Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Meatpuppetry/tagteaming/POV pushing/filibustering at Singapore

• Wrigleygum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shiok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Warpslider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are a bunch of accounts of dubious origin who are constantly tag-team filibustering any change to Singapore and are intent on keeping a puffed up version of the article which somehow magnifies the good but hides anything negative about Singapore and the government. It has been going on for months and I am very suspicious that these are meatpuppets/sockpuppets. However, the main problem here is the Status quo stonewalling and tag team edit warring to preserve their version of the article. I have been trying to deal with by opening RfCs. But I cannot open an RFC for every single sentence or phrase. At this point, these accounts (which are almost SPAs) are essentially treading WP:NOTHERE territory and are wasting a lot of time.

Possible sock/meatpuppetry/SPA activity

I first became aware of this at this RFC I started. I noticed that 2 accounts User:Panacealin and User:Warpslider

• User:Panacealin newly registered account whose first edit was to vote on the RFC
• User:Warpslider After an edit on 29 June 2010, their next edit was on 11 July 2016 where they voted on this RFC at Singapore. Someone came out of hibernation after 6 years to vote at an RFC? They also followed me to another page where they had no prior edits.

Socking/Tag Teaming

User:Shiok has previously edited Singapore (a few edits) and User:Wrigleygum was the one who originally added all the puffery. Today this sequence happened.

• by Wrigleygum 16:19, 13 November 2016
• I revert 16:21, 13 November 2016
• Wrigleygum reverts 16:28, 13 November 2016
• I revert 16:29, 13 November 2016
• Shiok reverts 16:36, 13 November 2016

I am very curious that Shiok came up all of a sudden to revert me, within a span of a few minutes? (Not sure if there is some offline collusion going on)

It is also worth looking at the this diff where Wrigleygum says here are 3 editors here who do not share your POV. Discuss or just bring it to ANI (emphasis mine). I'm not sure who are the 3 editors. At the point of revert, the discussion for this issue was going on here and at no point were there 3 editors not sharing my POV. I wonder whether this was a mistake or were there actually 3 editors? Note that, Shiok's revert happened after this and Shiok had not commented on the talk page either. I wonder where did 3 editors come from and how did Wrigleygum know there were 3 editors? Offline?

All of these accounts have a strong tendency to support each other's ideas. For example, in this current RFC Shiok posted a link and later Warpslider replied I spent some time listening to the 'Collapse of Trust in Government' video link by Shiok. It is a panel discussion at a conference on Challenges in Government. As an example of countries with high Trust by citizens, Singapore was the first country mentioned by the panel and a number of times in the discussion. This is a clear endorsement for the country and there was certainly no Singaporeans on the panel or audience.

Note that I'm not the only one who suspects socking/meatpuppetry. User:Nick-D suspected the same here on my talk page.

I had previously brought this issue to ANI. See User:Wrigleygum and issues at Singapore, although the thread was archived. I was also myself brought to ANI by another suspicious account which suddenly woke up from hibernation.

Based on the above, I am seeking a PBAN as the first step for dealing with these accounts. If these accounts are really sincere about contributing to the encyclopaedia, then it is time for them to demonstrate good faith by sticking to the talk page and not editing the article itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Curious? -> On Sunday, I had edited Singapore's lead earlier in the day so I saw that you had deleted the nicknames, wavered on reverting but stayed logged on, did other work. Previously (25-Sept-2016), I had stated my views to keep the nicknames. I was alerted when Wrigleygum posted his reply after midnight, just like you but your reaction was just 2 mins on both your reverts. So despite keeping a low profile, I took a stand. Shiok (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

At the Nickname discussion section, there is Wrigleygum and the IP editor arguing with you. The third editor referred to by Wrigley is probably myself - but if he is referring to another person, that will be 4 editors against your POV to remove. I stated here - "The nicknames should stay as it's written up in the media on a regular even daily basis and readers may wonder why our country is known by that." -Shiok (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

By posting this malice, my guess that she has exhausted her arguments at the [City-Country Nicknames debate], since she did this ANI shortly after, rather than spending her time discussing content. It expose her true character under stress. I won't spend more time than needed. Each time she plot similar stunts, I will repeat paste what I wrote at SG talk previously:

• "Lemongirl942, none of what you said above to "sow the seeds of doubt" bear witness and repetition does not make it so. Especially for WP:Consensus, you have been contradictory and bending it to suit your purpose. I think the few contributors here has actually been accommodating, or maybe intimidated. You have been talking about your experience over other editors, maybe too much it makes one feel invincible, and occasionally you should re-read Wiki principles: [Experience] - "No editor has more authority than any other, regardless of prior experience. Edit count and length of time that has passed since your first edit are only numbers"

Also, what you said recently in talk and edit summaries (I only checked for last few days) - "Stop your POV pushing, or I will make sure you get blocked", "Consider this a warning..you are pushing yourself towards a block" - sounds exactly like the examples quoted at WP:THREATEN - "On Wikipedia, personal attacks are not tolerated. In particular, it is unacceptable to threaten another that some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken will occur. When editors make threats like these, and the environment becomes hostile, the victims, especially those who are new are scared away from Wikipedia altogether. (Note: posted at Talk:Singapore by Warpslider on 13:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC) ).

—Warpslider (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You are POV pushing and edit warring. You are an SPA with very few contributions. You do not understand the policies. You removed the tag but didn't justify why. All of this is disruptive. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This is what an established editor said to you:

"Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove. William Avery (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)"

The Template use says: When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

1.There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

2.It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

3.In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

It could have been removed with condition (3). When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it. I would say that's malicious. Wrigleygum (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it. Really? That's a pretty serious allegation. Are you claiming that I didn't attempt to discuss? Are you claiming that there was no discussion on the talk page when the tag was removed? Really? I mean I see this and this RFC going on. On what grounds are you and your fellow SPAs justifying the removal? Please show your diffs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This tag was for the Step-1 section. It should have been removed after a month without discussion, else you go to the 2nd, 3rd.. points with no ending. Every article will be forever changing, you can't justify having a TAG on the article forever.Wrigleygum (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia. The POV tag is about the disputed neutrality of the lead. It is supposed to stay until the lead becomes neutral. Now you said When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it Please provide diffs to support your allegation, particularly about how I continued to blocked all editors. Please also provide proof to show that I didn't attempt to discuss and that there was no discussion on the talk page relevant to the neutrality of the lead when the tag was removed? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Just spending another minute to say it's TGIF and I won't be back till much later. No worries, you have the crown for filibustering. Wrigleygum (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The irony is strong here. Nice try diverting the issue Wrigleygum. I will once again request you to answer the question. You said When you put up the tag, one whole month passed without further discussion, and you continued to block all editors trying to remove it Please provide diffs to support your allegation, particularly about how I continued to block all editors. Please also provide proof to show that I didn't attempt to discuss and that there was no discussion on the talk page relevant to the neutrality of the lead at the time when the tag was removed? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that you couldn't answer the question. That should probably tell you stuff. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring to remove the POV tag about the lead

Warpslider and Wrigleygum are now edit warring to remove the POV tag (diff1, diff2) which I placed because the parts of the lead are undue. This is precisely editing against consensus. This is despite a previous RFC was closed by Drmies as There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone. and also a current RFC where apart from the above 3 SPAs and a dubious IP, every single experienced editor has agreed that parts of the lead were undue. I am seeing a behavioural problem here, so I am strongly suggesting a page ban. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, it continues. Now a couple of the SPAs are tag teaming to remove it. See diff. Can someone please do something? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss with 3 editors who are against you putting up the Tag, violating WP:Consensus.

Yes, the RFC closing summary reads "There is broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed, and that the statistics are overdone". What to trim? It will be by Consensus correct? Does trimming refer to just the stats or everything? One editor does not determine that. Certainly not by yourself alone Wrigleygum (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am sick and tired of discussing with a bunch of SPAs. Did you look at Template:POV#When_to_remove? Can you honestly justify any reason for removing the tag? There is already consensus that stuff in the lead is undue. Which is why I have tagged the article. Why do you continue to tag team and remove it? This is status quo stonewalling. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Shall we agree you are not the only one to determine what to remove? Wrigleygum (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am not the only one to determine that the POV tag has to be removed. It requires a consensus of editors. Please note that 3 SPAs with very limited experience, doesn't equate to consensus - it's not a vote. Get the support of experienced editors who actually understand policy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's three editors against you. So tell us about this experience you harp about. The word "Experience" does not occur a single time on WP:Consensus - do paste the relevant quote from policy that describe it here. Shiok (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

We require editors to understand consensus. It's not a vote. Consensus works on arguments based on policies and guidelines - it's not a vote. The fact that 3 SPAs (with no understand of how Wikipedia works) were opposing me, doesn't make it right. The RFC shows that there were NPOV problems in the lead. You cannot remove tags until they are fixed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "Experience" does not occur a single time on WP:Consensus - do paste the relevant quote from policy that describe it here. - Do this first, just paste the policy here, instead of making up something yourself, else you are called out as lying. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Let me explain properly. Consensus is not a vote. Nobody agrees with your view that removing the POV tags was justified at that time. I asked you to get an experienced editor to support you. You couldn't. And you are still having the same belligerent attitude. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Update: Warpslider blocked for edit warring on Singapore --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuous POV pushing and adding of WP:UNDUE content

Please see this edit. Wrigleygum is continuously adding undue content to the article. And refusing to drop the stick. I do not see any indication that Wrigleygum is here to improve the encyclopaedia. As such, I would recommend and indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Admins, there are a number of issues this editor is trying to lump together as edit-warring, including:

• POV tags
• removal of Educational Rankings since has been in the Singapore article for a year

She is using all manners of Notices to justify raising her malicious ANIs. Please have a read on the Talk:Singapore as a start. Will add more explanation later Wrigleygum (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

She is using all manners of Notices to justify raising her malicious ANIs. Great, continue to cast aspersions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding points to above by wrigleygum:

• removal of any lead content which were part of 1st RFC and still in on-going discussion
• currently in 2nd RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiok (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shiok: Do not alter other people's posts. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are right, apologies, I just mentioned that myself. Shiok (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, then it is a combination of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing, and SPA activity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed PBAN for the above mentioned accounts at Singapore

• Support as proposer. This has been going on for too long, almost 5 months now. I didn't want to do this, but a PBAN works well here. If they are serious about improving, then they can still propose changes on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni repeatedly, blatantly canvassing

On four pages related to far-right Hungarian politics, Ferenc Szaniszló, Romani people in Hungary, Magyar Hírlap and the Petra László tripping incident, Ltbuni has posted on Norden1990's or Koertefa's talk pages requesting help in conflicts, and often received the help they've requested:

• Yesterday, on 13 November, Ltbuni posted on Norden's talk page asking for help at two pages, Ferenc Szaniszló and the Petra László tripping incident. Norden promptly came to Ltbuni's aid at Ferenc Szaniszló.

• On 25 October, Ltbuni requests that Koertefa help them at Petra László tripping incident stating, "I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR.”

• 21 August, Ltbuni requests Norden's help at Magyar Hírlap, writing "Look at the controversy section?" Norden promptly replies that they will, and does. Ltbuni also posts at Koertefa's talk page, requesting help on this and another article, and complaining about me and Der Spiegel. Koertefa promptly replies favorably, and gets involved as well. The unsourced and offensive WP:OR about Roma immigrants that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article.

I first encountered this particular Hungarian editing crowd after I wrote the wiki article on Szaniszló, where I wrote a meticulous survey of news coverage on him at the Talk Page. Eventually we had a dispute resolution, found here DRN, which also includes a very long review of RS coverage. The article remained stable for over three years, until Ltbuni removed the description of Roma as “discriminated against” (following "ostracized" of The Independent and The New York Times), calling this language "malicious" and false.

Content issues aside, I’m shocked at the brazen character of Ltbuni’s WP:CANVASSING, and also surprised that Norden and Koertefa indulge it (they don’t always help edit war, but they also never warn Ltbuni to stop). I have a suspicion there may be much more of this going on for many Hungarian political topics, but these recent incidents are clear enough. After Thucydides411 warned Ltbuni above canvassing, their response was unapologetic: more or less "bring it on." I think all of them should be warned, and Ltbuni deserves some sanction - they’ve been around since 2011 and should definitely know better. Lastly, Ltbuni has repeatedly declared that the international media is unreliable and instead favors their own interpretation of reliable sources [1][2][3][4][5] (all diffs from the last couple days), and this strongly suggests they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Update - this has been going on far longer, as I note in my reply to Koertefa below -Darouet (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Darouet: Some of the diffs you given above are not in English. Has this editor been informed of WP:SPEAKENGLISH. Can you provide a translation for what is being posted since you seem to be able to understand Hungarian (I am assuming that is the language being used)? It might make it easier for others to determine if any action needs to be taken if they knew what was being posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:I had already translated them on my Talk PAge, in response to M. Darouet's friend, Thucydides411 - th hey work together, (s)he simply did not want to present it to You. Nota Bene, Darouet knows that they are on my Talk Page, since (s)he posted below it...I wrote: Could You please take a look at this or that TALK page - I find it biased etc. What is Your opinion? or something like that. LOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing --Ltbuni (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I don't speak Hungarian. In this case the talk section titles, references to me or the sources I've used, and immediate follow-up editing, all make the general gist of the canvassing obvious, though I've used google translate to try as best possible to follow. I can post google translate links tomorrow if that's helpful. -Darouet (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears from User talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing that Ltbuni is more than capable of discussing things in English, so perhaps he/she will comment here and explain the posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I know WP:SPEAKENGLISH does not apply to personal pages. There are some non-English text even on you page. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I need some time to refresh my memories. First, I find it malicious what Darouet is doing: one sided edits. I have already translated and explained what I wrote on the Talk page of the Articles, and on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ltbuni#Canvassing. He is always sensible to sources, why did not he link it? Second: I offered him dipute resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#Dispute_resolution - which he refused, and denounced me.

Regarding Ferenc Szaniszló: The whole article was a Political Soapboxing. It gave undue weight to a specific event (Mr. Szaniszló was given a medal, then he gave it back), and its only aim was pushing a certain political view of his, proving that the conservative Fidesz-gvmnt has close links to "neonazi Jobbik". Under the pretext of collecting Reliable sources, Darouet has now a list of links on the Talk Page, to promote his view, that the Jobbik party is neonaczi. Apart from the fact, that He can not speak Hungarian, so he must rely on the judgements of those journalists, who can't speak it either, we must keep in mind, that the article itself deals with Mr Szaniszló. Darouet added the story of a rock singer, some archeologist, long contemplation over the nature of Fidesz, its close links to radical Jobbik, the sufferings of Roma, the uproar of the US -Embassy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=566210814&oldid=566210742 As You can see on the Talk Page, I was constructive, tried to upgrade the article. His responses were mostly political manifestos. BTW, as I have already explained it on my Talk page, Norden1990 and I were not on the same side regarding this article, I deleted his edit, he reverted it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&diff=735470868&oldid=735469085 Strange, that Darouet did not mention it in his "indictment", because I have already explained it to him on my Talk page days ago.... The tip of the iceberg where this whole "administrative" issue began, was the point when I linked the Romani People in Hungary article, which deals with the WHOLE situation of the Romani, and I removed the "who facing discrimination" half-sentence from the Ferenc Szaniszló article.

And as I have already explained it at least two times to Darouet, not the language ("they are discriminated") was malicious, but the whole context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3#.22Discrimination.22_a_.22malicious.22_term.3F. Strange enough, that wherever Darouet is in trouble, Thucydides411 turns up, uses the same language, , accusation etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To be continued...

Petra László tripping incident - Yeah, there was a debate over she tripped or not. Since the mainstream media was biased, as I proved, and she now has an OFFICIAL document, (proving that she did not) from the Hungarian Judicial System, I found that strange that in the lead we claim that she tripped, referring to CNN and other stuff, which "somehow" forgeted to report with what she was indicted, and also omitted the facts which ruin the picture of an innocent refugee (He was fired from his job!), so I took a look at the Talk Page, and found that only THREE persons were interested: Amin, Norden1990, Ltbuni. Since Norden had some administrative something with Amin, I guess he was blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Norden1990#3RR_.40_Petra_L.C3.A1szl.C3.B3_tripping_incident I found it appropriate to call Norden's attention, that he/she could come back. No one else was interested in this article. Neither Darouet, nor Thucydides411. Only three of us, one is blocked or something. Whom on Earth should have I notified?

And I can not follow the argumentation of Darouet. International media can not be wrong? So it is a crime to add other point of views? They finally got those Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Darouet suggests that "there is something going on in the Hungarian Politics-articles", and Ltbuni is a "promoter of hate speech", is "canvassing" - Are these the manifestations of the Good Faith? Or simple libelling? Which of my edits was not underpinned with data, heh? What is more, we have an edit war in the article Romani People in Hungary. From the "Edit History" it is clear, that the eager-beaver editor, who happens to share my oppinion is User: Borsoka. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romani_people_in_Hungary&action=history Where did I ask Borsóka to help me, with the abovementionned articles? Remeber, I am blatantly etc canvassing!

The following problems occured in the Articles:

Petra László: She OFFICIALLY DID NOT TRIP, the lead was misleading, suggesting that she did - now, it is neutral. I brought up sources. Reliable ones. No one can deny that. I brought examples which proved media bias towards Hungary, as well

Ferenc Szaniszló: Why is it relevant in an article on a journalist, to add that the Romani people face discrimination - I deleted it, but also linked the whole article, dealing with Romani

Romani People in Hungary: is it appropriate to insert FACTS that lead to violence against Romani? Even the murderers of Romani kids confessed that they decided to kill Romani after the mentionned crimes Why on Earth is that irrelevant? So instead of deleting the content I disliked, I tried give neutral title to the content: Beforeward it was: Romani crimes against Hungarian and another one was Hungarian crimes against Romani or something like that. I proposed: Violence between the two population. Then I was accused of being some nazi shit. I offered dispute reolution, Darouet declined, and kept on insulting me--Ltbuni (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And sorry to waste Your time, but I simply did not get answers on the Talk Page from Darouet, just insults, and Darouet refuses the Dispute Resolution with me as well... One must see this as well. And I refuse the canvassing thing: I could not be sure whether Norden1990 is on my side (we disagreed), and I did not invite someone, whom I should have (Borsoka), finally, I tried to reconcile the opponents. Take a look at the articles, please, and help to write them in a Neutral manner.--Ltbuni (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And finally, we really had a dispute resolution - but not on this specific sentence I questioned.--Ltbuni (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents: the issue seems exaggerated to me. It looks like Darouet has some disagreement with Ltbuni (probably a content dispute) and (s)he wants to use this ANI discussion to put pressure on him/her. Even if Ltubi's behavior could be classified as canvassing, the right way should have been to point this out to him/her, and not to immediately run here in hope to get him/her punished. Darouet's bias is evident even from the way (s)he presented the issue. I agree that probably it would have been better if Ltubi launched an RfC instead of asking specific editors, but that better option should have been suggested to him/her. I deliberately don't talk about content related questions (like whether those articles really connected to far right or which sources are reliable), since those questions only obscure the situation and preferably belong to the related articles. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Koertefa: Why didn't you explain to Ltbuni that canvassing is prohibited? It actually appears you've been encouraging this behavior. Ltbuni asked for your help at Victor Orban in 2015, and while I don't think you helped him, you encouraged his behavior and made no mention of canvassing. KIENGIR (currently blocked) also asked for your help on an Austro-Hungarian page where he was edit warring with Hebel in 2015, and though it's hard to know exactly what you replied, you don't make a note about canvassing.

It looks like you've actually been encouraging this for a very long time. Your very first edit to the Szaniszló article immediately followed Ltbuni's request for your help at your talk page, and your favorable reply. Ltbuni canvassed you twice for three more articles that April and September (you encouraged him in one case, didn't respond in the other).

There are many more instances where Norden or Ltbuni ask for your input, and it's hard to know without deep research whether these are all instances of edit conflict, or if they are asking for your editorial advice in acceptable, non-conflict situations. However, it's clear that in the many instances I've detailed, Ltbuni came to you knowing that you might agree with them in an edit war. If you ever did respond you encouraged them, and sometimes you helped.

I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics. I think this is really harmful to Wikipedia and I wish I had the time to look more closely at the extent to which this is happening beyond Ltbuni. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I came across this editor yesterday at the László article following a related post at the Teahouse by Amin. At least in that instance, a lot of the problem was failure to WP:AGF, which led to a lot of frustration and killed compromise. We seem to have come to an amicable solution after a day or so and may actually be having productive discussion now.

Since this seems it may be a thing across articles and users, I would be in favor of a careful explanation of canvassing policy, and a warning to avoid the appearance of edit warring behavior for the foreseeable future.

Certainly it takes two to edit war, but Ltbuni seems to be the common thread, and they are an experienced user and should certainly know better after five years. TimothyJosephWood 13:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: see my reply to Koertefa above, and have a look at Koertefa's talk page. It seems there's a lot more of this that's gone on - more even than I can have time to fully investigate. -Darouet (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fairly well covered in a clear strong warning, with an understanding that future violations will almost certainly result in sanctions. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Did I call You names? (nationalist etc) like Darouet keeps doing with me? Was I ready to accept Your version? Did I brought up arguments? And, with all due respect, I think the common thread are Darouet and me - when he/she noticed I don't accept one of his/her edits, he/she intervened in articles which are - according to him/her - out of the focus of his/her interest ("I rarely edit Hungarian articles...")--Ltbuni (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You've been openly canvassing for years, and there is still zero indication you understand that it's a problem. -Darouet (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And we have this latest special for today... Since I have only some 300 edits in English Wikipedia, and I only edited some 6 or 7 articles, I think I am a bit far from being a nationalistic, hate-speech promoter as you kindly call me...--Ltbuni (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations are meaningless without diffs. -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

QED --Ltbuni (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My original posts have 26 diffs. -Darouet (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My favorites quotes:

"Hungarian editing crowd",

"about Roma immigrants' (????) that they added, basically a long excuse for hate speech' that can be found nowhere in reliable sources, remains in that article. "

"calling this language "malicious" and false." - The context was that...

"I don't want to start an edit war." This is practically indistinguishable from asking, "will you please edit war for me so that I can have my way without breaking 3RR." - or simply it means that You have better command of English, and greater expertise on Neutral language...

