all being bombarded with useless edits. And no, I'm not going to remove bot edits or AWB edits from my watchlist (especially since numerous people sneak in substantive edits with AWB). Softlavender (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Softlavender You have a point. Note that the page would have been edited by a bot anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Does this not immediately break "5.3.5 Magioladitis restricted" about doing edits that do not visually affect the rendered code? (A spot check of the changes by adding the ISBN template shows no difference that I can immediately see in the rendered page). This would a clear one month block per the ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Masem It does change the output. The new edit creates a link to ISBN. :) No block. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • That statement is false. The magic link ISBN 978-0393316049 creates the same link as template ISBN 978-0393316049 makes. The edits are just replacing the magic link with an explicit template {{ISBN}} that creates the same hyperlink. It is worrisome that Magioladitis made the edits without understanding their purpose. Glrx (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are three very easy fixes for this. Restrict Mag to only making semi or fully automated edits on his bot account - no AWB editing on his main - so anything he wants to do on a mass scale has to be a bot-request. Ban him from any semi or fully automated editing completely. Or ban him from checkwiki-based editing. Any option is completely manageable and easy to spot when violated. The problem with his existing restrictions is the overabundance of good faith on those imposing them that he would stick to them and not try and wriggle around them. It has been clear for a long while that Mag is not interested in what others think when he thinks these trivial things have to be fixed right now, and will attempt to work around both the spirit and the letter of any restriction placed. So the only options left are restrictions which have zero leeway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Only in death does duty end But today the edits needed human attention. As I said Magic Bots failed to fix these pages and I have not edited for this task for 6 days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • BU Rob13 That's why I stopped 6 days ago and resumed today to cover different cases after the bots stopped fixing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• You know something Magioladitis? Your arguments seem to be the same sort of thing we see when people write unblock requests like "I only reverted three times within 24 hours" or "my edits were right so everyone else was vandalising". I have little time for people who try to wikilawyer their way out of disrupting other editors because the letter of the law said it was okay. I propose a last chance - next time you are caught doing rapid-fire edits without clear and obvious evidence you are thinking what you are doing, you should be blocked. Who agrees? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333 OK so you support that the edits could be done by main account but not at that edit rate (13-15 epm). I say this is a support to the task afterall. Fianlly, Magioladitis (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So let summarise: There was a 6 days period of no edits from my side. The edits of the phase 1 and phase 2 were not the same. Ther was a consensus for both phases to be done. Phase 1 was done by bots. Phase 2 was not. I participated semi-manually in both phases while I also seeked bot approval. I also replied immediatelly to fellow editor who complained proposing a workaround. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment:Totally agree with what Softlavender says above. My watchlist has been filled with edit notifications with the message "Replace magic links with templates per local RfC and MediaWiki Rfc" and I have no idea what this even means but I have to check every single article to see if something important was changed to the article before that which I have missed. It has been very irritating.Smeat75 (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
      • And it is still happening,by the way. Seems to be something about adding brackets to ISBN numbers but I wish it would stop.Smeat75 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Smeat75 You obviosuly refer to the bot edits (PrimeBot, Magic links bot) because I have a different edit summary. Moreover, I am aware of the problem and this is the reason I proposed that the bots cause minimum disruption. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Maybe it was not clear that I was not planning to do the bot task via my account. Today, I have loaded a list of pages with approx. 2,000 pages. The ISBNs fixes are much more. I even have proposed to another bot owner to take over the task but encouraged them to perform general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

I'm going to throw this out there, because I think it's worth at least considering at this point. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm at wit's end. Ritchie333 quite generously proposed a last chance, which Magioladitis has already been given many times over in various past discussions. The response to this was some severe WP:IDHT which involved twisting Ritchie's words into being support of the task. At this point, the repeated issues are a giant timesink for the community, and very little value is being added anywhere.

I'd also like to note that Magioladitis continued this editing even after the ANI thread began, which doesn't give me great hope for the future.

I propose Magioladitis be blocked for one month for disruptive editing and violations of AWB rules of use #3 (failing to seek consensus when the task was challenged multiple times). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Can you please explain Bgwhite to me and if you finally found his email and emailed him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about with me emailing him? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 I ve striken this out. We will sort out probably some other time. I am here to encourge people editing Wikipedia. I hope you are too.-- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support proposed block, there have been indeed many last chances. Capitals00 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Capitals00 Do you propose to block Rob for mishandling th Bgwhite case? I don't understand. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Bu Rob13 said "I propose Magioladitis be blocked for one month", I agreed with the "proposed block". Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 OK. I misread. It's difficult to cope with Rob because he keeps commenting after all my comments. I have said that propabbly he seeks to harass me probably due to the discussions during th ArbCom case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

When somebody proposes a sanction in good faith to reduce disruption on the project, do you think it's a good idea to insult them and throw around unfounded accusations of harassment? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Apologies for that but I try to understand why when other edit in faster rates, when other tasks could be done by bots, when I have explained thoughouly my position I am still the target of attention by a certain person. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 My proposals for group edits by bots aim to reduce disruption on the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 I have even provided links where one of the two bots edited and then I edited fixing the bot's edit. This is a proof not all pages could have been fixed by the two bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block, but.... The edits were made in good faith, but the real problem here is again concerns of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, with some kind of rush that those edits need to be done right now otherwise the end is upon us. Consider for a second that you are not singled out for your edits because you are Magioladitis and there's a witch hunt against you, but rather because you repeatedly make either low-value (or at-first-glance low-value edits) in a WP:MEATBOT-like manner, when better alternatives don't seem to have been considered. On a go-foward basis, when anyone objects to any semi-automated edit you make, get consensus for those edits, either at WP:BOTN, or at the very least check with WP:BAG to give you the thumbs up on resuming the task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 30 day block While I think something should be done, I don't think this is the right solution. I'm not sure what the best remedy is but I'd be leaning much more towards a semi-automated restriction for 30days than an outright block. I brought this here because I see this activity as being disruptive to our volunteers not directly disruptive to our readers (or I would have blocked myself). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux the disruptive part is the edit rate or that this task could be done by bots? Recall, I proved that that the bots were not fixing all the pages I was fixing. I alos proved that my edits were actually fixing the visual outcome. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose 30 day block, but Support 7 day block - nothing else seems to be having an effect on the editor's behaviour, but 30 days seems excessive. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 Please read WP:NOPUNISH -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block, support 30-day AWB ban. Xoasflux has it best, I think; Mag needs to do things through the proper channels, in the right manner, and if that means kicking them off AWB for a month, so be it. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The 30 day block proposal tells a lot of how some people approach things. We are here to build and not destroy. Thanks for opposing it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block he simply doesn't get it but a 30 day block is not the solution. My watchlist has been spammed by his edits however and I had thought to myself that surely this was banned under his ArbCom case, but it appears not. jcc (tea and biscuits) 23:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block-_Continual failure to adhere to community expectations but a 30 day block is not the solution.I was too inclined to supp.(in view of the ARBCOM case) but regrettably there is no such point.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:54, 1 July 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.

Alternative 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.

---

I don't believe a block is the solution, but at this point I do think something has to be done. Following on from what Xaosflux and Primefac have said above, I propose a one-month total ban on use of AWB and any similar semi-automated tool for Magioladitis on his main ("Magioladitis") account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. I would have suggested three months, but have gone with what has already been mentioned above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support three-month ban; one-month is too short; should be at least three months in my opinion. We really need to see if Magioladitis is here to build an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite AWB ban Temporary AWB ban would be good if this was first complaint but like others said, that there have been many threads on ANI about his use of AWB. Capitals00 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 Do you know there was an ArbCom very recently about my edits? Also note that:

a) all the changes I did change the visual outcome

b) they were not done by the exisiting bots (I provided diffs).

c) I have requested approval to do this task by bot since March 25, 2017.

d) The task is considered useful and since MW will remove magic links support soon there is a (loose?) deadline.

Magioladitis (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a serious problem with the BRFAs for Magioladitis at this point. Given conduct issues that have required BAG comment, every BAG member is either involved (so can't handle the BRFA) or not planning to go anywhere near it to avoid getting dragged into the behavioral issues. I don't know how to resolve that. We can't force any BAG member to handle specific BRFAs, but it also isn't fair to implement a de facto ban on operating bots by virtue of having no willing BAG member to review the BRFAs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 has a point. We need to form a policy that will halde these things instead of relying on BAG's activity. Especially, when a member was recused from all CHECKWIKI tasks wheher they are proposed by me or not which shows the CHECKWIKI problem is not limited to me. Also note taht the edits in question are connected to CHECKWIKI but are not actually part of it. It's also worth to note that BU Rob13 hesitated to approve this task as a bot task. It's also wirth to not that there is an open BRA from 4 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support one month ban On the plus side, Magioladitis is making good faith edits to articles nobody else particularly wants to do. On the other hand, the amount of disruption and insistence on refuting every single point of disagreement is taking time away from numerous editors that would be better spent improving the encyclopedia. Find another editor to make the ISBN fixes. A one-month ban will do for now, if disruption re-occurs, the next ban will be longer. (Extra advice to Magioladitis - if you reply to this, disagreeing with it or otherwise refuting it in detail, you'll just strengthen my support for this ban, so I would advise you not to). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban on AWB editing from main account. Three months or less. I hate this solution because it's incredibly shitty to say a dev can't use their own tool, but what other choice is there? I still think a shorter term block could get the message through more clearly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • • BU Rob13 if you support the ban please remove the block threat nonsense. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban on AWB from any account, to avoid evasion. Like Rob, still think a shorter term block would be more appropriate. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Hchc2009: I think this may go to far - there are approved tasks (and some being considered) for Magioladitis' bot (Yobot) that are not causing this disruption (flooding of watchlists and recent changes) - primarily because they are being done from a bot account. That is useful, desirable activity and I wouldn't want to stymie it. Of course, if the bot goes off-task bot blocking is an immediate option. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Xaos, I think we need to probably draw a line under this behaviour once and for all - if we're not going to impose a block, implementing the sanction on all of his accounts would seem a reasonable precaution. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009 Which rule did I break exactly? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)*2 Support one-month ban--Community expectations exceed the bounds of good-faith. And add to this constant bludgeoning which does not even seem to be well-thought before posting.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Between the edits I did 7 days ago and the edits I did yesterday, do you see any difference or not? Do think I did an effort to adjust my editing or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not going to evaluate all of those; in general (and only my opinion not intended as a policy or guidelines measurement): I think you needlessly make massive amounts of minor edits (e.g. look at this edit you made during this whole debate about disruptive bulk editing - how did that improve the article? It looks like you are just executing blind bot task under your editor account again...) that have little if any improvement for our readers in a manner that floods watchlists and recent changes (disrupting our volunteers). However, when you channel your efforts to well defined and community supported bot tasks, you contributions are much more positive. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux Here is the thing again.

a) This edit is WP:CHECKWIKI error 61. It's marked as one of the errors that change the visual outcome. I would like Headbomb to comment on that. I face the same problem here again and again. Some people thing these edits are not useful and some other thing they are.

b) I changed the visual outcome.

c) I used a clear edit summary.

d) I followed all the rules given to me from the ArbCom. As I recall i was written that my edits in gerenal are not the problem.

e) My edit is not "cosmetic".

f) It does not fall in the WP:COSMETICBOT neither.

g) I have been doing for 6-7 years and

h) I have a BRFA waiting 4 months Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34.

i) It edit rate is ~4-5 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Did you even look at the edit I just pointed out (Special:Diff/788465565)? You took a bad sentence (ending with .<ref link>:) and left it bad when you were done (changing it to .:<ref link>). Why you though moving that colon around is baffling - and doesn't explain how you made this better for readers. The fact that you say want to do this with a BRFA, but will just floodperform it as your editor account instead of waiting for approval is part of the problem being discussed above. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But, did you actually look at the edit to Blue mud dauber? You changed the end of a sentence from full stop then reference then colon to full stop then colon then reference. The result has gone from a bad visual outcome to a still-bad visual outcome. Actually looking at the edit, it is clear that the colon should be removed. Earlier in the thread, you said your edits couldn't be done by bot as they needed human attention / input... yet you still did them at 13 edits per minute? Either you are checking each edit, in which case 13 per minute is too fast and you didn't actually fix the blue mud dauber case, or you aren't and the edits are essentially unsupervised bot-type edits. Have I missed something? EdChem (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And now you have "fixed" the error by removing the full stop, and the text still doesn't make sense. EdChem (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux, EdChem OK I missed the dot but I can detect these very easily in a second run. Much easier than the before. I usually make a run with AWB and then use WPCleaner to fix those that remained unfixed or the controversial cases. These are very tricky for the eye. I have not seen the dot. Right now I am on 4-5 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

EdChem OK I did a mistake using normal broswer now and I fixed it after your comment. You could help though. Thanks anyway for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I was helping, fixing the referencing. I note you added a title to a bare url, which was good, but I did a little more – adding the url for the full text of the journal article, recognising the second ref was a dead-link and a mangled reference to a book, and finding the third is a source on which we have a WP page, with a recent update and publisher available. I also noted that the Chalybion californicum in the title is italicised. Regards, EdChem (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk)

• Support ban of up to three months. Maybe it will fix things, maybe it won't, but this whole nonsense of splitting hairs (it's like telling the officer "I was only doing 1 mph over the speed limit, not 11!") is getting silly. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Primefac Per ArbCom I have only restictions on makng edits that do no change the visual outcome. Maybe you consult ArbCom before suggesting anything that affects pages? Moreover, the edit rate argument was not the only one. Please read the entire text. --- Magioladitis (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Primefac denied to make general fixes with their bot and even stopped their bot 4 days ago. It's also worth to know that Primefak was the open to close the discussion on COSMETICBOT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Primefac From your comments I get the idea that you would agree with a bot doing ISBN fixes + general fixes and that you would stop you bot in favour of that bot. Right? -- Magioladitis (talk)
    • First off, ArbCom isn't the end-all, be-all of sanctions. Community sanctions also exist.

    Second off, who gives a flying fuck what I'm doing with my bot (which, for the record, is currently running). This isn't about me. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    • Comment Xaosflux, you see that Rob describes as one of the locus of the problem that the BRFA process is very slow. Recall that I was instructed to re-submit all my bot tasks which are 70-80 different tasks and till now only two have been approved. In one of them Primefak asked me why bother fill out a BRFa and not keep doing manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Do not speak for me. That has little to do with why we're here. We're here due to persistent behavioral problems. Separately, we have the problem that your behavior and attitude has been so toxic that every BAG member is either recused or doesn't want to go near your BRFAs. That is a problem - a separate problem. BRFA is getting faster for all but you because you've chased out most BAG members who would have otherwise worked on your tasks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
      • BU Rob13 it's obvious you are not pollite to me right now. Still, I am trying to find a "procedular solution" to these conflicts because you deribe behavioural problems but these should not be the issue if the policis were well defined. Wikipedia has many conflicts from time to time. So, please before talking for toxic attidute see how many people left the project from time to time. I try to cooperate here to prevend these things from re-occuring. My apologies to the community if this becomes tiring. I hope we see parts of this discussion reflecting to policies and guide. Wikipedia is not only n encyclopedia, it is a living community that works for the greater good. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not impolite; I'm tired. I've tried explaining basic things to you every which way and nothing seems to help. I'm at wit's end. You aren't going to find "Magioladitis may not make magic link edits semi-automatically at high speeds when people ask him to stop" in a policy or guideline. That's not how they work. Instead, you'll find WP:CONSENSUS, which describes how we make decisions on the wiki. You'll find the AWB rules of use, which say you must stop and seek explicit consensus if your edits are challenged. It's up to you to put those together and come to the conclusion that when a bunch of people complain about your editing you must adjust. Not just for a few days. Not just on one very narrow group of edits. You must take the repeated community discussions about your editing and adjust holistically to meet community norms (or at least know when you should ask before doing something!). You are expected to be able to do that. If you fail to do that and someone points it out, that's not impolite. It's necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Primefac sure community sanctions but after an ArbCom that decided that the problem is the edits taht do not change the visual outcome. The rest was the agenda pushed by Rob but it did not make it to the final decision. I did exactly as I was told. I started re-submitting tasks, I ask for permission to do the ones that do not change the visual outcome and keep doing the one I was doing. You can even compare my edit rates per month. Moreover, as you see I did some edits semi-manually but I have asked for permission to use a bot 4 months ago. I was olaso the one to encourage more people to use bots to fix that issue as soon as possible.- Magioladitis (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Primefac I tend to see the problems as "community problems". So I seeked hekp for the task to you because you are a good bot owner. That's why I mention you. You rejected my proposal but I did not 100% understood why. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
      • BU Rob13 do you think I should have stopped ny attempt to fix ISBNs because I was asked in my talk page by 1 or 2 editors? how would you handle this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I would have sought consensus to continue and stopped in the meantime. In fact, doing that one thing would solve almost every issue the community had had with your editing over the past multiple years. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef AWB ban on any non-bot account per my above comments. At a minimum 3-6 months would be required given the extensive history and timewasting for others involved here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban form AWB - I lean at least three months, but could be persuaded to support more. As to why Magioladitis is so insistant on running these sorts of runs, I suspect the answer lies in in his comment a bit earlier of "Primefac denied to make general fixes with their bot". My guess is Magioladitis is determined to get general fixes/checkwiki fixes done and the ISBN fixes are just a means to the end. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support AWB ban, per all of the above concerns, and the multiple times this user has been brought to ANI for related issues. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support AWB ban and a ban on all automated and bulk semiautomated editing on his main account. I'd consider three months a minimum, and would be inclined to say that it should be permanent. If the ban is short, then from the evidence of every single past incident he'll just sit it out and immediately go back to being disruptive the instant it expires. Any sanction needs to be strong enough to make both "Wikipedia can get along fine without what you've been doing" and "if you continue to do what you've done in the past you're not welcome here" utterly unambiguous. If Magioladitis hadn't been an admin, he'd at the very least have been stripped of the AWB permission and almost certainly be community banned from the project by now; he should be counting himself lucky that he hasn't been community banned, not constantly trying to argue that the problem is everybody else, not him. ‑ Iridescent 16:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent: I'm not going to go there because I really don't want to get involved in another case, but this all does beg the question whether the adminship question should be referred back to ArbCom. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13, with my "former arb" hat on, I'd say not at the moment, since he's not technically misusing admin tools and if they started desysopping for "bringing the admin corps into disrepute" he'd be about number 200 in line. Assuming a "no AWB" sanction passes and he continues to use it, that will be admin abuse since he wouldn't have access to the tool were it not for the fact that admins are auto-approved. (As a WP:PERM veteran, I can say unequivocally that if I saw someone with his competence issues using AWB I'd remove the bit in a heartbeat, so his continued use of the tool is purely an artefact of his legacy admin status.) ‑ Iridescent 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Although, Iridsecent, our policy states that admins are expected to have "the trust and confidence of the community" - I'd argue that this is simply no longer the case here. Would anyone reallly trust this particular admin's ability to assess consensus, for example? Hchc2009 (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Iridescent: Community recognises that my edits are done in good faith and they actually improve the project. Recall, that the edits actually helped in finishing a project asked both by the ommunity and by WMF devs. There are diagreements in the way the edits are done but not for the edits themselves. I have not edited on the specific task 2 days now and already pinged BAG members to get bot approval.-- Magioladitis (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but someone else will come along to do the same thing with much less drama, and therefore much more net benefit to the project. I well remember your editwarring to keep {nobots} out of an article, because you were just determined that your bot must roam freely, no matter what others thought. EEng 01:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Good faith" is not the same as "good". For example, a newbie could write an article like "Joe Schmoe is a politician. He is hoping to be selected as the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate for the forthcoming Lymeswold Police and Crime Commissioner election." and it could still get deleted, even though we might still AGF on the creator. Frankly, Magioladitis, I cannot think of a single edit you have ever made that has increased my knowledge or impacted on my understanding of a topic, and if you got run over by the metaphorical bus tomorrow, the impact on Wikipedia's quality would be about zero. So I advise you to stop badgering people with an attitude like you are the best Wikipedia editor in the world and we should all bow down and be grateful for your presence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. My watchlist is clogged with dubious 'bot and AWB edits. If we allow a 'bot to change "ISBN 1234..." to "{{ISBN|1234...}}" with no restrictions, then I do not see how we can sanction an editor for cleaning up the edits that stumped the 'bot. My complaint is that such a bot should never have been approved in the first place; it is a cosmetic change. If the ISBN magic link is going to be flushed sometime in the future, then it is an edit that should have been run only after other substantial changes to the page were made. The blame for this episode belongs with BAG rather than Mag. BAG is too lenient interpreting cosmetic changes. My watchlist gets 'bot edits that add commas. AWB is getting almost as bad (e.g., "Fix deprecated image syntax in infobox"; questionable collapse of Harvard refs).[105][106][107] Perhaps AWB should be restricted for all editors unless there is a substantial change. Misspelled words should be fixed, but minor punctuation does not make the grade for me. Maybe it does for other editors. I think Magioladitis is difficult, but the fact pattern here is in his favor. Glrx (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment -I am sure this is not the place to make this comment, but I cannot resist agreeing with what Glrx says above. These hundreds of "magic link" replacements and trivial AWB change notifications on my watchlist have been driving me crazy. I have turned off bot notifications because I can't stand it anymore, this may well mean that I miss substantive changes to the articles on my watchlist but I have reached the point of not caring. It is just about enough to drive you away from editing altogether.Smeat75 (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Smeat75: and @Glrx: in general bots that make "substantive edits" should not be asserting the "bot flag" on those edits - if you see that bots are making substantive content edits, especially to articles, I'd be interested to look in to options there - please leave me a talk page message with the bot name and a recent (last 30 days) diff showing a substantive edit made. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux:. Huh? You've confused me. The issue is not about bots making substantive edits. This section is not about the fast pace of substantive edits. Editors are not mad at Magioladitis for making substantive edits; they are mad at him for making lots of trivial edits. (Many of those editors are probably also mad at the bots that were making similar changes.) It's about scale and cluelessness. The issue is when an article has been quiet for weeks and then some bot or AWB user makes a trivial edit that tickles everybody on the watchlist. A few milliseconds of robot time or a few seconds of AWB editing has now disturbed dozens or even hundreds of users and consumed minutes worth of human time in reviewing (or at least loading and discarding) those edits. Bots should not be doing that. A page that just has trivial AWB edits should not be changed. Wait until somebody has made a substantial edit to a page and then let the bot or AWB editor work on it, too. I don't mind when an editor corrects a misspelling, sorts out a DAB link, or fixes a reference, but I do mind when it is just a nonsense edit. All of the ISBN links do not have to be fixed by the end of the week or even the end of the month; MediaWiki has not deleted the magic link yet. Until the software actually changes, the edit is cosmetic. Glrx (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Glrx: you mentioned "My watchlist is clogged with dubious 'bot ... edits." - this is precisely what the "hide bots" watch list control is designed for. I'm hearing you think some of these are so minor they should wait until some othertime, but the "clogging" should be able to be avoided with the watch list control - unlike when these are made by a non-bot. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  To address the WP:COSMETICBOT issue, COSMETICBOT can be overridden by strong community consensus, just like any other policy or guideline (minus ones with legal considerations). There was almost universal support for this task when discussed at the Village pump. As such, COSMETICBOT doesn't apply. The practice of consensus allowing specific cosmetic edits is explicitly written into the policy. I'm perhaps the BAG member that takes the strongest stance against cosmetic-only bot edits, but there was just no grounds to deny the task on the basis of COSMETICBOT. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support this type of change should be done from a separate bot account. Using AWB doesn't change that. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef AWB ban, which can be brought to AN after 3 months for review by the community. Any other editor would have long since seen blocks for probably the most dramatic IDHT I've seen in my many years of lurking. Combine that with the most textbook example of WP:BLUDGEON I've seen... I think an AWB ban would be more effective in this case than a block in helping to change behaviour. PGWG (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Non-responding POV pusher

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

---

100.38.165.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Everyone is being focused as slave owners in the ledes. I've already reverted them and warned them but they aren't responding. Would an impartial admin take a look, please?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I blanket reverted. It's been about 15 minutes and they only undid one, so maybe a block isn't necessary. If this is actually POV pushing, that's... more of an intent question, because it's basically indistinguishable from vandalism. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

He is back at it again as 104.148.255.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). He cites POV in the summary here. Both IPs locate to same area.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That's unfortunate in more ways than one. No point in blocking anyway if they're going to return with a different IP in every fairly short lived editing session. If this is or becomes a longish term "thing", it might be worth considering finding a wizard to look at maybe an edit filter for IPs adding the words slave/slaves/slavery. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess I would add that 1) I don't know the first thing about filters, and 2) given this edit, it does seem to be fairly extreme POV pushing and not outright vandalism, that is of course assuming that it's the same person, and not an IP hopping at a very inconvenient time for those of us looking at contribution histories. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Aand now they're back on 100.38.165.179. So maybe they're not an IP hopper; maybe they're using two devices, at least one of which has a static IP. Anyway, if someone wants to push a block button you're not going to get any complaints from me. TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Can you explain how them being Slave Owners is a point of view and not a fact? I dont know why you are so stuck on this when there's already a category of American Slave Owners and I'm just putting these admitted slave owners in their rightful place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.165.179 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for disruption. It's obvious they are POV-pushing and will not stop, regardless of the requests on their talk page and article talk pages. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:01, 6 July 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.

revert in bad faith by User:Ozzie10aaaa

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

---

On July 2nd there were two edits on the page Complement deficiency as seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Complement_deficiency&action=history . First, I deleted a paragraph where somebody talked about "prevent cells". My edit ha the comment "there are no "prevent cells"", because, google it, there are no such cells. Second, User:Ozzie10aaaa comes along and reverts my edit. When I wrote on his talk page that he revert makes no sense, he replied that I "deleted a reference", which is an escalation of nonsense. There is no "reference" for non-sense. The deleted link was not a reference for the statement I deleted - because those "prevent cells" do not exist, and the "reference" page does not mention them.

I am an anonymous user, while User:Ozzie10aaaa is an established user, with lots of stars for his contribution, so could somebody more esteemed google "prevent cells" and fix that page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.109.176 (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2017‎

• this is the ref[108], ""At least 17 mutations in the C3 gene have been found to cause C3 deficiency, a rare condition characterized by recurrent bacterial infections beginning in childhood. The genetic changes that cause C3 deficiency lead to an altered version of the C3 protein or prevent cells from producing any of this protein. These mutations are described as "loss-of-function" because the abnormal or missing C3 protein prevents normal activation of the complement system. As a result, the immune system is less able to protect the body against foreign invaders (such as bacteria). and this is the text of the ref...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• [109] any edits(change in text) is fine but it needs to be reference, was left on IP /talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made this edit to the page. I think Ozzie10aaaa reverted in good faith, believing that the original text was correct, but appears to have misunderstood the text of the ref, which uses "prevent" as a verb, i.e. C3 deficiency stops (prevents) cells from producing the C3 protein. This looks like simple miscommunication between these two editors - the IP attempting to correct a mistake while Ozzie10aaaa believed the correction caused a mistake. Can we agree to WP:AGF? Marianna251TALK 16:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

ok(and thank you for [110] which is an improvement for the article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Lack of apologies is consistent with bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.109.176 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2017

I don't think Ozzie needs to apologise for attempting to protect an article, even if their revert was a mistake (which is arguable, since that ref was valuable and the article's text was easily fixed); they obviously didn't act out of bad faith and reverts are a thing that happens on Wikipedia. I think it would be a good idea to drop the stick before you run the risk of WP:BOOMERANG.

