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

Faulty grammar 'corrections', combative behavior from SoCal IP user

A range of IP6 addresses including Special:Contributions/2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6, from Southern California, has been making lots of little spelling and grammar corrections during the last two months. The problem with this person is twofold: many of the spelling and grammar corrections are flatly wrong, and the communication/interaction style is combative and provocative. I would appreciate somebody with the tools talking to this person to figure out whether they are here to fight about the editing process or here to build the encyclopedia. I fear we are also dealing with someone whose appreciation of their English-language skill outstrips the skill itself.

On August 18, this person was searching Wikipedia for the misspellings "whote" and "wite" for the purpose of correcting them. These two corrections are quite wrong, and they are within the first dozen edits.

On August 19, this person was making a hash of the English language in the Blood Diamond plot section, which was reverted twice by TheOldJacobite saying "not an improvement."

The same day, TheOldJacobite started defending against a swarm of this person's poor quality edits at the Zero Dark Thirty article, eventually using 11 different IP6 addresses, all starting with 2605:E000:9161:A500 in the recent months (back in April it was 2605:E000:9152:8F00.) After ten days of the nonsense, Scribolt worked to repair the damage. Unfortunately, this IP6 editor has worn out the patience of the page watchers, and the plot section now suffers for it.

It's only today that I became aware of this editor when they attempted to fix the grammar at some music articles. When I reverted the poor quality changes, I noticed that they were immediately restored with hostile comments in edit summaries and on talk pages. I looked further and saw that this person has been spoiling for a fight at the Ishqbaaaz talk page at which Cyphoidbomb said, "In the future if you could avoid adding multiple edit requests as you did, that would be appreciated." The angry reaction by this person was to add 12 new edit requests.

If there is a protect on an article it is not my fault what means I have to suggested edits. I am not aware that every suggestion has to be acted upon. And the suggestion that has been repeatedly made by so many other WP editors was that a registered user name be established. Again, is it oir is nit not the policy of WP to not look upon non-registered user name participants as just as legitimate as registered who tend to be more long term users and editors of WP. This just goes to my original contention that there exists in WP a two-phere mentality particularly when it comes to contentious actions such as the matter of this board. That in the long run people who use registered user names are perceived differently than non-registered user named.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

At my user page, this person admitted to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point when they wrote, "I always put something in to see just how unwelding can someone be about their position. Sometimes it is presenting a format out of kilter and sometimes it is a misspelled word."[1]

Please be advised that your characterization is incorrect. It was a test to better understand your personality and how it manifests. That is not the same as being disruptive but you are the status quo so I imagine that will have more influence that whatever position I could take.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I think communication with this person could be focused more clearly if a rangeblock were set in place on 2605:E000:9161:A500/64, while allowing talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks, Binksternet. Interestingly (to me), this appears to be the same person who has been busting Drmargi's chops over at Talk:Victoria (TV series), dropping voluminous diatribes that don't genuinely seem focused on arriving at an understanding, rather, it seems like they're stonewalling improvements by draining editors of their time with a lot of confusing, linguistic dick-waving. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me know when you have calmed down from your venting of anger because that language really is not even in an anonymous environment suitable. I would think that you as what I perceive your image to be portrayed as a seasoned WP contributor would know that. I hope you do not take this wrongly. Maybe, you had a bad week or day.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

And the truly odd part is that this individual has horrible grammar. Lepricavark (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

For an example of which, see this thread on my talk page. After this gobbledegoop I took a look at some of the IPs edits, and reverted some of them, and the IP retaliated by making bullshit edits to an article I've done a lot of work on. This was 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6, the first on Binksternet's list.