"Repeated failure to understand something so simple - e.g. why a prominent media personality attacking a minority is related to discrimination, but not musical talent - strikes me as a major WP:COMPETENCE problem. Even if you didn't understand this yourself intuitively, newspapers, which are the basis of our content, are doing it for you, and even those have no impact on your understanding here." - woow, I've never been called stupid this kindly...

"I also believe it's not a coincidence that Norden and Ltbuni request the removal of the term because they don't believe the Roma are ostracized, and believe the media are wrong" - Yes, that's why we did NOT delete the discrimination section in the Romani People in Hungary. No, we don't think that media is wrong - we just say, that there is a phenomenon called media-bias. So just because it is on the net, it does not mean that it is true. Please, stop reading in my thoughts thnx!

" I don't edit on Hungarian topics daily. When I do, if encounter some conflict, I want to be sure that the conversation which evolves is not prejudiced by directed, non-neutral recruitment of nationalist editors. In this case, you have been encouraging blatant canvassing in the context of editing conflict over Hungaration nationalist topics." - You are my next hero, seriously!!!! I love You!!!--Ltbuni (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I said that you added hate speech (from a primary source) to Magyar Hirlap, and stand by that and all other statements you've quoted. -Darouet (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue, because this not the place to hash our content disputes, Ltbuni, do you understand why policy forbids editors from purposefully recruiting others whom they have reason to believe will join a content dispute on their preferred side? Do you understand that this applies regardless of whether you are right and someone else is wrong? TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do. But as I mentioned above, I dispute that I was canvassing. Why didn't I notify other editors (Borsoka), who was on my side, and had participated in the very same edit war? Borsoka could have strenghten my position! Why did I call Norden1990, who deleted my edits? Koertefa got a barnstar for being neutral in disputes, that's why I called his/her help, because with Darouet one can not talk calmly. Just look above, how he/she treats people who don't share his/her oppinion! And why did I drop both Borsoka's and Norden's version in the Romani people in Hungary article, if we were canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So no, you don't understand what canvassing is, and still think it's OK. Koertefa does too, if the last three years of diffs on their talk page mean anything. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking with You, man. I am waiting for Timothy's answer. --Ltbuni (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this, do you understand that, regardless of your intentions, notifying users with whom you have a history on contentious topics, appears to be a form of canvassing and is not permitted. Do you understand that from this point forward, having been notified of this in no uncertain terms, if there is a content dispute that requires outside opinion, you will seek that outside opinion, in the most neutral way possible, through one of the following methods:

• WP:Third opinion
• WP:Request for Comment
• Appropriate notice board such as WP:NPOV, WP:ORN, or WP:BLPN
• Or posting on related WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary

This is not a special sanction; this is the normal process that all editors, including myself, must seek input through from time to time. This is the way to do it correctly. This is the way you will do it from this point on. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So, if I have a problem, and the other user keeps insulting me instead of responding, I can not ask for Dispute resolution, like I did? I read that it was appropriate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ferenc_Szaniszl.25C3.25B3_discussion

And Where can I denounce Darouet, for insulting me, as Hate speech promoter/ nationalist editor crowd and other libelling stuff (see above)? This is totally NPOV, no good faith etc.--Ltbuni (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, is also a way of seeking outside opinion. However, DRN is also sometimes a cumbersome and lengthy process, and if another user declines to take part in that process, you have these other options of seeking outside input on the article talk. Again, these processes are in place because contacting editors with whom you have a history, especially on contentious topics, can be, or can be seen, as a form of canvassing, and are not conducive to resolving the disagreement. TimothyJosephWood 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

All involved can probably use a review of WP:CIVIL, a reminder to act like adults. Also, since this is apparently lost on everyone, accusing someone of hate speech (a crime in some areas), and libel (a form of litigation), may be construed as a legal threat, which is taken seriously. Please all review policy at Wikipedia:No legal threats, and consider this a warning to that effect. TimothyJosephWood 20:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I apologize to all, especially Ltbuni, if I gave them the impression that Ltbuni personally had engaged in hate speech. I was referring to Ltbuni's addition of a long quote to Magyar Hírlap of text from Bayer that was universally condemned by global media outlets. I am not a lawyer, and I do not believe that a reasonable interpretation of my comment would be characterized as a legal threat. However, if I am wrong I will gladly eat humble pie and retract my use of that term, even to describe Bayer's text. -Darouet (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Bayer, whose text I described as hate speech, has caused his paper to be fined for hate speech in Hungary: BBC source. From the BBC: "Journalist and activist Zsolt Bayer is best known for his xenophobic views and close ties to the ruling party of Prime Minister Viktor Orban... He also writes a regular column for conservative pro-government newspaper Magyar Hirlap in which he frequently makes anti-Roma, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim comments, often couched in extremely crude terms. The US Holocaust Museum says his statements are as extreme as those emanating from Hungary's racist, ultranationalist, and xenophobic Jobbik party. His newspaper has twice been fined by the state media authority for publishing articles deemed to constitute hate speech. In 2013 he wrote a vitriolic piece about Roma, and in 2015 he said all refugee boys over the age of 14 were "potential terrorists"." -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And how about the tone? I find Darouet's tone libelling, as it was libelling on the Talk Page, as demonstrated. What can I do? What if I see that he is doing POV pushing, and soapboxing, as he/she did so - lacking Good Faith?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think, meanwhie You responded. So it seems to You, that I was canvassing?--Ltbuni (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is a bad practice because it results in exactly these types of situations. TimothyJosephWood 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And how about Darouet, who accused me of criminal charges?--Ltbuni (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I think most, if not everyone involved has certainly violated WP:CIVIL, and probably said something that could be construed by a frisky admin as a legal threat, so it's probably in everyone's best interest if we move on with our lives.

I think it's also important to note that ANI is not in the business of taking sides in content disputes. So if anyone is hoping to get the other party blocked on a technicality so they can win an argument, they are going to be disappointing. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ltbuni: of course, you can also ask for Dispute Resolution, but in general (contrary to what some editors might suggest) it is not prohibited to notify individual editors, e.g., if they have a known activity of the involved topics (e.g., who have made substantial edits to the article in question or to articles with similar topics), participated in similar discussions in the past, are experts of the fields, who directly asked you to inform them, etc. The important thing is that the editors should not be pre-selected based on their opinions. I assume that you contacted me because of the former points (e.g., that I have some knowledge about these topics, made several edits to related articles and explicitly asked you to notify me in controversial situations) and not because of the latter one, since you had no guarantee that I would agree with you. My comments to Darouet and Timothyjosephwood are that: please, assume some good faith: not everybody who contacts another editor is canvassing, not everybody who edits a Hungary related article is a nationalist, not everybody who edits the bio of a right-wing politician is a radical, etc., even if he/she does not agree with you. The important thing is to discuss the issues and seek a consensus. Let's try to be more open towards each others points of views. Ciao, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I don't feel that I made a mistake,or something.Thanks anyway. The bias and the tone of Darouet still shocks me. He floods now the Talk Page of Magyar Hirlap, with administrative rules, just to decontextualize an excerpt of a journalist, presenting him as a kind of monster. Yes, Mr. Zsolt Bayer is not a nice person. But even he does not deserve this treatment just because international media does not cover every word of his, and citing the whole citation gives "undue weight" and would be "original research" and so on. I don't edit Hungarian articles because I am a "nationalist-crowd :) or "hate-speech promoter" or whatever, but because I have extra knowledge on these topics. Mr. Darouet replaces the gaps in his knowledge with his conviction. And that is no good, he relies on his "international, reliable media" and sweep away the context, how things sounds and works here. Anyone, Timothy, just take a look at the Talk Page, and remove the content the way he proposes! Totally the opposite result!--Ltbuni (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Timothyjosephwood is right that we should let it go. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reading through this thread, I have to say that I do not see WP:CIVIL violations from all sides. I see most people behaving civilly, but I also see Ltbuni significantly overreacting to perceived slights and unwilling to acknowledge Wikipedia policy on canvassing. FWIW, I think Darouet's contributions to the relevant articles and on the talk pages are very constructive, consistently going back to the reliable sources and making an effort to reach compromise. I certainly don't have that level of patience when I wade into these sorts of contentious subjects, which is a reason for my contribution to Wikipedia not being greater than it is. I strongly believe that a warning to Ltbuni is required, and that if they continue to disregard canvassing policy afterwards, sanctions are issued. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR

Dear Darouet,

(1) You have to always inform the one you mention in ANI discussion, why didn't you warn me?

(2) What you wanted to express with this "currently blocked", what goal you serve with this? You want to influence the discussion? How does it come here (anyway, the case is disputed and controversial and is being investigated, but it is not the subject now.)

(3) Without any intention to involve in this discussion I am confident that KœrteFa {ταλκ} is a very important member of Wikipedia regarding also his contributions/work with also Hungary related matters, and in emerging issues with high importance or against anti-Hungarian vandalism attempt we also ask help editors with more experience

(4) The Austria/Hungary related debates were resolved near 3 months, since then with the user you mentioned we are correct partners in editing with mutual respect since finally we understood each other, an extraordinary troublesome modification happened and we always struggle for truthful and professionally historical content! Koertefa's reply became so late that I even noticed more months later, he seemed inactive in Wikipedia and he did not even involve himself to that "incident". I don't even know why he should inform me about any "canvassing", I know what it is, and noone then considered any canvassing regarding this then.

(5) Please do not involve me anymore unnotified in any incident that anyway I am not belonging to. You could have just present the diff you debate without mentioning anyone who does not belong to the current incident's topic thus you are unable misuse my name/situation to influence something I have no business with! Thank You!

PS: I did not even read what this incident/discussion is about, I just read those fragments where you mentioned me, nothing else I have reacted. Even better do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I didn't mention you in my original report, because I hadn't realized that you'd also (unsuccessfully) canvassed Koertefa. When I did mention you later, it was only once, and I tagged you so that you'd know you were mentioned. I assumed you would face no consequences for a single instance of canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

- I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough?

- Please avoid such statements that I would "canvass" Koertefa, that time the user I debated with expressed his concerns on possible canvassing, but what you refer was not regarded by anyone canvassing (not even a suspicion of that) and I did not wrote anything because I would be afraid of any consequence of that. Also in the future, if any i.e. troublesome edit would appear in an article, in case we may notify other users who have an expertise on the subject.

- Please be careful regarding relocating other user's comments. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

You wrote to Koertefa and to Fakirbakir asking to "PLEASE HELP" you at Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), and 10 minutes later your edit to the article led to 11 reverts in 2 days (an edit war), where Fakirbakir helped you, until Ritchie333 protected the page. That is classic WP:CANVASSING in the service of an edit war. If you don't think that's canvassing, can you describe what canvassing is? -Darouet (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(1) - Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar, everything was in the service of against a blatant disruption attempt. BTW If you have read what you refer of: Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

(2) - I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

(3) - do not even answer to me here if you have any such intention, do it on my personal page! + I am sorry that you did not reply in my personal page, maybe I was not clear enough? -> Which of these two are not understood, as I see you are a first level English speaker, should I try French or you prefer other langauges? If you wish to communicate with me, feel free to wite on my personal page, there we may discuss and answer of all your questions, I am intending to finish here! Mercy!(KIENGIR (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Actually it appears you canvassed 3 editors in that instance [6][7][8], and while Hebel complained, I am unable to find any investigation or judgement of any kind. Can you link that?

I understand your request for me to comment on your talk page only, but will continue to reply here: I think it's important to keep a record of the diffs in one place. But I will leave a note on your talk page about policy so that in the future, you can avoid canvassing, or solicitation that could lead others to suspect canvassing. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that you did not understood - the 4th time - that I won't continue discussion with you here. I just repeat that you have failed to grasp unfortunately:

- Every complain that time was investigated, an noone were judged or found guilty of canvassing, or similar

- I warn you again, stop involving solved happy end cases - I read the title, nothing more - that not any means belonging here

Nota bene:

- "in the future, you can avoid canvassing" -> please stop defamation Appropriate notification - Editors known for expertise in the field/Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

- It appears to be you are "canvassing" cases, users that have no connection to the subject here and with such you want influence your report on others that has not any connection with any good faith. Moreove, you can totally ignore anything regarding that Austria/Hungary related incident, since it is a closed case, in the approx. due three months everything was checked investigated, punished, sanctioned, consensused what was needed or possible and all participants since then with a good faith and mutual collaboration are developing articles, the best and most beautiful outcome after any incident possible.

- On my personal page we can continue discussion, there you may have more answers, but prepare if you still do not finish and continue here (or just you mention me again), I will regard it as a harassment and willfull personal persecution. I have no business or involvement with the current incident, moreover as you should know every incident has to be investigated on it's own, so you better concentrate on the current subject, not closed cases, not even the real life there is two trial on one case that has been already trialed, with such acts you are just enweakening your position and arguments here on the current case - I still did not read and I won't do that -, so finally leave me in peace out of this!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

There's really no point in these walls of text. I think the diffs speak for themselves: there's a group of editors who often notify one another when they get into content disputes, and then come to one another's aid. What we really need here is for an admin to evaluate the messages listed above, to evaluate whether or not they constitute canvassing, and to issue any appropriate warnings or sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No, there are more points that the other party does not get, he tries to involve and influence the subject with cases, editors that have not any connection to the current subject. Yes, admin's should evaluate, as in the "admin input" section it has been already requested, but not anything that has already been outdated and closed. Bye.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

I have the same experience. See e.g. diff ( google translated) or here. Ditinili (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, the usual provocation, did someone invited you in this discussion? It is a healthy and constructive behavior to always check other user's contribution and persisting trolling? Why are you gluing on me, could not you let me in peace? Check WP:NOTHERE. Disruption attempts will be always discussed, much more if we are encountering provocation on a daily basis. Try to ignore me as much as it is possible and prove with this your claimed non-combattant&non-provocative attitude. Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

On 21 October 2016 (see diff above) I noticed that you use to contact a limited group of editors (some of them were mentioned in this discussion) with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way (see also this diff /translation/ or this diff /translation/). It seems that there are more editors who came to the similar conclusion. Ditinili (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Those editors have expertise in the field or belonging to relevant wikiprojects. There is no intention to influence something, I drawed the attention of relevant problem and I shared my concerns. I uphold what I have said about this earlier no need to repeat. Please do not commit the same mistake that you drag in something that not belongs here. I am not surprised you did not reacted to all of my questions, please prove your good faith aims, since encountering here has nothing to do with it. Write in my personal page if you want something, even answer there.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

It seems that it is not about "expertise", but a trial to organize a small working group at national level to defend "our cause" (in other words WP:CANVASSING). I am sure that you can find more experts on WP:WikiProjects, instead of contacting (repeatedly) a limited group of editors in your language. Ditinili (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree, it is again a defamation attempt I met countless times from you. "Our cause" is the valid, truthful, proper, accurate, etc. content. I think I have enough experience to decide who is an expert and the fact that you did not even take account my ask and note proves your bad faith approach and provocative manner. Simply choose another person to abuse, I will believe you if i.e. for the next three months you are not trolling or encountering me and your goal is really to build a good encyclopedia, instead of persisting a long-term personal persecution of another editor. If you have any reaction, post in my personal page, if you continue here, you just prove my point.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

Initially, I did not contribute to this discussion. However, somebody opened this issue and my comments + diffs are above. Ditinili (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you proved my point unfortunately. You contributed although this incident has not any connection me, you did it just and only to persecute me, since again you analyze mainly other user's contributions instead of a much more valuable activity in Wikipedia and simply you were not able to resist to harass me again, as since ongoing already 4 months ago.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

I would appreciate input from admins who have actually looked at those canvassing diffs (last few months, and going back to 2013), and at Ltbuni's, KIENGIR's and Koertefa's continued insistence that canvassing was not, and is not a problem. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, so you did not understood finally that ignore me and don't draw in me to something I have no business with. So I uphold that you are willfully harassing me and you want to deteriorate the attention of the current subject of the incident with already closed cases. Shame on you!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

Solution?

Is there a WikiProject Hungary (or whatever would encompass these various topics that people are notifying each other about) that everyone could put on their watchlists? Then anyone who started an article talk-page discussion that was stymied or that needed outside input could post a (hopefully brief) notice on the talk-page of that project. That way, everyone would be on neutral footing, there would be no cherry-picking of users or selective canvassing, and WP:CONSENSUS would remain more neutral. This would solve the problem of like-minded editors acting in self-selected teams. PLEASE NOTE: Notices posted on WikiProject talk pages must be completely neutral, or else they will be regarded as canvassing as well. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, Wikiproject Hungary exists, i.e. due to weight sometimes finally we ended up there. However, in the future i'll mainly use in case a simple ping, w/o further details that anyway could be read in the relevant talk pages. However, whom I contacted are mainly members of that project, thus they would have been informed anyway. Personally, your note I'll take serious. I have to emphasize I just only reacted that may have any affiliation with me here, I was "involved" this incident having no business with it - I did not even read it in whole. Furthermore, in my particular case I just found finally and read WP:Harassment and I am the victim of this since 4 months. Softlavender, I've promised you last time if I face any personal attack, I'll immediately act but my good heart was again more tolerant, however as I experenced WP:NPA sanctions are also applied when it did not even fulfill it's details, I was a victim of that and I am still investigating it. But WP:HA is totally that wiki rule I've been searching for, and I will immediately act if I face such again. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, you still haven't acknowledged that what you did was canvassing. And when other editors confront you about your canvassing, you plead that it constitutes harassment. Being asked to follow Wikipedia's editing rules is not harassment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411, yes, read back if it is still not clear why. Editor's does not confronted me because of any "canvassing", one just misused my name and situation to influence the discussion (although I have no business with this incident) here with closed cases where nothing of his claim found to be supported (and I told him if he does not stop harassing, defamating and involving me inproperly how I will regard this activity), the other user is fulfilling WP:Harassment since 4 months, that's why he trolled here unmentioned and uninvited. "Being asked to follow Wikipedia's editing rules" was not the main motivation of any of these, however it is funny to hear from those who did not follow these rules. Nevertheless, as I said, I'll give less chance to even be possible any accusation of "canvassing". Now I tell you, that if you have anything to say, head to my personal page, we should let already to have the main subject of this incident discussed regarding the involved ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: WP:HARASSMENT is a real thing. Stop accusing me of harassing you (6 times now). As WP:HA#NOT explains, harassment is not "tracking a user's contributions for policy violations; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight... Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." -Darouet (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR could you point to this supposed discussion that has taken place involving your canvassing actions? You claim that one has been held, yet nobody seems to know about it. The "accused" is also responsible for bringing evidence to the contrary. Otherwise, stop claiming WP:HARASS. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Mrrndude this isn't the time to pile on, though I appreciate your help. -Darouet (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Comment edited Darouet (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: thanks for your note. In this case, even posting at a larger forum like WikiProject Hungary could lead to accusations of canvassing, depending on the context. Consider that most problematic ARBEURO issues involve a dispute with nationalistic overtones between two or more nationalities/ethnicities. In that case, posting at one forum but not another will almost certainly bring editors supporting one side, but not the other: exactly the "problem of like-minded editors acting in self-selected teams." Posting on both would be a minimum requirement, but even then, in the context of a conflict this could potentially fuel, rather than resolve the dispute.

I would say that requesting feedback from a neutral body like WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:NPOVN is the best way to go, escalating to WP:DRN only if these other options demonstrate it is necessary. Curious to know what you think, and anyone else who's seen many of these nationalistic disputes on Wikipedia (not just for Hungary or EE - they can occur in many places). -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that DR is needed for every discussion, and there is no reason that a neutral posting on WikiProject Hungary could be construed as non-neutral or canvassing on articles that are Hungarian, as all of the articles mentioned so far on this thread are. That's what the WikiProjects exist for -- as a neutral place to gain input and assistance without the need to contact individual users directly. Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Oh! I agree completely with respect to DR - that's why I wrote it should only be used as a last resort, if WP:3O, WP:RFC or WP:NPOVN failed. Do you have a concern about going to these general, non-nation-specific forums? However, please check my comment again re: Wikiprojects, as I'm not sure my concern came through? For instance, in this case the articles coming up relate to Hungary and the Roma, or Hungary and Austria, etc. If I chose to solicit opinions only from Wikiproject Romani, or Wikiproject Hungary, or WikiProject Slovenia, I would be certain to elicit vastly different responses. For example, here is an instance where someone was blocked, in part, for posting notice of discussion on some boards/projects, but not others, and where that choice could have conceivably prejudiced the outcome. Those distinctions would be far more subtle than posting at Wikiprojects for different nations. -Darouet (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

All of those links you posted are WP:DR, and are not necessary for every discussion. To repeat also what I said before, there is no reason that a neutral posting on WikiProject Hungary could be construed as non-neutral or canvassing on articles that are Hungarian, as all of the articles mentioned so far on this thread are. That's what the WikiProjects exist for -- as a neutral place to gain input and assistance without the need to contact individual users directly. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I slightly disagree. There are several articles (mentioned also in this thread) that are related to a common history of various nations and present-day countries. In this case, posting on WikiProject Country X and WikiProject Country Y is a more transparent and neutral way. Ditinili (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I see, I thought by DR you meant DRN. Sorry to belabor the point, but just to be clear, if there's a dispute between predominantly Polish and Ukrainian editors over Polish killing of Ukrainians in Ukraine, for instance, you wouldn't see Polish editors posting notice at Wikiproject Poland, but not Wikiproject Ukraine, as a problem, or vice versa? Just from a practical perspective of having seen these disputes in various iterations throughout the encyclopedia, I wish that would work, but I don't think it would. Actually I fear it could just inflame the situation by bringing more like-minded editors to the dispute. -Darouet (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion you are making non-relevant assumptions and analogies and I disagree with you about the current group of articles being discussed. Indeed any article under the banner of a specific WikiProject may consult that WikiProject for opinions and input -- that is what WikiProjects exist for. Therefore any article under the banner of WikiProject Hungary may consult WikiProject Hungary for input and opinions. I've said my peace and people can implement my advice or not, as they see fit. I won't prolong this discussion further. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, stop deteriorating, WP:Ha is mainly was not adressed to you, and again, ignore me and leave me in peace, I've explained more times my point, I am sorry I had to repeat because of an other user who still did not understood the case.