Please also remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Marianna251TALK 16:58, 6 July 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.

Lana Rhoades article has been deleted entirely without even a discussion template on the reasons to keep or delete the article.

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

---

I'm not sure who did it, but someone just deleted my whole Lana Rhoades article!! She is an adult entertainer and film star. The reason she was added for inclusion was because she won an XBIZ award for Best New Starlet. This is the highest award given from a major adult entertainment outlet. It is basically the equivalent of an award from the Golden Globes for best new actress or actress of the year. There was another award given, by another adult entertainment outlet, but not one of the top awards. Under the wikipedia guidelines, it says a major award given is fine for an article of inclusion, in regard to any adult film star. I'm not sure where to locate this, but it can be verified. AVN, XBIZ, and XRCO for Best New Starlet from one or any of these meets that requirement. I put verifiable references and some editors were also involved in making the Lana Rhoades page. I'm unable to bring it back up. It seems as if it was completely wiped out. As an example the Mia Malkova page has one award listed. The AVN award for Best New Starlet. Again, this is just one award from a major adult media outlet, yet she has her own article page that has not been deleted. I'm not experienced in all this. Is there someone able to retrieve and put her profile or article back up? This is vandalism at the very least. There was no discussion template requested for deciding whether to keep the article up or not. She apparently won penthouse pet for one month back in 2016 and when you type in her name, that is where it leads to, but if you click on her name there, nothing appears. The article itself does not even mention the penthouse pet award. It was added later by another editor, but she had significant achievements already in her profile, as I mentioned above. The penthouse pet award for a single month was not even a major part of the article at all. Someone took it upon themselves to just delete entirely what took me long hours to create with the help of other editors who contributed later on. Now there is no photograph of this significant and popular performer, no information about her career, no information in regard to her past, nothing about her personal measurements, nothing, all wiped out by some vandal that took it upon themselves to wipe out the article without any template discussion first. If anyone can retrieve and bring her article back up and protect it, I'd appreciate it. Also, if you have any thoughts about this or why it occurred, then you may also join in this discussion. Thank you. Scenicview1 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1

That "vandal" was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and they didn't delete it. They made it into a redirect. This appears to be a content dispute though. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. There is nothing to dispute. As I've mentioned, the Mia Malkova page is up, and she only won one major award. Nobody has deleted her article. It may have been redirected, but if you type in her name, a Profile with information and photograph should appear. Instead, everything about her has been deleted. It's like listing someone who won Best Actress at the Golden Globes, but if you click on her name, nothing appears about her. The XBIZ award for Best New Starlet is an equivalent award, to some, as Best Actress of the year at the Golden Globes award. Scenicview1 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1

Have you tried to start a discussion on the talk page, rather than come here and claim that this is a vandal? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. I'm not well versed in regard to wikipedia procedures. I've seen discussions in regard already to this particular vandal, or who I may think it may be. I'm not very certain of the person who did this however. It appears to be anonymous or it was done using the anonymous editor feature. I think I may know who it is, but I don't have proof. I've already emailed the wikipedia staff in regard to what happened. In regard to penthouse pet of the month, that was not even mentioned when I created the article. It was not even an achievement she is very well known for. Not to besmirch adult magazines in any way, shape, form, etc. since it was an honor she was given that award for the month. However, she is the fastest and one of the most popular rising stars in the adult film world, if you look at her statistics in various legitimate and well established adult online sites. Being in print media is mentioned, but it is not specifically what she is known for. Why would you take it upon yourself to completely delete an entire article about a person? Specifically is my question. If for instance an Actress Won for Best Actress at the Golden Globes and that was it, and there was an article connected with her picture and information about her and her career, etc. why delete a wikipedia article while leaving her name with the award she won only? It is vandalism at the very least. I'm also assuming it is a vandal because why would you delete an article on wikipedia without putting in a discussion template to decide by majority whether to delete or keep the article in question. Whoever deleted my article, did not contact me, or open a template. You don't just delete an entire article with information and a photograph, without notifying the editors of that article, and without their agreement. So if I put graffiti on your wall without first asking you, then that is not vandalism? Just because you delete something or add menacing things on the internet, that does not make it different than vandalizing by other means off the internet. If you get my convoluted message here. Thank you. Scenicview1 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1

First of all, stop calling the user and their edits vandalism. This is purely a content dispute, and you need to take this to the talk page to discuss this. I've also notified the editor that created the redirect to this discussion, as you are required to do per the box at the top of the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand. As I've stated, I'm not familiar with all the features or where to complain on wikipedia. It took me hours of creating and editing with the help of other editors. It just upset me that someone would just take it upon themselves to delete an article without first providing a discussion template. As I've also stated, The article in question has nothing to do with penthouse pet of the month. The person redirected the name and deleted my Whole Article on wikipedia out of spite or whatever you want to call it. Thank you for your help. I understand. Sorry, I was not aware of all this. Scenicview1 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1

Scenicview1, it doesn't appear that you do understand. You must quit attributing malice by another editor as their reason for their action. You are not in his head, how do you know? This isn't optional in any way; one of our most important policies is Assume good faith. You are not doing that and you've got to. This is a content issue, not a behavioral one. This board is for handling behavioral issues. You need to work this out with the other editor using the steps outlined in the dispute resolution guideline. To repeat one more time, no matter how hurt your feelings may be, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has done nothing wrong. It will not serve you here ever to take things personal. John from Idegon (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about hurt feelings but about consistency. I also edited the Mia Malkova page. She has one Award but her page is still up. Same with Lana Rhoades. I'm just questioning, how one adult film star is allowed to have her page still up, while the other one is taken down. Why has no one taken down the Mia Malkova page then? I actually fixed the Mia Malkova page which had a lot of References that directed to blank pages and error messages. I replaced them with verifiable and adequate references. I also deleted nominations and minor awards that she didn't even win. I don't care about hurt feelings. What is it with Mia Malkova and her page still being up? It is the inconsistency that bothers me. Of course it is odd that one would take down the entire article of Lana Rhoades while leaving her highlighted name up for her penthouse pet of the month award. Just to be clear, I'm fine with including that category in her article as well, but now it is only her name under the penthouse pet of the month article with no article leading to her profile or photograph, along with information page. An award I didn't even put into her article as I was editing it, since I didn't feel it necessary to include. Again, there was no "discussion template" on whether to keep or delete the article. The person took it upon themselves to delete it without notifying those who helped create and edit the Lana Rhoades page. Something none of you that have written back to me, would like to discuss or explain to me why that happened. I guarantee that the next person writing to me will not answer that question and why they decided to take it upon themselves to ignore wikipedia rules on that entirely.

Scenicview1 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1

I think you might be misunderstanding what happened. The page has not been deleted, but turned to a redirect. All of the page history remains, and the edits that you and other editors made are still in the page's history, so if the page were to be reverted, none of those edits are gone. This is indeed a content dispute, not behavior, and I am going to start a discussion on the talk page regarding the redirect vs. article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've started a thread on Talk:Lana Rhoades to begin this discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Here you go. Nothing gone, just hidden from the public for the time being. Some content was recently removed, e.g. this, but as you can see it's also still available to editors via the page history. Go to the talk page and discuss. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 6 July 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.

Immediate attention needed on CNN blackmail controversy

The following discussion is closed. 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:DraKyry has engaged in a lengthy edit-war on the aforementioned current-events article to insert wholly-unsourced libelous claims about a living person, to wit, that a particular person "blackmailed" another person. The claim has no basis in fact and is unsupported by any reliable source. Further, the editor is edit-warring to misrepresent what reliable sources say about the particular issue. No admins appear to be paying attention to AIV or RFPP, so I'm going to have to go here and ask that some admin step in to block the user in question, or at the very least protect it on a version which does not contain libelous unsupported claims about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've applied full page protection as a less-bad alternative to just blocking everyone involved. Duration is three days and this is an arbitration enforcement action (which I shall log shortly) under AP2 DS. I'm expecting that User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:DraKyry, User:Politrukki, User:Grayfell and... anyone else involved in the past couple-of-hundred edits on that page can have a productive discussion on the article talk page in that time. Everyone involved needs to AGF and not repeat eg this discussion. As far as I can tell, a lot of the problem is that everyone involved is reverting 3k+ edits over a couple of words, where a more detailed edit would sort out the concerns to both parties' satisfaction, so I'm hopeful. We'll also see what happens in the related merge discussion.

I'm frankly itching to hand out a swag of 3RR blocks to go with this and anyone who also feels so inclined shouldn't see my AE action as an impediment to it. But for the minute I'm personally content to leave protection in place and see how things go on the talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Fully protecting the article so that even established editors can't edit it, all because a suspicious account with just a few edit edit warred against six or seven established editors, making something like 12 (twelve) reverts in less than two hours, these reverts involving BLP violations and highly POV content based on junk sources, then that account went on to start edit wars on other articles, and that account consistently ignored notifications and warnings and then promised to continue edit warring, and protecting it to a version full of BLP vios... yeah, that's about the dumbest action an admin could've taken here. And oh yeah, also the merge discussion which suggests turning this steaming pile of garbage into a redirect is pretty much a SNOW "merge" [111]. Sheeesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I appreciate the protection, but the fact of the matter is that essentially the entire edit was BLP-noncompliant. It introduced entirely-unsourced libelous claims, misrepresented the content of a number of reliable sources in a way which negatively depicted a living person and included an array of patently unreliable sources (Breitbart and random Twitter accounts) making libelous claims about living people. There was no alternative but to revert entirely. I laid out the issues in some detail on 331dot's talk page and I'll do so again here:

Firstly, DraKyry's version stated, In the article published by CNN, the author Andrew Kaczynski explains the process that allowed the organization to discover the real identity of the user. After blackmailing him with that information, the user was forced to post an apology. This is a defamatory falsehood — no reliable source has said anyone was blackmailed by anyone. This alone is a flagrant, screaming BLP violation — it's almost but not quite stating that Kaczynski is guilty of a crime.

Secondly, DraKyry's version included a number of entirely-unreliable sources making claims about Kaczynski, including Twitter posts by random people and a story from Breitbart.com, which is categorically banned from being used as a source for living persons articles by dint of its long history of fabrications, misrepresentations and lies about people it politically opposes.

Thirdly, DraKyry's version misrepresented reliable sources, specifically where it states, based on a NYMag article, Kaczynski could have avoided the Internet vigilantism if he hadn't written the line — the reliable source explicitly does not use Kaczynski's name and instead puts the responsibility on CNN as a whole. Using the source in this way is introducing a deliberate factual error which depicts a living person in a negative light. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I see you've decided to start a new dicussion at ya et another page. Okay. I've spent last 10 hours arguing about that - I am not going to spend any more time on that. The case is crystal clear - just read 1. Several discussions of my talkpage. 2. This page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DraKyry reported by User:Volunteer Marek .28Result: .29 . 3. Edit summaries on the page we are discussing right now. 4. CNN Controversies talk page.

I am not going to repeat my self 15th freaking time, everything is on these pages. If you have specific questions - feel free to contact me. The post above, made by northBysouth, is blatantly misrepresenting the whole situation, which, no doubt, you'll discover once you visit one of the pages I've just mentioned. Goodluck --DraKyry (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I invite interested administrators or onlookers to observe the user's repeated inability to provide reliable sources for their defamatory claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Refusing to cooperate here after refusing to cooperate on those other pages won't make this issue magically resolve in your favor. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@DraKyry: Your edits contained unambiguous BLP violations and I think a lot of administrators would have just reacted with a longish block. Continuously reverting without listening to the valid BLP concerns of others is no way to behave here and I strongly advise you to go carefully in the future. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: So, your first and third concerns could have been sorted out by replacing the name of a person with the name of an organisation, yes? I'm not sure I see the problem in using twitter as a source for what someone said on twitter. Sure, it's a primary, self-published source, but it was being used as a source for what those people said, in their own voices, not Wikipedia's. And the Breitbart source was being used to cite a Twitter trend - the whole sentence could have easily been removed. My point is that you have a lot more nuanced tools at your disposal than the revert button. I know it's easy to get into a back-and-forwards revert war, and you might just technically have policy on your side because the edit contained a BLP violation (and yes, a gross one not supported by the sources). But you're supposed to be collaboratively editing an encyclopaedia, not repeatedly hitting the revert button until they get it exactly right. I think a more nuanced edit that still resolved the BLP violation would have defused this situation without a stupendous number of reverts, without an ANI report and without the page being subject to full protection. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And, now that I look, reports at ANEW, RFPP and RFM. Have I missed any? GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Gotta run but this editor is more trouble than he's worth; he's here, clearly, with an agenda. Look at how much time this nonsense is taking, and all to get some Tweets and posts into an encyclopedia article. A topic ban is the least. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• This edit summary is seriously out of line. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Right. User DryKyry, an account with just a few edits and suspicious edit history, makes highly POV edits based on non-reliable sources. They make 12 (twelve!) reverts within less than two hours. These reverts include edit warring against six or seven established editors. They ignore warnings and notifications or explicitly state they have no intention of observing Wikipedia's rules. They go and start additional edit wars on related articles. Simultaneously there's obvious consensus against the users edit [112] (not surprising since most of them are obviously WP:NOTHERE). The user also makes personal attacks in edit summaries and their comments. And... the admin fully protects the page and suggests that they are "content to let it go for a minute", rewarding the extremely disruptive behavior of the user and leaving behind an article full of BLP violations, false allegations, ridiculous fringe theories and other POV nonsense. Ball. Dropped.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Drakyry blocked indef. I'm sure the article and talk page have more problems that bear admin action, but I don't have the stomach for it. But this was an easy call, so I figured I'd at least get the low hanging fruit and leave the harder work for others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Geez, you people got nothing better to do? He was a poor minority kid under the age of 10. Let her be please. She was just posting a joke that got blown out of proportion. Scenicview1 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1

Yes, that's right, a ten-year-old wrote Okay, so I've already explained my position in: my talk page, the CNN controversy talk page, and the edits summaries I provided with each of my edits. I am kinda tired of arguing about this, so here are just two screenshots of just some of the edits I've reverted: http://imgur.com/a/auaEa & http://imgur.com/a/LCyyb . Also, notice the nickname of the guy I was reverting, and compare that to the nickname of the guy who made this post. Thank you. P.S. Here's the history section of the page we were arguing about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CNN_blackmail_controversy&action=history . I believe that the first thing you should do is look at this page. Also, I was not going to say this, but since my counterpart claimed that my account is 'suspicious', because it was created in 2010, I advise you to visit my counterpart's talk page (User talk:Volunteer Marek). He literally has dozens (I am not even joking - dozens) of warning about starting edits wars on Trump-related articles. I looked at just some of his edits of said articles - they are mostly disruptive editing/vandalism (just look at those edits!). Now, I withdraw from this discussion - whatever decision you make, I don't think that spending 2 hours of arguing with an obviously politically motivated editor to make a correction that costed me 5 minutes of my time is worth it. My faith in Wikipedia is destroyed, thank you. EEng 21:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. 162.245.150.3 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 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 threats

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

---

Here and here. Looks pretty blatant to me. Thanks, GAB^gab 02:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 8 July 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.

Editor repeatedly re-creating articles

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

---

Editor User:GamingOnline User talk:GamingOnline is repeatedly recreating articles that have been removed via speedy deletion nominations. Requesting that appropriate action be taken. To disclaim, I have been one of the editors tagging the subjects articles for deletion. This is my first time posting here, apologizes for any mistakes. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a walled garden of hoaxes. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked and articles deleted.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I will note that someone may want to review this editor's contribs to the Japanese Wikipedia.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:31, 7 July 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.

Electronic harassment conspiracy theory

The following discussion is closed. 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 an ongoing problem with random editors editing our Electronic harassment article to support pseudoscience.

Note: only edits from the last 30 days are listed:

• Edit: [113] Revert: [114]
• Edit: [115] Revert: [116]
• Edit: [117] Revert: [118]
• Edit: [119] Revert: [120]
• Edit: [121] Revert: [122]
• Edit: [123] Revert: [124]
• Edit: [125] Revert: [126]
• Edit: [127] Revert: [128]
• Edit: [129] Revert: [130]

Might I suggest indefinite pending changes protection? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Not a fan of indefinite protection. This is just coming off a year of semi, so I've applied five years pending changes. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point. We wouldn't want 20-year-old protection hanging around on articles long after the need has gone away. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 7 July 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.

173.76.103.95

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

---

173.76.103.95 just came off a 31 hour block[131] for persistent vandalism,[132] went right back to vandalizing the same article[133] (DOS). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

And they are right back on a block for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:05, 8 July 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.

Looking for rangeblock on Alpharetta, Georgia

The following discussion is closed. 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 bunch of IP6 addresses from Alpharetta, Georgia, US, have recently been disrupting music articles related to the musical groups New Edition and Bell Biv Devoe, especially the biographies of Bobby Brown, Michael Bivins and Ralph Tresvant. Popular media says that Brown has a house in Alpharetta, as do some Tresvant and Bivins family members. None of the edits are referenced, and some are flat wrong such as this change in the artist name on an album, and this change to a birth year from 1959 to 1969. Can a rangeblock be applied to the following IPs? Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• 2601:CB:4100:2541::/64 range blocked for two weeks.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Quite appreciated, thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 7 July 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.

Marcocapelle emptying categories out of process

Marcocapelle (talk · contribs) has now twice removed the category Category:1448 treaties from Treaty of Prenzlau and is now making similar edits to Peace of Szeged, Congress of Arras, Treaty of Canterbury (1416). This user is a regular at WP:CFD and is not ignorant of correct procedure for deleting categories. Marcocapelle should be warned and if if still continues to make this type of edit should received a block if he fails to use the correct procedure in future. Tim! (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• With few exceptions, Category:15th-century treaties is subdivided by decade instead of by year. The replacement of year categories by decade categories, in these few exceptions, was merely to bring consistency in the categorization. I would presume this is allowed per WP:BURO. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Marcocapelle: Please nominate these for upmerging as normal. The year vs. decade vs. century thing has been controversial forever as pedants decide we must have categories for every year on every topic. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll do. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Eliew1

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – BEANS averted, and while EEng's question is probably more appropriate for a different venue I'll leave this un-hatted for now. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I queried this user about their edits to their userpage. In reviewing the history, I believe it's quite obvious what they are doing; for the sake of WP:BEANS, I'll refrain from going further. Home Lander (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• That reminds me. How about if the 30/500 criterion required that the 500 edits be specifically in article space (or maybe any combination of article and article talk)? Such edits being far more visible than any others, it should make gaming the requirement just a bit harder. Just a thought in passing. EEng 21:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm going to leave them a warning, keep an eye on their account, and if all else fails I'll get a chance to use {{ECgaming}} again. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 6 July 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:Star Awards is publishing bus contracts

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

---

Editor User:Star Awards appears to be using Wikipedia to publish advertisements for multiple packages of bus routes. This violates the policy against promotion and Wikipedia is not a web host. The contribution history of this editor is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Star_Awards. So far this editor has created six pages. I am reporting them here for administrative action rather than tag them for speedy deletion or take them to a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• I tagged Jurong West Bus Package prior to this ANI notice. I see a bot flagged the article's Talk page with a template indicating a previous article with this name was deleted after discussion. There is also an attempt to engage the article creator on their Talk page, with no response as of this posting. Jusdafax 05:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've deleted Jurong West Bus Package as an obvious copyvio, after the previous version created by User:118 alex was similarly deleted. Both were substantially identical (having clearly copied the same source), the User:Star Awards account was created on July 6, after User:118 alex was indef blocked on June 25. User:118 alex has a very different history of article interest, but there may be some socky/meaty shenanigans here. Also, all of the articles created by User:Star Awards may well be copyvios too. Sorry I can't investigate further myself right now, but it's early and I'm getting ready for work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I deleted them all as copyvios - my earlier update here was lost somehow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I nominated all six bus package articles for speedy deletion because of obvious copyvio. RickinBaltimore, being the previous editor to delete Jurong West Bus Package do you think there is "socky/meaty shenanigans here?" Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 06:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi there, you rang? I'm not sure if it's socking but it does seem very very odd that another editor would post the exact same material from the exact same website, and created after the original account was blocked. It may be worth a look at SPI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
      • He just submitted User:118 alex/BSEP as a draft, so I blocked him. Ugh. That's the third sock of his I've blocked today, and it's still early. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Seems like a SPI might be warranted for any possible sleepers. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:55, 7 July 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.

insertion of phone nomber into edit summery?

diff[134]. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young (Input Requested; see this discussion, too)

As of recently, a well-known and respected vandalism fighter has just been blocked for socking as User:My Royal Young. Apparently, they had made an LTA page on User:My Royal Young (themselves), likely in order to avoid detection, scrutiny, etc. Now that the account that created this LTA is blocked, there is currently a discussion on whether or not Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young should be deleted per WP:DENY (deny recognition) or to keep it since others have edited it too (though at the time, they obviously had no idea that the user who created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young was actually a sock of User:My Royal Young). If anyone would like to join this discussion please do so here. Thanks. 98.223.4.183 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Violation and Reverts by User:Pyrogrimace Comment

In my efforts to clean up Salute (pyrotechnics), I found that large sections of text were copy-and-pasted from this source and this source] by User:Pyrogrimace. I removed the most blatant copy-pasted content, left a message on Pyrogrimace's talk page and tried to reword/reformat a few things to match wikipedia style, but my edits were reverted with no explanation. This happened twice and is concerning because it involves copyright violations.

Sample Edit: [135]

Pyrogrimace has been editing this article heavily since 2011 and repeatedly inserting non-encyclopedic-style content despite the efforts of other editors to improve the article. Dlthewave (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is an absolute mess of how-to, copyvios, and formulae. The edit history is one years-long edit war and probably sockpuppet play. The only part cited to a WP:RS is the introductory sentence. It should drastically cut back and put under page protection. (P.S., capitalization in article names can break links, so I fixed the wikilink in the opening). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they've been editing this article since 2007. Literally, every edit since 9 March 2007 when they first registered, excepting a handful of edits to M80 has been to the Salute article. Blackmane (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment--I have drastically cleaned up and subseq. restored a much old ver. of the article (before the IP cum Pyrogrimace editing saga started) and have watchlisted it.Let's see what happens.I feel a semi-protection and/or a SPI would do enough good!I have warned the user about usage of multiple IPs. Winged Blades ^Godric 05:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks by Pyxis Solitary

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

---

After my last comment on the matter, I was done and ready to move on; however, they've now accused IJBall and myself of being sockpuppets of each other. With no evidence to back up their claims, they are making personal attacks, and that is simply not tolerable. I've never interacted with this user until they showed up to IJBall's talk page in a negative manner not assuming good faith, and based on their response to that, they think it's okay to automatically assume bad faith. From what I've seen, however, they have serious battleground behavior, and if anyone disagrees with them, they basically get all hostile toward them on top of assuming bad faith. This is not the kind of user Wikipedia should have, and they need to change their behavior. As IJBall seems to have interacted with them more, he'll be able to provide some more background. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Amaury, please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. Don't just haul someone to ANI just because you got your feathers ruffled, or someone got their feathers ruffled and took it out on you or someone else. If you come here, you need to make a cogent case with a sufficient number of diffs proving a lengthy pattern, and your own behavior will be looked at as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: While I actually think that there was probably nothing actionable, you really should stop with this "Diffs please" thing. If you read Amaury's comment and go to the linked talk page, you can Ctrl+F the word "sock" and the comment in question comes up almost immediately. I'm assuming this was also the case when you posted the above. You said essentially the same thing with a thread I started a few months back about a near-SPA whose every edit showed the same pattern I was talking about (and so individual diffs would have been pointless). Yes, in this case Amaury could have provided the diff, but he did provide enough information for you or anyone else to find the comment in question very easily. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to be passive-aggressive. I provided a link to a discussion where this stems from above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I was quite direct, not passive-aggressive in the least. I requested diffs, which you have still not provided. You had merely provided a link to the sort of wiki-squabble which occurs hundreds if not thousands of times a day on talkpages all across Wikipedia; in this case, a two-against-one squabble. Please provide a sufficient number of specific diffs proving a lengthy pattern. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I provided a link to a discussion containing everything without having to sift through links rather than individual diffs as that's just as useful. Sorry that didn't seem to meet your standards. In any case, [136], [137], and [138]. Hostility, condescending, and personal attacks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Re "List of Wynonna Earp episodes" discussion in editor's talk page:

I contacted an editor in his talk page regarding deletions of sourced content. You injected yourself into the discussion between us. This was not a discussion in an article's talk page. You misused WP:AGF, WP:COMMONSENSE , WP:LETITGO, WP:DROPTHESTICK, and WP:BATTLEGROUND as weapons, attempting to intimidate me. What you should have done is mind your own business and stayed out of it. And yes, I do think the 'knight in shining armour' persona is suspect. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So if I'm not mistaken, this is what kicked the whole thing off? Really? Yintan  08:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That was the first deletion of sourced content. This was the second. After this, I wrote my message in the editor's talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why IJBall insists on having a citation in the column header when the episodes are already cited in the column's cells. If there's a WP:MOS reason for this I'm not aware of it. Now there are citations in both, which seems like overkill to me, especially since it's the same source. Also, all other cites in the article are in the cells, where cites in tables usually are, and not in the headers. Amaury's accusation that Pyxis Solitary has a battleground mentality is far fetched in my humble opinion. Pyxis Solitary's initial messages are polite and to the point. That her replies became pointier I can understand, reading the two-against-one thread linked above, but suggesting sock puppetry is going too far. But so is taking this to AN/I. Again, all in my humble opinion. For what that is worth. Kind regards, Yintan  09:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pyxis, if you keep making personal attacks by making baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, you can easily find yourself in trouble, and I suggest you cool it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yintan, I don't know if you just skimmed the discussion on IJBall's talk page linked to above, but you seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't the MOS, the issue is WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL. IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article. Pyxis then re-added the air date with a source and came to IJBall's talk page to complain because IJBall should have just attached the source himself rather than removing it and accused IJBall of unproductive editing. That's not how it works. Per WP:BURDEN above, it is not the responsibility of other editors to try and read other editors' minds and take care of what they should have done by finding and attaching the sources themselves, it is the responsibility of the editors who add the information to properly source it if they don't want it removed, provided it's relevant for the article, of course. And yes, currently, the episodes are sourced in the cells; however, when there's an episode guide available, it's much more beneficial to make the episode guide a column source rather than individually source each episode. Although that's beside the point. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

On another note, it's worth noting that IJBall is currently busy with something and is in an area where his access to Internet is spotty. If an administrator really needs to get a hold of him, they should email him as he may or may not respond to this discussion. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so much missing the point as trying to say I honestly don't see what all your fuss is about. And trust me, I've read that Talk page. A few times even because at first I thought I was missing something MAJOR. I didn't. It's just about the citing of a source and one Talk page message that isn't even unpolite or threatening. I think your advice to Pyxis Solitary to cool it is fine but I suggest you and IJBall cool it too. "Battleground"? "Personal attacks"? Come on. Or take this to WP:3 perhaps? Yintan  18:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"IJBall removed an unsourced air date from the aforementioned article." Nope. The air date was sourced. The source was attached to the title of the episodes. The first time, he deleted ALL the source because in his opinion:

• "a source better than Epguides is needed".

Where in MOS:TV does it say that epguides is not an acceptable source for episode titles and air dates? Wikipedia also has a {{epguides}} template for it.

The second time he deleted the air date because the source (Variety) was not next to the air date -- but it was attached to the episode title. Are episode tables now going to contain TWO identical citations? One for the episode title and one for the air date?