Thanks to Binksternet for chasing down the other IP numbers this person is using. They're obviously NOTHERE and should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The AN discussion about Drmagi's problem IP is here. That IP was 2605:E000:9161:A500:7C06:FE51:3E78:B311 who is not on Binksternet's list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I originally thought the editor was using a complaint letter generator to respond to Drmargi. I had second thoughts about that, but the language is so bizarre. It's like someone was trying to write lawyer-speak in their native tongue, then mechanically translating it to English. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Does that mean you believe that I composed in a non-English language then used an internet assisted program to translate into your language?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me understand if this is correct. I am being held responsible for the manner in which the technology works with WP in regard to how an IP address is recognized by WP? Because it is no great conspiracy on my part about how that functions. I enter the sight and whatever it recognizes it does on its own. I believe it is recognized by WP that users do not have to register to be a contributor? Or by the surprise about the number of "IP's" that this is not true? I have held on to this ability and now it seems I am being accused of being to proud and combative not to register a username? A review of actions by this board show that this trait seems to be prevalent with those that find fault with others. I recognize that within those that have a very high interest in WP find that a blasphemous statement but I cannot help what is prevalent and had no improved over the years despite WP stating that a contributor or even a user must register a username to be part of this community. There seems to be a cookie cutter app used by many at WP that seems to believe that registering a user name is the answer to the situation? How can on the one hand say it is official WP policy and guideline not to require a registered username yet on the other hand such as in this situation because of the technology of WP issue multiple IP's then turn around and say that there seems to be some thing wrongs with that many IP's? And it is merely the technology in motion? I guess there may be a finer point to this that you may be angry that this has happened? Again, that is not my responsibility and something I have absolutely no control. If there is anger about that it should be directed at WP's technology. But that may be immaterial as you all seem to be upset. And nothing will change that.Or is that going to be interpreted as a statement of being challenging to the status quo?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The complaints have been about your edits and your comments, not about the number of IP addresses used - those are presented simply so that a range block can be made to stop you from editing further, if that is the WP:CONSENSUS of this discussion. And thanks very much for presenting precisely the problem with your language, which is nearly incomprehensible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This is suppose to be a civil discussion with politeness and respect: "busting Drmargi's chops", "dick-waving", "bullshit edits". And that just seem the be the first statements out of the gate. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC).

sp suppose = supposed?

(For the onlooker: the IP came to my talk page, quoted a 2 year and 4 month old comment I had made in which I had misspelled "security", and asked "sp securty=security?" Soon after the IP was making retaliatory edits to an article I've edited heavily.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well now...

Richard Nixon waving

. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That is an interesting addition to this proceeding. Is that often done? Although he came from over the hill can never said that I found the man all that appealing. paranoid, yes. And to think that his "official presidential papers" will probably never be housed at his presidential library because of his legal problems. Now will someone else be adding a pic of Raygun?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I would find that someone saying the issue is totally over edits rather than IP's failing to recognize that within WP is an element that prides itself not on letting people function without registered usernames name but someone perceiving that the use of a registered username solves the problem at hand. Now this may have something to do with the availability of more experienced WP users using the app that uses canned language. When you combine someone's experienced as expressed on the pages that this person creates (not the articles) listing their accomplishment with this "command" as set forth by this canned language there does tend to be presented an air of authority. And as such wrapped around the content of that canned language that a registered user name somehow obliterates any perceived misunderstand is really someone not understanding the full impact of just what it is that they have done. Either you know that it is going on or oblivious to that fact which then calls question to your ability to evaluate and respond. Now, again, to the status quo that is blasphemous. There is a potential conflict there that you may not be aware that is going on and as a more advanced WP user you should just as you expect less expereicned WP users not to step on your toes. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Blasphemous?