Mr rnddude, I have already pointed everything - see above - and I have no further intention to join/continue a discussion/incident I have no business with and were dragged improperly. WP:HA is valid regarding one of the users. Hopefully in the further participants will concentrate on the subject and the involved ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

And which user is WP:HARASS valid for? - Ditinili I'm guessing, as I recall you two have a history of conflict on Wikipedia. also I've been tracking this discussion for the entire week it has been up, I've read the comments above and you have only stated that it has been investigated - no evidence to support this though. Only, and only, because this has nothing to do with you have I not pressed you about some of your comments previously. Bringing up WP:HARASS for no obvious reason, however, crosses several borders of AGF and NPA. Any reasonable editor would expect a) evidence, and b) an explanation, for such a serious accusation. You may recuse yourself from further discussion if you wish, but, you can't expect to drop the harassment card and then be left alone. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion has run its course. I strongly disagree with Softlavender about the advisability of consulting only one national wikiproject in a dispute over two nationalities (for what I think are pretty obvious reasons), but nobody is going to get sanctioned by anyone. If anything, Softlavender is right about this: going to neutral boards is the best way to get outside feedback in a dispute. -Darouet (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I have to inform you you were always correct and nice to me, I did not forget it! I have no intention to involve or mention anyone here since, I don't want to have things that are not belonging here, I think it is obvious in which case who I referred. I even won't make extra effort to search for near one year old things regarding closed and happy end cases, you have to expect in a case that has been resolved near 3 months with admin attendance and intervention (protection,3RR sanction, etc.) everything has been checked. Sometimes admins does not even start a discussion or they just act or don't act. Again, just for you, as I recall the user I had a debate on Austria/Hungary matters had a suspicion of canvassing and he notified an administrator. In the end not any decision or action/sanction had been taken, on the other hand, the complainant also did not debated any outcome of this, we misunderstood eahc other in many cases but finally we understood each other. About AGF and NPA, I am the victim of these, I never made any report although if I would be so sensitive like others I could have raised many incidents, frankly not my style, I am generally a very peaceful creature who dose not seek trouble where it is not necessary. In the end because of my ignorance and good faith, I am the one who is accused about these. The debate is still ongoing that if I describe a negative behavior of a user - and it is true i.e. - could be taken as a personal attack? Since not I am responsible for the negativity, etc., but it is again a longer subject. a, The accuser has to prove it's claim generally, but as you say the accused has to also defend himself, well I won't repeat more what I have already told, that is my defence (also described here above)! b, My reactions are full with explanations, and yes, I agree that "This whole discussion has run its course". Regarding WP:HA of the other user I could easily present approx. 50/100 diffs, but it does not belong here also. I am for peace and happy&accurate editing, me and other users get used to many times we became the target of alleged or hidden anti-Hungarian feelings, after a while it becomes clear unfortunately. I am even afraid to imagine what's the situation in Israel/Palestine or Ukranian/Russian, or Turkic/Iranian issues. So you may understand that after a long while of provocation I have the right to be also sensitive! Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

Alright, KIENGIR I'll take all of the above at face value. As both you and the OP Darouet have no will to carry this discussion further I too will recuse myself from here on out. I assume that within a few days time this thread will be archived and the matter put to bed (unless somebody else wants to archive this first). I figured this was with reference to the threads I had been tangentially involved in a while ago. You'd be correct that this thread is not the place to start up a 100 diff discussion, that would be for another thread entirely. I wasn't asking for a hundred diffs either, you could have just pointed to a talk page and said "look through the archives" or some such. This is not necessary though. Right, carry on Mr rnddude (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Linguist111 at WP:UAA

Linguist111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For previous discussion see WT:UAA, sections entitled "clerking" and "Users who have only edited drafts or whatever". In brief, UAA does not have clerks and every time it has come up consensus has been that they are not needed or desirable. However, this user has appointed themselves to the role nonetheless. I have endeavored to explain to them what things non-admins can do that are helpful at UAA, as opposed to getting int he way of admins trying to do the job the community has appointed them to do. His response is that he will continue to act as a clerk, period.

I'd like to be clear that I don't think this user is acting in bad faith, and their reports to UAA have been fine on the whole, but the self-appointed clerking is not being done well and is not particularly helpful The page is called "Usernames for administrator attention", not "free for all anyone just show up and do whatever". So what I am asking of the community is to look into this and either ask them to stop taking these clerking actions, or tell me I'm way off base and everything's fine. For the record, as is this is a large part of our disagreement, every discussion that I am aware of going back several years has reflected a consensus that "soft" blocking of users with blatantly promotional names is an appropriate and desirable response. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'll preface this by saying that I also think Linguist has acted in good-faith and don't think any sanction would be appropriate. I do think we should consider whether we want non-admins to "clerk" UAA. Similar to WP:PERM and WP:AIV, I think this is one of the incredibly few admin-only areas on the site. UAA is where editors go to request a block for a username violation. Non-admins can't block, so they can't process those requests, end of. If a non-admin would like to process WP:UAA block requests, RfA is that way. More importantly, I've started seeing more and more non-admins pop up to "clerk" these requests, and some of them have had competence issues. There's no reason to allow that to continue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You assume good faith on my part, but I can't say I can do the same for you. You've been very personal towards me during this dispute, with all of these frivolous edit summaries [9] [10] [11] [12], your use of the word "clerking" in speech marks etc.. Not conduct I expect from an administrator. As I said at the discussion at WT:UAA, the users whose username appear promotional, but their edits aren't connected to their username, I engage in discussion with. That's how I've seen it done most of the time. It even says at WP:UAA/I: Promotional violations require indisputable evidence. Do not report a username merely because it "looks" promotional. For there to be a violation, there must be edits or log entries that clearly link them to a particular company, organization, group, product, or website. Also, I feel that blocks, even soft blocks, can deter users; in my opinion it's better to discuss with them because it gives them a chance to get their account renamed quickly. I've seen many users change their usernames after discussion. Anyways, I want to enjoy being on Wikipedia, and the last thing I need is someone behaving this way towards me. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 06:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have an interest in WP:UAA, as I routinely patrol new usernames looking for promotional usernames. @Linguist111: Many times I see you tag a posting at UAA as "being discussed with user" (Examples: [13][14][15]). Yet, no discussion is taking place at all. A notice has been placed on the editor's talk page, but they haven't responded. A notice on a talk page does not equal discussion. IF the user respond, THEN there is discussion (perhaps). Using the model you've been using for this, every time I post a promotional username to WP:UAA you would deny it, indicating it was being discussed with the user. I always post a {{uw-coi-username}} to the editor's talk page, wait for promotional edits, and then post to WP:UAA for failure to adhere to policy. Since I posted a warning, this would equal "discussion" in your model. Please, don't tag UAA notices as discussing unless actual discussion is taking place. Please. That said, I do see you doing good work such as this. I see no problem with continuing this work, and kudos to you for doing it. @Beeblebrox: while certainly other eyes were needed at this discussion, the discussion wasn't stale. Bringing it here to AN/I was premature, in my opinion. There's no need for any administrator action here. Anyone can appoint themselves to the role of "clerk" there, and that will not change. If someone is doing something incorrectly; fine, let's correct it. Trying to get Linguist to stop is a non-starter when there's good work in play. There's not just two options; that of either yes or no. Specifically address what needs to improve. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Thanks, and thanks for your input. I understand your point about the "discussion" thing, but I previously thought that the {{UAA|d}} template was intended for use after a username warning was given to the user, regardless of whether they had responded yet or not. If I do see a username at UAA that is not a blatant violation, but requires discussion with the user, what should I do if I have warned the user but they have yet to respond? Should I leave a note such as "I've warned the user" (or use a template like {{AIV|w}}; maybe not as the template says that is for AIV), or just leave the report alone until the user responds? Thanks! Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think we need to see what pattern of edits they make, if it's not a blatant violation. It's possible a warning isn't even warranted if it's not blatantly promotional, though of course in this case they've already been reported, whether there's been a warning or not. I'd continue to observe, and if the edits appear promotional, take the appropriate action to remove the promotional edits and warn the editor. If they continue to promote, then they should be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think both parties have to take some blame for this. Linguist; I'm going to do whatever I like on Wikipedia, as long as it adheres to policy - that isn't a good attitude to go into things with. There are many things that are within Wiki policy that can also be disruptive. For example, anybody can leave comments at AN/I, there is no hard and fast rule for "experienced" users. That doesn't mean that anybody should. It happens that a simple issue blows up into a gargantuan one. Hell I've seen a mildly annoyed administrator get dragged to ARBCOM by other overreacting users. All over an AfD tag to an article. Further; I will continue to decline requests as I see fit - is an even worse response. When somebody tries to tell you that you're doing something wrong or unhelpful, refusing to listen and saying that you'll do things your way is just going to piss them off. Simultaneously, Beeblebrox, edit summaries such as "groan" and "crappy" will get you nowhere with any self-respecting user. It's not an attack or anything, just that, most editors don't respond well to their good faith efforts being labelled as crap. Especially when that's an overblown description of what's actually happening. The biggest beef you seem to have is the use of the discussion template, the other things are apparently generally fine if I read the talk page and this correctly. The best action to take is to give a calm, measured, and well explained response - which some of yours were and some of yours weren't. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Linguist, regardless of the nature of your intent, if the admins active at UAA explain to you that your actions are getting in the way of them performing their work then you need to stop. It doesn't matter if you are trying to be helpful if you are ultimately impeding the work of admins at an administrators noticeboard. As Rob notes above "if a non-admin would like to process WP:UAA block requests, RfA is that way". Surely there are other areas of Wikipedia that could benefit from your desire to help? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude and Ponyo: Thanks for your responses. I understand what you are saying. My refusal to listen to Beeblebrox pretty much stemmed from the way they behaved towards me. First off, after I disagreed with two of their declines at UAA (one was a misunderstanding on my part, but the other was a "Wait until the user edits" decline on a username that contained an attack on a named person), the user quickly responded with a sarcastic reply [16] and then went onto the talk page and said they were "tired of being countermanded by me". [17] This was where I began disregarding their comments, with the "groan" edit summary, and what seemed like a demand that I stop. When I saw these edit summaries [18] [19] [20] I just wasn't interested anymore. As far as I'm going to do whatever I like on Wikipedia, as long as it adheres to policy and I will continue to decline requests as I see fit is concerned, not a great way for me to respond, but Beeblebrox said that I was placing the "Being discussed" note on blatant violations, while I didn't see them as immediately blatant as there were no edits that matched the usernames, so we weren't seeing eye to eye. And at this point I just wanted the user to leave me alone. As far as other areas of Wikipedia where I could help out, I have an idea in mind, but UAA is the area I enjoy the most. I will, however, from now on, not decline reports as often as I have been but rather stick to reporting usernames and cleaning the board (removing declined requests and moving pending ones to holding pen, as Beeblebrox suggested), while only declining occasionally when a username is definitely not a blatant vio. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 19:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm certain your enthusiasm is, and will continue to be, welcome in many areas of Wikipedia. Regarding your intent to decline reports at UAA, I would suggest that you don't. As with unblock requests, in this case "declining" is an action related to a specific admin action (i.e. you can't "decline" to block when you don't have the ability to block in the first place).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I concede the point about my edit summaries. Until very recently, I hadn't worked UAA in a few years,and I came back to find that the holding pen was a total shambles. Stale reports , some over a month old, were not being removed, declined reports were put in holding, which is just wrong, and there were piles of reports that no admin had replied to at all and had just been shoved in there to die. I took me several hours to get it cleaned up. I've been trying since then to keep it decent condition, and to show by example how it is supposed to be handled, but these things keep happening anyway, and I suppose it made me a bit grumpy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, this is going to be an embarrassing question. We have a holding pen for UAA? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Right here: Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Holding pen RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It's purpose, traditionally, has been to hold reports for a week if the user has a problematic username but hasn't actually edited, where a name may not be a blatant violation but may be indicitative of an intent to disrupt, or if reviewing admins opted to discuss rather than block. In the majority of cases they sit for a week and are then removed. It's a curious fact that every single day many accounts are created that never make a single edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it still okay for me to decline bot-reported false positives? For example ones that are clearly just people's names? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I figure now may be a good time for me to admit I too have been clerking at UAA. I haven't clerked for a while but as of today, I shall be ceasing all work at UAA and disabling responseHelper. I understand that my actions were completely inappropriate; please accept my apologies. Thanks, Patient Zero^talk 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to reiterate there are a number of things non-admins can do at UAA that are helpful, such as removing declined reports that have sat for a while, moving anything marked "wait" to the holding pen, and reviewing older reports in the holding pen (if they have no edits in a week or so they can just be removed). Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Would I be better off doing that Beeblebrox? Patient Zero^talk 10:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: I don't see any harm in it. That sort of clerking doesn't add anything to the noticeboard, it's merely moving reports to where they should be when they can't be dealt with immediately, so the noticeboard doesn't get clogged.

@Beeblebrox: I apologise for my first reply to this thread, as I was still bitter at that time. I've taken time to review this situation, and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that your actual requests were made in good faith and were reasonable, and that it was wrong of me to rubbish them. While I don't agree with everything you have said, I do understand how non-admin clerking can be problematic. From now on, I will stick to the holding pen clerking. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 14:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we're all on the same page, and I can see that I could've handled this a little better myself. Thanks to both of you, and everyone who took the time to comment here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: To offer some perspective on this issue, Linguist111 reminds me of myself when reflecting my somewhat-recent past. When I began clerking at AIV as a non-admin, I honestly felt that what I was doing was helpful and that I had the experience from years of vandal fighting to save admins time by endorsing clear-cut reports that need blocking, and declining obvious reports that absolutely don't. It exposed me to a new area of vandalism; I wasn't just kicking off reports to AIV anymore... I was now going through diffs, looking at talk page warnings, checking timestamps and making sure warnings were left appropriately, and judging whether or not others' reports were good. I was learning a lot, and I thought what I was doing was unique and helpful and that they'd be seen as a smart way of helping that no-one else thought of doing before. I was eventually told that the clerking was disruptive on the AIV talk page, and it really sucked to hear that. It wasn't just because I felt bad for inadvertently causing admins to spend more time because of my clerking, but also because I felt that what I was doing was the right thing. Of course, now that I'm on the other side of the "admin fence", I understand exactly why my clerking was disruptive... but I also completely understand how Linguist111 could feel the same way with his clerking at WP:UAA. If he thought the same way that I did, he was interested in expanding his experience and wanted to branch out into an admin area that he enjoys participating in, like I did at AIV and how I enjoy vandal fighting. I'm not saying that what Linguist111 was doing wasn't disruptive... I'm saying that I completely understand Linguist111's thoughts behind his clerking. He felt that they were entirely in good faith and that he was being a net positive in UAA. I made the same mistakes too. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment on comments: It may be a little brash for me to say anything here, but I have found Linguist to be helpful, but I do agree with everyone else above. The clerking should be left to admins and users involved in the reports. The non-admin clerking is kind of annoying. A possibility would to be a new system set up in which we could turn this into a SPI-like system, but now that I think of it, that's a bad idea...Anyways, I agree with everything above. Clerking should be left to admins. TJH2018talk 05:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

LogicalGenius3 citing a Holocaust denial blog and trying to change WP:RS to support it

Logicalgenius3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LogicalGenius3 has tried to cite something on a Holocaust denial blog to support claims of his. When this failed, he tried to alter WP:Identifying reliable sources supposedly on (nonsensical) grammar grounds, but really (by his own admission) to let him add primary source based original research (...which would somehow make it OK to cite primary sources on that Holocaust denial blog). He has responded to multiple seasoned editors' explanations for why we don't do this with edit warring, filibusters that somehow remind me of Dianetics lessons, and accusations of bad faith and (ironically) ownership.

We don't need someone who would make these kinds of blunders editing articles relating to the Holocaust, nor does he need to be making changes to guidelines and policies. At a minimum, he needs a topic ban from those two areas. I've been given the impression that his belief in the superiority of his own understanding of English and logic has caused trouble in other articles, but have not investigated. If his behavior in the topics I have mentioned is reflective on his conduct as a whole, then WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR seem to terminally apply.

As it is, I've had the block menu open in another tab ever since I found out that one of his motivations was citing a Holocaust denial blog (amazed we don't have discretionary sanctions on that topic), but since he is making edits in other areas I figured I should ask for the community's assessment. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

What? But Ian ... there isn't a rise in racism, fascism and antisemitism on English Wikipedia. You must just be imagining this.

Seriously, how often does he make edits that aren't related Jews or Nazis? I'm not seeing a lot. There are definitely some, but are they worth it? His favourite page is Frédéric Chopin, put all he did was edit-war to keep the word "French" in the lead. Next is Albert Einstein, a Jew who fled the Nazis. Next is Technical University of Berlin, alma mater of various Nazis, and his edits were specifically to the notable alumni list's descriptions of them. He made several minor tweaks to Prussian Academy of Arts -- the topic seems innocuous, but he edit-warred and cited de.wiki, so it's not an indication that he's a valuable contributor to the project either. Next Auschwitz concentration camp. Next Battle of Stalingrad. Next Focke-Wulf Fw 190, which is related to the Third Reich but relatively innocuous, but his edits also were not substantial. Next Bauakademie -- no problem, but nothing to write home about anyway. Next 1996 Mount Everest disaster -- no problem, but again nothing substantial. Next Theresienstadt concentration camp. Next Rudolf Höss. Next Otto Wächter. I mean, there is some evidence that if we applied a broad TBAN he might become a good WP:GNOME and correct some formatting problems or spelling errors, but is it even worth it? I'm not seeing why his "edits in other areas" would make you think twice about just blocking him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you find specific edits that would raise red flags if not in the light of the original complaint? And I've never said denied that there hasn't been a rise in fascists on Wikipedia -- in the case you link to, I just did not see any explicit evidence that couldn't be attributed to coincidence (replace "Jewish" and "German" with any other labels and it's suddenly a very different picture, as TU-nor explained). While I'm all for blocking neo-Nazis, white supremacists, fascists, and their ilk and firmly believe AGF is not a suicide pact, we still need to have better standards than HUAC. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've never said denied that there hasn't been a rise in fascists on Wikipedia Far too many negatives, and it's 6 a.m. here so I literally can't wrap my head around it. Basically I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was saying that when I last pointed out that there seems to be an unusually large number of ANI threads about Holocaust deniers, Nazi dog-whistles, and people denying that white supremacists were white supremacists, and so, people basically replied with "no", and then since then the rate has jumped up again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think the guy's perfectly competent, Ian, and well on his way to extended-confirmed, which I think is his goal with these insubstantial edits. But he is NOTHERE, and I'd have no objection if you used the block button. Katie^talk 12:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Good decision, block supported. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• I thank Ian for bringing this obvious disruption to an end and for letting me know about this report. I was the one who initially brought the connection between the denialist holohoax website and his tendentious attempt to add TRUTH into the RS guideline. His last reply taunts me for making that connection. This guy is a very ambitious, committed, and cocky denialist to the point of trolling. Definitely a clear WP:NOTHERE case. Dr. K. 14:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Ian.thomson did a good job noticing this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone who is not aware that the Institute for Historical Review is a holocaust denial group has no business editing articles on the holocaust. Good block. RolandR (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I just looked through this user's arguments out of a sense of morbid curiosity and had no difficulty identifying numerous, extremely obvious logical flaws in them, despite the editor's name and penchant for referring to formal logic. Apologies if I seem to be 'piling on', but I felt the need to point this out, as this fact helps to undermine any block appeal that relies upon our assumption of good faith on their part. I don't believe anyone who is that ignorant of logic, yet claims to be that interested in logic can be honestly said to be arguing in good faith, albeit with poor goals and choice of words. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I was tempted to add "logic in username" to WP:Bingo, or at least modify "truth in username" to "truth or logic in username." That was part of the reason I asked here before blocking: I couldn't tell if LogicalGenius3's Dianetics-esque illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect was just something that required a topic ban to get a gnome out of, or proof that my twitchy trigger finger was right. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I think "truth or logic in username" would be a wonderful addition. I haven't had much luck editing alongside anyone with either word in their username. Also I think a block was the right call. Whether this is an extreme WP:CIR case, or a case of some dedicated trolling, (and I suspect we will never know which), there is simply no place for them here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: We're done, they're blocked, let's close this out. Anyone who knows the coding for the purple box, care to do it, please? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Highly disruptive IPs - WP:NOTHERE

Quickly pinging Emir of Wikipedia and Smartyllama as they are being affected by this as well. There's a problem IP that has been constantly pinging us all over the place with the sole intention to disrupt. There is actually a particularly long story here, but, I'd rather not give you a 10k byte+ message to try to deal with it. Instead I'll just give a quick summary explanation and some links. For me this started around a week ago after I intervened in a discussion between said IP and Emir that was taking place at Emir's talk page. It took about a full week to get that discussion to shut off; the extremely long and PA ridden discussion is here. If you skim through it you'll notice that the IP has changed numerous times, some key IPs involved here are;

• 2607:fb90:1e07:82d1:0:e:1943:9201 (Most recent)
• 2607:FB90:1E03:77F9:0:47:78FC:3501
• 2607:fb90:1e0a:4ee6:0:30:f809:8501
• 2607:fb90:1e08:b906:0:47:7974:4001

Right now Emir is punching through each of the IP's comments and reverting them. This IP has made no effort to cease their disruption for more than a week. I'm not sure how range blocks work, but, it seems to me that in this case there would be a whole heap of collateral damage. All-in-all, there are a few WP:NOTHERE blocks that I think should be enacted. It would at least kill this disruption for the moment being. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Disruption logs; Emir's talk page, Aga Khan, Template talk:Twelvers, Zaidiyyah, Alawites and my own talk page. I think I counted around 30 disruptive repetitive pinging edits by the IP. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • As an additional heads up - I have intentionally neglected to inform the IP of this discussion as I believe that they will attempt to bring the disruption here. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I support this decision to neglect the information of the IP. The IP has been disruptive for around I month I think now, and in this time they have shown no respect or understanding of the protocols of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I found some other IP's. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• 2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01
• 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01
• Peter Andrew Nolan (Possible account name)

• (Edit Conflict) See also This discussion, where he basically admits he deliberately disrupted the Doc Love article, adding uncited material in violation of WP:BLP (all of which was quickly reverted by myself, Emir, or others) and pretended to be a supporter of Doc Love in an effort to get the page deleted. The page ultimately was deleted not because of the poor quality but because Doc Love was deemed to fail WP:GNG. Which the IP also doesn't seem to understand, given he's apparently taken credit for the article being deleted. And it's a core part of the Wikipedia process that AFD is not cleanup so if Doc Love were notable, his tactics wouldn't have worked and would continue to disrupt Wikipedia once the article was kept. Smartyllama (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• The IP is now in a massive edit war with Emir on his (Emir's) talk page. Emir is not in violation of 3RR because one of the exceptions is reverting edits in your own userspace, but the IP certainly is. And he was banned for 3RR violations on Doc Love earlier. Smartyllama (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Another notable example of edit warring is on the page of his alleged grandfather Aleksandr Kamensky. Fortunately this page has now been protected. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Non privacy related edit deletion request

(A related request about the same IP bunny).