Amaury, do Wikipedia and its editors a favor by not twisting facts to support your accusations. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you notice what Amaury said to me in the (IJBall) talk page discussion:

• "showing up here with an unnecessary attitude", "You are not the boss of me who can tell what I can and cannot do. Cool it with the attitude and aggression", "Use some WP:COMMONSENSE here", "It is not the responsibility of the other editor to read your brain"

... exactly who was the one that resorted to "battleground behavior", "personal attacks", and "hostil[ity]"?

So what do Admins do with an editor that tries to use ANI against another editor with false accusations of "serious battleground behavior", and slanders that editor as "not the kind of user Wikipedia should have"? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment to avoid archiving. Not resolved. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

* Admins: Is this or is this not Inappropriate notification? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: That is not canvassing. He opened an ANI thread about an incident that took place on that editor's talk page, so notifying him is well within appropriate boundaries. Unarchiving is a questionable action, but re-notifying once one has unarchived is ... still not canvassing, since that user is already involved.

Also, please never make remarks like this again. Casual sockpuppetry accusations are not acceptable. I have seen users get blocked for it in the very recent past, and you should be very careful. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, open an SPI.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

To quote Yintan:

• "That her replies became pointier I can understand, reading the two-against-one thread linked above, but suggesting sock puppetry is going too far."

I got it the first time. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in this thread that you said "Sorry, that was going too far". Quoting someone else who agrees with me doesn't mean anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on your history of contentious and accusatory behavior in ANIs, the words you are now reading are the only words I am going to provide in response to your comment. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm beginning to very much agree with the title of this thread, and I haven't even looked into it beyond the sockpuppetry accusation. I'm not sure who emailed you (I know someone is still going around badmouthing me or was very recently), or if you just routinely go back through months' worth of other editors' contribs and form bizarre/offensive/idiosyncratic opinions thereon, but the above comment is atrocious, and you should strike it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"I'm not sure who emailed you (I know someone is still going around badmouthing me...."

Based on your history of contentious and accusatory behavior in ANIs, currently here ^ and example 1, example 2, the words you are now reading are the only words I am going to provide in response to your comment. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So ... you're not wikistalking me or acting as a meatpuppet for someone who is wikistalking me ... you're just making sweeping claims about my "history", based solely on your experience of my commentary in two threads over the past 24 hours. Awesome. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Cynical meatpuppetry suggestions aren't much better than Pyxis Solitary's sock puppet slip, Hijiri88. Can we stick to the subject before this thread derails even further? Yintan  20:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yintan: The above comment appears to be posted in the wrong place. You should probably move it to follow the cynical meatpuppetry accusation in question, rather than the retraction of said accusation.

Long explanation of why "I suspect that someone might have contacted you by email and here's why I think that" is not quite the same as "I think you are the same person as this other editor because I don't like your face". Read it if you want, don't read it if you don't want, but please don't pretend you read it when you didn't. (Note that "you" here is generic; very little of this collapsed section is directed specifically at Yintan, who definitely is acting in good faith and would not pretend to have read this when he/she had not.)

Anyway, the facts of the case are that (at least for a period of well over two years between January 2013 and summer 2015) I had a (group of?) banned editor(s?) going around emailing everyone who came into conflict with me on-wiki, including one editor with whom I had an extremely brief scuffle on ANI. The ringleader even maintained a blog about me for roughly this same period of time, which welcomed comments from four or five other sympathetic editors. Yes, the last definite incident involving that user (or those users) was two years ago (the blog was deleted around that time and that was one of the last times I had someone say on-wiki that they had received an email "warning them" about me), but then I see that I'm being talked about on Reddit in January of 2017 by someone with an idiosyncratic opinion that looks very similar to ... I'm not going to get into it; ArbCom already told me they weren't going to deal with it, and in May of 2017 (read: two months ago, and well over four years after it started) I see another claim made by someone with whom I was having a brief scuffle on ANI that they received off-wiki contact "warning them" about me. So yeah, it was not unreasonable to express concern that something similar was going on, when someone of whose comments I expressed a slightly critical view on an ANI thread they started, within 21 hours started talking about my "history of contentious and accusatory behavior in ANIs". When she clarified immediately above that what she actually meant was (a) that in this ANI thread that was started about her by User:Amaury and in the other roughly concurrent ANI thread that she started about User:Tenebrae I had engaged in "contentious and accusatory behavior" toward her over a period of a little over twenty hours and (b) that she had Ctrl+Fed my sig to verify that I had at least commented in some other ANI threads (which she clearly hadn't read) I decided that it was more reasonable to assume that she was just a very uncivil and aggressive editor, rather than someone who had received off-wiki contact from a long-term stalker of mine and had just little enough respect for our conduct policies not to report it. And yes, I agree that casual meatpuppetry accusations are almost as bad as casual sockpuppetry accusations. I say "almost as bad" because with the latter, it is usually pretty easy to tell that the accusations one is making are baseless and blankly offensive, to the point where really one would only want to make them in an attempt to be deliberately antagonistic (this was clearly the case with the inciting incident of this thread, and it was also the case when it was done to me and Curly Turkey a few weeks back). But with the former ... well, "meatpuppetry" between two established Wikipedians (assuming that engaging in email contact related to Wikipedia is considered a weak form of meatpuppetry -- this was the definition I was using when I retracted my "meatpuppetry" question above) is not entirely unacceptable on its face, and it's extremely difficult to disprove under the current system, so one can genuinely believe one's own accusation in good faith. (Frankly I think Wikipedia would be a better place if there was a public log of who had used the Wikimedia email service to contact whom, similarly to how we know who "thanked" whom at what time, just not what edit they thanked them for -- I don't mind publicly disclosing that an email has been sent, and I can't think of any good reason why anyone else would; if you want to be completely private, don't email people whose addresses you don't already know.) The only real problem with such email contact is when an editor, whom we are supposed to believe is acting in good faith, starts (motivated, apparently, by a lack of respect for Wikipedia's conduct policies and a personal dislike of this or that editor) using it to help someone get around an editing restriction of some sort, be it a site-ban (as was definitely the case in 2013 and probably also in 2015) or just an interaction ban (as was definitely happening, unrelated to the site-ban proxying, in 2015 -- one of the emailed editors was kind enough to forward me the message -- and I believe quite probably explains the May 2017 incident).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Pyxis Solitary for alerting me on my talk page that I was alluded to in this report; when one talks about another editor, they should at least have the courtesy of pinging them. Here we have yet another case of Hijiri88 inserting themselves into a report where they have admitted that they have not read the report in its entirety, making "sweeping claims" themselves about an editor they don't know of or any other actions they took before this report, and therefore giving an opinion based on a biased opinion and not any facts of the report. Disappointing. -- Alex^TW 11:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Alex, if you keep up this stalking/battleground act, you'll probably be blocked pretty soon. I did no such thing as "admit that I have not read the report". Pylix made a gross personal attack, refused to strike, when told off by an impartial observer on ANI ignored it, and then when told off by a second observer (me) claimed that she had heard it the first time, even though she had made no indication of such. What, exactly, am I missing here? Aren't you the one who is inserting himself into a report he has not read? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If you read my post, you'd see that I stated "I'd like to thank Pyxis Solitary for alerting me on my talk page". You may even visit my talk page for proof, if you wish. I recommend you revoke and strike out your personal attack of stalking, as you recommend other do, as you have no basis for this claim. It was you that mentioned me without pinging me directly, attempting to do so behind my back, hence my current involvement after I was indeed notified. I quote you: "I haven't even looked into it" - your admittance in the fullest. I, for one, have read the entire report. -- Alex^TW 11:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I did read your post. In fact, the bit you seem to be accusing me of not having read was the one bit I couldn't really avoid reading -- you pinged me, and the bit you refer to was the bit clipped and included in the notification. Showing up here just to attack me when you clearly hadn't even read even my comments (let alone the entire discussion) is a stalking/battleground act. Yes, it would have been slightly "more stalking" (and slightly "less battleground") if you hadn't been invited here by another user doing the same and had instead been constantly monitoring my contribs for the last two months, but that doesn't really make what I said wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I did indeed ping you; I thought I'd at least be courteous in giving an action that I did not receive in kind. How unfortunate that you won't strike your accusation, when you demand that others do the exact same thing at the same time. A shame. I wasn't even aware this thread existed until I was alerted by another editor, so it would have been stalking if I showed up unannounced, but alas for you, that could not be more further from the truth of what happened. Anyways. I'll let you get back to the thread. Enjoy. Do try to ping other editor's when talking about them, even if they had forgotten you and their encounter with you from months ago. -- Alex^TW 11:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: What "accusation" do you want me to strike? Are you referring to the parenthetical clause that linked to a comment by you?

I didn't accuse you of anything there: I merely stated that someone had contacted you off-wiki about me less than two months ago, and linked the diff of you disclosing that fact. There were two massive incidents involving people going around badmouthing me through the Wikimedia email service back in 2013 and 2015; you making that comment had metaphorically triggered my metaphorical PTSD regarding the issue, and I have been on alert for similar warning signs since. When Pyxis, a user with whom I never interacted until about 36 hours ago, suddenly started talking about "my history", I was naturally concerned that whoever emailed you, or perhaps someone else, had emailed them as well, so I asked about it, and included the diff solely so I wouldn't be accused of being "paranoid".

It turned out that Pyxis was just being hyperbolic, and her comments about my "history" were referring to my brief interactions with her over the past 36 hours, but I was not wrong to take what she said literally. Once again, I didn't accuse you of anything: if I was accusing anyone, it was the unnamed editor who "warned you about me".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Note that I tried to explain to Pyxis, politely, why her behaviour in this and another thread was inappropriate and could be viewed as canvassing, and she essentially told me to eff off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

→ ADMINISTRATORS: We have a problem with false accusations being made by editor Hijiri 88. See Drop it for evidence. In same linked thread I have told him to stay away from my Talk page. His conduct in my Talk page — and as witnessed in this ANI — is toxic, out of bounds, and unacceptable. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

* This is an interpersonal ANI and should only be closed by an Administrator. Pyxis Solitary talk 01:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Pyxis, at this point I think there's roughly 2% chance of you actually reading this, but you seem to share with a lot of other new users a common misconception about Wikipedia admins. You should read WP:NOBIGDEAL (and the rest of that section). Wikipedia admins (AKA "mop-holders") are not powerful authority figures who control the project like people with the same title on various other websites -- they are normal editors who hold certain special tools, some of which require them to have a certain amount of trust divested in them. ANI threads only need be closed by admins if those admins unilaterally resolve the issue by blocking someone, deleting a page, or the like. By saying that only an admin should be allowed close this thread, without opening a subthread with a specific remedy proposal, you are (inadvertently) saying that the thread should not be closed unless you or Amaury is blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88: Though I doubt it's what you meant, all of us do know a few admins here and there who have been divested of trust, if not their tools. EEng 17:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh. It's kinda peripheral, but if anything supports my main point. Admins aren't the Archons of Wikipedia, as figures with similar titles are on various message boards and social media sites. Your point actually just reinforces this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on your response I think you missed my point. EEng 16:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: Nope, not that one. The incorrect and proved-false accusation of stalking. And Pyxis has control over their own talk page - if they don't want you there, and want to keep the discussion in one thread instead of having you divert away from the attention of admins by starting a new thread, they are entirely within their rights to do so. -- Alex^TW 01:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fine. You didn't stalk me. You showed up to a discussion in which you weren't involved, and in which I had made only a few passing remarks, just to harangue me. Normally, when someone sends you a canvassing message like that, you should just tell them to buzz off. As I have already explained to her on her talk page, her choosing to notify you specifically out of the dozen or so users I "alluded to" was clearly not done in good faith. It was canvassing, and you should have either ignored it or told her off for it. I didn't show up on ANI to request that you be blocked, or anything of the sort, and there was no obligation on my part or that of anyone else to "notify" you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is going nowhere fast. So allow me to throw in my two cents. Pyxis Solitary, Amaury and IJBall, if you still have a problem with the sources in the article take it to the article's Talk page or, if you feel it's more serious than that, go to WP:DRN. I honestly don't think this is a matter for this board. As Softlavender said earlier "Don't just haul someone to ANI just because you got your feathers ruffled". Pyxis Solitary shouldn't have made the puppetry accusation, yes, but accusing her of battleground behaviour and personal attacks is rather far fetched too. Can we move on? And to AlexTheWhovian and Hijiri88: I don't think this thread is the place for the two of you to fight things out. Kind regards, and with all due respect, Yintan  20:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

As I told you before, this has nothing to do with the sources, which are fine now, it has to do with WP:BURDEN and WP:CRYSTAL. It was not IJBall's responsibility to attach the sources, it was Pyxis'. It was well within IJBall's rights to remove unsourced material and rather than come to IJBall's talk page to complain, they should have just added a source, like they did, and nothing more, accepting that they were wrong and moving on. Additionally, and this is the bigger issue, them accusing us of sockpuppetry without any evidence is a personal attack which editors can be blocked for. Their aggressive and battleground behavior also doesn't help, and if you can't see that, then I don't know what to say. Having a quick search through ANI shows that isn't the first time there have been issues regarding their behavior in general, not specifically the battleground aspect—see here and here—and whether or not they actually know their behavior is wrong and they legitimately think they are always right, I don't know. But something needs to be done about their behavior as it is not acceptable. Their messages here and on IJBall's talk page speak a great volume on their behavior, and there are three editors who agree, one of them essentially being neutral as they weren't even involved with the discussion on IJBall's talk page or the edits on the article in question. The fact that they can't even admit that they at least crossed a line and apologize is very concerning. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yintan: FTR, I stopped having a problem the minute Pyxis referenced the info in the episodes table. I don't know why Pyxis came to my Talk page after that fact, and why they persisted even after I explained my viewpoint (which is backed by WP:BURDEN, FWIW). This can be closed, as long as Pyxis realizes that they need to dial down their own behavior, because Amaury is not the only editor that has found their behavior WP:BATTLEGROUND-y lately. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: If you prefer to go round in circles and endlessly repeat yourself instead of moving forward, so be it. Yintan  21:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yintan: It's called reinstating the opening points. But if you prefer to just ignore all the valid points raised here by three established editors and act like Pyxis did nothing wrong at all, then wow. Basically, we should let them get away with their behavior and nothing should be done is what's being implied. I'm done here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I think you'll find I've adressed all the points you mentioned earlier in this thread. I do question their validity, yes, and if you don't like that, fine. Also, I never said, nor implied, that "Pyxis did nothing wrong at all". If that's what you think you've read then "wow" indeed. Cheers, Yintan  21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Good idea, let's close this thing. Yintan  21:28, 8 July 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.

Advice to keep a distance defied by editor Tenebrae

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

---

On 2 February 2017, Tenebrae and I were advised to "avoid each other".

Since then, I am the one who has respected this advice. The same cannot be said of him:

• On February 21, 2017: he changed my edits.
• On February 22, 2017: he reverted my edits.
• On March 11, 2017: he replied to my comment in the article's talk page. (I did not respond.)

On April 6, 2017, Tenebrae was reminded by another editor of the ANI advice and warned about staying away from me.

• The latest: on July 4, 2017, Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages.

There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia to edit. My edits can be avoided by Tenebrae. I know there are some who will interpret the ANI advice as merely a "suggestion" and dismiss my bringing attention to this situation as "she doesn't like this editor" ... and ignore the bigger picture, which is: what's the point of advising two editors to stay away from each other if one of them doesn't? The ANI advice ends with: "the best way forward...and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone."

I am asking Admins to walk the talk. I am asking for the ANI advice to be enforced. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding the following:

• On February 22, 2017: he left me a message on the article's Talk page @ 03:24 about an editing preference not found in MOS:FILM. (I did not respond.)
• On February 22, 2017: he undid my edit in MOSFILM ... which he then self-reverted @ 04:18,.
• On March 11, 2017: he changed content back to the edit made by an IP-only editor that I had reverted.

And of greater significance:

• On 23 February 2017: he filed a false-accusation ANI against me.

Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If anyone is hounded, it has been me by Pyxis Solitary, who has taken me to ANI before and been told they had no case, that I was doing nothing wrong, and that in fact they were in the wrong. Their hysterically hyperbolic claims include saying "*Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages" when — and please, go see that edit for yourself — the bulk of the edits were un-italicizing company names like Twitch Film, WXVU, Collider.com, Townsquare Media, Showbiz411, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and others that are plain and simple not italicized ... see their very Wikipedia articles, bluelinked here. I hate to say this, but I think WP:BOOMERANG is called for when they and Softlavender deliberately introduce grammatical errors into an article. And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??--Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

For those reading this ^ comment for the first time: it was reposted below, near end of the thread. You'll find my response there. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Propose topic ban on Tenebrae from the article Carol (film). This is clear stalking and harassment, which began 6 months ago. Tenebrae, stay away from Pyxis Solitary or you will be hit with a one-way IBan or worse. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Needs more evidence, preliminarily opposed to TBAN That "advice" was issued in a non-admin, heavily-INVOLVED closure by a user who was themselves no doubt partly responsible for there being "no consensus [...] and the only activity in the thread for a week [being a non-constructive two-way back-and-forth]", since they have a somewhat notorious penchant for TLDR walls of text, which in your case appears to have (inadvertently) filibustered the discussion. Such advice is not enforceable on its face, and if there has been hounding going on for the intervening five months the evidence above is extremely meager.

Softlavender's proposed TBAN would miss the point anyway, because, if the problem is "hounding" rather than a content-based dispute (during which, again, the last ANI thread didn't reach a consensus on whether one or the other had violated any policies), the hounding would just continue on a different article. If Tenebrae is right on the substance, then if anyone should be TBANned it is not them. I don't know if they are right or wrong, as I haven't checked, but Pyxis Solitary hasn't said anything on that one way or the other, just saying that Tenebrae has violated non-binding advice issued by someone who probably shouldn't be issuing that kind of advice given their own history of involvement in cases that definitrly did involve hounding.

Now, if hounding, however slow-motion, has been going on and can be demonstrated, and Tenebrae's edits can't be justified based on some policy or guideline, then an IBAN might be a reasonable solution.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis Solitary on the article Carol (film), making up his own "rules" and insisting an inexperienced newbie abide by the non-existent rules, since six months ago; that is demonstrable. The fact that he continued to do that despite the well-reasoned advice and close of that ANI, and continued doing so just now, is proof that he is continuing to harass Pyxis Solitary for no good reason. Since the harassment has been confined to that article, a TBan on that article is the simplest solution which will cause the least sanctioning of the offender at present. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Hijiri, your snipe "given their own history of involvement in cases that definitrly did involve hounding" is clearly involved on your part (your quarrels with the party in question), so if anyone should recuse or should have recused themselves anywhere, it's you, here. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Declaration of bias

Yeah, I know. Catflap08 and one other user were hounding me, and the user in question aggravated the issue and made a bunch of comments that gave the impression that I was the one at fault. Their, I've declared my bias. That said, bias has nothing to do with the obvious statement of fact that that user has a tendency to post extremely long, near-impossible-to-read comments on ANI and elsewhere. It's not a deliberate attempt at filibustering -- it's just a quirk of communication style, and one I occasionally indulge in myself to almost the same level as they do. So it's not difficult to imagine how it came about that there was "no consensus" one way or another on the canvassing question.

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, there's nothing wrong with commenting on an issue in which one has a personal bias. The only reason I didn't declare mine up-front was because I felt it was obvious -- the majority of his comments on the ANI archive Pyxis Solitary linked were actually about me, although you need to un-collapse for them to be searchable. The problem is making involved closures. But I don't even see that as a problem in and of itself (a lot of editors disagree with me here). I just don't think advice issued by an involved editor in their non-admin closure can be held as binding. (Yes, one can read bias based on personal experience with a unilateral piece of advice by an admin being taken as a binding editing restriction there as well, if you want.)

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You say Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis on that one article and should be TBANned (PBANned?). But I don't see any evidence of that. I see two edits that show a disagreement over whether something should be italicized and a talk page comment about the use of the phrase "make love" in the plot summary of a film. Again, I have my own strong opinions on film plot summaries and could go into how both editors are wrong but Tenebrae is "less wrong", but that's beside the point. They are not subject to an IBAN, so none of these edits are violations in themselves. If you want to propose an IBAN, fire ahead.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely no involvement here, in any way, shape or form. I had no involvement with the article or dispute in question and had never so much as seen the name of either editor before that ANI thread. I believe that even a casual reflection of that thread by literally any member of the Wikipedia community (other than you, Hijiri) will demonstrate that the entirety of my involvement in that discussion was as a manifestly uninvolved third party community member making every good faith effort possible to get the two parties to reconcile the matter amicably, or at least turn down the heat a little bit (neither was capable of even briefly discussing the other without recourse to inflammatory descriptions of the other's conduct and motives, and this went on for quite some time). For two weeks, the thread languished on ANI and almost not a single comment by anyone but the two parties slinging accusations, with me occasionally attempting to find some common understanding between them and encouraging them to try an RfC, arbitration, or some other community resolution process to the content dispute, since it was clear that no one in this forum saw behaviour that they were prepared to act upon.

After almost a week without any movement on anything, both parties asked for the discussion to be closed and though I knew they were destined to come to a loggerheads again before too long, there was clearly nothing more to be done at ANI at that time and I obliged. Even then, I only acted after a week because no one else had closed the discussion and the only activity keeping it from getting auto-archived by the bot was one editor or the other trading a barb every other day, until both asked for a close (but then continued to bicker over who was actually asking for it...) Here, for the record, is the entirety of my comments in the close (which I marked it as a non-admin closure):

"At the behest of both parties, I am closing this. There has been no consensus as to whether canvassing took place and the only activity in the thread for a week has been the two parties trading broadsides as to who has more failed to assume good faith on the part of the other (which, if I am to be frank, makes both look something less than self-aware). Regardless, there seems to be no administrative purpose for keeping the thread open longer, especially in light of the fact that it is just encouraging both to entrench further.

I have previously offered to administer an RfC on the content issue as a neutral third party and that offer stands. Said RfC will be broadly promoted in appropriate community spaces by me, to attempt a large turn-out to offset any lingering canvassing concerns and to keep as much of a buffer between Tenebrae and Pyxis Solitary as may be managed as the issue is debated. Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid eachother and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about eachother, and to be scrupulously civil. This is the best way forward, I feel, and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone."

Pretty neutral and uninvolved, I'd say. I didn't (and do not) favour either party to this dispute (I think both departed early from AGF in their difference of opinion and neither made much of an effort to find their way to to it at any point that I saw). My advice in the close was plainly just that: the best advice I felt I could give the parties moving forward, and I don't see any flaw in it; I advised them to avail themselves of our dispute resolution processes and (failing their doing that), I advised that they avoid eachother or at least kept their comments focused on the content/policy issues and to avoid speculating on eachother's motives. I certainly never phrased my comments as anything but advice, and I believe it would take a very inexperienced editor to see them as anything more binding than that.

Any and all of these details are easily verifiable by way of a read of that short thread, for anyone who wants to weigh the veracity of Hijiri's accusation here. Hijiri, if you think this constitutes WP:involved behaviour, you need to actually read that document, because this kind of work (coming in as a third party who has no previous experience with the dispute or the parties involved and trying to get them to focus on resolving the content dispute instead of lobbing accusations) is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from "involved" conduct. Your ill-will towards me because I have in the past criticized your own conduct in a way you thought was unfair does not constitute free license to completely fabricate an accusation of misconduct against me which is without merit or sense. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, by "involved" I meant in the Wikipedia sense where your closes are not binding decisions because you had already commented extensively in the thread. I didn't mean yo were involved in the dispute prior to the thread. As for your other attacks on me, I'm not going to respond to them except to note that I have read them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to have the first notion of what that term means "in the Wikipedia sense", nor the kind of conduct the policy is meant to safeguard against. A contributor is INVOLVED when they have been a party to a particular dispute, have a strong association with one of the parties or have worked closely in the topic area. Sometimes, if an editor has been particularly zealous in their expressed opinions to the subject matter of a thread, they may be involved. Basically, if there is any reason to believe you have a conflict of interest in the close, you're involved; otherwise, not. You're the only one who seems to think I for some reason was not neutral in that close, but your argument basically comes down to "I don't have a high opinion of them", which is why your accusations (as usual) are getting zero support. No other editor but you could have looked at that close and saw it as non-neutral and problematic: I'm confident that statement will hold up for anyone here who reviews it. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The main point of such advice is surely the hope that editors it's directed at will take it on board and we won't have to implement any formal sanction. However as advice, it's clearly not binding so it can't be violated as such. This doesn't mean it's impossible to sanction someone partly as a result of advice. Harassment is a problem and it's possible someone could be sanctioned for it in some way, and any advice offered beforehand is likely to be considered when the community (or in those cases where it applies, an admin) considers sanctions to protect wikipedia, if they find there has been harassment. In this particular case, I don't think a block or community ban is likely. A formal iban could be considered, but I'd suggest you need more evidence. In particular, has there been anything else since March to now? Because if there's only this one edit involving you from then until now it sort of looks like Tenebrae belatedly got the message with only minor slipup. I'm reluctant to even call it that, since a single edit challenging you, if the edit was good, after about 4 months is IMO not necessarily a problem when there is no formal iban. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what kind of situation merits enforcing an ANI advice for an editor to keep a distance? Does a noncompliance need to happen every month? Every-other-month? Is doing it periodically acceptable? Is it not enough that two editors are told to stay away from each other ... in an ANI closure ... but one of them doesn't? The word "avoid" means "keep away from, stay away from, steer clear of, refrain from". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Exactly what kind of situation merits enforcing an ANI advice for an editor to keep a distance? It depends what kind of enforcement you want. Technically, for the reasons I outlined above (non-admin, involved closure, explicitly stated as non-binding advice), the advice cannot be "enforced" to begin with, but assuming you want to propose some kind of new sanction, and use the fact that one user had earlier advised Tenebrae to step away as one piece of evidence, you have the following options:

• If you want a mutual interaction ban, then you need to either get the Tenebrae's consent for a mutually voluntary ban (which is sometimes the easiest path if neither of you like each other and you would both rather build an encyclopedia) or demonstrate a pattern of harassment that has no reasonable policy basis. Whether or not you think your edits that Tenebrae reverted or challenged were good, Tenebrae did cite apparently rational, non-"I don't like you" reasons for doing so in all the diffs you linked above, so you have not demonstrated a pattern of harassment as of yet.
• If you want a one-way interaction ban ... well, I will tell you that the burden of proof would be much higher and you would probably not get what you want even with a tremendous amount of evidence of a long-term, consistent pattern of stalking. I have never seen a one-way IBAN imposed off the bat, and this recent discussion should tell you what the likely outcome would be.
• If you want a page ban or topic ban for Tenebrae, you need to demonstrate that their edits were unambiguously disruptive and/or were only made to get under your skin. Again, I've looked at the diffs above and that does not appear to be the case: if you think MOS:FILM or some such disagrees with his edits regarding italics, you should prove it, and his arguments against the use of the phrase "make love" in place of "have sex" seem fairly reasonable. Note that if you propose a PBAN or TBAN against someone based on their being consistently wrong on article content, and the evidence actually suggests you are the one who is wrong, you open yourself up to yourself being sanctioned instead. I am not saying I think you should be sanctioned (I honestly have no idea); I am just pointing this out as a caution.
• If you want Tenebrae to be blocked, the same criteria for immediately above apply, although I will tell you that editors normally aren't blocked solely for being wrong on content issues. You would need to demonstrate that Tenebrae was deliberately making up "rules" solely to harass you, that he violated our BLP policy, or some other serious issue like that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on Hijiri's behavior in this ANI regarding other editors (and his history in other ANIs) ... can this ANI please be addressed by WP Administrators?
Either a directive in an ANI closure has validity ... or it doesn't. Admins accepted the closure of the ANI by a non-Admin and the issuance of advice to both parties to avoid each other, with a warning that it was the "only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone". If this advice was inherently meaningless, then what was the rationale for permitting it to be made? I don't have any articles Tenebrae edits on my watchlist. I don't go out of my way to undo or tinker with Tenebrae's edits. I don't respond to his comments directed at me (regardless of how he interprets my non-response). Unless something is done now, this will continue to become a lose-lose situation for me — the only one of the two parties that took the ANI advice seriously. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: You should strike your first sentence. It is an off-topic personal attack, and I have seen people get blocked for less. I offered you good, helpful advice, and you spit in my face like this? At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that I tried to explain to Pyxis, politely, why her behaviour in this and another thread was inappropriate and could be viewed as canvassing, and she essentially told me to eff off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If I may jump in, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with asking for admin eyes on this, or with saying why one is doing so. The comment criticizes your actions, not your person, and is therefore not PA. "Extremely uncivil"? Please. Not by any interpretation I've seen on this site. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: As I said above (At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner), it's open to interpretation whether the above remark is a personal attack or just a WP:CIVIL violation. The former view is in line with the definition at WP:WIAPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [are a form of personal attack that is never acceptable]. Saying that I have behaved poorly in some unspecified other ANI threads (when I had never interacted with Pyxis before yesterday) or even in this thread (when all I did was point out that Pyxis has apparently misunderstood that "advice" is not a binding sanction and that she had not provided any evidence of Tenebrae engaging in anything more disruptive than disagreeing with her over a style issue and the wording of a plot summary) is not appropriate. Asking for admin attention is fine, but she should first give some sort of evidence of disruption. ANI is not for hashing out content disputes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, asking for admin attention on the administrator's noticeboard is fine, period. No reason should be required, and perhaps they were in error for giving one, I don't know. If so, it's a minor distraction from the main issue of this thread. The user's reasonable question, If this advice was inherently meaningless, then what was the rationale for permitting it to be made? was not addressed, and instead you seized on a perceived slight, interpreted it in the most negative light possible, and blew it out of proportion. Nobody has spit in your face in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My god this thread is like a black hole of drama. It keeps sucking new people in to cause more drama than before. Can I suggest that this be closed because absolutely nothing good is coming from it? --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I oppose closure without admin attention to the OP's questions, which appear (to me) to be made in good faith. If "nothing good is coming from it," maybe that's because that attention has not yet been forthcoming. If an admin considers the OP's position and deems it without merit, that's as much due process as the OP should expect; but I would expect that much in their place. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the person who opened the "black hole" be closed (or whatever WP calls it) from this topic? Because all you have to do is go up ^ 16 signed comments to see who set the drama into motion.