• I support action against this range. I keep seeing the most hellacious, overt trolling on User Talk:Emir of Wikipedia ... richi (hello) 14:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not here for good purposes. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - This is why we can't have nice things, Anyway clearly NOTHERE. –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It's sort of died down, but, I'm still getting regular pings from the IP as they re-instate deleted comments on my userpage. I appreciate that Emir is reverting these additions as they tend to happen while I am asleep.[21] Mr rnddude (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblocked 2607:fb90:1e00::/44 for one month. Katie^talk 12:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks for the help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"Researcher" asking for email contact from supposed LGBT editors

Editor Weiwensg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is leaving messages on multiple editors' Talk pages similar to the following:

Request for 5 minute survey

Hi! I'm a researcher from the University of Minnesota conducting a study on LGBT user contributions to Wikipedia. Would you be willing to answer a short five minute survey? If so, I would appreciate if you could drop me an email at leung085@umn.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable use of editors' talk pages? It's unclear how the editor is identifying potential respondents to participate in the survey. General Ization ^Talk 22:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I got their message on my talk page. Not sure if it's legit. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the researcher appears to be real. http://myaccount.umn.edu/lookup?SET_INSTITUTION=UMNTC&UID=leung085 --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. To be clear, I'm not alleging wrongdoing by the editor, just inquiring as to whether this is acceptable Talk page use and/or a violation of any other policy. General Ization ^Talk 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not canvassing, perhaps promotion? I have no clue. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Outing could be a possible concern, unless only clearly "self-declared" LGBT editors are being contacted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That was my primary concern also, though I figured I'd let someone else point out any other relevant policies. General Ization ^Talk 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have two userboxes that identifies my sexual orientation and plenty regarding my views on LGBT and in all I am categorized because of that. That may the way he's reaching to users. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'll point out that the editor has posted a number of these requests on editors' User pages rather than their Talk pages, but this is likely just an error and the editor appears to have fixed several of these themselves. General Ization ^Talk 23:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

All such research in the US must be cleared by an Institutional review board. Count Iblis (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Um, OK. I was primarily asking about Wikipedia policies rather than what sort of review the study might have undergone at UMn. Since we have only the information in the message reproduced above, we don't know what kind of institutional review it might have undergone (if any). General Ization ^Talk 23:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we could ask if in fact the proposed research has gone through an IRB review, if so then that would cover all of the concerns we might have about respecting the privacy of the participants. Count Iblis (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• I thought this had been discussed in detail somewhere before, but there are apparently no guidelines or policies about this, at least none I could find. The applicable information page (which was very difficult to find): Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia#Surveys and interviews. There is a proposed policy/guideline at Wikipedia:Research recruitment, but it appears to have fizzled out in May 2015.

I don't see how outing is an issue; the researcher appears to be contacting editors who have userboxes that place them in Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians. I'd say caveat emptor, if people feel comfortable replying, they can, and if the don't, they shouldn't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that outing is not an issue. However, it is a bit spammy and possibly a misuse of Wikipedia:User pages. This could well be important research, but I don't like setting a precedent for using talk pages as a kind of mailing list.--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a precedent, though. I've seen messages like this posted several times before (sometimes by researchers, sometimes by journalists). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Could be genuine. Could also provide a list of email addresses for direct harassment and possibly determination of RL names, employment & affiliations if the address provides clues or is published elsewhere. How hard is it to obtain a .edu email address? 79.73.240.233 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the researcher involved and I'd like to clarify that I am selecting a subset of people (not all) that publically identify as LGBT+ Wikipedians (see the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:LGBT%2B_Wikipedians). I have also obtained the necessary IRB approvals from my institution. I will also provide a lengthier explanation should I drop further messages on other people's talk pages. Please feel free to respond if you have any remaining concerns. Weiwensg (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Would it be possible for you to show that you have permission from the university's IRB? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: Not without further outing himself and likely providing substantial details about professional contacts (supervising professor, etc.) that we can't expect him to offer publicly, per our policies. I'm familiar with the department he's operating within, and they would not turn a blind eye to a student conducting research involving human subjects without IRB approval. It's a top department. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be provided here at ANI. But it should at least be emailed privately to the concerned participant. On a side note, I am wondering if we should have some basic regulations for situations like these. Maybe we could ask the researchers to specifically create accounts for this purpose and those accounts can then be transparently declared on the university website. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

To the concerned participant, yes. That's likely required by the university's IRB. I'm just discouraging any attempts to require public declaration of identity, supervising professor, or any other personal information as per our own policy on outing. Unique accounts are probably a good idea, but requiring a declaration on the university website is almost certainly infeasible. At least for PhD students, anyway. I certainly have zero control over what goes on my department's website next to my name. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Delayed reaction, but: it would be a good idea for people who want to do this kind of thing to offer a link explaining the survey and identifying the supporting institution, rather than providing an email address. Inviting people to use an offsite contact method and possibly provide further personal information via the survey is a little awkward in general, but doing it specifically to a group often targeted for online harassment and outing (in the real-world and Wikipedia senses) is even more worrisome. That's not to say that Weiwensg has done anything wrong, or would expose people's personal information, but researchers would be more likely to get a good sample of responses and less likely to get ANI threads by being as transparent as possible from the outset about the information they plan to collect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, I emailed the researcher asking for more information and have received no response. Not sure how I feel about that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Canvasing at AFD by User:Piotrus

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is canvasing for AFD's they created, purposely asking a single user (SwisterTwister (talk · contribs)) they know will be sympathetic to their case to intervene at their AFDs.[22] I have no opinion on if the specific articles should or should not be deleted, but canvasing like Piotrus has just done is disruptive and needs immediate administrative attention. Because SwisterTwister is involved, and past experiences by many here have shown that anything involving SwisterTwister gets lost on talk pages, this report is starting directly at ANI. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Past experiences by many here have shown that anything involving SwisterTwister gets lost on talk pages." Seriously? Try to minimize the drama, instead of raising it. Even if discussion "gets lost on talk pages," it doesn't mean you shouldn't try it. Anyways, per WP:CANVASS, I'm not sure if there is a deletionism history between Piotrus and ST. I do see, however that ST did vote for deletion on both articles. I suggest to Piotrus not to make posts on users' talk pages, but I don't believe anything big would come out of this discussion. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• I don't want to pile on ST here, and I don't think that he did anything wrong by commenting on the AfDs in question and that he acted in good faith. The fact that Piotrus only commented on ST's talk pages when ST doesn't seem to have any connection to the articles other than a general pro-deletion stance on many articles does suggest to me that this might have been something not in the spirit of WP:CANVASS, however. I don't really think there is much to be done here. The articles were relisted yesterday and have another week to run. ST might want to strike his !votes as a good will gesture, but I hardly think it is necessary as he very likely could have commented on them anyway, and probably would have had the same opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Okay seriously the hate threads for ST need to stop I'm sick and tired of seeing this constantly popping up. Honestly ST's edits scream WP:NOTNOTHERE more than anything, we all have our own ways of doing things, and some people have different interpretations of guidelines/policies. While I don't agree with the canvassing issue, I don't see why ST is to be accused of anything. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Asking for input from a single user is not necessarily canvassing. If AFDs were votes (and they aren't) then it might theoretically qualify as vote-stacking, but only a very minor form of it because it's only going to stack the !votes by one. Additionally, since in those case no one was arguing that the pages should not be deleted, then seeking outside input in any form should be commended. This isn't like Piotrus saw consensus turning against him and decided to ask for "input" from someone likely to take his side. I personally hate the "if a proposal has one proponent and is unopposed, then there is no consensus and the status quo remains" school of closing, and half the time seems like it is used as an excuse for non-admins (and even brand new accounts) who aren't able to enforce the actual consensus to run up their edit counts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: since you seem to understand what canvassing is and isn't, maybe you can comment on my post about Ltbuni earlier here at ANI, either way. Ltbuni and I have resolved our differences, but I'm surprised that almost nobody has commented on the canvassing issue, to the extent that I'm not even sure I understand what it is anymore. -Darouet (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that: if it becomes an issue again, I'll raise it again. Otherwise, it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie. -Darouet (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• In my many years of experience with Piotrus, I've found him a very independent person, and I cannot imagine him canvassing anybody about anything. He has sometimes notified me of discussions that he thinks might interest me, and I agree with him only a little more frequently than I disagree, and with respect to AfDs and prods, in both directions. . DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• WP:VOTESTACK clearly specifies a plurality of users. If Piotrus is messaging only a single user I see no violation of policy here. -- œ^™ 04:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate" has nothing to do with multiple users. If there is a reason for notification of ST other than ST's uniformly strong deletionist stance, this is fine. But given ST is probably the most active deltionist around right now, it's not unreasonable to question the notifications if the relationship between ST and the articles isn't at least somewhat apparent. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but where's the evidence that (1) Piotrus believe ST would take the same stance as them and (2) that this stance would be controversial otherwise and that the pages should not be deleted? The diff provided clearly refers to AFDs that had not received any opposition. It is pretty clear that if Piotrus wanted to influence the outcome at all, it was only to avoid the stupid "only one person !voted: status quo remains". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm merely pushing back on the idea that contacting only one person isn't canvassing. But as far as (1) goes, are you familiar with ST? If Piotrus wasn't fairly certain that ST would take a stance for deletion, it's because Piotrus isn't paying attention. As far as (2) goes, I don't think being correct is an exception to WP:CANVASS. Hobit (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There are different kinds of canvassing. Only contacting one user on their talk page is never spamming, campaigning or stealth canvassing, and in this case there was clearly no vote-stacking either because the known tendency of ST had nothing to do with it (if it did, he would have been contacted before the AFD was at risk of being closed as keep by default). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh, im with Hobit here. ST is basically the strongest deletionist on this project at this time (and I don't say that as a pejorative. I have never had any bad interactions with ST personally and think that some people here need to cut him a lot more slack.) It might not be a technical violation of WP:CANVASS, as I said above, it seems like it's against the spirit of it. I don't think there's anything formal that needs to be done here, but only contacting ST seems like going fishing for a delete !vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. The AFD was uncontested. Even if it was "fishing for a delete !vote", this would have only served to avoid a weird flaw in the system where bad closers interpret an uncontested proposal as "no consensus". I have seen this done with GARs and RFCs, and with AFDs the problem is worse because non-admins are not technically able to close them the way they probably should. Piotrus probably regretted not PRODding the articles in the first place, but he should be commended (not punished) for thinking to open an AFD discussion for the community instead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that he actually did PROD the pages, and they were de-PRODded by one SPA and one near-SPA with only seven previous edits. The action of disrupting the PROD but not actually joining the subsequent AFD discussions (apparently because one doesn't have a valid keep argument) is obvious gaming the system. I wouldn't frankly have blamed Piotrus for asking for these accounts to be blocked and then re-PRODding the articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ueh. I don't don't know what kind of axe 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk · contribs) has with ST, since I doubt it is with me as to the best of my knowledge I have never interacted with him before. Given that as observed, those were no-discussion AfDs, I can hardly imagine what kind of nefarious plot someone has to suspect they have to defend Wikipedia against to report this here. It does, however, illustrate the stupidity of CANVASS, Wikipedia's worst policy ever. If you want something done here without someone complaining, off-wiki communication sadly remains the way to do it, because transparency invites such witch hunts and waste of time. Glad that cooler heads prevail here, through I fear to think what would have happened if I messaged another person. For the record, I messaged ST because in my last year at AfDs he seems like the most active commenter, and he was the first editor to come to my mind when I thought "those AfDs seemed to slipped everyone's attention, whom do I know who might be interested in commenting there?". Good that I couldn't think of a second editor to ask, huh? On a more constructive note, see a related discussion at this page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Eh, find a neutral forum for such a request. Asking one editor, especially one I can predict the vote of without seeing the AfD, article, or anything else, is probably a poor choice. And yeah, it's easy to use backchannels to get around WP:CANVASS, but if you get caught it's a big deal. I prefer to think 95%+ of everyone doesn't do that. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Find me such a forum and I'd be very appreciative. I did propose a creation of an automatic watchlistable listing of relists at the discussion above, but I lack the tech know-how to create it myself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
      • A good point. The main AfD talk page maybe? Or pick on a random admin perhaps? But yeah, there aren't a lot of good places for doing this, I agree. But you picked the editor most likely to agree to delete something of anyone I know of here. That's a bit problematic. Hobit (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Looks like this complaint got some attention for those AfD's. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, with 100% of people agreeing with me and ST. I wonder why the op has not voted to prevent this nefarious collusion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• It was exactly two AfDs, that had failed to generate any responses. He hasn't done it before or since: [23]. While I think choosing SwisterTwister was a bad idea (better a neutral admin's talkpage that has a lot of watchers, or a WikiProject talkpage), and I would censure him for repeating this kind of request to ST, I don't see anything wrong here. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I largely agree (I'd claim there was something wrong, but nothing major and as long as it's not repeated it's not worth worrying about). Hobit (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I honestly still am not seeing how it was the wrong thing to do to begin with, so saying that "as long as it's not repeated" it should be overlooked doesn't seem like the right way to look at it. Again, the SPA and near-SPA that tried to game the system by filibustering the original PRODs were actually a much more serious problem, and the tendency to close uncontroversial proposals as "no consensus" is, while not a serious problem in general, still worse than Piotrus's actions in trying to avoid it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The issue is who he chose to canvass -- a well-known deletionist. If he had posted somewhere neutral like a neutral admin's talkpage that has lots of watchers, or a WikiProject talkpage, that would have been fine. Or if there were actual SPAs clearly trying to influence the decision and the AfDs were heading in a non-neutral direction, he could have even posted on ANI or AN, asking for more eyes. Softlavender (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparent attempts at censorship

The user Xtremedood (talk · contribs) seems to be engaged in a long-term agenda to censor valid information about the prophet Mohammad, and just deleted/redirected an entire page filled with references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xtremedood

[24] [25] [26]

[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

He has apparently also been blocked several times previously due to edit-warring. Help would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree these are problematical edits -- driveby removals and re-removals made without the least bit of discussion and with inaccurate edit summaries. I also believe that Xtremedood is often a problem editor who is unable to edit collaboratively, particularly not on the subject of Islam, Mohammed, or related subjects. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood's editing behaviour clearly demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, making biased edits in favour of Islam and Pakistan. In just two recent scenarios, this user attempted to link a pornographic actress with Catholicism and attempted to state in an article that anyone else besides Muslims, such as Indian Hindus, use the term fakir erroneously. Digging through his contributions reveals more alarming edits. Does anyone oppose a topic ban for User:Xtremedood on articles related to religion in general, as well as articles covering India and Pakistan-related topics broadly construed? If not, he needs one, badly, as other editors are getting worn out with having to engage with this problematic editor. Jobas (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Resonating with what User:David_A mentioned above, User:Xtremedood just attempted to redirect a page about Muhammad to a distantly related article. Edits such as these are frustrating and harmful to the project. Jobas (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Weakly support a topic ban. There is some pretty obvious POV pushing, and the user has a slightly troubling habit of quickly erasing their talk page (or the section) whenever they are given advice, a warning or have had sanctions placed against them. However, it's not entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules. However, I'm open to having my mind hardened. Once I started looking through their talk page history, there's a lot of indications of a battleground mentality. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat from Riz Story & team

Legal threat: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABondegezou&type=revision&diff=750274353&oldid=748987902

I've been watching Riz Story for a while and tried a big clean up of unsourced self-promotion recently (edits on the morning of 17 November). An IP editor reverted; I and others again removed the material. While I was away from Wikipedia, this exploded with an edit war between the IP editor and several others. I got the legal threat as above and vandalism of my user page. The article got semi-protected and the IP editor, who appears to be Mr Story or people connected thereto, created User:Meopa, which waded in with stuff like this, this and this, which then led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riz Story. He may have previously edited as User:RizStory.

IPs:

• 2605:e000:60dc:400:1e87:2cff:fec8:7f83
• 2605:e000:60dc:400:e07c:6c9a:cfb3:1cf
• 2605:e000:60dc:400:8054:61cc:1ce8:8a0a

Pinging User:Primefac, who's been trying to help the situation. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• I was honestly hoping this would blow over in between going to bed and waking up. Guess not. Meopa has a serious axe to grind and refuses to listen to anyone's advice. I don't know if this is ego or what, but I spent over an hour with them on IRC yesterday and got exactly nowhere. They definitely need take a break and stop editing their own page (and the AFD), but that's unlikely without admin intervention. There are proper ways to edit an article about yourself, but this isn't one of them. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Sure looks like a legal threat. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It was just a king-sized bluff rather than a legal threat... until the last sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • What is in the first link is not even close to a legal threat. This aside, the remaining behaviour appears sufficiently distruptive as to require action. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Note User:Meopa has been softblocked for sharing accounts, but now User:Riz Story is active. I will be AGF and hoping that they're all finally using their own usernames. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• comment I closed the AfD early as delete on the basis of self advertising by the subject and his staff. Anyone else is welcome to start an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:COI's the first thing that comes to mind. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Dan Jarvis

Some edits have been made to Dan Jarvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) this evening that may involve someone with a personal connection to the subject. They're not controversial, but do need someone who can tread carefully, and I don't want to intervene myself. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Done by Bbb23. This is Paul (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Serial socking by IP who disregards WP:TVCAST

I created an ANI thread that was ignored (thanks, guys). I am here to continue the thread. The IP has returned with a new IP 2.25.129.117 (talk · contribs) with the same kind of editing on various articles besides Criminal Minds: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Since it was a new IP, I did a little digging and discovered that they had been socking to do this. They all geolocate to the same city in the UK and engage in the same kind of editing. Here is a list of IPs I've compiled with the newest ones at the top and oldest and the bottom:

I request that an admin please block the most recent IP. They don't use edit summaries and never felt the need to respond to any of my previous warnings or the old ANI thread, so cooperation is very unlikely. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I'll take a look shortly. Katie^talk 17:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The ranges are 95.147.103.128/25, which is way, way stale, and 2.25.129.0/25. In the latter range, only 2.25.129.117 has edited recently enough for action, so I've blocked that IP for one week. Katie^talk 17:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Muchas gracias!! Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake Editor BronHiggs actually targeting people and organisations

The editor under the handle BronHiggs (talk · contribs) has searched wikipedia for mentions of specific individuals and organisations and targeted these with criticisms and requests for quick deletion. The articles are many years old, and one of them is an obituary of a famous Australian. Bronwyn Higgs is not a genuine editor, she is a stooge put up by an unknown entity. Please have her editorship rights revoked, and her requests removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.27.236 (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please provide evidence. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 07:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me fix that for you: Real editor BronHiggs has searched Wikipedia for copyright violations and inaccuracies in articles related to Australian topics, and notified other editors about these problems. Some of these articles are many years old, which makes one aghast at how long such problems have persisted without notice. We should be glad that BronHiggs has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. You're welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

While pinging @BronHiggs: so that they know about this thread, I gotta ask: how do you know that BronHiggs is a stooge of an unknown entity, rather than being an unknown entity themselves? Some unknown entities are very dedicated and resourceful, and don't delegate all their efforts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Lets see some evidence. I have worked with this editor and have seen no indication of bad faith at all - some lack of understanding and frustration over how Wikipedia works but what looks like a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia and a deep well of expert knowledge. Recommend this be closed as a malicious report unless evidence (diffs) are provided. The editor who is upset is Mpbalogh. They have a COI [43] and opened this as an anon but have been discussing this on BronHiggs talk page logged in [44] (Edited and re-signed so the new mention works) Jbh^Talk 15:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• In addition to my comments on the Talk page of the article 'History of Australian Marketing Research' could it please be taken into consideration that the editor who created this page, a person by the name of Kymmarie (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kymmarie), created or substantially contributed to a number of other pages featuring the McNair Ingenuity company and/or the McNair family between 2008 and 2009. These pages include, but are not confined to: Ian McNair [bio]; Mc Nair Gallup Poll, McNair Ingenuity Research [company], Psepholograph [an instrument used in market research that appears to have been developed by McNair], as well as a number of other pages dedicated to reporting the results of specific polls such as Recycle Our Water McNair, Happiness Index, Energy Sources McNair Gallup Poll and Nuclear Power Plants McNair Gallup Poll. (Pages dedicated to specific poll results have all since been deleted). The editor, Kymmarie does not appear to have engaged in any editing unless it involves the McNair family. The editor concerned has been provided with repeated warnings about posting content that is promotional in character, that fails to maintain a neutral point of view or that has no real claim to notability. However, my recommendation for deletion of the article was not based on this history. Instead it was primarily based on two issues: (1) The content was substantially based on material copied from a page on the AMRS website (see https://www.amsrs.com.au/about/history-of-market-research-in-australia) with a 96% similarity score on the Copyright Violation report and (2) Only one paragraph out of a total of five paragraphs that made up the article was actually concerned with Australia - the rest of it was a highly selective history of social research in England. Of those three sentences, two were principally concerned with the market research company that became known as McNair or McNair-Ingenuity. I questioned whether Wikipedia needed a new article on Australian market research history when just three of its sentences actually focussed on the Australian experience. BronHiggs (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• As an unknown entity and a fake editor, I am offended by this attack on my people. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, you can´t make yourself a spokesperson for all unknown entities and a fake editors, that is offensive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am a spokespiece for my dark lord in his watery slumber, so if anyone can be a spokesman fo-Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!!!

Sorry. I get a little carried away sometime. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If I can ask a serious question. WP:BOOMERANG? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

One revert rule is protecting a user instead of an article

2A1ZA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, the article Human rights in Rojava is under the general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War. The article imply listing violations in a place named Rojava, hence it has a geographic scope. This scope was agreed to be land controlled by the founders of Rojava after a long discussion

When the article was fully protected, User 2A1ZA asked for a controversial paragraph and out of the scope to be inserted but the admin told him to reach a consensus. Such a consensus didnt happen and then the protection ended and 2A1ZA was told that does not need to ask an admin to make edits for him anymore. The user understood this as if the admin was telling that he can have his edit inserted into the article. Today, 2A1ZA inserted the paragraph implying that it was the admin gave him the authority in his edit summary.

Does the one revert rule protect edits out of the scope of a certain article ?

How will the one revert rule stop this kind of behavior? It only benefit 2A1ZA. He is inserting controversial edits with no consensus and no discussion and hiding behind the one revert rule. I understand perfectly the damage of edit warring, but is this the only criteria here? He can do whatever he likes as long as edit warring is stopped? Please help me understanding how Wikipedia is going now. Cause all I can see is that an editor can take advantage of the rules. From now on, he will insert whatever he like, with no consensus and no talk page and hide behind the one edit rule. His edit is against the consensus and the scope of the article, yet he is allowed to keep it and others are the ones who should take it to the talk page!!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Attar-Aram syria, please read the edit related discussion on the article talk page. And the "agreement" you claim here on your desire to radically narrow the scope of Section 2 (""Human rights issues with Syrian Civil War armed forces in the region"") of that article, in a pretty absurd manner which apparently shall simply exclude human rights violations of Syrian civil war parties of your liking, does not exist. You implicitly admit that, when talking about an RFC to seek enforce your view, and leaving alone the many elements of that section 2 of the article that do not fit your desire to radically narrow its scope. Please engage in a constructive good faith discussion on the article talk page, or initiate the RFC you talk about if you prefer that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was memorized by me. All editors, excluding you, agreed that the very large scope was unacceptable. The actual scope is logical since Rojava is a non historic region and a certain territory become a "Rojava" only after the said entity annex that certain region. Anyway, this paragraph you inserted was controversial and had no consensus regardless of the scope. You can see in the answer of the admin that you need to get a consensus for it first.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:1RR does not prevent someone from making an edit once, nor from someone else undoing that edit once. That it didn't get consensus previously is good evidence that the undoing--pending discussion to get consensus--is the right way forward. DMacks (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, on the same article right this morning, Attar-Aram syria once again without consensus and against my clear objection removed an existing paragraph on FSA torture videos, see here (and compare article history). Would you suggest to reinstate that paragraph pending discussion as well? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not "once again", I was within my reverting capacity as it has been more than 40 hours for my last revert. I did my first revert on 18 November 10:14. Today, I did my second revert after 40 hours or more. The paragraph he is talking about was deleted by another user, and supported by me, and it is out of the scope of the article and was discussed in the talk page. The consensus was to deleted it (2 to 1) and based on the scope of the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If the content has been there for a while, then "removal" is an edit, and "re-insertion" is the first undoing of it. Assuming the content isn't grossly offensive or completely uncited, the pre-existing status quo should remain pending an ongoing discussion. A timeframe of 30-40 hours is not sufficient to prove "long-standing/status-quo", especially for long-term controversial topics. And no part of WP:1RR is a license to revert every >24h...edit-warring over a timeframe of 40 hours is as likely to get you blocked as literal 1RR in a specific timeframe. DMacks (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

DMacks, It has been a long time for that paragraph, but I thought the rule was literal: every 24 hours. Okay, Im in the middle of writing a new article See here. I cant afford to be blocked for such a reason. Will reverting myself be a good measure to avoid the violation ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear DMacks, the paragraph concerned has been up there for a long time, it definitely was part of the article while it had full protection in late October, see here. Reinstate now? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted my self (though the paragraph is out of the scope of the article).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• The dispute between these two users came to a head recently at SPI in which I advised Attar-Aram syria to read the essay on forum-shopping. They had already tried to get 2A1ZA blocked in previous ANI thread in September and didn't get the answer they wanted, and a month later tried the same evidence at SPI. This new thread is a continuation of the same dispute; if it continues further, I don't think it would be unreasonable to start discussing topic bans. There doesn't seem to be any interest from either side of this dispute in discussion to find a common ground, only gaming the rules to continue reverting to their preferred version. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Ivanvector, it wasnt shopping, you demanded a proof and the IP didnt have it while I did and it was a very strong one and I still cant believe how it was handled. Anyway, this isnt a continuation of the dispute, its about the role of the 1rr. As for "getting" the result I want, can you at least look at the case of September and tell me that nothing was suspicious ! If I see something that imply cheating, I will talk about it and I will not shut up in fear of being accused of playing games or pursuing a result I want. BTW, this case has been resolved before you commented. I also advise you to go through your comment cause it contained a false info when you said that I used the same evidence from the September case. I did not do it cause the evidence you are talking about did not exist in September. Most importantly, this isnt just me and the editor; many others have reported him, just follow his talk page and you will see. Note, to debunk what you accused me of (that I play the rules to get my preferred version), read my last reply before you commented, you will notice that I reverted myself and brought back my non-preferred version. Oh, and before you commented, I approached the user on his talk page to find a common ground Here (so everything you said is not accurate)--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

One revert rule is protecting a user instead of an article

Attar-Aram syria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This morning, Attar-Aram syria has once again removed a paragraph (FSA Jarabulus torture videos) from the Human rights in Rojava article, see edit here (the flag issue is not relevant, it was mistakenly removed with the revert edit before), while fully aware that he is doing so against clear and express objection (and without a serious reason to delete in substance). As I had just reinstated that paragraph immediately before, the 1RR rule prevents me from reinstating the paragraph for a day. Shall this 1RR rule really protect an editor who seeks to arbitrarily delete human rights violations by a Syrian Civil War party of his liking from the article? Should this paragraph be reinstated pending discussion? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a repetition of the same argument above, hence, my reply is also above.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: For anyone confused. This is just what opened this report, just reversed, where Attar tried to call out 2A, rather than the other way around (as has happened here). MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Series of very brief pages on highly technical subjects

There has been a rash of recent new pages from new editors that appear to be on highly specialized technical topics, but with no links or even much context whatsoever. See Stress in rotating rings, Space resistance to radiation, Valve timing diagram, Capabilities of computer control, etc. Not sure at all what to do about these since they appear to be abandoned after being created. It alomost looks like homework of some sort. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This looks like some sort of school project. The articles you mentioned above were all copyright infringements and have been deleted. If you find more such pages, please check for copyright issues and inform the initial creators of this discussion. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Doing so though many times I'm not finding it immediately, perhaps they are being copied from textbooks. See Advanced automation functions, Differential mobility spectrometer. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And this is now getting absurd. They are popping up like crazy now, all from different accounts yet obviously connected. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, it seems like these are all/mostly notable subjects. If someone can figure our how to get back to the source, and explain that even a short stub -- paraphrased from a source or sources -- would be welcome, that would be great. EEng 20:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Some recent editors doing this - User:Shangkeinus2016eps, User:Yadav.abhi, User:Dpkanjo, User:AMIT KUMAR9084114320, User:Omveersinghkemoriya, that's just in the past few hours. Can we open up an investigation and block this range somehow? Blocking individual users doesn't help because they keep creating new accounts, protecting pages doesn't help because they keep changing the article title. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• There's an SPI at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivam268 where opinion appears to be that this is a class assignment. Probably the instructor told them to make pages from things in books. A few were subjects where A10 came in as well as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

user:Mztourist's disruptive editing and intention to conduct edit warring

Mztourist (talk · contribs) has consistently reverted my editing on Operation Castor without any discussion on talk page.[45] He has unhesitatingly showed off his intention to wage edit warring. Please do something to stop this. Dino nam (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This is laughable. Dino nam (talk · contribs) and his IP sock 113.190.238.202 (talk · contribs) unilaterally and without prior discussion changed the outcome of Operation Castor from "French Union victory" to "Successful French establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost". This is part of Dino nam's relentless POV pushing and unwillingness to accept that the Viet Minh/Vietcong/North Vietnamese were ever defeated. This follows a recent bout of edit warring on the Battle of Khe Sanh page where Dino nam also changed the outcome against consensus, I reported him/her for edit-warring but apparently unless you have 3RR'ed that complaint has no weight (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive329#User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)) and for use of IP socks, but apparently the privacy of the socker is more important than the fact that they're socking (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive). This is a classic case of complaining about ones own behavior and deserving of a WP:boomerang. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Before talking about user:Mztourist again, I should say that both of the complaints he made against me mentioned above have already been turned down, so it's ridiculous to repeat them again; in fact mentioning about them may arguably constitute a violation of the WP:NPA policy. I suggest you should rather concentrate on Mztourist's action, as he seem to have no intention to stop his disruptive editing.[46] Dino nam (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

They are relevant because you are continuing with exactly the same behavior, edit-warring and IP socking. Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hateful redirects

I just encountered the redirect God Is America's Terror, which redirects to the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. This seemed inappropriate and I doubted between {{db-attack}} and just WP:RfD. I decided to have a peek at the creators history and found many similar redirects, created at a considerable pace:

• Antichrist Obama
• God Blew Up the Shuttle
• God Hates Fag Enablers
• Fags Doom Nations
• Thank God for IEDs
• You're Going to Hell
• God Is America's Terrorist
• et caetera ad nauseam.

The editor in question, one Bobby H. Heffley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing since 2006, so it's not a newbie mistake. Kleuske (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Aren't those actual slogans from the church? Would it make sense to have them redirect if someone was searching for a particular phrase but didn't know the actual name of the church? It doesn't seem malicious to me. --Tarage (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; these are all plausible search terms if a reader had seen the Church's signs but didn't know what they were called, I don't see an issue here. Sam Walton (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I note "Antichrist Obama" has been deleted as an attack page, so the limit is naming people, apparently. I appreciate the input. Kleuske (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think every bigoted slogan needs a redirect. If there is some evidence of extensive references in RS sources for a given slogan, and I concede there will be some that can make that claim, then a redirect seems reasonable. But some of these are not well known and appear gratuitous. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will say that the number of redirects might be a bit excessive (currently ~30). Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Too many of these are obscure and not well enough known to justify keeping them. I am going to start going through the list and anything that doesn't sound familiar or bring up significant mainstream RS hits I am sending to RfD. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform/advertising redirect for or by fringe groups. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

30 is too much, but I just wanted to make the point that I don't think this is malicious. Over-zealous? Sure. Malicious, not by a mile. --Tarage (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that all of the slogans and sayings redirects need to be deleted. Wikipedia is not Google, and moreover the slogans and sayings are not unique to one individual or entity. It appears that most of Bobby H. Heffley's wiki career since 2009 has been creating redirects, and that all of the recent ones are inappropriate. I'm going to suggest that he occupy himself otherwise than creating redirects, and if the problem persists, a topic ban on redirects is in order. Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe they are intentionally inappropriate. AGF please. A topic ban is not warranted yet. Has anyone actually talked to this user yet? --Tarage (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If you check their talkpage you'll find that they have never responded to a message left on their page. If we can't get a response from Bobby, and they continue creating inappropriate redirects, then a TBAN may be in order. It's too soon for a TBAN right now though. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The editor may not even know they HAVE a talk page. How about a short 31 hour block to try to get their attention? --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course they know they have a talk page. They get orange banners and increasingly high red numbers at the top of every edit page every time they get a message. There's no reason to block them because they haven't been asked any question on their talk page, or been told to stop anything until this ANI was filed. If they keep creating redirects of slogans and quotations, then they should be topic-banned, and if they continue after that, a short block. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you know how many people ignore their unread e-mails or missed calls? I'm only suggesting a block ahead of a topic ban because a block is temporary, where as a topic ban can be very hard to fight. Either way, I don't think it's as heinous as people are making it out to be. --Tarage (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think think their bigoted slogans need to be re-directs. It's called common decency. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 09:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Update Last night I reviewed all of his WBC redirects and sent most of them to RfD. A few were so over the top I tagged for CSD per G-10 and they have already been deleted. However several were IMO legitimate because they have been much referenced in RS sources and are widely understood to be connected to the WBC. Those were left alone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think any sanction should be taken against this user (if at all) until he logs in again. He hasn't logged in since prior to this ANI filing and since prior to all of the current talk-page notifications of SPEEDY, RfD, etc. I imagine he will get the message when he logs back in. Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The use of links containing copyrighted transcripts by Pizzamaniac2016

[47]

This editor has continually used questionable links and supposition and personal opinion on a page for Randolph Mantooth. He has been cautioned by several people.

In the past, has been cautioned by other editors about material that is opinion and copyright infringement on other pages.

His recent edits include part of interview that was transcribed without the written permission of NARAS and placed on on a fansite.
I have provided the link for the edits to Mantooth's page: [48]
and here: [49]

As you can see from the first link, it clearly states that is is a fan site: [50]
Warning! the music is loud!
[51]

The page does not have reference to NARAS or permission to use it. The webmaster provides his opinions and the interviewer's name. Most of Mantooth's comments are personal reflections and they don't have a place on an encyclopedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NDakotaCelt (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Alison on Talk: Caster Semenya

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Revisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caster_Semenya&oldid=750620447 (removed) and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caster_Semenya&oldid=750643561

I gave concern in the talk page to the validity of a pronoun used in the article. Instead of allowing for any discussion of my concerns, User:Alison undid my revision and removed the ability to undo the undoing. This seems like very unprofessional and almost childish behavior for an administrator. 04:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.100.35 (talk)

The edit in question has been revision deleted so I can't see it. However, since you are not blocked there is nothing against trying again, possibly being more careful with the wording.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• IP, the admin's edit summary reads "No idle gossip, or gross speculation plz". So you are under notice not to engage in idle gossip, or forum-like comments on Wikipedia article talkpages, particularly not the talkpages of biographies of living persons. If your intention is to improve the article, ask whatever question you wish to on that page, but do not gossip on the article or its talkpage. If you have any further issues about the action of Alison, please take it to her talk-page rather than here at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've blocked the IP editor for repeated BLP violations - the IP is static, so I've made it a week. I would recommend longer blocks if this behaviour is repeated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Vile insults

User:Whisper of the heart sent a vile insult against me in one of the edit summaries - diff.

Here is the translation:

Extended content

从前 Once upon a time 有个 there is T开头的 starting with T, as an adjective 智障 mentally retarded, as a noun 乱 this one is more difficult to translate, but it's somewhere in between "arbitrary" and "disruptively" 回退 rollback 别人的 of others 编辑 edits 还 yet 不给 not give 理由 reason 后来 later 他 he, used possessively 亲妈 (biological) mother 升天 went to heaven, usually as a curse for death 了 indicates a perfect tense In English this would be: Once upon a time there was a mentally retarded person starting with a T, who rollback edits of others without giving a reason; later his mother have went to heaven.

There is no excuse for such insults and of course they are posted in Chinese which is not the language I speak. In addition this user goes around making POV edits, refusing to discuss the issues at all, ignoring all arguments claiming how they were not given etc. But that is not relevant here, it's only to show that this is an extremely difficult person to work with.

This has been going on for quite a while now and he was previously blocked on Commons for a similar incident. The insults also had to be removed from the system because they were so nasty - similar incident on Wikimedia Commons.

I seek protection from such personal attacks.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I feel terribily sorry and apologize for my inappropriate language, I guarantee that I will be more polite and calm in communicating in the future. However, I disagree Twofortnights' announcement of so called POV edits and refusing discussions. In fact, my edits have proper sources which fits wikipedia's policy but he just doesn't recognize. In addition, I actively participate discuss, but due to Twofortnights' negative attitude, the discussion sometimes cannot go smoothly, this makes me mad from time to time. Overall, I understand that personal attack is no acceptible for any reason and I will pay more attention to my behavior in the future, but I think this incident is isolated and no extra protection is needed. --Whisper of the heart 10:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For the admins attention, the same user said the same thing before (apology and promises) - [52]. So it's obviously a dishonest apology made to avoid the block and he has no intention to stop. In addition next to the supposed apology above he claims I cause his behavior but on Commons AN it was already found that analyzing the edits, there is not "any reason for it to be occurring".--Twofortnights (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Twofortnights, do you already read that language fluently without the need of a translator? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I now see above that you do not.
I've said it before, this is the English Wikipedia and all personal attacks must be in English. (That's satirical humor, by the way.) Twofortnights, you would not have felt insulted if you hadn't expended the effort to translate what are otherwise a bunch of gibberish noise characters to you. It was almost as if you were looking for a reason to be insulted and bring an ANI complaint. I favor a quick close here. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that the translations were given by me. If there's anything wrong with my translation, it's not Twofortnights's fault. Also note that the edit summary of Special:Diff/748721461 is grossly inappropriate as well (if necessary I can provide a translation for this). Other edit summaries in Chinese may have the same issue, including Special:Diff/736992025 but this one is more difficult to understand with excessive usage of homophones. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't even see those, it shows a pattern and I now believe this account needs to be blocked, he obviously won't stop doing it. In addition I extend my plea to remove those edit summaries from the system as well as they are not edit summaries as such, just a platform to post insults that are more difficult to remove than comments on talk pages.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you can't go around and throw insults with it being considered irrelevant only because it's in a foreign language. I had to invest my effort only because the edit summary was in a foreign language and I wanted to know what was in the edit summary (pretty normal or not?) only to find vile insults against me. Either way as a bare minimum the edit summary needs to be removed as it is not an edit summary at all.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss do you want to AGF even a little here or nah; It was almost as if you were looking for a reason to be insulted and bring an ANI complaint. I favor a quick close here. - oh, so you don't mind if I insult you in a language you won't understand? that's fair game for you? It's not for most other editors - such as the OP and myself. Some types of comments are never acceptable. This was one of those types and the language used is irrelevant. Further, this was an NPA purely to be an NPA. It was an intentional deliberate attack without context - look at the edit, this was not angered edit-warring, it was a normal minor edit to remove an unnecessary space that was coupled with an offensive comment. Whisper had never edited that page prior to leaving that rude comment. That brings up two other issues, possible WP:HARASS and WP:STALK (User edits regularly on visa policy pages). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree. It's a personal attack and absolutely against Wikipedia's policies on civility. The fact that it is in another language is absolutely irrelevant and it should not be dismissed or discounted simply because of that fact alone. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I support an appropriate sanction. I note several previous warnings for bad behaviour on the user's Talk page. These issued by several editors, not only the OP. (They've all since been blanked.) ... richi (hello) 10:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly support a rule against the use of a foreign language in any interaction between editors on English Wikipedia. Clear communication is difficult enough when we all speak the same language. Violation of the rule after warning should be blockable as disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm tempted to propose such a rule at WP:VPP right now, but I'll wait for other comments. It seems a no-brainer to me. It would facilitate communication, and it would put an end to the occasional ANI complaints like this one. It would require not only a rule change but a new warning template. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There is WP:SPEAKENGLISH but it only refers to talk pages. There is also Template:Uw-english. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Then I would modify that template to encompass all communication between editors, and I would modify policy - WP:DE? - as appropriate to make this blockable after warning. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose a blanket ban on the use of languages other than English. For one thing, if we have editors with limited command of English, it can be very helpful for people who speak their native language to be able to step in - and I've seen that approach being very effective over the years. I also don't see any problem with editors using other languages for the occasional bit of interpersonal talk when it's done in good faith and can help build the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If an editor has a limited command of English, why are they editing English Wikipedia? As a way to learn English? There are more appropriate and more effective ways to learn English off-wiki. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of people with limited English contributing here very constructively, given a bit of help. In fact, I've done copy editing myself for editors whose English has been poor, and the collaboration has certainly been of benefit to the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Boing here, this could be useful on article and article talk pages as well as other wiki pages, but, there's no reason to blanket ban communication in other languages. Especially not on user and user talk pages. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then we have the question of whether the defendant here knew they were violating any rule. For the future, maybe a clarification in WP:NPA would address that problem, but that wouldn't help with this complaint. We also have the question of whether this clears the PA bar, which is wildly inconsistent depending on the parties involved. And the broader problem of the frequent admin failure to enforce Wikipedia behavior policy in general. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but the language is really not relevant. We had a comment, it was identified as problematic, and it has been dealt with in the usual inconsistent manner (as any judgment-based system always is) - just the same as if it had been in English. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, business as usual. I withdraw. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not unsympathetic to the issues of inconsistency and our failure to really even define behaviour policy properly let alone enforce it - but after seeing so many efforts over the years, I really haven't the faintest idea of how we can improve things (though I guess that's for another forum). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I can't withdraw if you reply to me. LOL. It doesn't seem so complicated to me. The spirit of WP:BATTLEGROUND (for example) is quite clear and simple, and we shouldn't need a full-blown week-long trial, with no rules of engagement, to sanction violations of that spirit. In my view, if an admin can't make such a call correctly, they have no business being an admin. The corollary is that admins should be largely immune to attacks on their judgment in such cases, and they are not. Figuring out to fix this isn't hard, it's the political obstacles to such change, and that's the result of being self-governed. My ultimate position seems to alternate between (1) WMF intervention is required, and (2) the problem is intractable, so we should stop wasting our time discussing it. You're right, it's for another forum. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. While articles and open discussion should be written in English, there are many situations where editing and communicating in a foreign language is completely fine. His example is perfect. If two editors and just laying back and chatting with one another on one of their talk pages and the conversation is casual and not against policy etc, what honest and justifiable right would I really have to jump in there and say "Hey, speak English! using any other language is banned!"? This is one example out of many that shows how enacting this kind of ban would not only be a terrible idea, but also really really silly :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment That edit summary was really offensive. It should be considered a 9/10 on the offensive scale. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Would a revdel be wise? RD2 covers grossly insulting comments doesn't it? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No. It is not in that category. It is not grossly insulting, but it is a serious attack. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, it is hard for me to judge personally, as I am not a native reader of Chinese. But I am in China and surrounded by Chinese people right now and they read it. Consensus is 9/10. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting input from native Chinese speakers - based on that, I've rev-deleted the edit summary as grossly offensive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to add that 9/10 seems close enough ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. Revdelling is not unreasonable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Anna Frodesiak. Would the other two insults raised by Zhuyifei1999 above [53] and [54] also fall in the category?--Twofortnights (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

[55] doesn't seem to make sense to us and [56] is a 9.5/10 on the offensive scale. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate is unhelpful. The latter diff says something about dog food. Patient Zero^talk 12:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Should GT help, here's a literal translation of the former: A system you stick, you pull pull ye not to your body inches to the wall? Patient Zero^talk 12:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Homophones are used here: 制杖 => 智障, 拔拔 => 爸爸. No obvious meaning in "你身寸到墙上呢？" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That makes a bit more sense Zhuyifei1999 - revdel appropriate here, then? Patient Zero^talk 12:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel this is more like "Stop beating your head against the wall, stupid".--Auric talk 12:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh, Patient, it makes no sense to the Chinese reading Chinese. Why would google translate be helpful here... Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You never know Mr rnddude - maybe someone could ascertain whether or not the edit summary truly was offensive with a literal translation. If anything, I'm not too sure about it myself, but I only have a very basic command of the language. Patient Zero^talk 12:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It is hard for translation software because he is using characters that are homonyms. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Anna Frodesiak. Patient Zero^talk 12:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

In translation the comment certainly looks like an insult. And I’m not excusing the editor who made that edit summary. But most non-Chinese readers would have to take quite a lot of trouble to actually get the insult. And even then, one is left wondering - is this some kind of mild Chinese idiomatic/ proverbial saying? Most of the impact of that insult is wholly lost on most users of en.wiki? Just saying. Martinevans123 (talk)

Which one? the "mentally retarded" comment, the dog food one, or the makes no sense one? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

All three? In the original Chinese, of course. Where it's difficult to see there are three. The dog food must have escaped me. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Whisper of the heart, if you do not end up blocked over all of this, do not write anything like that ever again, okay? We must remain polite. That is really important here. You are welcome here, but none of that, okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this user made apologies and promises before on Commons and then went on to spread the hate here on, as we've learned now, multiple occasions. Even in the sole response here he claims it's an isolated incident and only because I made him mad (in fact it was his first ever edit in that article, there was no dispute instead he merely removed one extra space and as we've all seen this was definitely not isolated). I think a block would be in order, not because I am vindictive, but because this is already a second chance that the user failed to use. Even if direct insults in Chinese stop I am afraid I can only expect further harassment via other means.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Any spare Chinese insults are welcome at my Talk Page where I will happily refuse to translate them.