I deserve to have my voice be heard by Administrators and my petition addressed by them without any one individual derailing the discussion. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You are conflating advice with directive. I view a directive as a statement requiring some action or inaction, that if contravened will result in a sanction. "Advice", on the other hand, doesn't carry quite the same weight. It isn't meaningless — if someone is advised to stay away from someone else and they do not, they are less apt to get the default assumption of good faith if the interactions are problematic. The closing statement clearly used the word "advised" which is not a directive.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary Unfortunately for you, I believe that S Philbrick is correct that the crux of your problem lies in the closer's choice to give advice rather than direct you and Tennebrae to stay away from each other. Of course, that choice was really the only option available to them, since the closer was a non-administrator, and really can't give out such direction because they don't have the wherewithal to back it up with a block if it's not followed - this is the downside of a NAC close of a interpersonal dispute on AN or AN/I. This highlights two things: (1) More admins need to get involved in closing that kind of thread on the administrator boards, and (2) Non-administrators should have second (and third) thoughts about making a close that requires admin capabilities to be enforced.

As for the trouble between you and Tenebrae, I think that your only option is to re-open the issue as a request for a formal Interaction Ban between you, if you have the stomach for that, and if you think the evidence is sufficient to support such a request. Just be aware that the existence of this thread will have sapped much of the community's interest in pursuing this matter, and that the closing of the previous discussion may be an indication that no admin sees the problem as being as dire as you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

(1) If Administrators allow non-admins to close ANIs: they should stand behind what they allow non-admins to do. (2) If non-admins close ANIs with unenforceable "advice": Admins should edit the closure statement to state that the advice is "not enforceable". (3) As well-intentioned as non-admins may be, Administrators should be the only Wikipedians that close interpersonal ANIs. (4) If someone wants to be an Administrator: prepare to do more than just wear the hat. (5) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Pyxis Solitary talk 22:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you've covered a lot of ground there, and only you can decide where you want to put your energy. If you want an IB with Tenebrae, or a Topic Ban for them, you've got to do what has to be done to get it, and you've been told what that is. If, instead, you want to tilt at windmills in an attempt to change Wikipedia's culture or standards or procedures or processes by simply complaining about them, nothing's going to happen - I can pretty much guarantee that. It's your choice, the ball's in your court. This thread? You should really consider dropping the stick, because it's extremely doubtful that anything you're looking for is going to come from it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, thank you for pulling so much dead weight here and managing to do so eloquently what I somehow failed to do in my much longer comments. Hopefully the OP will listen and this mess can just be closed. I'll add that I don't necessarily think an IBAN or some such is a bad idea. Softlavender is right about most things, so if she says Tenebrae has been hounding that's at least enough to raise an eyebrow; I just don't think there is enough evidence of that here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this ANI is related to the previous interpersonal ANI closed on 03:34, 2 February 2017, this ANI ... this time ... should be closed by an Administrator. The support expressed by editors who have taken an interest in this situation has been greatly appreciated. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This is such an extremely long and involved thread, and I have barely if at all been on Facebook for days, so I'm going to repeat here, for convenience, what I posted above at 6:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC):

If anyone is hounded, it has been me by Pyxis Solitary, who has taken me to ANI before and been told they had no case, that I was doing nothing wrong, and that in fact they were in the wrong. Their hysterically hyperbolic claims include saying "*Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages" when — and please, go see that edit for yourself — the bulk of the edits were un-italicizing company names like Twitch Film, WXVU, Collider.com, Townsquare Media, Showbiz411, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and others that are plain and simple not italicized ... see their very Wikipedia articles, bluelinked here. I hate to say this, but I think WP:BOOMERANG is called for when they and Softlavender deliberately introduce grammatical errors into an article. And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: User:Softlavender has a sharp tongue and I've seen her be very wrong about some minor conduct issues in the past (requirement to specifically use diffs as evidence when other types of evidence are acceptable or even preferable, the appropriateness of bringing up an editor with whom one knows the person one is addressing has an IBAN, etc.), and I've seriously considered emailing her about this problem to find out how her interpretation can differ so radically from everyone else's, but I've never known her to consciously act in bad faith. "Hounding" is a complicated issue -- I first encountered the term in my interactions with JoshuSasori (talk · contribs), who claimed I was "hounding" him by feigning an interest in a certain topic and going around editing a bunch of articles he had edited just to get under his skin, but later community consensus was that he had been hounding me by reverting all of said edits immediately because I was the one who had made them, and that his having the pages on his watchlist was not an excuse since doing so because of one's watchlist was functionally the same, in terms of our harassment policy, as doing so by means of monitoring my contribs -- so it's entirely possible that you could be right that Pyxis is the one hounding you, and Softlavender could be, in good faith, going by the assumption that Pyxis's edits are not disruptive and your reverting her more than once indicates "hounding". Assuming this is the case, Softlavender would still be very much wrong on this point, but saying I think WP:BOOMERANG is called for when ... Softlavender deliberately introduce[s] grammatical errors into an article is not a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"it's entirely possible that you could be right that Pyxis is the one hounding you"

Carol is the article where Tenebrae and I first disagreed about an edit. It was my contributions to it and in related List of accolades received by Carol (film) sub-article that led Tenebrae to file the unsubstantiated ANI of canvassing against him. Find one article in Wikipedia where I have "hounded" Tenebrae. Provide the evidence ... or stop inventing scenarios. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If you revert Tenebrae's constructive/good-faith edits solely because Tenebrae was the one that made them ... well, it might technically meet the "criteria" defined at WP:HOUND, but only because it took place on one article rather than many. By the same token, if your reverting/challenging Tenebrae's edits is not hounding because it was localized to one article, the same is true for Tenebrae's "hounding" of you. I don't need to provide evidence -- the diffs in your first post here clearly show Tenebrae making rational arguments in favour of not using italics or the phrase "make love" in the plot summary. If you revert those edits because you don't like Tenebrae, without any policy- or guideline-based rationale, that is at the very least WP:BATTLEGROUND, even if not WP:HOUNDING. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, your nitpicking a single sentence in a cautionary message addressed to the user with whom you are in conflict and taking it out of context as an "accusation" against you for which I should provide evidence (again, even the text you quoted included the words "it's entirely possible") is just more evidence that you are more interested in picking fights than in building an encyclopedia. You are not making any friends with comments like the above, and are in fact rapidly losing them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You chose to involve yourself in this ANI. You talk smack about other editors. You try to derail an ANI and you attempt to obfuscate the crux of it. You make accusations about me (for those who aren't aware of it: check out the message Hijiri 88 posted on my Talk page on July 6) and allegations about my editing history. But when asked to piss or get off the pot? There's no there, there. Tenebrae knows my editing history on Carol. Heck, anyone can look at the revision history and see who did what, when. Ask him to help you find the revision history in any article that backs up his accusation that I've "hounded" him, and your allegation that I probably have. Or else ... you're just a troublemaker. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You chose to involve yourself in this ANI. Yes, I did. I was working under the flawed assumption that making a neutral comment to the effect that "You have not provided evidence of hounding. The previous ANI close was not an enforceable sanction. I need to see evidence before I support a sanction." would not lead to this one-editor abuse campaign to which you have since subjected me. I will probably make the same mistake again, but abiding by the fourth pillar is not a flaw for which you have any right to condemn me.

You talk smack about other editors. Evidence? The quote you gave above was taken out of context. I said at the top of this thread that "if hounding [...] has been going on and can be demonstrated, and Tenebrae's edits can't be justified based on some policy or guideline, then an IBAN might be a reasonable solution" in response to your claim that Tenebrae had been hounding you, and I said essentially the same thing to Tenebrae. None of this is "talking smack".

You try to derail an ANI and you attempt to obfuscate the crux of it. What "crux"? Literally every uninvolved party has told you the same thing I have -- that there is no basis to this thread, since you came in assuming that the non-admin close in February constituted an enforceable sanction.

for those who aren't aware of it: check out the message Hijiri 88 posted on my Talk page on July 6 Yeah, check it out. The OP's vicious string of attacks against me began immediately after I posted my first neutral comment in this thread, and within a few hours I was sick enough of it that I was begging her on her to talk page to stop.

You make accusations about me [...] and allegations about my editing history I think you're projecting a bit. You've talked a lot more about my "editing history" than I have about yours, and none of it has been accompanied by diffs or any other kind of evidence. Nor, naturally, is your claim about me making accusations against you.

But when asked to piss or get off the pot? There's no there, there. Umm ... what? I don't get it. Are you just making toiletry references now because grossing me out is the only thing you haven't already tried? I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it's a region-specific metaphor, but still.

Tenebrae knows my editing history on Carol. Well, yeah. And I'll bet you know his, too. But neither of you have provided a whole lot of evidence on the matter. The burden of proof is on you because you opened an ANI thread and requested sanctions for Tenebrae, while he has done neither.

Heck, anyone can look at the revision history and see who did what, when. I'm sorry, but that's not how ANI works. You need to gather specific evidence of disruption and present it in an easily comprehensible manner. I'm sorry if no one told you this before your coming here, but that's just how things work around here. BMK told you the same thing here. You really should just let this thread get archived, and then start preparing a report supported by concrete diffs (perhaps in your sandbox) and come back to ANI once it is ready.

Ask him to help you find the revision history in any article that backs up his accusation that I've "hounded" him I'm sorry, but once again the burden of proof is on you. You chose to open this ANI thread on Tenebrae and ask for sanctions against him. If he had opened an ANI thread on you and asked for sanctions, I would say the same thing to him.

and your allegation that I probably have. Please re-read my comment. I (very deliberately) said "possibly", not "probably. I said the same thing to you further up: it's possible he has been hounding you, but I'd need to see evidence of that.

Or else ... you're just a troublemaker. Believe what you want, I guess. You've wasted a lot more of my time over the last two or three days than I have of yours, and (in the other thread Amaury started about you further up the page) you somewhat callously forced me to remember one of the most traumatic experiences in my life (something for which you have yet to apologize, mind you).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Drame, 戏剧, dramma, नाटक, драма, ドラマ, دراما ... in any language ... by any Wikipedian ... still equals = drama. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Not only is it 100% clear you didn't read a word of my above carefully-reasoned and polite response, you clearly don't know anything about linguistics. I don't speak a whole lot of those languages, but I can tell you with certainty that ドラマ most often refers to TV miniseries (and also applies to longer foreign shows like Friends and Game of Thrones that don't tend to be produced in Japan at the same rate), and 戏剧 refers to the theatre. I am not just having a laugh at your expense here -- I am seriously questioning your competence to edit Wikipedia if you don't realize that the English word "drama" has a number of completely different meanings and the one you are referencing is recent slang and is not likely to come out when you type the solitary word into an MT program. If you don't understand that "drama" as you are using it here is slang, then are you writing slang into Wikipedia articles as well? That would support Tenebrae's assertion that your article edits violate MOS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

^ Drama. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??"

I make this clear to you and anyone else reading this: an ANI is the only area where I will respond to a comment from you directed at me.

You and I were told to "avoid each other" in the interpersonal ANI referenced in the first sentence of this ANI. Translation: avoid Pyxis Solitary = stay away from her edits. You change and/or undo an edit by Pyxis Solitary? Translation: you're not staying away from her. You leave a message or comment for Pyxis Solitary in a Talk page? Translation: you're not staying away from her.

There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia to edit. Translation: find the ones where you will not feel the uncontrollable temptation to change and/or undo edits made by Pyxis Solitary. Find a way to connect editing with personal boundaries.

As for that ANI (Assistance needed with repeat violations of ANI warning) you alluded to? It, too, was about the same matter of this ANI: your not staying away from me.

Today, tomorrow, this month, next month — two, three, or four months from now ... "avoid" = keep away from, stay away from. Tenebrae: stay away from me. Pyxis Solitary talk 23:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If this dispute is primarily about the page Carol (film), perhaps both editors should be blocked from editing that page. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That's an idea that bears considering. From what I have seen of this battle of wills, I would suspect that neither Pyxis nor Tenebrae would agree that the article is the primary cause of their inability to get along. But it was the initial flashpoint between them, and one which neither seems to have ever disengaged from afterwards. At the very least, a pageban will rescue that particular article from further disruption and may have the additional benefit of reinforcing (for each editor) that there is nothing to be gained from keeping in eachother's orbit.

On the other hand, it is not the current site of disruption, and it might be argued that a topic ban would be inappropriate under those circumstances. While I cannot say with any certainty who is pushing the disruption here harder (I have a notion of who may be the more aggressive party, but no longer have the time nor inclination to keep chasing down the particular details of their arguments), I can say that neither has come off smelling like roses here; in my opinion, anyone siding overwhelmingly with one or the other probably has not had the benefit of observing earlier episodes between these two. At the very least, each of them trod pretty hard on AGF from word one.

As the closer of the earlier discussion, I can tell you that when I provided the advice that each disengage a little and focus more on the content and less on eachother's motives (advice I still standby, not withstanding the fact that Pyxis interpreted it as a basis for alleging inappropriate behaviour on Tenebrae's part, in a fashion over and above the status that ought to be afforded to a procedural close of a discussion that had almost no community input), I knew with a fair degree of certainty that I was talking into the wind. It still seemed like the best (and maybe the only) thing to say, given the circumstances, and the only way they might have avoided further escalation of their interwoven disputes. But it seems it only delayed that outcome. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If Tenebrae and I are both blocked from editing Carol, then I won't be subjected to Tenebrae periodically thumbing his nose at the 2 February 2017 ANI advice to "avoid each other" (regardless of his reason for doing it). However! The ANI closure "advice" by a non-administrator, which led to my twice seeking redress here, must now become an enforceable "warning" from an Administrator. And if Tenebrae takes his hubris to another article I'm editing and starts to do the same thing there ... Admins will need to block him from continuing a conduct of undeniable antagonism and conflict. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:43, 9 July 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 insult

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

---

oh and that guy was wrong, his link doesn't say it clearly at all, but that isn't why I'm posting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but the problem is that you don't see when this was posted in its current layout unless you archive it. https://web.archive.org/web/20150901161859/http://www.wwe.com/inside/industrynews/7706710 Nickag989^talk 20:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk about the article on the article page. That is not what this report is about. You insulted me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did, but not on purpose. :P Nickag989^talk 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nickag989 has already been warned several times for this single occurrence, so let's just close this topic and move on. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

problem is that he doesn't accept his actions. "Yes I did, but not on purpose." did he accidentally slip and hit the I key followed by D, I, O and finally T? no respect for others, no respect for rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)That's one problem, yeah. The other is that you've raised the problem here, got a couple admin and adminoid eyeballs on it, got the fellow (quite properly) warned; next time it comes up, all you, or anyone else ,has to do is post a diff to it and a diff to this section at ANI. In the meantime, give the fellow a chance to improve himself, or the rope to hang himself, whatever his druthers. Drop it for now, though. Anmccaff (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a persistent pattern of abusive incivility? If it is, then please provide diffs to establish that. If it isn't then... well... it's not the answer you're looking for, but if you stick around here long enough, you'll realize that most everyone eventually loses their cool over something. I've been called a Nazi, Klan member, ISIS sympathizer... you name it. Can't get your feelings that tied up in it. We're here to build an encyclopedia; we're not here to build a social network of folks who all love each other. TimothyJosephWood 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

as long as I know what the standards are and what is and isn't acceptable, then I'm sure it's fine. I now know that calling people idiots is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not alright. But we have a longstanding thing here where we don't sanction people as punishment; we only sanction people if it is to prevent damage to the project. If there is a pattern of this kind of behavior, then sanctions will prevent that pattern from continuing. If it was a one time lapse in good judgement, then sanctioning the editor actually hurts the encyclopedia, because it doesn't prevent any imminent harm, and it actively prevents someone from improving it. You and I aren't important, and neither are our hurt feelings. The only thing that's really important is the encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

124.106.141.235, he already has been warned and has apologized to you. I don't know what more you're hoping for. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I was once suspended for 5 days for calling someone an "idiot" just as the OP is complaining about. However, standards have fallen dramatically in the intervening years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow! You've been blocked more times than I have! EEng 01:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was there no WP:Boomerang discussion here. The horrific insult of "idiot" was preceded by the edit comment of the complainant here of "edgy"? are we 14?. Is it not possible that the IP editor, who has since vanished, and seemed to know far too much process to not be an experienced Wikipedian, was in fact an idiot, and that User:Nickag989 nailed it? Nfitz (talk) 06:28, 8 July 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:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks from ContraVentum

The following discussion is closed. 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 and foremost, before diving into the problem, I would like to say that @Abequinn14: has recommended that we take this situation to the Administrators' noticeboard. [139] Due to user:ContraVentum clear WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior that has currently led him to receive a 48 hour block, in which he violated WP:1RR which is enforced for any articles related to the Syrian Civil War.

Now with that out of the way, the problem began on June 21 at the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article where user:ContraVenum falsely claims that a consensus was reached for WP:QUESTIONABLE sources and information on a Template that he and his friends created to replace the info box which was a clear violation of WP:T3 (An admin had taken down the template for WP:T3 violation) . [140] He then continues his stubborn behavior of not wanting to take this issue to the talk page and reverts my edit [141] claiming that he updated the info box, [142] in order to avoid at that time a WP:1RR. I then go and ask him in one of the edit summaries to lets take this to the Talk Page in order for us to avoid an unnecessary edit war. [143] In which, an administrator monitoring the situation increases the page protection to only administrator use for the next 7 days. [144] Which was perfect for us to hash out this issue, but he was no where to be found during that timespan. An as soon as the 7 days administrator protection wore off he goes and does three reverts in a span of 24 hours [145] [146] [147]. During that time he starts a new topic of discussion calling it (CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything) which was a clear personal attack in order to tarnish my good name. Even though he did all of this I participated in the discussion and debate until he clearly started to belittle, and degrade me as a person.[148] [149] I went and reported his behavior and clear violation of WP:1RR to user:Bbb23 in which he agreed that it was deserving of a block for 48 hours. [150] An now in this span of his 48 hour block another administrator has already acknowledged that the title of the topic of discussion he created (CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything) was a clear personal attack against me and had nothing to do with the topic of discussion and changes the title too (Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org) . [151] Now, I'm hoping as his block ends that he can be blocked from editing indefinitely from this topic as he as not provided anything better or beneficial to the article and for the last month he has vandalized the info box with biased inaccurate sources and has shown no effort in cooperating with other editors. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Skip your personal attacks on me and get to the core issue / the actual dispute in this long edit war. The matter is that Chilicheese22 has been mass deleting reliable sources, essentially reducing the article from this version [152] to this version [153], i.e. among other things most drastically deleting a whole separate warring faction in the infobox, even though summarizing the reliable sources would require having to list said faction. There even exists a separate article with references itself about the Southern Transitional Council, which CC22 is very insisting on removing from the infobox. I have never got an actual rational explanation from CC22 about what is wrong with the sources used, for instance sources such as criticalthreats.org and alaraby.co.uk, and yes, even The Guardian. The furthest I've come with him in getting an actual explanation is him stating that all sources "are at best WP:QUESTIONABLE". Then I try to make him account for why the sources are as bad as he claims them to be (see talk here), but I'm met with a slurry of ad hominem and guilt by association argumentation, meanwhile CC22 never actually makes a rationale for every single source he has deleted (see the talk again). This is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and obstructing the consensus process by CC22 repeatedly reverting every insert that I do, never substantiating his actions, and laying the burden of accounting for the use of every WP:RS onto me, in order to evade explaining rationally what is his problem with stated sources. CC22, you could as well delete 100% of the article and then ask me to type a full rationale for every single one of the 319 refs of the article as to permit using them - but of course Wikipedia doesn't work this way. You must account for your drastical deletions to the article.

So, for the admins reading this, please consider the mass deletions in the article. Essentially, I'm annoyed that Chilicheese22 is doing these deletions, while never offering an actual explanation of why every source is bad as he claims them all to be. If CC22 is unable to account for his claims, I want CC22 to stop the deletions, and if he does not, I would like sanctions placed onto him. These are my wishes. --ContraVentum (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly what I thought you choose not to comment on what I said because all I have stated were the facts and the truth. I have no idea what you were reading, but I was not attacking you, simply explaining your deceiving actions. Now as for your WP:QUESTIONABLE sources, how about you tell the actual truth, you were adding sources like worldbulletin.net to add belligerents onto the info box which made politically and militarily no sense. An if you bothered to read my comments on the talk page I clearly took apart your argument. [154] [155] (i.e. Eritrea supporting the Houthis when it has a military base to train UAE backed forces in Yemen [156]) Which if you bothered to read the link from an actual reliable sources that I placed clearly contradicts your "theory" of Eritrea supporting the Houthis. Now as for the Southern Transitional Council you continue to be deceiving and making it seem like this is a complete new faction that has just entered the war in Yemen. When in reality it has always been the Southern Movement which has been a KEY Hadi ally in Yemen. Not only that, but you go as far as putting it in a new belligerent section as if it controls land when all the real evidence you need is its not a reflection of the Yemeni Civil War map. An if you bothered to look at the Map there are only three sides in the war ( Houthi & Allies, Hadi & Allies, & AQAP). Furthermore, you make it seem like that you are the one that had brought these sources when in reality you are trying to use sources that are currently there in order to add this new section. An that's what you have failed to explain, it has nothing to do with the 319 references in the article. That's why I am asking for you to give an explanation and if you can't I am asking for you to be banned from editing this topic, as you have vandalized and disruptively edited this page. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... Abequinn14 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Basically I asked you Chilicheese22 now and have been asking you 1000 times... why should criticalthreats.org, alaraby.co.uk, the Guardian etc. be deleted? I'm simply summarizing those sources, period. Regardless of what you believe I might have of "agendas". By your massive deletions in the infobox, you're denying the existence of the 1) Southern Transitional Council, 2) the al-Hizam Brigade, 3) the Hadhrami Elite Forces, 4) the recent split between Southern Movement and Hadi government, 5) the existence of the Hadramout Tribal Council, 6) the support of the Hadi Government by 6a) Egypt, 6b) Somalia, 6c) Djibouti and 6d) Eritrea, and 7) the support of the STC by UAE. This is all well-sourced information. CARE to elaborate on a reasonable motive of such deletions?? No you don't. Instead you're filling me and everybody else with horseshit in diarrhoea-mode. It's ridiculous you're wasting my time arguing endlessly about this. I convince myself that you must be taking the piss on me, dragging me through long-standing edit wars and now the immense Wikipedia bureaucracy in my attempts to save the article from your damaging actions. So you can just keep the article brutalized by your erasures, a shame for the Yemeni Civil War article but I don't have further desire to discuss with complete morons in order to make consensus/compromises. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

For admins: Please close this thread. I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic, nor contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban. If this is the kind of trash people one has to deal with, then this is not a place for me. Chilicheese22 can keep his way, and everybody will be happy, yay.. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you clearly live in your own little world and refuse to read my comments I've bolded the important stuff since I know your such a "busy person" and "I don't want to waste your time". Anyways, if for once your a man of your word then I call on a admin @Abequinn14: @EdJohnston: to implement a topic ban on you, since it won't make any difference because you already said, and I quote "I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic,contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban." Furthermore, you don't have the best of records for keeping your word and this isn't your first time having a meltdown and disappearing for a couple of weeks before returning in order to avoid sanctions. As you can see this was another meltdown you had a couple months back and returned a few weeks later. [157] Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

wew, what do you know of keeping promises? You're honorless scum. Talk to my hand. Yours sincerely, --ContraVentum (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4 --ContraVentum (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

:::: Also I am calling for an indefinite block and sanctions to be placed on User:contravenum until he apologizes for calling me "a trash human" "an absolute degenerate" and "a piece of filth" on my Talk Page [158] Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

good boy. nice that WP has a model pupil like you. I mean, how would WP survive without your divine contributions?!? --ContraVentum (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked User:ContraVentum 48 hours for personal attacks for 'trash human' and 'piece of filth'. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this account (User:ContraVentum) just does not much more than just harass. It's just a troll, just rebutting his useless edits with harassment. An indef block is needed. Abequinn14 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Abequinn14: Totally agree, couldn't have said better myself and he is just adding more evidence against himself through his talk page. Anyone that opposes should just go and check his talk page [159]. Honestly he is continuing to expose himself Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Please do not do anything to encourage accusations of WP:ADMINSHOP, Chilicheese22- edits like [160], [161], and [162] step close to it, to say the least. At least while this discussion is in progress. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 15:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Ok, I have one question how is this [163] WP:ADMINSHOP when I was just asking a question. An the other two I apologize for (Even though this one was more of me questioning the length of the block [164] I apologize for this one if any offence was takin) as you could see it was in the heat of the moment when I was being insulted. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

'Please do not do anything to encourage accusations' is the point. — fortunavelut luna 15:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Understood and appreciate that. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If any admin @Black Kite: @EEng: @Boing! said Zebedee: can take a look at the situation that has transpired and look at the rant that User ContraVentum had posted in his talk page (already deleted it, please check edit history of the talk page [165]) and give your opinion on the proposal down below as there is clear support for an indefinite block against this editor, who has done nothing, but vandalize the article, show the inability to work with others, and disrespect other editors who have differing opinions from him. Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block & Topic Ban

ContraVenum (This includes his other account 176.23.1.95 admits this is his account here [166]) has shown the inability to work with others and has shown his true colors when not being able to reach a consensus with people that defer with his opinion. He has received his second 48 hour block in a week and I am proposing that he receives an indefinite block until he can prove to us that he has changed, by apologizing to me for his derogatory terms and promising that when adding large amounts of information he will take it first to the talk page. Also, since he has proved that has not done anything beneficial to articles related to the Syrian Civil War (i.e. Yemeni Civil War) he can never be allowed to edit them.

• Support, as nominator. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support, it should prevent his useless edits. Abequinn14 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Support block, not TBAN Agreeing with Hijiri 88. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Way too extreme for a single uncivil remark. I haven't read the above (multiple!) walls of text, and I doubt any admins will, but I did see the bit about how this indef block proposal was made specifically because CV is refusing to apologize for calling the OP "a trash human". Present evidence of long-term disruption, in a form people are likely to read, or present a more reasonable proposal. Making a single WP:DICK comment normally results in a short block, which User:EdJohnston had already administered before Abequinn's !vote above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Opposition withdrawn If LP is one of the honorless scum, then I can guess I probably would be too. I still have no intention of reading the above wall of bold text, so I don't know whether I want to explicitly support either of these proposals, but I will point out that a TBAN is redundant if an indef block is also in place, assuming he is blocked for the same behaviour that led to the TBAN. Yes, bans are harder to repeal than blocks, but he wouldn't be unblocked unless he convinced an admin that the disruption would not continue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No one would never think of you as "honorless scum" but does "Absolutely degenerate" fit? (just kidding of course) Credit for insult creativity... but ya, he ain't here to build anything useful. The TBAN would only apply if he gets the block lifted, which seems unlikely. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been compared to Hitler because my view of the Book of Genesis is more in-line with that of the Jewish Publication Society and Christine Hayes than that of some Christians in the American Deep South. And I'm pretty sure some bona fide neo-Nazis have called me "degenerate scum" before. (I helped crack some Nazi dog-whistle codes back during the upsurge in fascism on English Wikipedia last fall, and it wouldn't surprise me if they talked about me that way on their off-wiki fora.) A lot of the time people just seem to be building on standard epithets rather than coming up with anything new, honestly. I mean, the same user who compared me to Hitler has also called me a bunch of homophobic epithets, but you would think with their obsession with sex they could come up with something more interesting than "fag". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as one of the "honorless scum" Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Reading through the editor's rant on his talk page was enough for me to conclude they are not here to build an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - After reading through the same rant that TheGracefulSlick read, I can conclude that they aren't here to build the encyclopedia. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support block, not redundant/pointless TBAN I too have now read the rant referred to above (permalink) and agree with the above assessments. I would say, though, that NOTHERE users don't need to be TBANned; that would just clog up the logs at WP:RESTRICT. In the event that he apologizes and is given the WP:OFFER, then a ban can be proposed as part of the terms of said offer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 5 July 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.

Crosswiki self-promo spam of Wanye2004

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

---

Wanye2004 (talk - contribs - CA) is using enwiki and commons for (crosswiki) self-promo (presumably of his band, see WP:YAMB). See this AFD page, and the 3 articles linked: this is a bio about himself, The Shine Season Billionaires (speedy deleted days ago) and Dreams Worth Much Than Money ar two albums by him. User has the habit to remove prod/afd notices (01, 02), and is probably using an anon sock (75.110.149.8, same kind of edits on the same pages edited by Wanye -just an example-, possibly static). On commons he uploaded 13 files (including .ogg) about his productions and was indef banned.

After my report at WP:AIV, he was warned by an admin. His edit after warning was this, another afd tag removal. And he was blocked for a day. Sufficiently warned, in write only and, btw, Draft:E.V.O.L. was deleted as blatant hoax. IMHO clearly WP:NOTHERE. Per crosswiki self-promo spam and, at this point, vandalisms in write only after repeated warnings, I request for an indef ban. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• All deleted as obvious hoaxes. No reference to anything outside WMF projects. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Indeffed as NOTHERE per the above and my own deeper look at this editor's history. I can't find any evidence of constructive behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 9 July 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 Article Creation

User:Usama-shakeel-pk (talk) has repeatedly created an article (Usama shakeel) concerning himself in which he claims to be the CEO of Facebook and a relative of Mark Zuckerberg. He also has a habit of removing Speedy Deletion tags placed on the article in question. Requesting that action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Article deleted and user warned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting for indefinite interaction ban between me, and two other users; intimidation.

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

---

I have been subject of intimation by two users, who also happens to be sysops. I hereby request uninvolved admin to sanction an indefinite WP:IBAN between me, and Ferret; and other ban between me, and Sergecross73. I also request, if possible (based on their behaviour), to formally caution them about intimidating good faith users.

The intimidation can be seen on User talk:Usernamekiran#Crowdfunding, with diffs for previous few intimidation in that conversation.

As me, and these two editors do not edit/work in similar fields on enwiki, the ban will not affect anybody. Thanks, and I apologise for the inconvenience. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, I've only talked to this person twice, and it was merely alerting him to WP:POINT. I don't recall any other reactions. I have no idea what would escalate this to the point of an iban. I'm just glad I saw this on my watchlist, as I was not notified of this discussion. There was just a delay in him notifying me. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference's sake, here and here are the only two interactions I've ever had with this editor, to my recollection. Its absolutely ludicrous to claim it's "intimidation". Ferret was warning him about a single ill-conceived edit on an article I don't believe I've ever edited in my life. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user reverted a good faith edit with a long detailed edit note as "Unexplained content removal" with Huggle. I reminded him to make sure to read edit notes, nothing more. As for the other diffs the user linked on their talk page, they are related to a prior ANI posting that lead to this notice from Floquenbeam to the user, and refer to me warning him to stop messaging another editor who had requested he cease contacting her via talk page. The current talk discussion is the only time I've written to the user since that April incident. Not sure what else there is to say about it, I simply don't ever interact with this user, except in those two cases where they landed on my watchlist. -- ferret (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have made that fact clear in reply to Sergecross73 on my talkpage, that me and ferret never interacted after April. In first diff provided by Sergecross73, Sergecross73 accused me of playing games, and getting revenge, and indrectly implied I am here to disrupt wikipedia. All I am asking is an interaction ban. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The way I see it, you're not going to get an interaction ban for a single instance or two. You can (kindly) tell them to stop and go away, or otherwise ignore them, but an interaction ban is likely not happening unless this is a recurring issue, which this does not appear to be. (non-admin comment) SkyWarrior 18:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I did, and I still believe that. You literally wrote a note that says, if the discussion looked rude to passerby, that you gave Ferret a little taste of his own behaviour. That's textbook POINT. But even if it wasn't - worst case scenario, I was completely wrong. That doesn't lead to an IBAN. This proposal shows you have no conception of the IBAN protocols. It's just further wasting of the community's time over a minor goof-up of yours that you already conceded was a mistake. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Yes, i did say that. And i said it because I wasnt being rude. I communicated with ferret in the way that he did to me. If a person initiates communication with you after two and half months (all by his own), and then if you use similar vocabulary/style to communicate with them, then it is simply how the world works. There was nothing about "getting back at him", or "getting revenge". This how normal humans respond: based in previous conversations with that oerson. I wouldnt have placed this IBAN request if it wasnt for your message after everything had gone quite. As I mentioned on my talkpage, you stirred it up again. So, it looks like you are wasting the time of others. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't place the blame on me here, regardless of the degree of "rightness" my warning, this objectively doesn't warrant an IBAN request in the least. This is a completely invalid request that should have never been brought to ANI. I'm done responding here for now, as there's no way any Admin is going to take action on this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

And why you guys so keen about avoiding the ban? Simply accept it, let an uninvolved sysop make it official, and lets move on. No further wasting of time. Or are you guys interested in talking with me? If I wasnt clear before: I do not want to interact with you at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Because I want to clear my name in public forum? Also, because it's not rooted in policy. I'm an admin. I enforce that sort of thing, you know? Rest assured, I have no particular intent on interacting with you in the future. I can't imagine wanting to collaborate with you on a particular project, nor do our interests tend to intersect naturally historically. Unless you need further basic policy warning from an Admin, I wouldn't expect us to cross paths anymore. (Nor was there every any reason to suspect otherwise.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I agree with SkyWarrior. I don't see behavior that warrants an interaction ban.

There seems to be a tendency on your part to misconstrue and blow out of proportion the manner in which you are being addressed, based upon the labels that you added to some diffs that don't seem relevant to the manner of speech. You seem to be casting aspersions against these two on your talk page and here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 9 July 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.

Pending Changes glitch

The following discussion is closed. 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 an administrator needs to flip some sort of switch. The list of pending changes shows that one article, Lennart Poettering, has been pending for hours, but when I click to review, there's no pending changes protection on the page. Can someone please take a look at this? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a genuine glitch. Last edit was by an IP, yet the software wasn't allowing review of the changes. I made a null edit (adding a space within a commented section) to correct the problem. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:42, 10 July 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.

Change of Page title

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

---

Morning,

Please could I request that the title of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Clarendon_Sixth_Form_College entry is change to say "Clarendon Sixth Form College". The college has now relocated and is no longer based in Hyde.

I have updated the content within the body of the Wiki however the title is incorrect.

Kind regards,

Carl Boyd Digital Technologist @ Tameside College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlboyd (talk • contribs) 09:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - request was completed by another use a few hours ago. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:49, 10 July 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.

Hide these edit summaries

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

---

Hide these edit summaries and vandalism. Use revision delete. They say [REDACTED] - Oshwah and the edit summaries are vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:50C7:4200:488C:74BF:13BF:EF9B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:50C7:4200:A8BF:64A4:4366:5C99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:F180:0:97:97:7CC:C049:EF7F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.252.229.43 (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the alert. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:22, 8 July 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.

As a note, the IP editor who makes these "hide this. use revision delete." requests on ANI often seems to use open proxies. It's usually worthwhile to check the range contribs when these requests pop up. Sometimes there's quite a bit of disruption coming from them, and they need to be range blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

COI at Chris Packham

I reverted a series of edits by a new user who was mass replacing source material with unsourced at Chris Packham, he then posted a panicked message on my talk page thinking I had destroyed his work (he didn't know about the undo button). In this message he said he was Chris's agent and needed to have the new material up by tomorrow, he has since made major changes to the article, and I think somone more experienced than myself should check these changes for neutrality. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added the {{coi}} template to the article and under your information on managing a conflict of interest advised the editor to take a close look at the disclosure section. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The actions of this user have me concerned. Undisclosed paid-editing, serious conflict of interest and seems to be in a hurry with some spurious deadline, which is immaterial and should be of no concern. I left a detailed note in the user's Talk page asking to come here an explain before any more work is done on that article. Added to watchlist. User will be blocked if they disregard these serious issues, and do not come to explain/ask after reading the linked pages explaining the issues in detail. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I did a quick read through the article and removed unreferenced content per WP:BLP, as well as addressed other issues. I share the concerns with Alexf in that the rate and manner of this user's edits to this article, as well as the manner in which this user has collaborated with others over this article and the content added - make me feel that there may be a conflict of interest and/or possible undisclosed paid editing occurring here. I hope this user participates in this ANI discussion and works with us to address these concerns. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I have dropped my 2c onto the user's talk page, to try and explain things from a different angle. We'll see if it takes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparent IDLI removal of G5 Speedy Delete request

Apparently resolved. If there is interest in further discussing WP:G5, the place to do that would be WT:CSD (and it does come up from time to time). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Several days ago, I nominated a file for deletion [167] based on another sock block of an indeffed user. Before his indef, the user had been topic banned from uploading files. It occurred to me today that because the file had been uploaded by a sock of an indeffed user, WP:G5 would apply. I noted this at the deletion discussion [168] after putting a G5 CSD notice at the file page. It was promptly removed by an editor [169] who had stated at the deletion discussion that he felt the file should be kept [170]. His rationale for removing the CSD tag in the edit summary was "regardless of the violation this file is properly sourced and has a valid fair use so I think deleting would just be a waste of time".

I went to that editor's talk page and asked him to self-revert [171]. He refused [172] [173]. It should be pointed out that this editor ignored the procedure for dealing with a speedy delete tag and did not even attempt to discuss his dissent at the file's talk page.

Could an admin intervene, please? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

First, I'm happy to see you ask instead of reverting, WV. Question: let's say the file is speedy deleted, and 2 seconds later Salavat re-uploads it with his own fair use rationale. You wouldn't believe the file should be speedy deleted then, right? Because G5 no longer applied? So, since Salavat has added his own fair use rationale, the current situation is functionally indistinguishable from this theoretical situation. So let's save some time and energy, pretend it did happen that way, not make Salavat jump thru pointless hoops, and move on with our lives. Getting annoyed that a file MaranoFan unloaded is actually potentially useful is playing right into MaranoFan's hands. Don't be his puppet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Of course I didn't revert, Floquenbeam. Why would I?

(2) If Salavat uploaded it after it were speedy deleted, that wouldn't be an issue because Salavat isn't indeffed due to sockpuppetry (and other things) and doesn't have a topic ban against uploading files.

(3) It's not the file that's the issue, it's the violation of policy (violating the topic ban and block evasion).

(4) G5 exists for the very reason(s) I requested a speedy delete (block evasion chief among them), does it not?

(5) If we keep everything or anything in opposition to the reason why G5 exists, then G5 is useless and, as policy, should no longer exist.

(6) MF's articles created as Beachey were deleted by Bbb23 because of block evasion. Why shouldn't the file be deleted for the same reason?

(7) This is about the principle as well as getting a serial sockmaster to understand that if they create articles, edit articles, and upload files via a sock account, it will be a complete waste of time because after they are once again caught, everything they did will be removed. That's a deterrent to future socking ideation and activity. Isn't that part of the reason why G5 as policy is in place?

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)...so, in order to make a point to a banned user, you should waste a good users time? Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"Waste" of time? Two minutes? Sorry, I don't see an issue or any alleged waste. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There mere existence of a thread at ANI takes up a full hour of editor time, just for the eyeballs of 500 people to pass over the thread even if they don't stop. If there's any reasoning by which an ANI thread can be avoided, it should always be applied. EEng 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If chastising needs to happen here - which you appear to be doing, EEng - it seems to me that the person who needs to be chastised is the now-serial-sockmaster MaranoFan, not those who bring the fallout from his socking to noticeboards so it can be dealt with according to policy. Of course, that then brings me back full circle to the reason why G5 exits: to assist in deterring the indeffed sockmaster from socking again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)For what it's worth, in the future, I'd think a removal of the quick-kill tag by an established user looks an awful lot like a substantial edit[s] by others in some cases. Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• The key thing here, to me, is WP:BURO. The policies about reverting or deleting contributions from blocked or banned users exist to enable quick cleanup and response to further disruption, as well as the deterrent value. They allow the quick removal of bad content, but they don't force the removal of good content. They also cover scenarios where good content might get reverted or deleted as part of a mass cleanup (mass deletion of new pages, or mass rollback); so that the mere existence of some good content in a sea of bad does not inhibit rapid cleanup of the bad. To me, the G5 nomination is not wrong or inappropriate, but it's something that any user in good standing can remove if they see value in the content (the restriction on removing a CSD tag only applies to the creator of the page (and their obvious / confirmed socks)). Similarly any reverted edits which a user in good standing decides were actually constructive can be reinstated (I encounter this occasionally when reverting vandalism, where I revert an edit because the majority of the user's other edits have been clearly bad, then someone in good standing and with subject knowledge reinstates it). Such decisions are probably best made by well established users, best avoided by new or inexperienced users, and should always have a clear explanation in the edit summary (and talk if more detail is needed). Murph9000 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A good explanation. I don't agree totally, but a good and rational explanation nonetheless. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Uncollapse for a gigantic wall of text about... something

Hang around here long enough and you'll notice the same editors and admins that can't and won't wait to revert, delete and block at the drop of a hat even before an edit is completed when its THEIR IDEA can't be convinced to do the same even when someone goes out of their way to do it the RIGHT WAY and tries to get a "consensus". Why? They don't take orders from anybody because they're above that and least of all from anybody who doesn't have their "rank" or "time in service" or edit counts and all the other meaningless "stats" they think makes them more equal than others and that apparently give them...gasp...some OWNERSHIP here. And if you snoop around here long enough and particularly in talk pages and you realize that a lot of these editors and admins have the luxury of being able to edit at "work" and at home and that many of them are "educators" with access to a wide range of computers, public and private Wi-Fi networks, various public and private email systems, multiple smart phones, multiple tablets, multiple IPs that in countries like the U.S. can be in another state and seem far apart geographically but literally be only a couple miles from each other and that many of them are uber-nerd computer geeks with access to resources and know-how the rest of us can't imagine AND that there are all kinds of little cliques and cults on here; you might start wondering just how often when an editor or admin that normally can't wait to shut down some "vandal" not only refuses to do so when asked even with they're not SPECIFICALLY ASKED, they come up with a LAUNDRY LIST of reasons why they shouldn't. Like "it's not worth the time". Of course they have plenty of time to post that it's not worth the time and others have plenty of time to give examples and hypotheticals that "prove" it wouldn't be worth the time. And they have plenty of time to troll around admin noticeboards and apparently investigate and respond. But no time to send a nastygram and block threat and revert or protect anything. When you throw the "policies" and "rules" in some long-time editor/admin's face or rather they step in front of what you're throwing out for anyone to catch and let themselves get hit in the face AND you have links to the diffs and all those things that "good" editors use to try to create a "consensus", they're PROTECTING SOMEONE rather than protecting the project. Start snooping around user talk pages for the editors and admins that patrol and block and revert and threaten endlessly and do little or nothing else and just kind of keep track of what names show up over and over and how a lot of them seem to spend a hell of a lot of time on OTHER EDITORS AND ADMIN'S TALK PAGES RESPONDING TO MESSAGES THAT OBVIOUSLY WEREN'T INTENDED FOR THEM and you just might go all conspiracy theorist and start thinking that there could be a relatively small core group of editors/admins here with a bunch of different usernames and accounts who technically wouldn't be "sockpuppets" by the "official" definition because according to Wiki:SP a "sockpuppet account" is created by someone who has been BLOCKED. So if they have several accounts and haven't ever been blocked on any of them they can't really be sockpuppets, can they? Factor in how many of them seem to think they have a duty to let everyone know when they WON'T BE ON WIKIPEDIA and WHY as if they're calling in sick to work or something and have a responsibility to do so and how super-important Wikipedia suddenly doesn't matter at ALL for days or weeks because they have something going on in their "real life" that's going to keep them away and look at the times where people have left messages on their talk pages they've either ignored completely or responded to and then deleted their responses or where they respond with "I don't have time to respond right now and won't have time for hours" (or days in some cases) and all of a sudden its like they have mutliple personalities. That's not your imagination. They do. Literally. Or at least they try to. But they slip up from time to time when good old "muscle memory" takes over and they log in as their "alter ego" when they get home from work or to wherever they're picking up public Wi-Fi or whatever little tricks they're using to log in from different IPs as different people, but they head straight to the talk page for the character they were last logged in as to see if they've gotten any messages from cronies and maybe they get distracted or get angry if somebody gets in their shit about something and they forget who they are and respond to a message sent to their other character on that talk page when they least expected it and from a total stranger to boot. And of course they're the same ones that endlessly preach to IP editors to "sign your comments" because that way they get notifications if they have that IP on a watchlist of some kind or have articles that IP edits or visits a lot on a watchlist, etc. Basically they want to see everything that IP does and says but what they NEVER do with IP editors is personally encourage them to sign up for an account. Why? Because that makes it a lot harder for them to cyberstalk strangers AND it makes that editor more "legit". Especially if that editor happens to use a real email address for a real account they actually use instead of some free account they created just to make another "character" and account and because that person is probably NOT doing what they're doing. Which is be a sneaky little bitch with multiple accounts at least one of which is probably the one they use at their go government-employee job at a library or college or high school where they're getting paid and compensated damned well to pretty much be full-time Wikipedia editor/admins about 8 hours a day 5 days a week while someone else like a grad student or assistant teacher or library aid is doing their actual work. Then they go home how and change identities and fuck with more people as yet another "respected Wikipedian" and they report when they won't be on Wikipedia because during those hours or days they're somewhere else posing as yet ANOTHER one of their characters or are at some super-secret little get-together plotting and scheming with their other cronies they know in the "real world". So when they not only refuse to block or support blocking someone or at least warning them or trying to engage with them using the excuse "it's not worth the time" and then yet another supposedly dedicated Wikipedian comes along and explains WHY the first person who responded to say they weren't going to do anything is right to not do anything and explains why, it's pretty freaking obvious they don't want to block that account because its somebody's alternate account. And even though it would be really easy to issue a very short block or have another crony or even use another character to remove it within a few minutes or hours, there's one big problem when it comes to blocking accounts. There are constantly updated pages of current blocks, former blocks etc etc etc with all the info about who blocked them, why etc and if you know your way around a little bit, you can find THE IP the "user name" is just a substitute for. And there are some legit, honest and hard-core Wikipedians who really hate the way some power-tripping clowns try to run this place and they REALLY detest hypocrites and people who are here for personal gain rather than "build an encyclopedia". And clearly anyone that is running multiple accounts and is in cahoots with other sneaks isn't doing it because they're "building an encyclopedia". The fact that they literally never contribute ANYTHING and spend ALL of their time deleting, blocking and reverting and the only "content" they put on Wikipedia is their OPINIONS and CRITICISM, at least other than the little bit of time they put into sticking up for their cronies and covering their asses and their OWN ASSES by NOT doing what they do in heartbeat day in and day out, they're getting some kind of benefits from their presence here besides a warm fuzzy feeling about "building an encyclopedia. Like I said, there are some die-hard Wikipedia cops here who don't give a shit how popular or respected or admired or "civil" an editor is, if they suspect that editor is running multiple accounts, has some COI or is just plain up to something, they'll block them AND they'll start using all kinds of other tools to look for patterns in their activity, see what users just happen to log in say within minutes to a few hours after they log off on a regular basis, etc and they'll sniff them out. Hell, I know very little about how the whole internet thing works as far as IPs and ISPs and all of that goes and I know damned good and well you can live in one state and have an account with an ISP several states away for your home internet, work in another town and even in another state and have internet access THERE through your job but also take home your laptop and be using your home internet access but be VPNed through work so regardless of where you happen to be it'll be your employer's IP or IP range for THAT internet access and then have a smart phone and internet access through your personal cell service, do the same thing with a work phone and even use "prepaid" internet access with a Straight Talk account and pretty much sit at home and be logged on to Wikipedia as 4 or 5 different editors at once and even if somebody was suspicious for some reason and started digging all they'd find is 4 or 5 different IPs in at least three different states. But the thing is that even a lot of longtime Wikipedia editors and even some of those running multiple accounts don't know that just because you have an account doesn't mean your IP ceases to exist, and some of them no doubt are using IPs that will traced back to within a handful of miles of each other and if one is say a university or library and another is a private account AND they're frequently logged on within minutes or a few hours of each other but never simultaneously, that's a big red flag. Anytime you see the normally nasty or at the very least smug, condescending and generally snotty "dedicated" Wikipedians who are all by the book and know the policies and rules chapter and verse and will spend what has to be hours putting their OPINIONS on here if it keeps someone else from becoming more "powerful" by opposing an admin request or whatever and that's who they are 99% of the time and ALL they do or at least all they CLAIM to do is the thankless, tireless and endless work of fighting vandalism, hunting sockpuppets or notifying new editors of everything they're doing wrong immediately and never have any time or interest in any of the suggested activities or discussions they get notifications for on their talk pages, but yet once in a while have plenty of time to answer messages sent to other editors or to defend other editors in clear violation of multiple polices and even do a little scolding or at least sermonizing to an editor who reports that person, it's a safe freaking bet they didn't suddenly become human beings. They're covering someone's ass or their own ass and don't want to block that editor because blocks draw attention from the people they don't want even knowing they exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.139 (talk • contribs) Have you tried decaf? EEng 19:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Holy shit. -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Is there anything that needs doing here? EEng 01:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Going once... EEng 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I'm assuming you didn't intend to keep bumping the thread (which prevents archiving) but please feel free to revert this if there's something else you think is unresolved here. (I didn't read inside the collapse). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

120.33.103.44

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

---

Here is this IP's edit filter log. It has had numerous edits disallowed (triggered filter 826 repeatedly) and DatBot has reported the IP to the AIV bot reports subpage ELEVEN times. —MRD2014 02:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@MRD2014: Agreed. This is absolutely ridiculous. The IP is running totally rampant with no admin blocking it. It's been over an hour and nothing has been done. I've been rollbacking all their current edits. But this is ludicrous. Somebody's gotta stop this guy. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, they've tripped so many filters so fast that it was hard to interpret if the log was actually changing because all you saw was their name. I missed some unconstructive edits by other users because of that.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

IP has been blocked by Acroterion. —MRD2014 03:07, 10 July 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.

111.92.25.150

The following discussion is closed. 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 has changed page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniil_Kvyat 4 times to reflect the subject's middle name to Torpedo. I have given him a warning but keeps changing it back to the uncorrect middle name. User seems to be persistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbert2000 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Dilbert2000. I have warned the IP. Should they make the same changes again, please let me know and I will report them to the admins. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the user at IP 111.92.25.150 has again vandalized the page (22:34, 9 July 2017‎ 111.92.25.150). @Callmemirela:

Blocked 24 hours. A Google search says that this may be a legit nickname, but it's clearly not his middle name, which the IP is blanking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 10 July 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.

Hate message

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Probably better to message an admin directly, rather than posting revdel requests here, to avoid attracting attention. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This message appears to be well outside the bounds of the incivility permitted here. I removed it, but I believe it should also be revdeleted. Admins, would you please? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:44, 10 July 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:Petergstrom's repeated violations of his topic ban

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

---

Can we have some editors look at this and comment on what should be done? As seen here, back in late February, Petergstrom was topic-banned from editing medical and religious topics for six months. From what I see, that topic ban is not yet over. Despite this, he recently violated it here and here, and two times before that (as seen in this link). I ignored it the first two times, although two other editors did not and warned Petergstrom about it. Sure, Petergstrom's topic ban is almost up, but it's clear to me that he's never respected it anyway and is biding his time until it expires. Other editors and I recently brought the Human brain article to WP:GA status; Petergstrom's editing regarding this article is one of the things I cited in the aforementioned topic ban thread. I find it odd that he would show up and edit it a few days after it's been brought to WP:GA, and especially when his topic ban is not yet over. I would have taken this matter to 5 albert square, who closed the aforementioned topic ban thread, but he hasn't edited since June 18th. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I was TBANNED from medicine, and religion, neither of which are related to the human brain edits. I find it odd that you find it odd that me editing the page had anything to do with you, or the WP:GA status. In fact, until now I had no idea it was nominated. Whatever, if you want to believe everything that happens has some sinister cause that is related to you go ahead. In fact, what if I am really a government agent/and or alien that spreads mind control nanochips via chem trails? While I admit the Bipolar disorder edit was a violation, it was removal of spam. The human brain was not a violation.Petergstrom (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You described your edit on the Bipolar disorder article as the removal of spam. Can you explain how this edit by Masterlet is spam? Cjhard (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This was spam because it was a whole new section for one sentence from psych new central. Psych News Central. Furthermore, the [174] cited by the article was WP:Primary and WP:OR. Petergstrom (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Human brain article falls within the WP:Med and WP:MEDRS scope, which is why it is tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles at the top of the talk page, stating, "Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles." I'm not sure how you figure that the Human brain article, which is a WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience topic, is not a medical topic. The only reason that it is not tagged with the WP:Med banner is because it is already tagged with the WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience banners, and because WP:Med wants to limit what shows up on its medical articles list, since that list has been overpopulated before.