Homophonia will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you can see why people get upset when inverts engage in aural sex in public. EEng 02:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To @Twofortnights:, @Anna Frodesiak: and all other users in this discussion, I have realized that my action make other people unpleasant and it's very inappropriate in Wikipedia. I will follow the etiquette and avoid personal attact in the future. Once more, I am sorry for inappropriate language usage this time. --Whisper of the heart 01:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Whisper of the heart. Okay. Thank you for your understanding. I will not block you. If others wish to, that is their choice. My view is that you understand what not to do in the future. You wish to remain a part of this project. You will carry on as a constructive member of the community. If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Thank you, and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Whisperer of the heart, thank you for taking the time to come here and apologize for your behavior and acknowledge that it was not appropriate conduct. It was a very serious personal attack and I'm very certain that you were aware that this is not acceptable conduct when you did so, but I will acknowledge your apology and hold you to your statement that you will follow Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines and refrain from any such actions like this in the future. Because of this acknowledgment, I will endorse Anna Frodesiak's decision not to block you for this. Please do not let this happen again; it's not the temperament and conduct that is expected from an editor whose goals are in-line with positively building and improving Wikipedia. If you need to talk to anybody, you have any questions or needs help, or if you'd like a mentor to keep you on-track - you're more than welcome to come to me and I will help you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The dog food one doesn't make a lot of sense because of the 吔 character. Largely because this is a southern dialect, specifically to the Zhuhai region. It means "to eat". Some of it doesn't seem to make sense because of the way the characters are being used. They're the written form of spoken words that would otherwise not actually have a formal character. This is quite characteristic of southern Cantonese. Basically, the "dog food" one says "go home and eat dog food, you grub".

Also, another Cantonese characteristic is to shorten a sentence removing characters that don't need to be said because the general usage is understood. For 你身寸到墙上呢, it means, loosely "are you wider than a wall?" or even more loosely "are you fatter than a house?". The full sentence would be closer to 你身材尺寸達到墙以上呢 = "your body measurements are bigger than a wall". In this example, 身材尺寸 has been abbreviated to 身寸. 身材 means figure but 身 means body and has basically the same meaning. 尺寸 literally means "feet-inches" or measurement, since both relate to measurement removing the "feet" character doesn't take anything away from the overall meaning, provided you're familiar with the dialect. This is why GT can't work with Cantonese unless the full phrasing is used. Blackmane (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over BLP violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Article: John McTernan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Anna Lertreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anna Lertreader is a SPA on the subject of Scottish politics and most particular Labour political analyst John McTernan. She is determined to insert into the article her opinion that McTernan is a terrible political pundit. Unfortunately, the only actual source she has for this is a controversial Scottish pro-independence blog Wings Over Scotland, which is of course very negative towards McTernan, who is anti-independence. The blog - written by a single author - has ridiculed McTernan by posting a blog entry every time one of McTernan's predictions prove wrong.

Anna Lertreader is insisting that this means that nearly all his predictions are wrong, and he's therefore a useless pundit. Now this may be true, but of course you can't synthesise that from a partisan source that only publicises his failures. It would be like me sourcing an article about Jeremy Corbyn and only using The Sun newspaper. She is insisting that since WP:RS does not specifically disallow biased sources, it is OK to create a whole negative section in a BLP from one.

After the first episode of this, it came to ANI here (as well as WP:AN3 here) and I blocked Lertrader for 48h for edit warring.

Currently, she has re-inserted the material eleven times [57], it has been reverted by at least three different editors (and opposed by at least two others on the talkpage). She has today re-inserted it again. I did threaten to block her if she re-inserted it again, but since I've reverted twice, protected once and used the talkpage since my first block, I am probably a little too involved, even if it does involve a BLP issue. I leave it to uninvolved admins to do what they see fit. Note: I've removed the section as a BLP violation again. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I just blocked her for a week. Anna seems to be hyperfocused on this one subject (all of her edits are related to either McTernan or WoS in some fashion). I suspect her next block will be indef if she can't drop the stick when this block expires. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP adding external links to download sites

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I didn't know which copyright noticeboard this goes to, so I'm posting this here. 45.64.128.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding external links to download links to videos not authorized by copyright owners. I have already warned the user not to do so. Erick (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Since they carried on after your warning, I've blocked them for a few days. I will look into spam blacklisting the relevant URL as it's never going to be useful to us. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring notice. Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've received an edit warring notice from an editor that continues to remove my verified edits for dubious reasons. This also occurred in the past and apparently started again. the editor apparently refuses to verify the cited source while simultaneously claiming my edits are unverified as the stated reason they need to be reverted. The editor is User:Alexbrn

• The editor disengaged from talking on the subject talk page
• diff1:
• diff2:
• My attempt to discuss has failed

Johnvr4 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You have never raised the subject of these edits on the article talk page, but have repeated them in spite of this lack of discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Untrue.

I have raised this issue previously and it was discussed on the talk page in which you participated. I have also raised the the issue of certain editors reverting my edits while simultaneously misusing sources which they refuse to review prior to reverting because they conflict with that editors own beliefs in which you also participated.

The issue remains that you refuse to verify what the cited source says in plain English and I cannot understand why. My edits contained almost direct quotes from the reliably cited source and you have removed them for being unverifiable and/or original research without any logical or reasonable explanation. I've asked and you have refused to support your reversions that repeatedly removed verified material from reliable sources and tend to make a fringe subject article even less reliable. I feel that if you would just once read the cited source prior to reverting, there would be zero requirement for further discussion. Please try to grasp the absurdity of the steps I am having to take in order to force you to do this. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You have never raised this specific edit - other issues you raised back in 2014 (!) didn't seem to lead to consensus in your favour. I do read the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please provide support for you recent reversions of my edits. Use direct quotes from the cited sources.Johnvr4 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Display templates vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have a Display templates vandal here 2602:306:379D:1AA0:B8FF:DAF:FE8F:4A1C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and now a new IP here 2602:306:379D:1AA0:DDEF:80EF:A5D6:1E23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Not sure what can be done, hence my post here. Removing talk page access is a start I presume. Thanx, - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed talk page access from these two accounts — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anon meatpuppets?

These four IPs all show remarkably similar, counter-MOS edits. I don't think it's as simple as IP-hopping, though, because some of the spates of edits overlap. All have been adding far too much geographical detail to infoboxes and changing physical-geographies to political-geographies. Several editors have reverted these edits:

• 2601:18C:600:1710:1477:F328:95B1:101F (talk · contribs)
• 2601:18C:600:1710:49CF:A802:4BA:7DE9 (talk · contribs) (this one was blocked for a day or two)
• 2607:FB90:299C:63DA:25E3:718A:D2E8:4394 (talk · contribs)
• 67.1.251.133 (talk · contribs)

Not sure what to do. Warnings have gone unheeded. Help? ... richi (hello) 22:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

More Twinkle nonsense

Neddy1234 (talk · contribs) added 2016 results to the presidential elections table in Alaska. This was reverted in this edit by Magnolia677 (talk · contribs) using Twinkle with the boilerplate edit summary "Unsourced". Of course, there is no end to the amount of garbage being added to the encyclopedia as of late related to this election and attributed to the mere existence of reliable sources, so I smelled bullshit and called bullshit by reverting Magnolia's edit. My edit was reverted here with another boilerplate edit summary, "Please do not add this data without a source, per WP:PROVEIT. Discuss on talk page if you disagree.". While it's great and all that some folks are such experts when it comes to Twinkle and enjoy picking low-hanging fruit rather than putting real effort into building an information resource, it's plainly obvious that letting scripts dictate how and when to edit Wikipedia in lieu of exercising any common sense whatsoever will only kill the project in the end. There's also the aspect of whether we're here to offer encyclopedic information on notable topics or we're here merely to repeat particular sources, but I'd rather save that argument for later.

My edit summary shows that plenty was wrong with Magnolia's rationale, so I poked around during what little free time I had earlier. First of all, the edit which started this is improper. The home page of the Alaska Division of Elections website prominently mentions "Unofficial Election Results" at the top of the page. This means that these results are preliminary and not certified, which further means that they'll have to be revised at some point. As there is a long history of that particular practice occurring here and no evidence that's it's being discouraged, I'm not so sure what to say. As I mentioned, the entire table is unsourced. It has existed in the article since September 2008 and has been unsourced the entire time. Judging from the edit summary which added the table, it may have previously existed in the article, but I don't have time to track that down. That edit summary hinted that it was restored to keep the article in line with other U.S. state articles. I didn't go through every other state article, but most of the ones I did look at had similar tables, mostly unsourced. Of particular interest is Massachusetts, a GA, which likewise contains an unsourced table. The few that were sourced were to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. I question whether this website really is a reliable source or merely a convienent/easy concatenation of information which can be reliably sourced elsewhere. Minnesota contains a table of historical election results for not only the presidential race, but gubernatorial and senatorial races, with a source to Leip at the top of the table. Clicking on that URL leads to a page which only mentions the results of the 2016 presidential race! Obviously, if you're really worried about sourcing and nothing else, this is a real can of worms here. The second main issue I brought up in my edit summary has to do with NPOV. The vast majority of these tables only give results for the two largest parties. This can be a problem, especially where the respectable or even winning by-state totals for Ross Perot and George Wallace are obscured by relegation to the table's footnotes or not even mentioned at all. I could come up with a solution, but I'm not sure it would satisfy NPOV.

In the course of this poking around, the one thing which really caught my attention was this notice on Neddy's talk page from earlier this year. This caused me to wonder if Magnolia is stalking Neddy's edits and if this is the real cause for all this. I've already pointed out that lack of sourcing for this particular edit is a red herring, and if you were to take that seriously, it would be akin to sticking a child's bandage on a severed jugular vein. Anyway, I've already made my feelings known about ANI, so I don't know if I'll be back to check on this. I just wanted to put the information out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've been watching this unfold but thus far had not put my oar in. My observations are as follows:

• While none of the election results are certified yet, the race has been called by reliable sources.
• So I do think including them, with the idea that actual totals will be added when the results are certified, is permissible, iff a source is attached.
• In any event, I think it's a shame that none of the involved parties tried actual discussion to resolve this, preferring instead to trade comments in edit summaries, which is never the right way to resolve anything. WP:BRD was not followed.

Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: - I have about 6,000 U.S. cities, towns and counties in my watchlist, and in the past two weeks I have reverted about 10 different editors who have added election results without a source. In some cases I left messages on editor's talk pages, like here and here. I also took time to check the unsourced election results that some editors has added against a reliable source, and in some cases, it was not correct. This is probably why WP:V is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. In this edit, which you mention above, you were politely asked to explain on the article's talk page why you feel unsourced election results should be added to the Alaska article, but instead of discussing your concern there, you instead came here. Furthermore, your edit summary here isn't going to win you a Barnstar of Diplomacy. Finally, you suggest that I need to put "real effort into building an information resource". In the past four years I've made 37,032 edits and created 285 articles. In fact, no editor in the history of Wikipedia has added more Love, Love, Love, Love, Love than me. So please, don't be so cheeky. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe take your own advice here and there. I have twice as many edits as you, so what? Swaggering like this is distinctly unhelpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Pride is not swagger my friend. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a Twinkle issue. If Twinkle didn't exist, Magnolia677 would have used undo. If undo didn't exist, Magnolia677 would have done it manually. This is because the root of the problem is that information was added without a source (WP:BURDEN). Why bring up the tool when it's the behavior you're concerned about? You do realize it's just a way to make reverting and warnings slightly easier, right? It's not like Huggle where it shows you an edit that might be vandalism and encourages you to revert it so you can get on to the next in line. clpo13_(talk) 00:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I believe that the at least a part of the issue here is common courtesy and the tool usage. I constantly observe the frustration of new editors on @Magnolia677:'s talk page after their edits are removed with a terse comment 'unsourced', and I do not believe that Magnolia677's methods are always effective. Although, I'm sure that Magnolia677's intentions are noble, the usage of a tool tends to mechanize the process, and this mechanization discourages proper dialog and human cooperation. After all, it's better to engage a new user than to deter her; it's better to properly source added text than to remove it entirely; it's better to politely discuss a controversial issue, than to approach it with automated edits and/or with elliptical remarks. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring - versions of Twelve Tribes of Israel redirects - that have pointed to Israelites for years

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor, Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs), is seeking to work on an article that duplicates content in the Israelites called Twelve Tribes of Israel. I happened upon the article tonight as I was cleaning out very old items in the Special:NewPagesFeed. I was doing clean-up til it didn't make sense to me that the topic was covered so poorly... then I saw redirects in history.

1. Twelve Tribes of Israel redirect to Israelites since 2007 and on November 9 of this year redirected to Twelve tribes of Israel
2. Twelve tribes of Israel was a redirect since 2007 and then there has been activity beginning October 12 of this year
3. See discussion at this talk page.

I have warned the user on the user page and the user has edit warred through the discussions and the warning. And, has reverted all the redirects I tried to restore, like 12 tribes of Israel, See User talk:Triggerhippie4 (history) for warnings and contributions for edit warring.

There are many redirects switched by the user today, I was just starting on them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The user deleted the warnings and I added the link to history above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Putting aside the various redirects and page moves - there has been a redirect of some variation of the article subject 'twelve tribes' since 2005 and two editors have recently decided to create an article on the specific subject due to their feeling the redirect target does not contain enough information. Consensus can change. Bobkilcoyne has given a reasonable explanation of why he is creating a stand-alone article, "Primarily the reason why this article is necessary as well as the Israelites article is to allow for inclusion and development of the New Testament material which is not covered, and would not be appropriate, in the Israelites article" - if you disagree you are free to take the article to Articles for Deletion for a discussion on the merits, however edit-warring to redirect it is not appropriate when other editors disagree with you. Lastly there is nothing wrong with a user removing warnings from their own talk page. It is perfectable acceptable and considered that they have seen and acknowledged it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1. This is a content dispue. 2. Editors are allowed to remove warnings. Moreover, that shows they have seen them. 3. I can well image the difference between an article about the Twelve Tribes as such and the differences between them, and an article about the whole of the Israelites. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will just remove the tag on the top of the Israelites pages about "Twelve tribes of Israel" routes here... and post a message on the talk page about the Twelve Tribes of Israel page and call it a day.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion

Sk8erPrince (talk · contribs) very rarely uses edit summaries, including not using them when nominating articles for AFD. I've asked him to at least use them when nominating articles for deletion [58], but he has not responded to my comment and has continued to not usually use edit summaries, including when nominating articles for deletion [59] [60]. For full context, mandy people, including me, find his behavior hostile and uncooperative in general (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20#Nanaho_Katsuragi for a recent example). My understanding is that using edit summaries when nominating an article for deletion is not optional (WP:AFDHOW says to give edit summaries, and I've seen people blocked before for not using them). I'm hoping an admin can get him to at the very least use edit summaries when nominating articles for AFD, if not be more cooperative in general. Calathan (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, first off: Is this merely about me not using edit summaries, or is it about me being "uncooperative" to a greater extent (I honestly don't see how I am uncooperative if I'm just following by the rules in pretty much every procedure I do)? WP:AFDHOW never once stated that not using edit summaries as an offense. If it did, I will be doing it. I have also deleted 29 articles thus far without using edit summaries, and nobody up until now has informed me that it is necessary... or is it? Until clarification on this so called matter (it's honestly so trivial that this discussion should be closed immediately) is addressed, I see no reason why I should be lectured by another non-admin level member. Also, I have the right to choose whether or not I'd like to reply when you post on my talk page, ie. my territory. Choosing to report me for such a teeny thing... you honestly have nothing better to do. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sk8erPrince, not using edit summaries is in and of itself uncooperative. You also respond with hostility to any criticism (such as the long angry rant you gave at the deletion review I linked to). I don't see how that can be considered cooperative editing. You seem to care much more about bragging about how many articles you've gotten deleted than actually working constructively with anyone else, and basically seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude to everything you do here. While I particularly want you to start using edit summaries so I can tell when you've nominated a page on my watch list for deletion, I'd also really like you to just stop being so hostile in general. So I guess both are issues here. Calathan (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

While I particularly want you to start using edit summaries so I can tell when you've nominated a page on my watch list for deletion

• I see, so that's how it is... basically, you want me to start using edit summaries just to make it easier for you, for your own personal convenience. In other words, Idegon is right - it's not a matter of policy, it's about wanting me to make your life easier. Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Calathan, there is absolutely nothing requiring the use of edit summaries at anytime, for anything. The only thing you've provided diffs for is not using edit summaries, which although certainly a great idea, are unambiguously not required. So if you're complaining about something else, please provide diffs. John from Idegon (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is indeed no policy requiring edit summaries for any edit. That said there is a clear consensus expressed in guidelines and how to documents that edit summaries should be used for some types of edit. One such category is nominations for deletion, as described at WP:AFDHOW. So no, Sk8erPrince doesn't have to do this, but yes he ought to do it anyway. Perhaps he could just agree to use edit summaries for future AFDs, and then we can all move on to something more interesting? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

+1 - Edit summaries aren't compulsory however one should be added after every edit you make otherwise you're more prone to being reverted quicker, But it's up to Sk8, I suggest this gets speedy closed as no admin intervention is needed. –Davey2010^Talk 11:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Good. Nice to see that I'm getting support. Though I must say - none of my edits have been reverted as a result of not putting in any edit summaries. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd like to see Sk8er start using edit summaries for at the very least AfD. Though I am feeling that battleground mentality in Sk8er's comment. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jauerback and Sk8erPrince: I am not certain that I agree with closing the thread at this time. A request that experienced editors provide some form of edit summary for substantive edits is a reasonable one, which has been seconded by several people commenting here, and I see no meaningful explanation from Sk8erPrince for why he is declining to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Can we please move on? An admin has already stipulated that it is not compulsory. Given that is true, why are you still dwelling on it? Oh wait, you're an admin, too. Well, we're not gonna continue this discussion. The end. Stop bothering me about it. It's my choice whether or not I want to use edit summaries, and honestly, if I see one more person nag me about it again, I'm reporting y'all as harassment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I for one agree with Newyorkbrad, this needs a bit more discussion. @Sk8erPrince: I'm entirely unsatisfied with your responses here: by not giving an edit summary mentioning nomination for deletion, you're hiding from those who have the article on their watchlist that the article has been put up for deletion, and you do actually have an obligation to edit collegially here; not doing so is called disruptive editing, and it's grounds for blocking. Your user page also displays a battleground attitude (although I was happy to note that you have not personally deleted any of the articles you claim there to have deleted, just "won" the deletion debate. Is there any way we can persuade you to use the edit summary box at least when nominating an article for deletion? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Sk8erPrince, please doublecheck where you are. This is ANI, a place where an editor comes here to complain about another editor for whatever reason. The OP and the reported user are both equally investigated in the complaint. If I were to complain about a user, my actions also come into question. To call it harrasment seriously shows that you need a refresh on policies and guidelines. Should a user question your editing, they are allowed to (re)open a discussion, whether you like it or not. It's not harrasment. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This response wasn't really helpful and is bordering WP:IDHT. Our work here is to improve the encyclopaedia. Using edit summaries helps other editors to quickly get an idea about the edit, without a need to examine the edit itself. While not compulsory, it is considered good practice to leave an edit summary for each edit. I would urge you to take the advice which multiple editors are giving you here. I see that you do good work in AfDs and are a productive editor otherwise, so adding edit summaries should't hurt. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit summaries aren't always required, but no reason has been given why they aren't being added. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Also agreed. Edit summaries are not currently required for all edits. However, we are all volunteers here, and as someone else mentioned, most/all of us lack the ability to read minds. An edit summary (even a quick one like "typo") can help enormously when an edit pops up on a watch list and doesn't seem to make sense at first glance. Knowing why someone made the edit can go a long way toward smoothing relationships on the site (including the avoidance of potential edit wars). Help:Edit summary clearly states that "it is good practice to fill in the Edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit." (emphasis added) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've undone my closure and I apologize for closing the thread as I didn't think it was going to lead to anything productive. Obviously, I was wrong in that assumption. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to require edit summaries

Propose that we add an editing restriction on Sk8erPrince. Specifically that he be required to use clear edit summaries that indicate what action is he is taking/proposing when initiating a deletion action. This includes but is not limited to PRODs, speedies, and AfD nominations.