So the reason you stayed away from the Human brain article for this long is not because you thought that it falls within your topic ban? I don't think so. And the Bipolar disorder article also falls within your topic ban. As for your edits having anything to do with me, a number of editors were clear that some of your edits did have something to do with me. In any case, I did not focus on your edits in relation to me, other than the fact that the Human brain article was noted as a point of contention on the topic ban thread about you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And for anyone wanting quick access to that previous thread, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I stayed away from the human brain article for so long, because I was avoiding you and wikipedia in general. Don't even assume to know my motivations as you have consistently done in the past. The human brain article is not a medical article, even though it may be tagged with MEDRS, it is still not part of wikiproject:medicine, just anatomy and neuroscience. My TBANN does not apply there. The bipolar article is within my TBANN, but was nonetheless a removal of spam. In retrospect bringing it up in the talk page so another editor could do it would have been better. Furthermore, one of the two pages(the other being OCD) I am accused of violating my TBANN by editing is the Lactic Acid page. This has nothing to do with wikiproject medicine, or religion, so I don't know why that was reverted.Petergstrom (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care much about why you were avoiding the article. I do care about you respecting your topic ban, which you have disrespected four times now. The topic of the human brain is a medicine topic, as anyone can see from looking at what the article entails. It is indeed why the article is tagged with the aforementioned template. It is why the GA lists it as a "Biology and medicine" topic. If it were not a topic that falls within medicine, we would not require WP:MERDS-compliant sources for that article. It currently not being tagged with the WP:MED banner does not make it any less a topic within the medical scope. I already noted why it's not tagged with that banner. Furthermore, your ban is "broadly construed" to combat the very "it's not a medical topic" defense you are using now. As for the Lactic acid article... So when the editor reverted you on this, the editor did not know what he was talking about? The material you added does not fall under the medical scope? Should I ping the editor to make their case on why they reverted you? And either way, the point is that you keep violating your topic ban. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware that articles that were not of interest to wikiproject medicine are still medicine. I was under the impression that a chemistry article and an anatomy article were free from my TBAN, however given my little experience with wikipedia, I guess "broadly construed" is broader than I would have guessed. Petergstrom (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your topic ban states, in part, "6 month topic ban for Petergstrom for medicine and religion with a warning that it will be swiftly re-applied if the pattern of editing continues." Even if we were to state that the Human brain article is not a medical article (which, given the overwhelming medical material in that article, I don't see how anyone can state such), you are not to edit anything that is under the medical scope. This also means that if the Bicycle article has some medical content in it, you are not supposed to edit that medical content. The edit that Jytdog reverted you on (yeah, I've gone ahead and pinged him) is medical material. All that stated, we all make mistakes. As long as you continue to adhere to your topic ban, I am willing to drop my complaint on this matter. Your topic ban is almost over, as you well know; I simply do not like how you seemingly did not take it seriously. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And, for the record, anatomy articles are commonly of interest to WP:Med; it's why WP:Med lists WP:Anatomy as a related project, and includes anatomy at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. It's why anatomy discussions are sometimes held at WP:Med. Some WP:Anatomy editors are also WP:Med editors, and that includes me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom, and now you are at Talk:Psychopathy again. Why do you think that the Psychopathy article, including its talk page, is outside of your topic ban? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It is simply not credible for an experienced editor such as Peter to claim that edits to Obsessive–compulsive disorder, Bipolar disorder, and Talk:Psychopathy fall outside a topic ban from medicine. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to go to the talk page? Really? I thought an edit ban meant a ban from editing pages. Not from taking part in discussion. Would I seriously have done that if I knew it violated a TBAN? Right after we had a discussion here to. Petergstrom (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh my bad. I read the WP:TBAN topic, and it contains talk pages. I don't really have much to say...oops?Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

At least you checked the policy and show recognition of the error. Should we assume that same recognition applies equally to the OCD and bipolar edits? If that is the case, then I suggest that this thread could easily be closed if you could commit to voluntarily extending your non-involvement with the medical topic for another few months. It shouldn't be much of an issue, since you've edited very little since February until this month. There's lots of other topics for you to contribute on, after all. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I would be lying if I said that at the time of those edits, I didn't know whether there could be controversy or ambiguity. I knew I was pushing it. I now recognize that it was in clear violation of the TBAN. Petergstrom (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Think of it like this: With a talk page for a medical article, you are discussing medical content, which can lead to changes being made to the article per your suggestion(s). Although you are not technically making the edits, you are making them by proxy. Another reason to avoid the talk pages of pages you are banned from is because these bans are also often due interaction with others, which was part of the problem. In this case, editors complained about your interaction with others; it wasn't solely about your editing of articles.

Take a look at the branches of medicine noted in the Medicine article; you can see that anatomy and neuroscience are branches of medicine. You don't have to take Wikipedia's word for it; you can Google it. A lot of WikiProjects limit their scope; it makes sense for WP:Med not to focus on anatomy or neuroscience articles when WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience exist. This obviously doesn't mean that these topics do not fall under medicine simply because WP:Med is not focused on them.

I'm still not convinced that you should be editing medicine or religious topics, but you will get another chance to prove yourself soon enough. It will not take another few months until your ban has expired. Just another month and some days. We can close this thread if it's the case that you won't violate your topic ban again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 6 July 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 TalismanOnline

TalismanOnline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been contributing copyright violating text [175](source) and images [176] (deleted), and poorly edited WP:MACHINETRANSLATIONS of other wikis [177] (Google translation). He has previously been warned about copyvios, and does not appear to be a fluent speaker of English. His latest edit is to revert a grammatical correction. Any solution short of a CIR block? Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A spot check is quite discouraging. I'd like to hear from the editor, though.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

He is continuing to edit. I just reverted this edit because it introduced a factual error in the date. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I left a final warning that the editor should contribute to this discussion before doing any other editing. If I see such an edit or someone points out to me I will unhappily block the editor. I hope they voluntarily join this discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This user has significant competence/language issues that extend beyond copyright. I first noticed him a month ago when he used the translate tool to create the article ‘lays chips’ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Lay%27s_chips&oldid=778514899 from a foreign article ‘Lay’s’ without checking to see that we already have an article Lay's. Recently, I've seen him marking nearly every edit minor including dumping a ton of poorly translated content into Festa da Uva. If TalismanOnline is not blocked, I suggest a restriction on not adding translated content.Dialectric (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• There's definitely a language problem here. EEng 04:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Continued battleground mentality of Joefromrandb

Joefromrandb has been blocked twice on June this year for battleground and incivility. Today he reverted the redirect, done by the AFD closing user[178] and after that when he got reverted on the article, he reverted the entire AFD closure[179] and again reverted the redirect.[180] His edit summaries on two of those edits are indeed not civil.

Why he didn't opened a request on WP:AN instead, or consult the AFD closing user on their talk page? I am also not seeing if he ever edited the article[181] or the AFD[182], I am that's why wondering if he is doing this just for starting a fight.

Other than that, I am seeing that one other user[183] also complained on his talk page regarding his edit warring on The pot calling the kettle black, and here's his response to it.[184] Capitals00 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by closer--Hi all, I'm the one who closed the AFD. While I am indeed not an admin, I have closed many AFDs over the years as a NAC. I weighed the arguments of those in the discussion who opined that the content of the article, for numerous reasons, did not warrant it's own article and that the content in the article at present was troublesome, specifically, had serious issues with neutrality, and the quality of sources. Some opined that some of the content in the article should be included in the target article suggested, and recommended a selective merge. Weighing all these comments, I closed the AFD as a redirect, recommending the selective merge suggested by some be done from the history. If my closure is disagreed with on the basis that my assessment of the consensus is incorrect, then I accept that (it has been some time since I have closed an AFD). I'm not overly phased either way. I assessed the consensus of the discussion as I saw it and closed accordingly. If an admin believes it should be overturned, so be it. Steven Crossin 17:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment--The AFD page being on my watchlist and observing the seq. of edits; I warned the editor moments before the ANI thread was opened.I am of no-opinion as to the continued behaviour of the user.And this is prob. suitable for WP:AN.IMHO, the AfD was well-closed!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There is going to be unanimous support for the AFD closure anyway, but given two recent blocks hardly 3 weeks ago for same kind of conduct (I have now mentioned on my original post), there is clear problem with the conduct of the user. Capitals00 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've had my differences with Joe in the past, but in his defense, I don't think that was an appropriate NAC. That AfD should have been closed by an admin. Joe probably went a little too far with his reverting, but this isn't as cut–and–dried as the OP claims. Also, contrary to what the OP says, in my opinion Joe's revert edit summaries were not uncivil. Lepricavark (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"ridiculous non-admin supervote"[185] is not civil. Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The word "ridiculous" may be pushing the boundaries of civility, but he only used that word in one of his edit summaries, not two. At the very least, you are overstating the incivility. Lepricavark (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

"Ridiculous non-admin supervote" is also not INCIVIL. The non-admin is true and the supervote is true. On whether it is ridiculous, honest people may differ. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is uncivil and also nonsensical because closure was entirely policy based, there is no "supervote" since the closing user has no contributions on the article or any related article. Joe sure attempted to WP:GAME the system there, but it just doesn't work all time. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: it is uncivil to use the term "ridiculous", but it is ok to use the term "nonsensical". Do I understand you correctly? Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That appears to be the gist of it. I find the complaint to be specious. (Whoops, I guess I just did it, didn't I?) Carrite (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Just like you wrongfully found closure to be a supervote? Enough people seem to be agreeing though that he caused disruption, including you on your previous comment. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Enough people seem to be agreeing that Joe's behavior was really not all that bad. Mind you, these are people with far more experience and clue than you have. You're starting to display some WP:IDHT behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You shall be banished to the stocks for your criticism of this frivolous complaint... oops. Lepricavark (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Capitals00 is the one trying to game the system–excuse me; WP:GAME the system, with this report, chock full of psychological projection and passive aggression. At least he or she realizes it doesn't work all the time. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you are on a thin ice here with your apparent WP:CIR issues. People are agreeing that you are being disruptive. Whether you take message from ANI complaints or not, we all know, but it will be treated as caution anyway. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

He's not on as thin of ice as you seem to think he is. Frankly, you are in no position to be making CIR accusations, which could be perceived as uncivil and inflammatory. Lepricavark (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about some other guy then, not the one who had 2 blocks for battleground mentality last month and multiple users are still highlighting the evident disruption after the block. Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What about the multiple users who strongly agree that a block is not warranted at this time? Lepricavark (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor— I don't know if it's proper for me to bring "evidence" here, but I saw this editor unilaterally revert another close without discussion just two days ago: Special:Diff/788018906. Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

He did bring up the rationale here though. Although I did not think the request was a case for early closure, if the reverting is part of a systematic effort, it is indeed troubling. Alex Shih^Talk 08:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block

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

---

Joefromrandb has been blocked 8 times in less than 5 years, for his continued incivility and continued battleground conduct. And yet, his behavior continues to worsen rather than improving. His hostility and disruptiveness have in my opinion crossed into net negative, and he has reached the point of a WP:CIR block for his inability to work collaboratively with others. I therefore propose an indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Apart from all that I have already said above, comments like these[186][187] that not only distracts users from discussing content but also misrepresents the position of next editors are a part of WP:BATTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as noted above, I've had my differences with Joe. What has happened here, however, does not warrant an indef block. Lepricavark (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: It seems you haven't checked his recent edit history or seen the other diffs I provided. Anyway, I can provide a few more here. He was blocked for a week for calling people a troll[188], he came off from a 1 week block on 21 June and started calling people a troll again and again,[189][190][191] while violating 3RR.[192][193][194] Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

My position is that none of these recent incidents, individually or collectively, rise to the level of an indef block. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, you may want to strike your allegation that I "broke 3RR", because it's demonstrably false. I'll AGF that you just made a mistake, and will strike it out with all due expediency. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes you had violated 3RR, I am assuming that you are going by definition of "4 reverts in 24 hours", but edit warring is not limited with that. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

According to the diffs you have provided, he did not violate 3RR. Playing fast and loose with the truth is not going to help you. Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

We are not basing the proposal on "what has happened here". We are basing it on nearly five years of ever-increasing hostility, warring, incivility, vulgarity, disruption, trolling, vandalism, and a blatant unconcern and disregard for behavioral norms or Wikipedia guidelines/policies, and an apparent attitude that he can do what he likes without consequence. He has clearly crossed into net negative. If you want more evidence, that can be provided. Softlavender (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

What you are describing is the makings of an ArbCom case. You are ignoring the actual (minor) complaint in favor of a death penalty based on matters not in evidence. ArbCom is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Its not minor when disruption is long term. Look the entire complaint as well as diffs provided by me and other editors regarding Joe's conduct. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support, although I'm not sure I have the right, being an 'injured party' and not an administrator. Looking at the pattern of blocks, the majority were in 2013 and only renewed this year. The sarcasm displayed on the user's talk page certainly indicates that a one week ban is not regarded as anything more than a negligible slap on the wrist. However, I'd be inclined to suggest a shorter block as a counterproposal and only proceeding to indef if there is a resumption of such behaviour after that. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I invite everyone to have a look at Talk:The pot calling the kettle black, where this user suggested, among other things, that I "confine myself to the Simple English Wikipedia". My response to him or her was quite restrained. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - block. Reverting the close of a non-administrator ain't a firing offense. Why non-administrators are permitted to close AfDs is a mystery and they are definitely NOT supposed to be closing controversial AfDs. As Joe notes, doing so is a form of supervoting. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No, he didn't got blocked so many times just for reverting an AFD closure and only once, but instead for WP:CIR issues, it is more than apparent that since after coming off his 24 hour and a one week block last month he is carrying out same conduct on multiple occasions. You can start an RFC on Wikipedia_talk:Closing discussions if you don't agree with the rules of closing discussions. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No ANI complaint is complete without a straw man. I actually DO agree with the rules of closing discussions, hence my opposition to the close. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you had agreed with the rules of closing discussion you would be challenging it on WP:AN rather than edit warring over the close. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Indef is asking too much for fighting against a contentious close. While I don't think the close was completely unreasonable, I agree with Carrite that controversial AFDs should be left to admins, and generally are, which tends to prevent some of these issues. The authority for this is listed [195] here, not on some talk page. That doesn't excuse Joefromrandb behavior, but an admin closer is typically better equipped to deal with problems that arise from controversial closes, via having the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. While I stand by the way I closed the AFD, as weighing the arguments in the AFD this is the consensus I found (and if an admin disagrees with the outcome, I am perfectly happy for them to revert my close - I'm human, and I don't claim to be all-knowing). I didn't think much of the comment of the user who reverted the close and don't think it justifies an indef. While I disagree that purely because I am not an administrator, it makes my closure a supervote, I realise everyone may not see it this way. I saw an old AFD. I reviewed it and found a consensus, and closed it. Some disagree. That's fine by me. I'm not really that active here anymore. But I don't think any blocks are needed. here. Steven Crossin 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think his total contribution (as of say the past year) has crossed into net-negative territory. Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. See his talk for reasons, yes, over years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - Sorry but indef is IMHO overkill, I also agree with Carrite, Dennis and Gerda - The AFD shouldn't of been closed by a non-admin, That being said I don't agree with how Joe did things (He should've gone to DRV) but all that being said there wasn't any uncivil or snarky remarks and personally I'm not seeing any battleground mentality so blocking as a whole would be rather pointless and this ANI thread as a whole is pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that Deletion Review is the correct way to address these things; Joe did things incorrectly. Are you getting this, Joe? Carrite (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review? Not WP:DRV but WP:AN, article was not deleted. Capitals00 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Go read the instructions for how Deletion review works before correcting the veteran editor. Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review is for deletion discussions and not for those articles that can be accessed through the history by any user, WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Where does it say that on WP:DELREV? Maybe it's there, but I don't see it. Lepricavark (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-deleting deletion discussions supports what I am saying. Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. DELREV provides a list of instances in which it can be used. The very first bullet point states the following: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Lepricavark (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Either way this discussion is now irrelevant because a request has been already opened on WP:AN. Capitals00 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Quite a convenient way to avoid admitting that you are wrong. You've been wrong quite a few times in this thread. Hopefully you have learned something from this experience (i.e. don't make reckless CIR comments, don't accuse someone else of incivility while being uncivil yourself, etc.). Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you point out? I am not blocked for incivility or warned, that when there are people who have a share of same complaints. Actually what you called an "essay" is representing the usual standard. Find me some requests on WP:DRV that concerned a Afd discussion that resulted in redirect? WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The page calls itself an essay. That's not merely my personal opinion. And I'm not going to find anything for you. I'm not sure what your second sentence was supposed to mean, but your claim that I "had a hard time learning English" was certainly more uncivil than Joefromrandb's edit summaries that you were complaining about. Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, now I am. The close clearly ran afoul of both deletion policy and NAC guidelines, but I'll save the details for deletion review. I was reverted at the article in question by User:Razer2115, who suggested "deletion review, reopening the AfD, or ANI". I chose suggestion number-two. It's truly comical how Capitals00 is playing the role of the injured party here, when he or she was at the very least, my counterpart in this edit/revert-war. That's the kind of shit that I truly can't stand. Thank you, Carrite, for explaining this. I learned something here, despite the best efforts of some of the drama-seekers. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It is something that you didn't learned just few hours ago from sure user called Razer2115. Without looking at your prior history of disruption, I would say that you are aware too that this is not the only AFD, like other user noted. You had reverted another NAC hardly 2 days ago.[196] You seem to be developing a habit of reverting NACs. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It was hard enough to understand your points back when you were still using English. Lepricavark (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you had a hard time learning English. But that's really not what we are discussing here. Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol. And I suppose you think that was a civil comment. Lepricavark (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Things weren't done as well as they could have been, but even the closer isn't unhappy about being reverted - and I don't think any block is called for here, certainly not an indefinite one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose--Checking his contribs., somehow this user don't like the idea of WP:NAC(albeit, even on RFC's!) but as many have observed, his net contributions are yet to veer into the negative.An indef is thus an over-kill.Winged Blades ^Godric 02:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- per Carrite, above. This is a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut which is hugely perdicable when one bears in mind this particular nominator. I dread to think what Softlavender would've done with the bit, something that they so desperately crave. Cassianto^Talk 09:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- per Zeb, above. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose a severe case of overuse of a sledgehammer here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 2 July 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 review requested

Hi all. Just letting you know I have self-requested that my close be reviewed and either overturned or endorsed - here. Thanks. Steven Crossin 02:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Real History Man, Conflict of Interest editing and Personal Attacks

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

---

Real History Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Real History Man, a new editor whose sole interest seems to be editing to insert references to a self-published book [197] in 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, which makes a number of extraordinary claims about the invasion. Acknowledges a link to the author [198], where they attack other editors as trolls but be aware that you are wrong and that you are biased, prejudiced, bordering upon 'troll' if not already way past that mark. The editing seems to be more about book promotion and it seems clear there is a WP:COI, a suspicion shared by Hohum [199]. Bringing it here for further scrutiny. WCM_email 07:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see obvious signs of a conflict of interest, in addition to blatant personal attacks. Quick question: do the statistics presented in the self-published book contradict the other sources? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that matters. The user is probably at least capable of accessing the other sources, and if he wanted to cite them he would. This means he is essentially using Wikipedia to advertise his friend's book, rather than using his friend's book to help build an encyclopedia. The username also sets off NOTHERE alarms. promoting and representing the historical truth (in the diff above) is dead giveaway, and the scare-quotes around "claims" (showing a disconcerting lack of intellectual skepticism and dismissiveness toward those who do) are also concerning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In answer to DarthBotto, the book claims to completely rewrite the official history common to both sides increasing 1 killed and 3 wounded to >100 killed and many more wounded. It claims there was a cover up of the real number of Argentine casualties. The work is clearly an WP:SPS and can't be used as a source anyway. WCM_email 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: It's not really relevant to this case, but your last sentence is not technically in line with WP:RS. SPSes can be used for non-extraordinary claims (again, nothing to do with this) if their authors are reputable authorities (no idea if the author in question is a reputable authority on anything). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries I'm aware of that, the other problem is we can't verify the author is a historian or reputable as this appears to be their only published work. The work was also crowd funded by an appeal on social media. WCM_email 12:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Since he frequently writes in sentence fragments I have a feeling he's not a historian. EEng 12:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wee Curry Monster" I myself am a historian of WW2 and especially D-Day and I do happen to be a friend of the author through his work. It is a work which you have not read. Having met his publisher I know the book is not self-published, however when that business was sold, he did take the opportunity to buy the rights to it, hence your constant changing to 'self-published' from 'published' is erroneous.

The book is written effectively by all of the participants of that day and I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them myself and seeing so much of the evidence. Something you have not. The history on this page is riddled with inaccuracies and, as you will see, I have contributed to almost every single talk discussion to correct people or answer their questions...this all comes from one place: "The First Casualty" - The book in question.

The author is absolutely a Military Historian and accepted as such by the entire Military History community. Indeed he is one of the best I have known. Qualifications mean zip in our industry. We write the books which the boffins study and then get their degrees and doctorates with. If your history is good, the rest is so much paper. Ricky D Phillips' history is outstanding.

I truly fail to see how a faceless person who spends their days on Wiki can claim to know more than the men who were there, whose words are all in this book. I particularly like how Mark Gibbs was 'encouraged to think' he had blown up an Amtrac. Have you met him? How encouraged was he exactly, do you know? You don't. I know he hit it because I have held a big piece of it with a rocket hole through it, which the author brought to the book launch. I know he - and others - destroyed it because I have seen the photos, read the quotes from the British and Argentines who saw it during and after. I know the Argentinian forces lost an LCVP Landing Craft blown up that night with about 40 guys on it. I know the guys who blew it up and the guys who dragged it onto the beach later. It is still sat on its back as they found it in the narrows with a big rocket hole in its side.

So please tell me, do, how being 'better at Wiki' makes you more qualified to pronounce upon a history you have no knowledge of? I have googled you and the words 'troll' appear everywhere next to your name so I feel that the tag was justified. You are more concerned with being 'right according to you' than in the truth. The truth is that if the other 'qualified historians' you espouse were as good as this guy, we wouldn't have waited 35 years for the truth. So please go ahead, be 'better at Wiki' and safeguard a tired old lie if that makes you feel better. Myself and the military history community shall keep on doing what we do until this sad old tale is consigned to the bin.

You may now rest easy, I shan't change it back because doubtless you'll have a line of code for that. It doesn't make you clever or educated, indeed it makes you a block to what history is all about. A subject which, from a good look at your own work, you know a lot less about than you pretend to. I will now consider this at an end, having told you and your peers what a true know-nothing you are. If you wish to troll and malign someone whom I and so many others in our field hold in esteem, then that is on you. There's your resolution and you're entitled to it. I hope Wiki keeps you happy. In my industry it is our lowest denominator. You may consider yourself schooled by an old man who knows a few things. Real History Man (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The central problem is your statement that this all comes from one place: "The First Casualty". If The First Casualty is the only source, then it's not accepted historical scholarship. It would be different if the author were an established expert in the field, or the book was published by a reputable university press, but that's not the case, despite your protestations. And we're not interested in your personal experiences – see WP:OR. The more you write, the more clear it is that you don't know how actual history is done. (For one thing, it's not an "industry.") EEng 20:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, he gives the game away in his account name. He's the "Real History" Man, all the rest are obviously peddling fake history. This is on a par with all those account names with "True" and "Truth" in them, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or push WP:FRINGE theories. If Real History Man is only here to push the book he owns the rights to, that is to violate WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI, then he's WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. He should get an official warning to knock it off, and if he ignores it, he should be indeffed toot sweet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

BMK, for the second time in as many days I find myself thanking you for putting what I said above (The username also sets off NOTHERE alarms) in much clearer words. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Fake history! FAKE! SICK! Ribbet32 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Your personal experience contributes about as much historical credence as the talking mice at the beginning of The Legend of the Titanic. Even in this diatribe you left, you lay down a number of personal attacks and fallacies, as well as a professed conflict of interest that bars you from the page. I recommend that Real History Man receives an indefinite topic ban. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Is there any point in topic-banning an SPA? NOTHERE editors are generally blocked. It saves space in WP:RESTRICT logs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I suppose I may be clinging to some faith that the account has an interest in history beyond promoting their buddy? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Any user name equating to "truth" in some way is typically here for only a short stay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• This user is continuing to edit war in the article, and has now started to make not so veiled outing threats "(You should know that, WCM you'r not as faceless as you think)" diff. (Hohum ^@) 18:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk about BATTLEGROUND behavior! EEng 19:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, have studied in a History Department, Real History Man is wrong that credentials are meaningless there. Second, looking through his history, I see he's been here since May and still hasn't gotten the hint to WP:DROPTHESTICK. A clueless newbie is one thing, but eventually, time to WP:RBI. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, absolutely nothing in a Google search on "Ricky D Phillips" shows any professional credentials for that person, except for sites started by or connected with Ricky D Phillips. There he calls himself a "Military Historian", but there's nothing to back it up, simply his assertion: no CV, no listing of his professional qualifications, nothing at all. The book, of course, despite what Real History Man writes above, is self-published, since the publisher listed, BEIC Books Ltd., is, according to their website [200], "brand new", and they list only one book as being published, The First Casualty. That presumably means that reputable firms which publish military history passed on it.

So, "Real History Man", fringe position, self-published: obviously not a reliable source, and should not be used in any way on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The prima facie evidence being clear that Ricky D Phillips and his book The First Casualty are not reliable sources, I have removed from the article the material based on it. If Real History Man wants to make the case that it is a reliable source, I suggest he go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and make his argument there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that ol' Ricky is BEIC's Managing Director [201]. Honestly, these people must think we're fools. EEng 05:58, 10 July 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:MJ500: Vandalism-like contributions

The following discussion is closed. 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 am here to report MJ500 (talk · contribs). Cursory examination of his contribution log does not suggest that this person is a vandal. Yet, he has performed edits that no sane editor with his level veterancy does. I propose his account might have been compromised.

It attracted my attention today when I discovered he had rolled back the Microsoft Windows article to an arbitrary past revision without an edit summary: It reverses recovery of many links, reverts both corrections, and returns an old faulty revision of the infobox. The editor is not a vandal, but this is definitely vandalism.

When I posted a notice in his talk page, he reverted the notice with a denial, then committed an act vengeance: He reverted one of my recent contributions to OneDrive article with a fake edit summary.

I have discovered other questionable actions in his contribution log:

• This edit has a fake edit summary and seems very much like the run-of-the-mill vandalism: [202]
• This edit is very suspicious and unbecoming of him: [203] It looks like something total Wikipedia virgins do.

I propose a temporary ban or block, until he changes his password and promises not to do any of these again.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

MJ500 has promised to stop edit warring on OneDrive. I'm not convinced this is a compromised account. Could just be a bad day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I didn't even mention OneDrive edit warring here. (Just mention the first revenge action.) These edits are done on 1, 4 and 8 July; that'd be three bad days. Also, the Microsoft Windows revision I introduced the first? Experience tells me that it is no accident and no deliberate reversion due to a dispute. You can't let a cat on your keyboard and get a result like that. And then say I did nothing?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

There's some suspicious activity on the account, but it could just be a new editor who's trying to learn how to edit Wikipedia. I'd like to hear from MJ500, but it seems like we may have to wait. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't know why you call the Farewall Baghdad edit run of the mill vandalism or having a fake edit summary. It looks to me much more like the editor noticed something which was only changing dates and reverted them asking for a source something which is often quite resonable except in this case they didn't actually look enough to notice these date changes were simply in the template and formatting of dates in the template. Completely stupid sure, and if this continues WP:Competence could come into play but not run of the mill vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: What you say could have been true if it has been an edit, not a revert. You see, sometimes, vandals revert something and pick a canned edit summary too. In doing none of these, active thinking has a role. In this case, simply the style of two access dates had been changed. The dates are the same. This isn't something for which someone asks for the source, unless he or she is just clicking pseudo-randomly. Now, if I had seen this change alone in one's contribution log, I'd have assumed good faith. One lone error like this could have easily been a result of multi-tabbed editing. But as James Bond would say "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is the enemy action." —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, the date in a template had changed, as had the date style in the templates. Let me be clear, there were 3 changes and one did change an actual date from June 2015 to June 2017, not just a date style. The fact you apparently didn't notice this would seem to be a good sign that people do make mistakes when looking at stuff. Of course by the same token, someone could fail to notice that the dates in the later 2 cases weren't being changed per se, but simply had the style adjusted anyway so it's actually moot to my point. As I already said, if such mistakes happen too often, WP:Competence may come into play but I'm not seeing that yet. After all you've only presented 4 or 5 edits, and they aren't even that similar in style but rather seem to indicate a fairly careless and inexperienced (they have only been here a little over 2 weeks with fewer than 500 edits although they did immediately blue link their user and talk page suggesting some experience and yes a classic sign of a problem editor) editor.

I don't understand what you mean about an edit not a revert. The fact that it was a revert is precisely the point. As I already said, they saw someone messing around with dates and blindly reverted without properly looking what exactly was happening namely that a date in a template had changed, and also the date style in 2 other templates something which does not need a source. Clearly active thinking was involved, no one ever denied that, but they didn't look or think enough before reverting which as I've already said, is a problem, but doesn't seem to be an indicate of vandalism nor am I seeing any signs of a fake edit summary.

The edit summary makes sense when you consider what they apparently thought they were reverting, i.e. an unsourced changed of dates even if they weren't. It's something I've done myself I'm pretty sure except if there is no source, I add a source tag or sometimes just remove the dates altogether, or when I can be bothered, looked for a source. If the dates do have a source, I do of course check the souce before reverting. But yes, reverting unsourced date changes is something that happens all the time, so again I don't understand why you think it's vandalism.

And actually there's a bad good reason why reverting unsourced date changes is so common, unfortunately changing dates is a common form of silly vandalism. Actually I'm pretty sure there's a edit filter which tags such edits. (Or maybe one of the vandalism bots automatically reverted them at some stage.) And it's such a common problem that I'm pretty sure some people aren't as careful as me, if they see an IP or inexperienced editor (not Lugnuts) changing a date, they simply revert, even for example if there's a source, they don't check it. I say this because I'm pretty sure I've come across cases when an IP or inexperienced editor is trying to fix a mistake or historic vandalism by adjusting a date sometimes even to what the source says only to be unfortunately reverted. I WP:AGF that MJ500 has encounter this before and so is trying to put it into practice but failing badly at it.

Clearly it was inappropriate here but that's possibly only because they didn't look at what the date changes actually were namely not something that required a source and only one of them was even a change of a date but that doesn't make it vandalism.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So, you are saying that what MJ500 did was to ask a source for the change {{Use dmy dates}}? Let's compare: I said that no thought went into the revert. You are saying MJ500 did think, only he is such a ... (I apologize in advance for using these two words) ... retarded imbecile that does not know a maintenance template does not require a source? It seems I assumed a significantly better faith in this colleague of ours than you did. The have such low opinion of others is uncivil.

But I say no. His collective contributions to Wikipedia shows his neither a retarded imbecile nor misinformed and misguided. He clearly knows what a maintenance template is. The sabotage he did to Microsoft Windows and OneDrive articles is itself the evidence of my claim.

Like I said, third time is the enemy action. —Codename Lisa (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, it's a personal attack to refer to another editor as a retarded imbecile. You should say developmentally challenged imbecile. EEng 01:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, MJ500's user account was created on 21 June 2017 - they haven't even been on Wikipedia for three weeks. This looks a lot like someone who's made some mistakes trying to improve Wikipedia and has been met with a very WP:BITE response. I don't know why you believe this user is a veteran - maybe you've got them confused with someone else? Marianna251TALK 00:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you playing the devil's advocate or something? Severe damage was inflicted upon Microsoft Windows article and retaliatory action was taken in OneDrive article. I did neither of those when I was a newcomer. (When I was newcomer, I promoted an article into WP:FA status!) You need more than just WP:BITE. He has enough knowledge and experience to trace my contribution log and take retaliatory action. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm assuming good faith towards both of you, but it seems you are not assuming good faith yourself towards MJ500. If you upgraded an article to FA as a newbie, you are the exception, not the rule!

What you do seem to be assuming is that MJ500 followed your contributions from the Microsoft Windows article to the OneDrive article. OneDrive is a Microsoft product, so it's reasonable to think that someone who edited a page on one Microsoft product might also be interested in editing other Microsoft- and Windows-related articles. Even if they did follow you, though, familiarity with Wiki-type sites does not necessarily equal familiarity with Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy/procedure and does not preclude them having a genuine concern about your edit. (I had edited Wikia fansites and used Tiddlywiki before I joined Wikipedia, so I had good experience of Wiki-type sites, but I couldn't have told you the difference between a BLP and a hole in the ground.)

To quote WP:VAND, vandalism has to be deliberate. MJ500's edit to Microsoft Windows was odd and unhelpful, but its being an odd type of edit makes me lean more towards it being a mistake or accident rather than deliberate vandalism. I'd have reverted, but also left a note on MJ500's talk page querying the reason for the edit rather than give a warning. I definitely wouldn't have started with a level 3 warning and no other explanation of why it was issued - no wonder they reverted the warning. Moving on to the OneDrive page, MJ500's edit summaries were obviously referring to you changing the section heading "Client applications" to "Client apps", which hardly counts as being "fake". Yes, they reverted instead of making an edit, which deleted your paragraph and was not the right thing to do, but you never explained that to them. I have come across new users who think that they're not allowed to change part of an edit someone else has made, but that they are allowed to undo the edit if they think there's a problem, leaving it to the original editor to make the change. I'm not saying that is what's happened here, but it's about as likely as vengeful vandalism.

Overall, I feel WP:BITE (or maybe WP:PLEASEBITE) is more than sufficient to summarise this situation. I've skimmed through MJ500's edit history, which shows a few other mistakes that have been politely pointed out to them, and as soon as that happened, they changed their behaviour. More than anything else, that says to me that MJ500 is an inexperienced new editor who's trying to help but occasionally needs some guidance. Better to assume no clue before assuming bad faith/vandalism. Marianna251TALK 11:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marianna251: I have come across new users who think [...] the original editor to make the change. Mind-blowing! This level of stupidity deserves proper celebration in some sort of hall of fame. (Well, on the second thought, no. That would be a personal attack.) But if you say you've seen this, I'll waive this case, in the spirit of WP:ROPE. After all, one must never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The edit war on OneDrive has apparently been resolved, and I see nothing else actionable here. I also note WP:BITE regarding newbies. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Content deletion without explanation (as occurred in OneDrive) is vandalism; not to mention how it has the appearance of a retaliatory action. I assumed good faith and downgraded it to the possibility of compromised account. But this fellow Wikipedian needs a talking-to. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:36, 10 July 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.

Slovakia

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

---

Edits by User:Joobo (talk) are unconstructive, this user changed almost all photos in this article to worst, to look Slovakia worst. I asking to delete all his edits in this article and if he wants to change so many things, he can use Talk page. The User:Joobo (talk) does not discuss anything and keep deleting my comments from his Talk page. Requesting that action be taken. Thank you. Peter1170(talk) 20:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter1170: If you wish for any administrator to look at your topic of discussion you must first notify the editor (that you have a problem with) on their talk page, or your complaint will be disregarded. It's simple all you have to do is paste this subst:ANI-notice on their talk page. Thanks Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Peter1170 left notices on Joobo's talk page [204] which Joobo then deleted.[205] Similarly, Joobo left notices on Peter1170's talk page [206] which Peter1170 then deleted.[207]. The parties seem to be fighting over how many pictures of churches to include.[208]. It's not entirely clear what the parties are arguing over or why they are so wound up about this. Neither party has written anything useful on the article talk page. It would be helpful if the parties would summarize their dispute there. Not seeing a COI issue. John Nagle (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nagle:That maybe so, but he has not left a notice on Joobo's talk page about this discussion that we are currently having, leaving this discussion null. Anyway's from what you have shown this seems more of a content dispute and since no party has committed a violation that pertains to this page I would just recommend that they take this over to the content dispute area. Also since both users have committed WP:3RR violations on the Slovakia article, any punishment placed on one user would have to result in a reciprocating punishment to the other user.Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. So I entered this on the edit warring board at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Joobo.2C_User:_Peter1170:_reported_by_User:Nagle_.28Result:_.29. (I have zero edits on Slovakia; I was thinking this might be some COI issue that needed WP:COIN attention, but no. Let the edit war board sort out this tempest in a teapot.) John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 10 July 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:Yashodip Bhadane Self Biography

The following discussion is closed. 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:Yashodip Bhadane (talk) has continued to create biographical articles about himself despite multiple warnings not to do so. To my knowlage, his page article Yashodip bhadane has in some form or another been nominated for deletion 8 times, and deleted 7 times. Requesting that action be taken, with my personal recommendation being an indef ban. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't a topic ban solve the problem? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A global block is what's required, his user page spam is being pulled over from meta. I've blocked locally, a topic ban will work if the user has interests other than self-promotion. He's been doing the same thing at many wikis including wikinews, mr.wiki, wikiversity etc, there's nothing other than self-promotion across the many many wikis he's been to. —SpacemanSpiff 06:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps some salt needs to be sprinkled, liberally Blackmane (talk) 07:01, 10 July 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.

201.93.25.35 making personal attacks

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

---

201.93.25.35 has been making racist homophobic misogynistic personal attacks in both the contents of their edits and in their edit messages. The user was blocked before in March of this year (perhaps for similar behaviour? There are no visible edits).

They haven't edited since the most recent warning against them, but their attacks are pretty extreme. Can they be blocked, and have some or all of their edits revdeleted? Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Their edit summary from a few hours ago actually makes me kind of proud of being Swedish (which is a weird sensation, since national pride is not a Swedish characteristic!) With my bias thus clearly revealed, I agree that this is not somebody who is interested in building an encyclopedia, only in POV pushing. --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, who is very bravely using a proxy, for six months. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 10 July 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 abusing wikipedia system

Troll back under the bridge. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
user flyer22 reborn going out of way to harass my attempts to construct a better wikipedia article on a subject in need of help. admits themself they are not much into the subject at hand (Yaoi) but insists on repeatedly reverting the tiny changes I make to the yaoi page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flyer22_Reborn submit that this user be banned from wikipedia as you can see at the bottom of their talk page I am not the only one they harass the efforts of. here I am thinking Wikipedia was an open source venue for knowledge, not a place for some pompous ass to remove the knowledge put forth by another. progress is impossible with this type of pretentious backward self-indulgence and such individuals should be cut from the fold as they contribute nothing but rather prevent others' contributions. thank you for your time in looking into this matter. I have used the notification on their talk page as requested.. but honestly your system needs help, the coding makes things needlessly complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.245.58 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Uninvolved editor here: I know nothing about the topic, but this edit summary was uncalled for. I was about to leave a warning on no personal attacks when I saw you started this thread. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC) You want them banned for saying you were disruptive?! And, one time at that? Also, if you read Flyer22 Reborn's talk page, his queries from I.P. addresses are predominantly resolved on the spot. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Anyways, boomerang time. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Uninvolved user comment: Can an admin please revdel the edit summary linked above by FlyingAce (talk · contribs) per CFRD #2? —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC) No. I'd already blocked the IP before all of the above, but there's no possible way revdel would be justifiable here. ‑ Iridescent 21:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC) I went ahead and reverted their pointy edits. I am by no means a fan of Flyer, but they are correct here. The IP editor has major biases. --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Concern regarding proposed deletion for Isidro A. T. Savillo 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.

---

This was cleaned up as well as organized by registered wikipedian editors and an editor gave a go signal to elevate this as a start page. Then how come these wikipedian editors are not helping out and this is left to the mercy of wikipedian editors from the UK. Is it not that Wikipedia originated from the USA and Savillo is highly educated and has academic and research experiences in US Universities. Prof and Scientists that he worked with know him well and they have good camaraderie and understanding. His research papers are also published in Thomson Reuters Indexed Journals now Clarivate analytics. I have no idea that they could not understand what is in the content of the article for I believe each is supported by references. Here is the web url for the proposed deletion discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isidro_A._T._Savillo Hoping Wikipedia administrators of the higher caliber to look into this. Thank you. 110.54.150.27 (talk) 11:23, 11 July 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 Rebismusic now insulting people and defaming people online.

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

---

The constant edit wars from Rebismusic, who is not even a Wikipedian herself, has gotten to the point where now if you edit an article (in this case, Marsha P. Johnson's), they'll leave you with insults and defamation. This is one of the latest from this morning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marsha_P._Johnson&oldid=prev&diff=789875712 This user also has a habit of changing the article to fit their narrative rather than go by sources already cited. I suggest some moderators come and assess the situation before it gets totally out of hand. Thanks. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment:--Applied for 30/500 page protection.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment:--Though the comments from RM's side was toxic, both of you need to step off the gas and participate in some constructive mediated dispute-resolution(I see WP:DRN has been approached) rather than continual revert-warring each other.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:18, 10 July 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.

For the love of God, someone please semi-protect my talk page - for a long time

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

---

My talk page is coming under sustained attack from 120.61.5.145, as visible here, for example, but you can just check the revision history. For the love of God, would someone please semi-protect my talk page for a LONG time and block this obnoxious vandal. The same vandal was previously editing as 120.61.9.88, and there is every reason to think they are just going to shift to a different IP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You will get a much faster response if you ask this question at WP:RFPP. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware it handled requests for talk page protection, as well as requests for article protection - thanks for the information. The request stands, of course. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at it, and it looks like the vandalism has stopped for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, except that you've got someone who can evidently edit from multiple IP addresses, and being a persistent vandal, will probably just switch to another one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Note also from Protection Policy: "User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users. Users whose talk pages are semi-protected should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users. A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll set up an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from my main talk page promptly should someone feel like acting on my request. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking for indefinite talk page protection or just for a limited period? Vandals tend to get bored and go away.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason the talk page protection should be indefinite. I'll drop the request and forget the issue if the vandalism does indeed stop. If it doesn't, I will go on complaining about it here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

That's actually what I was going to suggest. Repeated (as in separated by time) vandalism will get more response than a single spate. We're quite sympathetic to you, but we're trying to follow what passes for standard operating procedure around here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I understand that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you go ahead and set up that unprotected talk page. Then if you get attacked again, it will be ready to use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll hold off from doing that for now. But I will do it promptly if vandalism resumes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 10 July 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

User:2600:8800:FF0E:1200:38CB:9114:760:E5F1 has engaged in disruptive editing over at Portal:Current events/2017 July 3 (Revision history: [209]). Warnings were given but each time the user blanked their talkpage. [210], [211], [212] while accusing multiple editors of "socking". [213], [214], [215].

I don't know if this user is linked in anyway to a sock but between the disruptive editing and the baseless sock accusations it looks suspicious. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: This IP has already been blocked by Widr for 31 hours for this behavior, though the block has now expired. Home Lander (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked again. Widr (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Widr, appreciated, but they actually haven't edited since the last block. I believe Knowledgekid87 is just a little suspicious (as am I) that there's a little more behind this that meets the eye. Home Lander (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

user 71.86.114.4 is harassing datagod by attempting to reveal name

The user behind 71.86.114.4 has attempted to reveal personally identifying information about user datagod (me), while accusing me of vandalizing articles. I add factual information and photographs of notable people, making sure I first added the photos to wiki commons (I am a professional photographer who knows most of these people personally).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Datagod

From my talk page:

---

This user is undergoing effort to alter Wikipedia in favor of himself and his friends while vandalizing other articles and accusing others falsely of doing so. Datagod - real name Billy McEvoy - is a close personal friend of Billy Mitchell, Walter Day and Ruby J Ferretti yet is enterting information about them into Wikipedia, most of it false. For example, another gamer owns the Splatterhouse record and it has been proven false that Mitchell did not reach the first Pacman split screen. Furthermore, McEvoy has posted a photo of himself on the US National Team page, despite never being part of the team. All of this is clearly in violation of the self promotional rules of Wikipedia as he is too close to the subjects to objectively edit information on them. Furthermore, Mr. McEvoy and his friends are using Wikipedia as a tool for their petty personal grudges with Mr. Patterson, including removal of mentions of him in other Wiki articles. He and his friends are intentionally leaving out a portion of Mr. Patterson's name in the US National Team article in the effort of getting under his skin, while claiming my edits to the correct name are somehow vandalism. No, I am not Mr. Patterson, but I have spoken with him and his colleagues and can confirm my edits are based in fact. I do not personally know any of the associated people on either side of this petty arguement. However, it is clear to me that Datagod is abusing his edits on here to benefit his freinds and attempt to cause strife toward his chosen enemies, all while pretending to be the good guy. He has no clear interest in objective edits, only making those which benefit himself and his freinds and ones that he feels may bother his enemies. Moderators may wish to take careful note of his edit history.-------------------------

Datagod (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Uhhh, dude, you outed yourself on your userpage, making this a content issue. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No I did not. My userpage was modified by the user at ip address 71.86.114.4 to include my alleged real name. I left it there so people could see the attempt at harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datagod (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference, this is the edit by the IP alleging the identity of Datagod. This is blatant harassment. Also, @Datagod:, please learn to sign your comments. Blackmane (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit has been removed from page history.[216] Please do not call attention to WP:OUTING attempts. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Datagod has a link on his user page that goes to [redacted]. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Outing attempt BY User:Datagod

• There seems to be something not right about all of this. User:Datagod has a link on his user page which goes to a web profile for someone named William McEvoy. So the IP editor wasn't outing Datagod at all. A little Googling shows that there is someone named William McEvoy associated with the video game world record scene. I assume they are the same person. So it is quite possible that the IP editor's assertion of conflict of interest is something that should be looked into. More importantly, Datagod himself has attempted to "out" the IP by naming a person who Datagod believes is using the IP. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of situation for which the word clusterfuck was invented. EEng 04:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

EEng, you just made my day. I love that word! Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I take it I can count on your vote in the next election for Wikipedia Poet Laureate. EEng 04:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hell yeah ;P Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 05:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There was an old link, was so small I didn't notice it even though I looked twice. Finally found it and removed it. There is no conflict of interest, as the IP person was alleging. I travel across the USA attending video game events as a photographer. I have placed several images into commons wikimedia and included these photos in several articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datagod (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I made mention of who I thought the user was because I believed it was a user who was avoiding a ban. When I realized what I did was against the rules, I removed the information. I am still learning the ropes here obviously, and would like to apologize for any inappropriate conduct. I am happy with my own talk page being locked temporarily, and would like to consider this matter resolved. And I will try to remember to sign this time. Datagod (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• This probably needs a ping to the videogame project for an experienced editor in the area to take a look. There is a long and contentious history with videogame records (I recognize almost all the names listed in the IP's complaint) which has devolved at times into accusations of falsifying etc etc. There have been proven instances of people attempting to claim records for which they are not entitled. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OID asked me to look, and going through, the one thing that I see is that the edits Datagod adds and/or reverts to are ones that include sourced material to acceptable RSes for video game high scores (eg like Twin Galaxies). The IP or others remove the information or change it without providing sources. Now, what they are saying may be true but without sources to check the validity, it's hard to argue. There certainly can be disputes among arcade game high scores (it depends on when, where, how it was recorded, etc.) so there could be valid issues here, but we have one side with sources the other without, and it's hard to treat those equally. But I don't know enough on this apparent spat between the various named individuals to know how this is playing out on WP either. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The editor that Datagod is referring to as a "banned user" is User:SuperPacMan. As far as I can tell, they aren't blocked or banned. This appears to be a fight between members of the video game records community, all of whom probably have a vested interest in their version of events. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, User:SuperPacMan has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuperPacMan I might be mis-interpreting that warning of course, and if so I apologize. Datagod (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

    They were blocked (hence the message), but were unblocked after the threat was retracted. See the user's block log; notice how they are were blocked but was subsequently unblocked. SkyWarrior 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible block evasion, and vandalism/WP:OWN after release from block

Hi, this report seemed a little complex for AIV which is why I brought it here. AlexWikiIDK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for one week on 20 June. The cited reason for the block was repeated uploading of copyrighted images, and for at least one of those images the user was rather unapologetic about it, going so far as to insist that he had the right to release an image to public domain when it was clearly copied from the website of a reputable source ([217]). If I recall correctly there were more similar comments on the talk pages of deleted files, but I don't have access to those. Since his block expired he has vandalized two different user pages ([218] [219]) and exhibited WP:OWN by making frivolous block requests for JustDoItFettyg (talk · contribs), who reverted his edits ([220] [221]). Alex also made a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry to the same user ([222]), though an SPI was never filed. I suspect that this anon edit was Alex evading his block due to a similar editing pattern. I'm requesting an indef block for abuse of editing privileges. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at KuyaBriBri's diffs, and they have presented what appears to be an accurate case against AlexWikiIDK. Normally, a second block after a one week block would call for a two week block, but I think that because AlexWikiIDK began misbehaving almost immediately their block was up, a stronger sanction is called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the IP editor is him. I don't want to say anything too harsh, but, frankly, the IP editor seems a bit more competent. The other stuff is frustrating by itself, though. I'm not really sure what to do about this. Does AlexWikiIDK make useful contributions? This edit makes me think that we wouldn't really be missing much if Alex were indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Doing a random spot-check, it looks like most of their edits are reverted by a variety of other editors almost immediately. I'm not sure their editing has actually added anything much to the encyclopedia at all. Either WP:CIR is an issue, or its trolling -- either way. an indef block wouldn't be inappropriate: they can always try to explain why they should be unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(edited) Rather than come here and respond to this report Alex has once again contacted Oshwah (talk · contribs) claiming that this report is "gossip" and "messed up", and still wants to claim that a blatant copyvio was self-created/public domain ([223]). FWIW the file in question is the 2017 iteration of File:NickiMinaj.jpg. The user has also stated that he is 9 years old ([224]). If that's the case a pointer to WP:GFYE might be in order but regardless the disruption should be dealt with. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC) edited 22:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I made a response to his messages on my user talk page here. I'm hoping that this helps him to understand and participate here so that we can help him. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Webmaster cc&pa username violation

UAA Filter 149 found User:St. Joe's Toronto in violation. He blatantly updated their own company's page (St. Joseph's Health Centre). When visiting the user's page I see it was renamed to User:Webmaster cc&pa which clearly violates WP:ISU as it denotes a position, not a person. Looked at Changing username/Simple but could not find a trace for the rename or who did it so I come here. The user still made the same edits to their company's page under the new name. Gave a warning to the user awaiting a reply but would like some input or a second opinion on this before blocking. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you gave the user a warning, Alexf, I think you should wait for the user to change to an acceptable name. Only if the user continues to edit without changing would a block be warranted, in my view, unless the promotional edits were enough to block for regardless of the username. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The user was renamed by Litlok who is a global renamer. I've notified them at the French Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That explains why I could not see who renamed it and ask the question there. I am waiting for an answer before proceeding, due to the notice I left. Just baffled as to how that new name was allowed (not to mention they continue with a COI issue). We'll take it one at a time. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

They didn't continue with the COI. The edits, which are valid were made almost 2 hours before the name change. The fact that they made valid edits is why I didn't block right away. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I see now. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the renaming, it was clearly a mistake. I've performed a few hundreds of renaming, and have already rejected renamings for this reason. I did it inadvertently :( (for my defense, the temperature was about 35°C in my office and I was melting away ;-) ). Should the renaming be reverted, and another username asked for? Litlok (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Litlok I think this should be done. The name has issues. They should pick a new one and be admonished for COI editing. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexf OK, I have reverted the renaming. I let you post a message on their talk page. Litlok (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Merci. Message left. Will wait a day for their response, or actions. After inactivity, no response, or COI edits the account will be blocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Could I borrow those eyeballs again?

Oath Keepers and my talk page; what looks from my viewpoint a good deal like substituting warning templates for substantive discussions, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it. Anmccaff (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going into the irony of you opening this at ANI. You seem to have at least 3 reverts on that article. Your statements here suggest that you would like to discuss the article and the talk page of the article suggests that other involved parties also would like to discuss the article and they asked simply for you to get a consensus before making any further reverts. So why go to the articles talk page and get into that substantive discussion?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no irony here, except in the Alanisian sense. If I thought this was a clear violation of some sort, I would have filed a report, backed off myself, &cet. This is a straightforward request for people not involved in the discussion to take a look. Your response seems to be "boomerang!?"; I'd suggest that means you didn't look at the chronology of the edits.

Anmccaff - I'm not following you here. Can you elaborate a bit more? What exactly are your concerns regarding these two pages? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A little more BRI than BRD. You know, "Bold, Revert, Ignore": template tagging as a substitute for joining an already-opened talk page discussion. If you have the time to tag a writitor's talk page, you have time to write on the article's talk page, too....or better yet, instead. Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional editing at Nelson De La Nuez

User:Artworldpro is a single-purpose account devoted to editing Nelson De La Nuez, a BLP. Artworldpro created the article five years ago, and has been its only substantive contributor. All versions of the article have included gross policy violations, including extensive unsourced content in a BLP (including some unreferenced quotations), unreliable and promotional sourcing, including PR Newswire pieces and sites hawking the artist's goods for sale, and an unremitting stream of promotional prose, such as "As one of the world's most collected, significant pop artists today, Nelson De La Nuez has a great American story, having come from Cuba at age 7 with nothing but talent" (cited to a not-very-authoritative magazine piece that doesn't particularly support the superlatives); and "As of 2017, the artist's galleries that sell his work are located in the most prestigious, wealthy locations in the world and his documented art sales have soared up to $105,000" (wholly unreferenced). Artworldspro's most recent text can be seen here. Hardly a single sentence is both properly phrased and properly sourced.

I stubbed the article last week, and Artworldpro is edit warring to restore the obviously inappropriate material with edi summaries like "I have the copyright as proof on this-WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?" and "Replacing article-was deleted by a vandal-IT'S PROPERLY CITED-this is a well known, prominent respected artist-ALL INFO CAN BE PROVEN-NOT TO BE REMOVED-VANDAL TO BE REPORTED-WARNED-2ND TIME)", but not even a pretense of substantive discussion. When I posted a warning on their talk page, they responded with another rant about the wonders of the artist's work and career, but no attempt to comply with applicable policies (see User talk:Artworldpro#Edit warring, proscribed content). Their comments make clear Artworldpro has a COI problem, and may even be the article subject).