Support

1. Support as nom It's at the point of being disruptive and he seems unwilling to do so on his own unless it's specifically required of him. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
2. Support - Having read the discussion above what I didn't think about at the time of writing my comment was that the editor can easily AFD/CSD/PROD any article of their choosing and no one would ever know - That's disruptive on all forms, Although it isn't compulsory to use edit summaries it is extremely helpful and one should always be used when nominating/csding/proding any article, Unless the editor agrees to start using edit summaries for everything they do then they should be restricted for now. –Davey2010^Talk 03:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
3. Support - I definitely support this since Sk8erPrince seems unwilling to use edit summaries unless required to do so. I initially missed that he had nominated an article on my watch list for deletion, and only noticed that it was up for deletion because I was also watching a deletion sorting page where it got listed by someone else. Sk8erPrince, I still am completely baffled as to why you would think making things easier for other users is not a good enough reason to use edit summaries. Calathan (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
4. Support - if a vote will do anything to help. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Support Wikipedia relies on collaboration. Rules cannot impose common sense, but the community can recognize when a problem exists and require minimum standards. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
6. Support WP:AFDHOWTO definitely instructs users to use edit summaries. While it never clarifies if this step is optional or not, the entire process seems pretty self-explanatory to me, and it doesn't seem to leave any room for people to regard certain instructions as optional. Parsley Man (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
7. Support - Sk8er has developed a battleground mentality, they talk down to other editors who disagree with their approach without actually listening. Perhaps enforcing an edit summary requirement for them at AfD, CSD and PROD will teach them to collaborate a little better and kill some of the attitude. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
8. Support To be honest I would actually prefer that Sk8er leave edit summaries for everything. Edit summaries are always helpful. Another reason for supporting this is that it will help remind Sk8er that we do stuff by consensus here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
9. Support A lack of edit summaries drives me up the wall. I am not a mind reader and cannot guess what the intent of people's edits are, and get annoyed at wasting time looking at the diffs to work it out. If I revert your edit with "not an improvement, no edit summary", it means I couldn't understand how you were trying to improve the encyclopedia, and is a cue to explain yourself more thoroughly next time. (As a bit of blatant advertising : support voters, consider adding {{User:Ritchie333/Userbox ES}} to your userpage :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
10. Support - Per Ritchie333. People not using edit summaries also drives me up the wall and i often warn people for not using edit summaries when they need to. Class455 (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
11. Strong support per Mr rnddude and Ritchie. I might nick that userbox for my user page :D Patient Zero^talk 13:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
12. Conditional Support - Edit summaries are not always needed but are preferred. For minor edits (such as typos, adding commas or the like) we should give a pass, but for major edits (AfDs, adding/removing bulk/possibly disputed content) they should be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
13. Support for AFD - Speaking for myself I don't always leave an edit summary for trivial edits (unless it's to fix an issue I myself created such as broken syntax) but I think most people would be fine with that. For substantial edits like removing OR or for xdd/prods I think it's quite reasonable to request edit summaries. However I think the issue would be avoided if using the xFD tab to handle the nomination procedure as it will auto fill the summary and make the issue non existent - this may require the user to change their site optiionsSephyTheThird (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

    @SephyTheThird: Yep, but twinkle is required to do this but may change their preferences via Special:Preferences. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

14. Support: Almost everyday I see no edit summaries in my lifetime mostly by IPs, newbies and some inexperienced editors. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
15. Support for any AFD, PROD, CSD, or related edit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
16. Support. I use edit summaries for any of my edits unless it involves updating a show airing live. Even for minor typos or corrections, ce is the way for me. Any editing involving deletion or nomination should require the use of edit summaries. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
17. Support, because it makes all of our lives easier...TJH2018talk 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
18. Support. Good idea to impose edit summaries in special cases. Clearly improving cooperation. Polentarion Talk 22:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong oppose: Serious violation of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Previous discussion regarding the exact same concern has already been closed by Admin Jauerback, with the closing message being "Edit summaries would be nice, but they aren't required". You could try and encourage me to use them, but I could refuse on the grounds that it's not compulsory. So what I'm seeing here is y'all ganging up on me to force me to comply on something that isn't compulsory? That's WP:THREAT right there. That honestly makes me even more inclined to not comply, more so than before, wherein I simply thought adding an edit summary is such a hassle. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   Sk8erPrince, this is not a legal threat? so... WP:THREAT doesn't apply. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   So what? I think assembling between 50-100 properly formatted citations to prepare an article through GAN is a "hassle" but I don't go onto WT:GAN decrying the process as a load of rubbish. Also, above you wrote "I have no obligation to make life easy for you" - be careful you don't get blocked, as somebody might fire that back at you as a response to your first unblock request! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   Sk8erPrince, I suggest that you reread policies and guidelines. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose: On the grounds that this shouldn't be a special rule applied to one editor we don't like. This should either be made policy, or this particular WP:STICK should be dropped. 206.41.25.114 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

   Editing restrictions are imposed on editors which have shown to be disruptive in certain areas. This is not because we don't like them, this is so editors can move on without worry of others. Restrictions can also always be removed at a later date by the community. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Is it mandatory now to use an edit summary when sending an article to AfD? I've never used one and never will. Pages of importance are on people's watchlists, plus the discussions are grouped by category at AfD for anyone interested in saving something (or backing up the deletion argument for that matter). Is this now a blockable offense? Does the AfD guidance trump WP:EDITSUMMARY? Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Some editors, such as Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) contribute enormously to the encyclopedia without leaving much in the way of edit summaries, but even then they leave one when necessary. Let me give you a typical example here. In this case, I assume the editor wanted to trim the sentence down and improve readability, but left it in a state of awkward grammar. Since I had no idea what their actual intent was, I was forced to revert. Perhaps with an edit summary, we could have worked out something else that was even better, but that was not to happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

This is a pattern, and the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that has dominated some of the AfD discussions that Prince has been involved in. Here are some edits that have raised red flags with me: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. It is not productive, it is not collaborative, and bridges have already been burnt with multiple editors. [66], [67]. Im not saying that all of his AfDs have been unjustified, but seriously he needs to tone it down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As a participant in WIkiProject Anime and manga, I have to second that Sk8erPrince is very disruptive to the project. Our deletion sorting list is overwhelmed with his nominations (and many renominations), where in many of the cases it doesn't even seem like they attempted sufficient prior research into notability, and their combative attitude turned me off from participating in any of the discussions. (they're strongly focused on deleting articles rather than helping to assert the notability of them or other improvements) They do not have a history of being willing to collaborate with other editors, very contrary to Wikipedia's nature, and have been brought to ANI in the past for personal attacks. I'd like to reiterate Knowledgekid87's statement that many experienced editors have tried to reach out to them (just look at their talk page history) but they have not been receptive at all. I personally feel that deleting articles on non-notable subjects is good for Wikipedia, but Sk8erPrince's aggressive AfD crusade is not the way to go about it. Opencooper (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I investigated the user a bit and he has displayed battleground tendacies quite often. He labels his works as victories or defeat, seems to hold a superior/inferior orientation, and I've seen him outright belittle people that disagree with him. As for what can change, the user needs to adopt a different kind of mentality when dealing with people. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

He has definitely been disruptive in many ways. I think he wants to contribute constructively to WP:ANIME and other areas, but he needs to tone down the combativeness. All of us likely have things here that irk us in one way or another, but we someone muddle through and are able to work together (mostly) peacefully. I know there are some policies and guidelines here that I think should be different, and I've participated in a number of discussions regarding them. However, in the end consensus decided how things are to be here (at least for now), and I go along with that. Sk8erPrince needs to learn to play in the great sandbox without constantly throwing sand in others' faces. Most or all of the issues could be addressed simply by extending a courteous attitude toward everyone else. Politeness goes a long way. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I should probably mention that earlier today I removed something from his userpage that I thought could be considered offensive; though I also decided if he reverted and kicked off at me for it, I would just take it on the chin. And while "This user is strictly, unquestionably, undeniably and exclusively heterosexual" isn't directly homophobic, it does leave me with unpleasant overtones of it (after all, if you're comfortable with your sexuality be it gay, straight, bi, asexual, not a clue etc, why would you need to assert it loudly?). And a section of "Pages I've deleted myself" (which is factually wrong as he has to ask an admin to do that) isn't really what Wikipedia is about (not to mention the polar opposite of User:Ritchie333/saves) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncivil discourse by User:Elvey

When asked for sources here they respond Find someone else to harass, please. I've written a comment on the talk page. Which I don't need to quote sources to do. And you have no business demanding. Please go away. (Ditto? Willful blindness†)

When I commented "What you added does not belong in the section on "causes" and the HuffPo is not a very good source." the responded "You are being rude. "[68]

Claiming harassment were their is none IMO is not appropriate. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have asked James to be civil - to answer several reasonable questions, but he thrice avoids answering them - three bright line violations of the WP:CIVIL policy. Instead he mines my edits for dirt, misquotes me, and brings it here to ANI. And yet I'm the one with the battleground mentality? Why the incivility, folks?

The fact is, I had already provided a source which even editor who made the comment I was responding to (Ronz) later said is high quality. From http://www.berkeleywellness.com/about-us:

Berkeley Wellness, in collaboration with the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, is the leading online resource for evidence-based wellness information.

We rely on the expertise of top researchers at the University of California, as well as other physicians and scientists from around the world, to translate leading-edge research into practical advice for daily living.

The editors and editorial board of both the Wellness Letter and Berkeley Wellness review the latest research to clarify the often conflicting and superficial health information presented by the popular media. We don't promote faddish diets or other anecdote-based regimens. Nor do we repeat conventional medical advice from mainstream health organizations or pharmaceutical companies.

Again, I had already provided a source. I had started a section on a talk page specifically to engage collaboratively with other editors - to discuss a section that the subsequent discussion shows there is consensus for. I started a subsection, Talk:Dean_Ornish#What_to_call_it. Ronz often asks for sources. That's fine, if terse, when content is proposed and none has been offered or is evident as in that case. But that was not the case here. While Ronz should have noticed the source, I think I did overreact, and apologize. Given tenseness due to James' recent incivility, the election, etc, I ask for compassion and fairness. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I was going to say, mildly uncivil, then I scrolled up and saw this reply to Alexbrn's quite reasonable request: "You ignored my question‡, again. That is not being wp:civil. Well, at least we see in your comments consistent... willful ignorance, chronic incivility, and trolling. Obviously you're not here to build an encylopedia. I will thus ignore you. Go away, please. --Elvey(t•c) 08:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)". Apart from the blatant unjustified personal attacks, they did not seem to actually understand what Alexbrn asked for, despite a further explanation. Looks like a competance issue coupled with a basically uncivil approach to other people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, I'd already provided sources, but Alexbrn is doing the same thing as Ronz: acting as if I haven't, and like James, acting as if WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to them. They violate WP:CIVIL, which states in part, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." I wonder how much, uh, off-wiki communication there is among the crowd of editors who always seem to show up with the same unverifiable personal attacks/to defend each other. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because you do not like the answers you get is not a violation of WP:CIVIL which from going back over your contribution history over the years appears to be your 'go to' method of disregarding editors you are in conflict with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Please try not to beat up your spouse - Unless they are willing to commit to engaging in a civil manner, their editing privilidges may need to be removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd already further explained and removed the comment and resolved the dispute before I ever even saw a notification of this thread. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, could you please adjust the quotation? Your message and the quote don't match up. Thanks. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Que? They do for me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Lo siento. It didn't look like it to me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah I think I know what you mean, no I wasnt linking to the specific section/comment position on the page, just the diff (as the comment can be seen at the top on the right). Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Of note: Elvey was community banned for 3 months beginning in February of this year for "promoting a battleground mentality" and for being "disruptive and needlessly aggressive". See discussion. Also note that Elvey has been blocked as far back as 2007 for creating a hostile editing environment, and blocked three other times for disruptive editing/personal attacks. See block log. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, user also apparently has an unhelpful penchant for leaving lengthy custom warning templates: [69], [70]. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You violated BLP, so I warned you. I take copyright violations seriously. Snooganssnoogans repeatedly failed to, and had violated copyright. So a warning was warranted. You disagree. Why exactly? --Elvey^(t•c) 00:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No one violated BLP. This was well resolved on the article talk, and amounted to a slight change of wording to be more in line with the source. The COPYVIO issue, while legitimate, was also well resolved on talk, and done so nearly a week prior to your leaving literally a page long warning for Snoogans. Neither was remotely necessary. TimothyJosephWood 01:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• There has also been a lot of recent stuff at WP:AE. I can confirm from my own personal experiences all of the concerns being expressed here: example. I think we may be at the point where a site-ban may be necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would urge administrators to enforce the section of WP:CIVIL which states, "Editors are expected ... to be responsive to good-faith questions," or remove it (or explain if I'm misunderstanding it). Either I'm mistaken or several of the diffs above show (me pointing out cases of) it being violated, frequently. It's not an essay or guideline. It's a core policy and the violations are blatant. Tryptofish has been trying to get me site-banned for ages, has their own problems, and is very closely associated with a site-banned sockpuppeteer who receives special treatment since retiring and a user who (again, violating WP:CIVIL) refused to answer when I asked him, "...Do you have any alternative accounts?" --Elvey^(t•c) 00:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I smell bad, too.

Admins looking here should know that we are really dealing with much more than what Doc James called "uncivil discourse", although there is certainly plenty of that, too. There is a profound competence issue here (or could it somehow be very intense trolling?). What you see at the link I gave, to my talk page archive, as well as here in this ANI discussion, is Elvey consistently failing to have the slightest clue about why other editors have concerns about his editing, and then turning around and playing the victim, while accusing the other editors of pretty much what they said about him. If one looks at the details, Elvey's accusations always end up being meritless, to the point of being nonsensical. It's getting to be a time drain for the rest of us, and as I said above, we have gotten into site-ban territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Since Elvey just referred to me there, I'll make a statement. First, the subject matter here is content about industry corruption of medicine, which is a topic where Elvey kind of goes off the rails here in WP, and is directly related to their community-imposed extended block. The extended block was part of what triggered a reversal of Elvey's controversial/POINTy close on an RfC to change MEDRS.

Elvey's initial edit that this whole thing developed over, was on Oct 2, here, made to the Causes section of the Obesity article (a section for biomedical information). Their edit was about about the sugar industry paying for science that hid the cardiovascular damage that sugar does, and trying to turn attention away from contribution of sugar and diet to obesity through an academic organization called GEBN that solely emphasizes people exercising more.

On Oct 2, Doc James used the MEDRS-source from Elvey's edit elsewhere in the article in this dif, and after watching Elvey batter the talk page, on Oct 13 I implemented content about industry corruption with regard to obesity research based on Elvey's edit but with other refs in this dif in the "Society and culture" section, and added content to coronary heart disease article based on refs Elvey had brought in this dif.

I'll ask anybody to review what unfolded on the Talk page starting Oct 2 in this section: Talk:Obesity#More_diet_than_exercise.3F, with Elvey's battery/BLUDGEONing, with special mind to the following diffs: diff (with the one-word edit summary "adjusted" is inappropriate dismissive spraying of liquid. Would you be willing to give a shot at being more collaborative, Doc ?), diff (You say the refs are poor. Have you read them? Bloomberg? PBS? What are you on? AGAIN: I request that you stop removing content...), diff, and dif, with this weirdly repeated question throughout: The issue is clearly bigger than GEBN, as the disputed content shows-it's just the tip of the iceberg. Agreed?

Just today Elvey posted this proposal on Talk saying there was nothing about sugary drinks in the article, to which I responded here, providing the quote of the existing content covering that quite clearly.

There is a WP:CIR, bludgeoning thing going on here. Off the rails again with regard to industry corruption of medicine. Jytdog (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why you kept refusing to answer the question. You were setting a trap. Your ability to game the system is impressive. Well played, sir, well played. I mean getting that tban imposed and then claiming you've connected adding information about health effects of sugar to the article on Obesity and a tban on COI - really, masterful gamesmanship. You win. I retire. --Elvey^(t•c) 11:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

At the ANI that led to their TBAN and the ANI that led to the community imposed extended block, Elvey responded by vanishing for a while - described here at the last ANI. Will probably be true to form again this time. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Sources/Forum shopping

All three sources appear to be WP:MEDRS violations. There are reviews on the causes. QuackGuru (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru:The sources (PBS and Bloomberg News) are only backing statements about patients' beliefs, so they can't be violating MEDRS. Also, you're forum shopping: You are rehashing a discussion on the talk page, where I said:

content that complies with WP:MEDINDY/BIOMEDICAL, which, I remind you, states :"What is not biomedical information?": "Statements about patients' beliefs regarding a disease or treatment" "why people choose or reject a particular treatment" "information about disease awareness campaigns", and is very reliably sourced. So follow up on the article talk page, not here, please! --Elvey^(t•c) 01:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What you added appears to be about medical content not patients' beliefs. The causes section is for medical content, anyhow. I'm note sure what you mean by "forum shopping". Since you replied here then I will reply here to keep the discussion together. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Elvey, what is this about? QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

I would like to propose a WP:1RR for a year and a ban on comments on other editors motives broadly construed for User:Elvey. Others thoughts? User Elvey is also to be restricted to one account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

A very silly dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apparently we need a community discussion to determine whether repeatedly edit warring to call a living person a dick on an unrelated discussion on an unrelated article is okay. Comments from uninvolved...adults...are welcome. Anyone who feels frisky is more than welcome to link to the last dozen ANI threads regarding civility and this user. TimothyJosephWood 14:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "...This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Seems pretty straightforward. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 15:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

But there's also WP:TPO. I'm also torn about this. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this would apply though: "Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies" RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments...Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons, banning, or anti-promotional policies". Therefore, if we're in agreement that this is a WP:BLP violation, there is no problem with editing the talk page comment. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 15:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

TPO is not carte blanche to violate guidelines, or is this a grammar school playground ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

All of this is quite obvious, or at least should be to an editor who has (I believe) 50k+ edits, and who, incidentally, has been reported to ANI before over violating TPO on the same talk page. It would be super to get a mild warning to dial back the vitriol, because this much bile is a bit too much. TimothyJosephWood 15:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Scjessey has 24K+ edits - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Edit counter was down. TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it with the edit summary: rm blp vio per WP:BLP which supersedes WP:TPO (also removed per User:Scjessey: "If in doubt, leave it out...")

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I totally disagree with such a removal. The phrase "being a dick" is not a BLPVIO. In the appropriate context, which it was, it was my shorthand for the "dickish" behavior of the candidate (Sanders) during the primary campaign. Kevin Drum summed it up thusly: "Over and over, his audience of passionate millennials heard him trash Clinton as a corrupt, warmongering, corporate shill. After he lost, he endorsed Clinton only slowly and grudgingly, and by the time he started campaigning for her with any enthusiasm, it was too late." The specific language was taken from the title of this well-known YouTube video, although I used the phrase in a different context. So given my contention that it was not a BLPVIO, I think the refactoring of my comment was out of order. A cursory glance of the related edit history of User:Timothyjosephwood to my own edit history will reveal this is more about the reporting editor's hostility towards me and the ideology he perceives me to have, than any desire to serve the best interests of this project. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I was totally uninvolved in the discussion, which, if you look at my evil plan, is actually a carefully concocted strategy. The issue I have...have had... with SCJ is that he's a dick...which is of course a complex analogy for the user's persistent lack of civility, and not just a redirect. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think maybe your irony isn't going to come across like you imagined it would. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary is much worse, although Malerooster is being cute about it ("gee, I'm only speaking hypothetically") Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Malerooster reported by User:JFG (Result: ). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the offensive edit summary and warned Malerooster. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's about as amusing as trying to argue that calling someone a dick is actually a complex rhetorical device. And yes, it will ruin my day if SCJ doesn't try to defend that statement. TimothyJosephWood 16:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New rule, if you openly challenge someone to bring you to ANI over something exceedingly dumb, you should be required to defend it in front of the community. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If you could suspend your flippant tone for a second, I'd like to point you to this. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Now would be a good time to hat this and move on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The N-Word: User Plays Race Card to Challenge AfD Nomination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new user (Syrup41) has accused Wikipedia the company, the editors in this AfD discussion, and me specifically of being white supremacists. His comments are uglier than they sound. Hopefully reporting this incident to the Administrators will be a check against future accusations. Have a good day everyone. ~pm 99.242.25.5 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was pretty bizarre. I think Syrup may have made a case for not here in one series of edits. Reading that was like watching someone with Tourette syndrome decompensate. John from Idegon (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor now blocked. Also wow. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:Tutorial/Registration redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know where to report this, but is this page supposed to be a redirect or...? It has stuff on it, and I'm entirely unfamiliar with redirecting policies, so I don't want to mess with it. Zupotachyon (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a redirect, along with the other tutorial sub-talk pages, to make sure that all newbies asking questions about the tutorial wind up in one place. That doesn't always work, and sometimes newbies post in the redirected talk page instead, which is the stuff you see. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. Zupotachyon (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and BLP accusations with United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016

• United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article has had several persistent issues over the summer and continuing into this fall. On July 15th, 2016 an IP user appeared who added information about Kurt Evans to the article. ALPolitico, a highly experienced editor with political posts, cleaned up the content and made it conform more to the general style of these political encyclopedia entries. There was a lot of reverting back and forth between the various IP addresses (who identified themselves later as Kurt Evans) and ALPolitico from July 28th to August 5th. ALPolitico made another larger modification on August 11th, removing unnecessary information and adding information about Kurt Evans being a perennial candidate. The IP user reverted ALPoliticos edits stating he removed the information for an "Inadequate reason". The prior edit summary was "Cleanup; what he teaches doesn't matter; with that many previous bids, he is a perennial candidate.", which seems like an adequate reason for the changed information to me.

In Mid-August 2016 this article came to my attention during routine vandalism monitoring. I saw the large back and forth reverts going on and added the page to my watchlist. On that same day, Ymblanter semi-protected the page temporarily, which stopped the disruptive activity from the IP user directly editing the article. The IP user requested assistance at the talk page, which I answered and resolved at that time. Another request for assistance was made and an exchange continued between an outside editor and then ALPolitico, which was an unproductive exchange of accusations. A third request and a fourth request were posted. I responded to the fourth request, referring the IP to WP:OTRS at this point for a fresh take from a volunteer there to assist.

Temporary Semi-Protection was added by Ymblanter again on September 25th; CambridgeBayWeather on October 18th and temporary full protection was added as of November 22nd due to the disruptive editing after I requested indefinite semi protection. It is clear that the IP user just doesn't like what the article says about him, even though ALPolitico sourced the information that was added and maintained the general style used in these types of articles. Semi-protection has not worked because the IP comes back after it expires just to restart the dispute. I strongly believe the article should be indefinitely semi-protected and the talk page should be temporarily semi-protected for a long period of time as this activity is purely disruptive at this point.