Artworldpro is clearly not here to write encyclopedic content, and their principal interest is promotional. I ask that, at the very least, they be topic banned from the subject of Nelson De La Nuez and his businesses, regardless of the article involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

While Artworldpro is probably an SPA with a COI, you stubbed the article much, much too deeply, and your identification of there being "BLP violations" in the article is incorrect. I've restored some of what you removed and cleaned, un-promoed and copy-edited everything. Since you are involved enough to have edit-warred with Artworldpro over this, I suggest you leave the article for other editors to work on, especially since in my estimation you do not have a BLP exemption from edit-warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I have dropped a note on Artworldpro's talk page, advising them not to edit war, that they don't own the article, they we don;t allow Wikipedia to be used for promotion, and that they appear to have a serious COI about the subject matter. I have suggested to Artworldpro that same thing I suggested to HW above, that they step away from the article and refrain from editing it. Both parties should allow neutral editors to work on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Further update: while I still think HW went too deep in stripping the article, I can understand where he's coming from. De La Nuez calls himself "The King of Pop Art"; I don't know if that's true or not, but he's almost certainly "The King of Self-Promotion". Many sources in Google about him carry the exact same wording, and they all seem to trace back to De La Nuez himself. It's damn hard to find citations that come from hard core reliable sources. This is so much the case, that some intrepid soul might like to try the article out at AfD and see what happens: maybe the attention given it there could pry loose something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, you should dig in even further, there's still a pile of self-promotion left in the current text. The "Museum of Humor Art", for example, is just a website where de la Nuez sells crappy consumer goods, and is not a reliable source for anything; the Park West Gallery, which provides the primary biographical source cited in the article, has an unsavory reputation (see [225]); and references like 1stdibs.com don't actually support the claims they're cited for. There's brazen misconduct involved in this bio, and I think the stubbing I performed was, if anything, overly lenient. Fraudulent self-promotion is a violation of BLP policy, too. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've done what I think is appropriate for the moment. Other editors are working on the page now, and I don't plan to dispute their changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this from a COI perspective, there are few available WP:RS sources. The closest thing I can find to actual news coverage is something in the Ventura County Star because the artist was apparently one of the last people to make a delivery to Michael Jackson. All else is PR Newswire or similar. ("Private Air Luxury Magazine?" "Global License Magazine?" Please.) May fail WP:ARTIST for notability. Even the current stub has fluff; one "reference" is to "Nelson De La Nuez Boxed Note cards (box of 20)", which has been dropped by Amazon. Tempted to send the article to AfD. John Nagle (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sent to AfD, after someone else agreed on talk page that notability was lacking. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

harassment and threatening

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

---

Wikipedia policy says "Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."

We had no direct communication that time but the last part of this edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Junagadh&diff=789557396&oldid=789555727 ) is clearly directed to me since I was the one who did the wp:banrevert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Junagadh&diff=789532029&oldid=789456750

wikipedia allows everyone to make edits and this user Kautilya3 is threatening a block over a content issue. these words show wp:ownership of article and are a form of bullying and the last bit is very threatening Anybody that wants to take responsibility for the sock edits better address this issue first. or risk getting blocked themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.76.131.160 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Two questions: are you one of the IP hoppers Kautilya3 has been reverting for vandalism and did you plan to notice the editor in question about this ANI, as required?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

i am not hopping, i am just using a different internet connection from home and workplace. my ip is only the ones beginning with 81 and 46 ones. check the edit reasons of kautilya3, no where does it say anything about vandalism. and i am notifying him , i am trying to work out how to do the ANI template — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.76.131.160 (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

First things first. You did not do WP:BANREVERT. I did BANREVERT. The editor who wrote this content, Towns Hill, was indefinitely topic-banned from India and Pakistan topics for repeated POV pushing across a range of articles. The user created this content using a sock, for which he and all his socks are now permanently blocked. By reinstating this POV content, you risk being blocked yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a situation that needs admin attention, except possibly a boomerang for the OP. There is no harassment going on: Kautilya appears to have reverted unsourced content on one occasion and edits by a blocked sock on another. Nothing problematic there. Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

i did a search and saw you also yourself take responsibility for blocked sock POV pushers edits ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIndo-Pakistani_War_of_1947#Kautilya3_and_meat_puppetry ) so others can also do it. as i am new to wiki and am not too familiar with everything here i by mistake wrote banrevert in place of revertban but still you understood what i was trying to do because just after i did that(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Junagadh&diff=789532029&oldid=789456750 you posted this threatening message on talkpage (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Junagadh&diff=789557396&oldid=789555727 ). you understood i was trying to take responsibility for re adding the content hence this threat you gave

and he is also repeating his blocking threat here again publicly

Kautilya3 is now mailing other people to find out my identity ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kautilya3&diff=789786755&oldid=789732681 ) . He is doing more harassment. Wikipedia says "Do not disclose any personal information disallowed on Wikipedia Posting real names or email addresses not previously and voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia can be considered outing. Such information may be communicated privately to the Arbitration Committee." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.255.69.142 (talk) 05:32, 12 July 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.

24.180.168.42 unverified birth-date edits

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

---

The anon IP 24.180.168.42 has been adding scads of completely unverified birth-date and in some cases death-date claims. [226] Some of these, though not today, have involved WP:BLP vios. I gave a gently worded warning here, being careful not to bite the newbie, and received no response. Today, this anon IP has continued making such edits, which I have reverted here and here, though not yet at the various WIkipedia year articles where he adds uncited biographical claims. The editor does not seem interested in discussion or in stopping his serial WP:VERIFY vios. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 12 July 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:HXEG

The following discussion is closed. 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 new HXEG (talk · contribs) edits ijn broken English, revert-wars, ignores edit summaries and warnings in talk page. Please interfere. Pages in question: Fuck, Li Keqiang, Concept, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Please notify the user per instructions at the top of this page. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thx. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The user, oblivious to wikipedia rules, removes formatting and tags and continues fast-paced revert war with everybody. Please stop this ASAP , ontherwise the cleanup job amount grows quickly. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: The war is not that fast-paced. Standard warning system is working fine. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine? YOu must be kidding. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Has the user reverted since being warned about 3RR? —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Answer, yes, right as I was leaving this message. —C.Fred (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I left a final warning time-stamped 20:39 UTC and will block if he makes more reverts after he's had opportunity to read that warning. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Standard warning is having zero effect. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• RickinBaltimore blocked him for 31h just as I was about to. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (ec)Beat you to it C.Fred, they kept right on going after you gave them that warning. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:43, 12 July 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.

Huldra's "ce"

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

---

This is the second time now that I noticed that Huldra (talk · contribs) hides POV edits under the edit summary "ce". The first time was in this edit, after which I pointed the issue out to her on the talkpage,[227] which she acknowledged here. Then she did it again today in this edit, when she removed the header "Second Temple Era" and replaced it by moving the "Roman Era" header up, although historically that is incorrect by several hundred years as she knows very well. The problem is all the more serious since the Israeli-Palestinian articles are a known stumbling block, and editors should be extra careful on articles in this area. Her radical POV is proven from a commentary like this one. Please some admin impress upon Huldra that she must stop hiding her POV edits under edit summaries like "ce", or else face administrative intervention. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I take it that by "CE" they mean "copy edit." Technically that's correct as it is a copy edit. But it is a POV edit and is excessively vague per WP:SUMMARYNO, to the point that it is "functionally the equivalent to not providing a summary at all." Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've not read any policies on it, but if I were writing a policy on what is a copyedit, it would be removing commas, changing "a" to "an", etc. It should not have any changes that could reasonably be construed as "real editing" or changing words around. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

But now that he's been caught, he will no longer be able to avoid scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If we talk about 200 BCE, it seems that Hellenic period would be the most appropriated (History of Palestine). Roman period would just be a mistake. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The "ce" in the edit summary means "copy edit". Nothing to do with BC/AD/BCE/CE stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 12 July 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 Editor - Administrator Help Requested

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

---

Dear Administrator,

I would like to ask for help with a disruptive editor on the article On Becoming Baby Wise. Michael Knowles, known as Binksternet, has been zealously guarding the page and undoing all meaningful revisions or contributions since August 21st, 2012. He is a prolific editor on Wikipedia, but his work on the On Becoming Baby Wise article leaves me wondering if he is too personally invested against the book and its authors to meaningfully contribute to and improve the page.

While there are disagreements among pediatricians about Baby Wise, Binksternets statements that represent a consensus in the medical community such as “has been criticized by mainstream health care professionals” or “The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) warned against the book” are blatantly inaccurate. He has included multiple references to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ negative warnings about the book, but they have not issued anything as an institution and there is no consensus among its own pediatricians (with many M.D.s supporting and some critiquing the Baby Wise method). Binksternet is mainly referring to opinions in Dr. Aney’s 1998 article in American Academy of Pediatrics, which is not the result of a scientific, peer-reviewed study and not the opinion of the institution as a whole.

In addition, Binksternet will only allow negative comments about the book to be posted. He has contributed much of the text to the article himself and seems to have a vested interest in tearing down the authors of the book, despite a talkpage consensus that this is unwarranted and biased. Several users have suggested that he should be banned from editing the page, including Blakenathanweber, SCgrits, Mominmichigan, and now myself. Please see the Baby Wise talkpage on Question Regarding Legitimacy of Rejections here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_Becoming_Baby_Wise#Question_Regarding_Legitimacy_of_Rejections

Binksternet evidently thinks the main point of the article is to prove that early editions of the book were based in Evangelical religion and were not accepted by the Ezzo’s church community or some pediatricians. While the background of the book and its updates are relevant to some degree, it has undergone drastic updates since 1990 and continues to be recommended by medical professionals around the country, even taught in nursing courses. The impact of Baby Wise is much broader than its initial development, but this Wikipedia article looks very dated and it misses the entire point of the current #1 best-selling infant rearing book on Amazon. The book contains thorough research on the latest studies and has many pediatricians who recommend it. When I attempted to include part of Baby Wise’s recommendations in the Summary section, that was deleted by Binksternet.

Binksternet himself said on August 14th, 2014 in the talkpage that “The book is a travesty of bad advice, written by a Christian husband/wife team who had worn out the patience of their church. The book was rubber-stamped by a young pediatrician with no reputation. So I don't think you and I can come to an agreement about the topic.” That isn’t an attitude of objectivity. He superficially stands behind Wikipedia guidelines while refusing to engage with users or accept new sources/facts.

Thank you for your help and consideration! I have included some diffs below:

Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=790197092&oldid=790152973

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=783796661&oldid=783794866

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=761976353&oldid=761974410

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=621256670&oldid=621251671

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Becoming_Baby_Wise&type=revision&diff=508505973&oldid=508483359

Talk Page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_Becoming_Baby_Wise#Question_Regarding_Legitimacy_of_Rejections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:On_Becoming_Baby_Wise#NPOV_dispute_.22Criticism.22_.22Religious.22_.22Summary.22

Melodiya52 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any axe to grind. I have never read the book nor used it to raise a child. On the other hand, I am not an advocate of attachment parenting, the other extreme. The only thing I have done at the article is read about people's reactions to the book, and translate those reactions to the article.

Several times in the article's history there have been people who wanted to whitewash it of the negative factors, and people who wanted to amplify the role of Dr Robert Bucknam who was only one year old as a pediatrican when the Ezzos approached him to be a co-author of the secular version of the book. I have pushed back against each of these efforts in order to keep the article more factual and neutral, per Wikipedia policy Neutral Point of View. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Back in 2011 I was attracted to the article about On Becoming Baby Wise because of an unreferenced and non-neutral addition to the Failure to thrive article, which I removed. I looked at other Wikipedia articles about baby advice books and tweaked a few of them.[228][229][230] Then I began to expand the Baby Wise article from 3 kb to 19 kb, based on my reading of many sources talking about the book. I gave the article its sections about the religious beginnings and the secular current version, and I put in the summary and criticism sections. Most of the article became my work at this point. This attracted the attention of Blakenathanweber in 2014 who changed the text to be more promotional, then in 2015 announced his his close connection to the publisher of the book. In 2017, Aschetter24 who was obviously a paid editor (look at all the deletion notices on the user talk page, the articles being about non-notable businesses) came along and removed lots of well-cited negative text while inflating the accomplishments of Dr. Bucknam. This same change was made by an IP address from Philadelphia, most likely Aschetter24 editing while logged out. Aschetter24 then complained on the article talk page,[231] followed by a bunch of single-purpose accounts who praised the book and criticized me: MTmomof3, WikiMonica_Brown, Dkkkn4, SCgrits and Mominmichigan.

Seeing the editors who have a conflict of interest come along and whitewash the article, or use it to promote Bucknam, has made me extra wary about anybody else who shows up. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 12 July 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:Glaxp

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

---

The user registered a week ago, and there is smth wrong going on. They made 440 edits, on one instance, I blocked them for vandalism, they also had some nonsense edits like saying they are a steward on their user page, but some other edits seem legit. I am still thinking this is likely a sock, but do not know of which master. Can someone may be recognize some familiar behavior? Thanks. --Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This was vandalism I blocked them for, as far as I can remember.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The steward one was meant to be a userbox saying they are not a steward, in a humorous way.--Gla_xp 07:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The infobox implied that you were once a steward, which you were never one, and therefore you could not have it on your page (I was the one who initially removed it from Glaxp's userpage). It's fine now, though. SkyWarrior 14:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The entire use page isn't particularly reassuring. — fortunavelut luna 14:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• +/- 20 productive mainspace edits, +/- 20 unproductive mainspace edits, and +/- 400 edits to his userspace is not a sustainable ratio. If the ratio of productive mainspace edits to userspace edits doesn't increase dramatically, and the number of unproductive mainspace edits doesn't drop to zero, I'll be blocking indef as a timesink. Assuming for the moment he isn't a sock of someone. For starters I've reverted his signature page (that he made to get around the 255 character limit) to the standard signature and protected the page. I've also deleted a page he made, and reverted the remaining unproductive edits I could find. If I were in just a slightly crankier mood I'd just go ahead and indef block now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

First, SkyWarrior said I could overcome the signature limit some way, which you will probably say "thats no excuse to not be blocked" and go ahead and do it before this discussion closes. He said:

Yours is over that, so I would recommend you shorten it (and if you decide to go around this limit and put it in a template, then you must substitute the template by using {{subst:template name}}

Entirely misleading. I also made my signature raw assuming I didn't pass the sig limit. --Gla_xp 22:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I was wrong, as I had admitted on your talk. That's all my fault, sorry.

With that said, while the part in the parenthesis was incorrect, the rest of the message was not. Your signature is fine now, just follow WP:SIG. SkyWarrior 22:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And with the steward userbox, I changed that to display a bit of a different message.--Gla_xp 22:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, this discussion might just WP:BOOMERANG just as I'm about to get promoted to a higher level of permissions. Not any time this month though.--Gla_xp 22:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, this discussion is not going to BOOMERANG. Lepricavark (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I am getting more convinced that an indefblock is needed--Ymblanter (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Why? --Gla_xp 21:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I meant like, someone posting a link to this discussion.--Gla_xp 21:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Glaxp what exactly do you do here to contribute constructively? All I see that you have "accomplished" is turn your userpage into a colorful mess. I suspect you are just trying to get your EC priviledges by making useless edits. Care to explain?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I have finished my userpage, so I'm planning to stop editing it, it's done.--Gla_xp 00:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's all fine and dandy but no new user just spends days focusing on their userpage. Almost all your edits to mainspace are about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Are you just trying to get your EC privileges and, if so, why exactly? The more I review your editing history, the more I see a person who is not here to build an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm not trying to get them, even though I said something earlier in this discussion about it, I'm not planning to get them anytime soon either. Hopefully in the future i will stop being as usless as an ejecter seat on a helicopter.--Gla_xp 01:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Should be noted that the user reported themselves to AIV a few minutes ago. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

And now RickinBaltimore blocked them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. I guess we're done here for now. SkyWarrior 02:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I just lost power as I was saying this on my laptop. Nothing I saw from the editor shows me they were here to build the encyclopedia. Not sure what the idea was, but it certainly wasn't promising at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection for Swarna Bharat Party

The following discussion is closed. 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 article has been vandalized by some stupid anon IP. He tagged it as COI and that I'm close to the subject, when I'm not. I'm not a member of the party. Furthermore, he removed almost all the info citing "puffery" and other bullshit, when the content was written in a neutral manner. There is no problem with the sources either. I request semi-protection as its a controversial subject and prone to being vandalized. Liberal Humanist (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) One anon removed part of the text, once. That makes a content dispute, not structural vandalism by multiple IP's. AFAICT, page protection isn't called for. Besides, brushing off criticism as "bullshit" and taking it to ANI is not the way to go. What's more, you are obliged to inform the user in question about this discussion, which you haven't. You may also want to watch WP:OWN, given the fact that you seem to be the sole contributor to that article (apart from the anon you reverted and warned (uw-vandalism1). 07:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

He emptied the entire article citing BS reasons. There is no puffery. That's vandalism. The sources used are all right if it's regarding ideology, policies, and personal membership in a party in one instance. He put a BS COI tag when I have nothing to do with the party. I am a veteran wikipedian. I know very well how to write an unbiased and objective article. As for WP:OWN, I don't contribute articles so as to have vandals wipe out the article citing nonsensical reasons. Liberal Humanist (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That's you judging the content you wrote yourself. The anon obviously did not agree and WP:BOLDly changed it. The appropriate action would be to revert and discuss, not revert and take it to ANI. and stifle any discussion. So, take it to the talk-page. I can almost guarantee that page-protection is not going to happen. Throwing around accusations of vandalism are a) not productive and b) frowned upon (putting it mildly). Please watch your step. Kleuske (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh by that logic, you can empty any wikipedia article and get away with it. Use your brain! If you can't, you make a move. Liberal Humanist (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

He added a COI tag when I have nothing to do with a party. He removed info citing puffery when they were neutrally written. He removed info about ideology and policies citing primary sources. He removed all the images. He emptied the article. That's vandalism. If he doesn't know the rules, then that's no excuse. Liberal Humanist (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed you can. Subsequently someone else can then revert it, restoring the article, after which a discussion takes place on the appropriate talk-page and a consensus should be reached. A Liberal Humanist ought to know that. Besides, the remark about puffery isn't completely without merit. Kleuske (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a clear content dispute, the IP may have gone overboard in doing what they did but removing statements like "The party intends to implement governance reforms to give India honest and highly efficient public institutions, as well as economic reforms to liberate and transform the Indian economy" in Wikipedia's voice (and sourced the organization's website) does qualify as what the IP's edit summary says and is definitely not vandalism. This discussion belongs in the talk page and I don't think semi-protection is necessary. And cut the personal attacks here Liberal Humanist. —SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not puffery. It's the party's goals. Liberal Humanist (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Kleuske, if you think that it constitutes puffery, then you need to read MOS and educate yourself. Liberal Humanist (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Liberal Humanist: Sorry if this is piling on, but if you don't understand that this is puffery, you shouldn't be editing here. It is one thing to include a statement in an article that says such and such a party has identified their goals as "blah blah blah"; it is quite another thing to say it in Wikipedia's voice, which means we have tracked down independent, published sources which support the statement. You didn't come close to accomplishing that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Given that Liberal Humanist doesn't seem to know what's wrong here and the recent copyvios that have had to be deleted, I will be removing the autopatrolled flag unless there are compelling reasons not to. This article should've been flagged at NPP but unfortunately it wasn't visible because of the autopatrolled flag, not sure how many more there are, but there's two copyvios (see talk page history) which had to be removed. —SpacemanSpiff 08:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Liberal Humanist (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NPA. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed Autopatrolled, G11 and G12 worthy submissions have to be flagged for NPP. —SpacemanSpiff 09:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked Liberal Humanist indefinitely as a consequence of this edit summary, visible only to admins. Favonian (talk) 09:46, 13 July 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.

Remove talk page access

Can an admin please remove this user's talk page access? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 14:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Because he's annoying you by pinging you? Or what? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a pattern of theirs to ping users involved with their block for no good reason and it's not the first time they've done it. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely harassment from one of Orchomen's countless socks. I have revoked his talk page privileges. Favonian (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Is it possible to remove the ability to send a ping without removing talk page access? If not, should it be?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've never heard of that before. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of quacking going on here, replicating the behavior descibed above above. The account is a confirmed sock of Orchomen. My bet is that this behavior will repeat itself with other blocked sock-account, so I would suggest denying TP-access to all accounts. Kleuske (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no way to just remove access to pings, but pings are triggered by edits, and we can prevent editing. Any user abusing their talk page to disruptively notify other users can have their talk page access revoked, as they're not using it to address their block (the only thing a blocked user is allowed to use their talk page for). It appears BU Rob13 has already revoked talk page access for all of the user's confirmed socks, and I'll add a note to the SPI to do the same for future cases. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Bagdadi reported dead for the 15th time

Editors are rushing in to list Al-Bagdadi dead yet again. The evidence is pretty weak. [232]. I'm requesting full page protection at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi until there is widely reported detailed proof he is dead and we reach concensus for listing him dead. Watch other ISIL pages too for editors rushing to be the first to declare him dead. Wikipedia should not lead the workd in declaring the #1 wanted terrorist killed. Legacypac (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Query re block of Apollo the Logician

Hi. User:Apollo The Logician was blocked for edit warring earlier today following a report here. The block remains in place but repirt has disappeared from this page and doesn't appear in the most recent archive.

Just to note also, the user's unblock request accuses me of edit warring but I'm being prevented from exercising a right of reply on that page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: Per WP:OWNTALK, what right of reply, exactly? In any case, they were not blocked per a report here; it was at WP:ANEW. I also note, Bastun, that you have note informed the user that you had started a discussion here regarding them. Even ythough they were blocked, you should have done so, in order to allow them, with permission, to reply by proxy. It is however now wholly academic. — fortunavelut luna 11:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

My bad, thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: I was expecting a gabh mo leathscéil at least  ;) — fortunavelut luna 11:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Apollo the Logician was blocked[233] with the following comment at WP:ANEW:

"Blocked for one month, standard escalation from previous block. Proposal of a topic ban should be taken to WP:AN."[234]

He has made two unblock requests,[235][236] both of which were denied by uninvolved administrators.[237][238] (He tried to delete the first decline[239] but was informed that doing that is not allowed.[240]) And now his talk page access has been removed.[241]

My advice to Bastun is to drop this without attempting to reply. It is basic human nature to defend yourself when you believe that you have been unfairly accused, but in this case I think it is best to walk away. And yes, it is unfair that he can accuse you of edit warring on his talk page and then delete your response[242]. If you feel that you must respond, may I suggest responding on your own talk page? That's the first place anyone would look in the unlikely event that they took the accusation seriously. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agaibh, a chairde. Good advice, both - I'll leave the issue alone. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

IP socks at Achilles using PAs and attempting to out me

126.46.178.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 41.226.117.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), probable socks of Flr9003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), are restoring Flr9003's edit, at Achilles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and at the same time they are calling me a real name "Angelos Koulouris", while in one of their edit-summaries they are linking to the linkedin page of an actual person by that name. In the other summaries, in Greek, the IPs are warning me that "they are coming for me". Please block and revdel the edit-summaries as you see fit. Thanks. Dr. K. 18:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked Flr9003 indefinitely and revoked talk access, and also blocked the IP that was not already blocked. They can explain to UTRS why logging out to anon proxies to post threats directed at a specific, identified individual is an appropriate use of this website. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I also apparently stepped on Amortias protecting the page at the same time. Sorry about that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem protection is protection. I've dealt with the edit summaries. Amortias (T)(C) 18:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you both for your fast action. Take care. Dr. K. 18:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Now they are attacking my other edits and call themselves "legion" while also outing Koulouris as before. Dr. K. 18:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked and I'll revdel the summary. (edit) Or Amoritas will beat me to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rick. :) Dr. K. 18:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Am gonna leave this section open a bit longer as I have a feeling well be back for more sooner rather than later. Amortias (T)(C) 18:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on RFPP in case we need more protection. I'm also starting to set the PP at 1 month given the persistence of this troll. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you very much Ad Orientem. You helped a lot today. It was the day of the socks and trolls. Very unusual and busy traffic. Dr. K. 19:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Another one telling me in broken Greek that "they will be here when I wake up". Dr. K. 19:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What they said was all Greek to me, but IP blocked, edit revdel'd RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol. Very nice of you. Thank you Rick. :) Dr. K. 19:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Now they are trying to hack my en.wiki account. I just got an email that 126.46.178.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) requested a password reset for my account. Dr. K. 19:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The only real work around for that is to ensure you have a strong password both here and on whatever your e-mail account is. Amortias (T)(C) 19:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Amortias. I agree. Dr. K. 20:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit War/Personal Grudges/Impasse

User 71.86.114.4 ‎ is making multiple edits to multiple page including removing sourced information, and adding unsourced beliefs. Though communication resolved a single issue -- he/she added the source for the burgertime claim -- all other disputes seem impossible to resolve. User is resorting to just insulting myself and others and making accusations of bias, but not actually addressing the subject itself. I believe its needed for an admin to get involved so that an impartial decision can be reached. You can see attempts to discuss this on the user's talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.86.114.4 and honestly, my patience is exhausted.SnowflakeFury (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

possible edit warring sock/vandal at Beaconsfield and Amersham

Multiple IPs are persistently making the same unconstructive edits at Beaconsfield and Amersham, at least 1 of them has continued despite 2 edit warring notices and a level 4 vandalisim warning. All the IPs are similar and geolocate to London or elsewhere in southern Britain. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about the addition of "affluent", if anything I'm inclined to block the editors reverting the IP's good-faith additions for edit-warring. Just a Google search on beaconsfield richest town or amersham richest town will bring up a huge stack of sources that these are two of the most affluent places in the world (and generally Beaconsfield ranks top as the richest town in Britain). ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I will stop reverting the addition of affluent, this looked like vandalism when after repeated requests to discuss on the talk, the IPs kept reverting. There were also repeated deletions of the pronunciation guide. Tornado chaser (talk)

It appears there is no longer any issue, "affluent" has been added with a source, and deletions of the pronunciation guide have stopped. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like an anon switching IPs to break the 3rr rule, which isn't a non-issue at all, IMO. I have reverted. They should create an account and not evade 3RR if they want to not be reverted, besides which this is opinion pushing. If they ahvent been informed of this thread they should be. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, how is evading 3RR through multiple IPs good faith and since when do editors get blocked for reverting opinion pushing? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

We could equally say Britain or the US or Switzerland are wealthy countries as the opening statement but we don't and we shouldnt here either. http://www.independent.co.uk/money/worlds-wealthiest-countries-switzerland-financial-assets-allianz-richest-world-country-usa-uk-a7327741.html. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I am also baffled how an admin could claim edits which remove the pronunication guide to a town whose name is often mispronounced could by any stretch of the imagination be considered good faith and then threaten to block users who revert this. Something is very wrong here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahem. Iridescent was referring to If you're talking about the addition of "affluent", not to all IP edits in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was a little odd to have an adjective like this is the lead. I have informed them of this thread, but there were so many I can't be sure I got them all, but I alerted as many as I saw. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, in that case it would be a content dispute, we do not require admins wading into simple content disputes blocking whoever they disagree with. the placing was inappropriate and such a factor (wealth) should be discussed in the article and not made as a simple assertion right at the beginning. In Great Missenden the issue was already discussed in the 2nd paragraph but that didnt stop the IP making his assertion in the opening. Simply an inappropriate comment by Iridescent. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree. People on Beaconsfield were way too trigger happy with these revert and undo buttons. The IPs flipped out with deceptive edit summaries and IP-hopping then but the logged in editors behaved sloppily. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think wealthy/affluent should go in the economy section, not the lead. Also this same edit war is also occurring at Great Missenden, Penn, Buckinghamshire, and Gerrards Cross. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)