The final talk page post before this AN/I by the IP was this. The user disagrees with the consensus formed by ALPolitico and myself about the content of the article and simply wants to keep claiming we are documenting his bid unfairly. After reviewing the sources and the edits again, I do not feel we have misweighed or misrepresented the subject in question. As the user is an IP user with changing IPs, I will leave notice of this discussion on the talk page and last used IP address. Thanks. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is 2002 U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Evans. In South Dakota a candidate for statewide office "qualifies" by submitting a required number of petition signatures to the secretary of state's office. To note that someone didn't "qualify" means that he or she declared as a candidate but didn't submit the required signatures. This carries the strongly negative connotation of someone who neglected to count the cost of a campaign and raised expectations he or she couldn't meet. In nearly 30 years of political activism, I don't remember hearing any other usage of the word "qualify" in this context.

That's nearly the opposite of what happened in the case at hand. I very deliberately refrained from declaring as a candidate because I understood that I couldn't be legally recognized as such unless federal district judge Karen Schreier approved the state party's motion to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. Schreier explicitly rejected two such motions and thereby explicitly prevented anyone from becoming a Constitution Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. Judge Schreier's final August 31 ruling is explained in considerable detail in one of the sources that "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" have repeatedly removed for no stated reason.

I never declared as a Constitution Party candidate for this office, and I was never legally recognized as such. To say that I didn't "qualify" falsely suggests that it was possible for me to do so. In reality the Constitution Party was denied ballot access when Judge Schreier rejected the state party's motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy, as sourced in the Dakota Free Press articles from August 18 and September 8. "ALPolitico" and "Dane2007" have both refused to explain why they're so determined to conceal this information from Wikipedia's readers, and their actions have obviously been a huge inconvenience for me.

My IP address changes automatically, but I can be called back to this (or any other) discussion by an email to the address in the first paragraph at the top of the article's "Talk" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.252.72 (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, this user's IP range seems to be rather active on the related article since July 2016. See here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans, and I freely acknowledge that each of the edits from this IP range was mine. Initially I wasn't identifying myself or posting conflict-of-interest notices because I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia protocol and didn't expect my edits to be controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.255.25 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution Party of South Dakota nominated Kurt Evans for the U.S. Senate on July 9, 2016, as can be seen at their website here. As can be seen here, they went to court in an attempt to get him on the ballot. A candidate does not have to qualify to be on the ballot in order to be nominated by a party; see a recent example here. I had suggested that a short section on the litigation might have be worthwhile. However, the IP user claiming to be Kurt Evans repeatedly undid perfectly reasonable edits because he did not like them, and also engaged in personal attacks against me, as can be seen on the article's talk page; this IP user is likely also him. ALPolitico (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. As I clearly explained on the article's "Talk" page on September 25, the state party nominated me to become its candidate in the event that federal district judge Karen Schreier approved its motion to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. Judge Schreier explicitly rejected two such motions and thereby explicitly prevented anyone from becoming a Constitution Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. The edits "ALPolitico" describes as "perfectly reasonable" were actually false, misleading and possibly defamatory, but I was wrong to retaliate with personal attacks, and I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.224.26 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing false, misleading, or defamatory in any edit I have made, in this article or others. ALPolitico (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It was probably wrong to call "ALPolitico" smug, obnoxious and egomaniacal, but claims like that one are the reason. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.224.26 (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Kurt, hi!

I've only been skimming the report here so I don't really know the full detail of what's going on here. But, 2016? Seems a little far away from 2002. You're telling us that you tried to run this year, right? Has anyone tried to explain to you how we operate here? If something is going into one of our articles, it needs to be backed up with a source that's considered Reliable. Have a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source for a bit more insight. If you can find a source (or sourcess) that we class as 'reliable', please, copy and paste it/them to here, and we'll see what we can do about putting in your info, otherwise, sorry man, but you're out of luck.

Collaborate with us, please? Be our companion, not our problem. (I apologise if that comes across as rude) MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 08:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying I tried to run this year. I made myself conditionally available to the state Constitution Party, but federal district judge Karen Schreier rejected its motions to allow a U.S. Senate candidacy. These are the sources I'd placed in the article. —KE

Heidelberger, Cory (August 18, 2016). "Constitution Party Still Fighting to Place Evans and Schmidt on Ballot". Dakota Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2016. http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/08/18/constitution-party-still-fighting-to-place-evans-and-schmidt-on-ballot/

Heidelberger, Cory (September 8, 2016). "Constitution Party Definitely Not Getting Evans and Schmidt on Ballot". Dakota Free Press. Retrieved November 22, 2016. http://dakotafreepress.com/2016/09/08/constitution-party-definitely-not-getting-evans-and-schmidt-on-ballot/

Just awake and aware of this as I got the notification. If anybody feels the protection needs changing feel free to change it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User Ron Lucci has removed a speedy deletion tag on an article I've previously deleted; he is the article creator

The aforementioned user has recreated a page that I've previously deleted, with barely any improvements (in fact, I'd argue that it was an even worse revision because the previous revision that got deleted at least had two [weak] references at the bottom). This revision has ZERO references. He is starting show disruption signs (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) - see 2) Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Looking at Ron's talk page, it would appear that Ron has not bothered to peer review his articles before publication. While not an offense, a poorly structured article that is recreated without addressing its previous issues lay the grounds for speedy deletion. I placed the WP:G4 tag at the very top of the recreated article, hoping that it gets speedy deleted by an admin. However, Ron has removed the tag by himself, even though he's not allowed to. Quoting the G4 notice: "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Ron has blatantly violated the directions on the notice (since he is the article creator), hence I request that the page be speedy deleted, and that Ron be disallowed to recreate the same article until it has been peer reviewed and expanded enough to meet WP:WHYN. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Page has been deleted by User:Someguy1221 , thank you Someguy. Let's get this purple boxed and go edit something notable. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 07:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring, incivilty, block evades from an IP contributor

Per this discussion, an anonymous IP contributor is being abusive and is evading blocks. I propose to measure collateral damage and ban the whole subnet. I unfortunately am underinformed and can't provide a list of IPs blocked so far, but I believe this should be obtainable from the discussion linked. --Gryllida (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Look at User talk:WarMachineWildThing's page history. That should give you some idea of the IP addresses. This has apparently been going on for five months. Harassment like this should never be allowed. — Gestrid (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For starters:

2a02:c7f:8e43:2f00:48b7:54e6:693f:bf42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The most recent known incarnation, just blocked today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that is all the IPs that posted on the harassed user's wall, though I hear NeilN may have been harassed some by this user as well at one point. I realize many of these IPs are stale, but they all provide evidence, and I hope they'll also provide some technical help with this situation, too. The IPs are listed in reverse chronological order. As I said, this harassment has been going on for five months. This cannot be allowed to continue! — Gestrid (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps slapping indefinite semi protect on WarMarchineWildThing's talk page will do the trick. IP's cannot be blocked for extended periods of time unless it is very stable. A short term range block may be in order though. @KrakatoaKatie:, you've done a number of range blocks in your time, would you care to comment? From the looks of things, the range isn't huge and collateral damage may be limited, but I don't have access to the IP range contributions tool. Blackmane (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

One IP is all I found in NeilN's talk page history: 185.54.163.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There are also a couple other IPs that might be able to be listed here, but they're not in the same range as most of the ones above and the edits they made were removed from public view, so I can't be sure enough to list them here. — Gestrid (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've extended the block on the IPv6, and will leave blocks on the others to those who do range blocks - it looks to me like there's at least one small range there that can be blocked. I also have WarMarchineWildThing's talk page watched now and will revert/block/protect as seems necessary. If other admins watch and do the same, we should be able to deal with this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• I've blocked 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00::/64 for one month, which will get the rest of the IPv6 addresses currently allocated to this end user. That, with the ECP Oshwah placed, should stop this for a while. The IPv4 range is 185.54.163.0/24, but there are no edits from this user in that range since around the last week of September. I have trouble rangeblocking stale IPs, so I'm going to leave that one alone for now. If he returns, ping me and I'll whack him. :-) Katie^talk 11:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As this is in regards to me I am going to respond. The IP user in question has been doing this for almost 5 months. The first time they almost got my blocked for edit warring, when that didn't work and they got themselves blocked they started jumping IPs and harrassing me through my talk page. When that got them blocked several times they jumped IPs again and went after others including the Admin who was doing the blocks NeilN. They have a tell that I normally can catch right away. They make an edit like last night of putting duplicate information in an article and when it's removed by another editor they put it back, when I remove the harassment starts and I'm suddenly and Vandal, OWNISH, and a bully to IPs. The IPs always Geolocate overseas to the same area. The comments are always the same towards me and thy always bring up the first interaction we had and all the harassing posts they made on my talk page. It is hard to avoid them because by the time I realize it's them again it's to late, and they never seem to get bored with it. I have placed myself on an Indef block for the time being and will not be editting as trying to revert IP vandals or any incorrect IP period is a little hard to do when any of them could be that IP user just waiting for me so this can start again. I appreciate each one of you who has taken steps to prevent this any further and reached out to me. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Problematic Academic Dishonesty by Keysanger

A problem is ongoing at the article Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) with User:Keysanger. On March 2016, the article's move request went in favor of the actual title of a 19th century treaty (see [71]). The titling of this article has been a problem since its creation (see redirects [72]); in fact, in 2011, Alex Harvey commented on the lack of neutrality of titles such as "Secret Treaty of Alliance" (see [73]). In spite of the move request, Keysanger refuses to drop the stick and continues to push for the inclusion of the title "Secret Treaty of Alliance" (see talk page discussion [74] and article edit history [75]).

While this might appear to be a content dispute, it is far more serious than it appears at a cursory look. You see, Keysanger is not only usually incomprehensible when writing in English, but he also has a tendency to misinterpret sources and use this misinterpretation to push false information in articles related to Peru-Chile relations (this includes War of the Pacific, Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly, and the current Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru)). With regards to the last one, a case in point is Chile's expansionism. To cite one author, "Argentine fears of Chilean expansionism and preemptive attack were well-founded. Official records show that Chilean leaders were, indeed, contemplating such options against their still militarily inferior neighbor. Chile combined ambition with military might" (Joao Resende-Santos, Neorealism, States, and the Modern Mass Army, p. 225). Another author writes, "Chile's expansionist policy had its greatest success during the Pacific War (1879-1884) when it divested Peru and Bolivia of their mining regions in the south" (Zylberberg & Monterichard, "An Abortive Attempt to Change Foreign Policy," in Why Nations Realign, ed. KJ Holsti).

However, Keysanger assures us that to discuss Chilean expansionism is "POV" ([76]).

Returning to the title, Keysanger affirms that the article has another name ([77] & [78]). Two different users had already disagreed with Keysanger (@Nizolan and Music1201: [79]). However, Keysanger now uses 8 sources to support his position. The issue is that these sources, unsurprisingly, actually do not support Keysanger—meaning that Keysanger is purposely misusing sources, which is a serious offense. For example, reading page 127 of Davis and Finan's Latin American Diplomatic History, the only mention of the treaty that we find is the following: "rumor persisted of a secret treaty of alliance between Peru and Bolivia against Chile". Another example, reading page 264 of Keen and Haynes' A History of Latin America, we find the following text: "Peru and Bolivia had negotiated a secret treaty in 1874 providing for military alliance in the event either power went to war with Chile". While both sources indicate that the treaty was secret, a point which is not disputed (see "The Treaty of Defensive Alliance was a secret defense pact"), neither source supports the claim that there is an alternative title to the treaty. Keysanger is clearly misusing sources to support a false claim.

Moreover, Keysanger has spread this misuse of sources into other articles as well. See War of the Pacific as an example ([80]).

The article on the War of the Pacific is a total mess, again largely due to Keysanger's misuse of sources. For instance, historians who write on the War of the Pacific will tell you that "The War of the Pacific, which began in 1879, was a struggle between Chile on the one side and Bolivia and Peru on the other for control of rich nitrate and guano deposits in the provinces of Atacama and Tarapaca. Altough Atacama belonged to Bolivia and Tarapaca to Peru, Chile had invested heavily in both, and all three countries viewed the resources of these provinces as providing a solution to their desperate financial problems" (Cain and Hopkins, British Imperialism: 1688-2015, p. 286). Even the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that "War of the Pacific, Spanish Guerra del Pacífico, (1879–83), conflict involving Chile, Bolivia, and Peru, which resulted in Chilean annexation of valuable disputed territory on the Pacific coast. [...] The territory contained valuable mineral resources, particularly sodium nitrate" ([81]).

However, Keysanger disagrees with this economic interpretation of the conflict, particularly when related to Chile. As User:Dentren could probably explain in greater detail, Keysanger has shaped the article to lessen the focus on Chile's economic interests (please read his version on the causes of the war). You can also more clearly see Keysanger's manipulation of the article through his edits ([82], [83]). In fact, at one point the article had a subsection focusing on the economic causes of the conflict, but Keysanger deleted this section and merged it into the current "causes of the war" section where he minimizes the conflict's economic reasons (see [84]).

This entirely absurd situation has spanned several years. A WP:AN/I case has already been previously been filed about Keysanger (see [85]); but the article ban proposal did not have enough support then. Several users have attempted to help resolve the problem; @Neil P. Quinn, Robert McClenon, Darkness Shines, Cloudaoc, Wee Curry Monster, and KoshVorlon:. I honestly have no idea how this can be finally resolved. For how long more must this problem with Keysanger continue before the Wikipedia Community does something about this user's irrational behavior and academic dishonesty?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 09:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• User MarshalN20 has been once blocked from editing articles of the History of Latin America after an exhaustive analysis of his behaviour because, as the Arbitration Committee stated: MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct ([86] [87][88]). Please, see more in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History
• He promised not to edit articles related to the War of the Pacific: I would just like to assure the arbitration committee that I do not plan to edit any article related to the War of the Pacific any time soon ([89]). You may know why he had to state that.
• He has began again with his POV treatment of the article about an Alliance of Peru and Bolivia. He tries to conceal that the treaty is also called "secret treaty" and to blame a "Chilean expansionism" as the only a cause of the war.
• Regarding the content dispute, I can only repeat what I wrote in the discussion page of the article:

Robert N. Burr, in By Reason Or Force: Chile and the Balancing of Power in South America, 1830-1905, a often cited ouvre about History of Chile, has a special chapter beginning at page 124 with the name "The Secret Treaty Between Peru and Bolivia".

William Jefferson Denis, in his valuable "Documentary History of the Tacna Arica Dispute" published by the University of Iowa Studies in the Social Sciences, has compiled 90 treaties, memorandum, letters, official declarations, etc, etc, about the War of the Pacific. In the index of the compilation, page 5, as well as in page 56, at the beginnig of the text given as introduction to the content, he names the treaty Treaty of Defensive Alliance or "Secret Treaty" between Peru and Bolivia, 1873".

So, there is another name, much more common than the vacuousness of "Treaty of Defensive Alliance". By WP:OTHERNAMES this alternative must be there.

• How serious is MarshalN20 with his statements? Can he support them with reliable sources?: No. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Undue weight and original research in the Causes of the War of the Pacific Both, Dentren and MarshalN20 declined to present any arguments to the discussion. --Keysanger (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I was indeed topic banned by the Arbitration Committee for editing in the article Paraguayan War (an entirely different subject; see [90]). However, on August 2015 (over a year ago), the topic ban was lifted ([91]). Not only is it distasteful for Keysanger to bring it up now, but this is an unacceptable use of the ARBCOM to harass and cast aspersions. Keysanger has been previously warned by KoshVorlon, WCM, and Cambalachero to drop the stick on this matter. Keysanger's refusal to drop it only further confirms that this is a behavioral problem, not just a content dispute.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wtshymanski continuing to refuse to abide by his edit restriction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is currently under the following edit restriction

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · logs) is banned from reverting any edit made by an editor using an IP address. This includes not only a direct reversion of an edit (using the "undo" button) but also indirectly reverting by copy-pasting text from a previous version of an article.

Wtshymanski has consistently refused to abide by the restriction having now been blocked twice for violating the restriction (in April and June 2016). Wtshymanski has demonstrated once again that he has no intention of abiding by it by violating his editing restriction yet agian

Good faith edit made by an IP editor here

Wtshymanski has reverted it here and disguised it by not using the word 'revert' (or any avariation) in the edit summary.

85.255.234.176 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you, 85.255.234.176, are the same person as the IP user who made that edit [92]. If that is the case, you are coming here with unclean hands, and your complaint will therefore be thrown out without action. That IP edit was so obviously unconstructive (calling the only two links in an article "overlinking" when they served as the primary defining features for the geographical location of a building, is plainly absurd!) that I find it very hard indeed to imagine any reason an obviously wiki-experienced IP editor could have made it except with the purpose of deliberately provoking Wtshymanski into reverting it. What that IP was doing was borderline vandalism, and what this IP here is doing is done in utterly bad faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You assume wrong. I was involved (but not the original complainant) in the original ANI complaint. I have been keeping a watch on proceedings since. I never said that the IP's edit was not unquestionable, but it does appear to be a good faith edit (i.e. not wanton vandalism, especially given their edit history). Wtshymanski is forbidden by his edit restriction to revert the edit either directly or indirectly regardless of its merits. This come about because he was disguising bad faith reverts of good faith edits as reverting vandalism. If the edit was a bad edit (for any reason) then Wtshymanski should have left it for others to revert (or possibly posted an edit request on the talk page). 85.255.234.176 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

So you admit you've been stalking him? Great. I'll tell you what: provided that IP editor really wasn't you (which I'm not sure about; I consider it entirely possible that you're a liar), if you saw that reverting episode at Brilliant Suspension Bridge, the one and only constructive thing for you to have done would have been to make the revert yourself on Wtshymanski's behalf. The moment you failed to do that but instead ran here to complain, you showed your purpose is not maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia but "getting" that editor. Bad faith behaviour, open-and-shut case. Stop doing that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG This is just outright trolling to get at Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a repeat of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive921#Wtshymanski reverting IP editors in breach of editing restrictions. So what's the problem here? I see Wtshymanski and an IP getting into a silly edit war over linking in an article - in my book that's usually a trout slap each and a request to use the talk page more. Given previous incidents and the topic ban, can somebody give me a solid reason why I shouldn't block? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, if there really is a restriction that punishes obviously good edits like the one we are talking about here, the restriction is rubbish. I, for one, refuse to assume the role of the dick enforcing it (and thereby rewarding the abominable behaviour of the anon stalker/complainant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, not an unreasonable stance to take, but that leads me to the question of what's changed since April, when Wtshymanski got two weeks off for (as far as I can tell) pretty much the same thing? If consensus is that the restriction is rubbish, let's have a discussion now to remove it. I will say that I'm not exactly impressed by him telling Andy Dingley to go **** himself here. However, conversely, in this edit he refrained from reverting when frankly under normal circumstances it would be perfectly reasonable to do so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've struck that bit out, and as the one instructed to blossom, I think that's reasonable WP:TO. I sincerely regret that exchange - it was a genuine olive branch, because it was a topic his experience could have added to. But given the past history (and I've been a part of that) I can understand if he doesn't want to hear it from me. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That blanket restriction is there because there was a real problem and nothing else seemed to work to stop that. So Wtshymanski shouldn't have touched it. But raising it an ANI - that's just looking for a stick to beat him with. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

We either have a banning policy and enforce it, or we don't and turn a blind eye to it when it doesn't suit. Again, I don't really see any difference between this thread and the one I linked to earlier - in both cases I see Wtshymanski making perfectly reasonable edits that I would make myself, and certainly think filing an ANI complaint complaining about a very obvious vandalism revert is without merit and frivolous. Yet, KrakatoaKatie decided that was fair game for a two week block. So unless we get the restriction changed or modified, it seems that Wtshymanski has got the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head, permanently at risk of getting a lengthy block for seemingly no real reason at all depending on which admins turn up to the discussion - and that's hardly fair, is it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This does seem to be the same editor running the I B Wright/LiveRail/DieSwartzPunkt socks. Lots of article overlap with the 86.157.210.153 (talk) IP, then a sudden baiting on an obscure Canadian bridge article created and recently edited by Wtshymanski. DieSwartzPunkt was heavily involved in the original topic ban. I'd say block the IPs for block evasion, move on, and ignore the trolling. Kuru (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing here that requires admin action against Wtshymanski. ANI is for real problems that disrupt the encyclopedia, not a club for beating someone over a minor technical infraction. I say block the IPs and close this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refusing to leave Edit Summaries - User:Neptune's Trident

Neptune's Trident (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is there anything that can be done when an editor refuses to leave edit summaries. I left a message on his talk page (which he quickly removed) and then just continued on with the behavior. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There isn't any requirement for anyone to leave edit summaries. It is helpful for other editors to scan quickly what was done but if someone doesn't use them that is a personal preference. -- GB fan 19:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I just saw above a similar section, #User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion. What is happeneing there where an editing restriction is put in place if what they are doing is disruptive can happen. You would have to show how it is disruptive though. -- GB fan 19:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Has the editor been making any major edits that the average editor would disagree with, and not leaving summaries? This is a case by case issue (referring to the above section). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, I just noticed you did not notify Neptune's Trident as required. I have left them the notification on their talk page. -- GB fan 20:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The lack of edit summaries is the least of the problems with User:Neptune's Trident. I would say that the main problem with this user is the blatant promotion of non=notable film critic J.C. Maçek III. There was a recent discussion on Jimbo's talk page about Neptune's Trident's creation of an article including obvious BLP violations. Of course, there is a GamerGate/Sad Puppies connection here which Google will happily supply if you ask. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"All changes are checked and confirmed by his family and lawyer"

Weavil-blues (talk · contribs) has posted unsourced biographical content several times, and included in edit summaries mention of the subject's family and lawyer. I've left a warning and notice pertaining to WP:LEGAL. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no legal threat. Unsourced though is a separate issue. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but I'm pretty sure I've seen accounts blocked for little more than using the 'L' word--the implication is that an attorney is involved and approves of content, or not. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user

Despite multiple warnings for the past month, 96.255.216.19 has been warned multiple times for leaving unsourced material, speculative edits, and other disruptive edits. They apparently are refusing to stop. Every time that they receive a warning on their Talk Page, they blank the page. This shows that they have clearly seen the warnings and are choosing to ignore them (they don't even so much as respond). DarkKnight2149 21:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)