No, it's about your problematic edits and your combative behavior. The only thing a registered username would do in this instance is to make it slightly easier to block you. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Remember that you are speaking for the status quo. You see nothing wrong with your approach or behavior. Do you truly understand the impact of canned apps? The reaction makes it appear you see nothing wrong with the status quo? And again, bringing up that statement is to the status quo blasphemous. How dare you say that there is something wrong with us when we are the authority>2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me understand this, Zero Dark Forty is faulty despite when the original issue was raised another editor complimented the tight expression? Could you recognize the inherently wrong direction the plot was going before its current status? Can it be recognized that when someone does not understand the context of a subject many times puffery makes it presence. The excess of detail shows that many who worked on this plot before could not wrap their understanding around how understanding the non-westerners was the means to understanding the plot of this film and getting rid of puffery. But instead all this other stuff that is detail, something experienced by the westerners and thus understandable was getting in the way to a -700 word plot. When the issue was raised about plot content another WP editor praised the tightness of the expression. All the detail was there to be used but not the detail that would give a -700 word plot. What was being missed was the experience through the non-western eye. At one time in the plot there was expressed in the same statement that someone was being followed yet were not identified as a suspect although it was clear that they traced the person all the way from being in a position to receive and send messages and being at the compound. Yet all this stuff about spy-craft puffery emerged without getting to the point that cultural and personal habits were key to getting a -700 word plot. If you are unwilling to accept that the approach taken is not the best yet when someone else insists it is there fault for you being upset? It seems that all the responsibility is being placed on the newbie instead of the more seasoned WP user relying on the canned apps. It sounds like there is a serious culture problem within WP as how to approach people. But then again, in the land of status quo, that is blasphemous. You get reprimanded for that. 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - took a look through the ranges and it doesn't seem like anyone else is using 2605:E000:9161:A500/64 or 2605:E000:9152:8F00/64, so a rangeblock on both should hopefully put a stop to it. That said, I'm not going to do it since...well...I don't know how yet, among other reasons. ansh666 06:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that I was not trying to fool people and that you have just apologized on behalf o WP for that innuendo having been made?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A review of dealings with even suspected sock puppies etc seems to bring people out of the woodwork as if there is some conspiracy to undermine WP. Just because the internet is the love of those that love anonymity does not mean that they are set out to act against anyone's interests and to have postulated that thought is just part and parcel to the other forms of character assassination used at WP.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, if you were editing using a single account instead of IPs, you'd have been blocked long ago. ansh666 06:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility how WP technology works. You do not seem to accept that? And how do you base you assessment? Perception because you certainly have yet to provide except through that one action naturally would have followed thr other. I know that will make you upset but that is not my responsibility. Do us a favor in d=these discussions. Show up to give examples rather than mere mud throwing. Your other compatriate have done that well enough. We do not need people to come out of the wood work and using these avenues to vent anger only shows how bsse one can be in an anonymous environment. It is not as if you as my neighbor show up at a community meeting to say to my face what is it that you feel is the problem. Venting anger is really counter productive to these presumably civil and courteous proceedings. You have failed the mark. Would you like to return to your venting to clarify what you can cite as examples of support?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the validity or need for a block, it seems like a rangeblock for 2605:e000:9161:a500:0:0:0:0/64 would take care of this. Based on edits since Sept. 1, 2017, this was the only (or at least primary) range used. Edit: Looks like Ansh666 beat me to the punch. See their comment above. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What is a rangeblock?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Given a small sampling of this user's edits, as well as their persistence while this conversation is happening ([2]), I support a rangeblock for persistent disruption, obnoxious WP:IDHT, and being a general waste of time (wallsoftext). EvergreenFir (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You do not agree that child artists is an ambiguous term that does not necessarily characterize the situation at its best?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Our brief user talk interaction[3][4] seems relevant to this thread, as it goes to the IP's mind-set vis-a-vis collaboration. I don't feel my request was unreasonable - your mileage may vary. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess now I am going to ever be the more contentious because WP's forms are not user friendly? On the one hand I am deemed incompetent and yet on the other competent enough to do what is wanted by the status quo. WP really needs to determine just what it want to achieve. Slapping the person on one side of the face is not productive for having done something and then slapped on the other for not having done something?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, WP is in serious need of determining just what is it that it wants to achieve if its user forms are so sensitive as to be non-user friendly.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The fault, dear IP, is not in the forms, but in the user of them. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 09:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Since they are still doing their so-called grammar edits, all of which have to be checked to see that they haven't added errors where none existed (or substituted new errors for old ones), a block sooner rather than later would be good. They are a time sink, and it doesn't really matter whether they are incapable of understanding people's advice and pointers to policy, or if they merely choose to ignore what other editors say. The non sequitur answers here don't help. --bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• The underlying situation here is that when it comes to blaming someone that usually goes toward the lesser experienced WP participants because the status quo is unwilling to let WP's reputation faulter. Just now, I have found that a seasoned WP editor justified their reverting of a grammatical correction that I made based on the wrong assumption that I had imposed a spelling error when in fact if that editor had reviewed what had been done before hitting the revert app they would have known that I had nothing to do with the misspelling of "released". Just as it has been said time and time again within this forum, WP is not a place for innovation and even within other discussion on this very page it has been said that actions have been taken to protect WP, not find the truth but protect WP. This is what comes from an organization that promotes ONLY from within. Talk about stifling debate. But then that is a blasphemous statement coming from the non-status quo. All the dancing that the status c=quo wants to do will not change that perception.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hey guys, I get the idea from the latest immediate attention to edits I have made that I am not welcomed but at least get off the auto revert app and read what is it that you are reverting especially when you reintroducre misspellings.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• @2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6: Use rangeblock 2605:E000:9161:A500/64 internet again network. You are sockpuppet like Gabucho181 and can bots it revent edited incorrect edits. MarkSewath (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I just got called a sock puppet? This place must be on drugs?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• 2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 got called a sockpuppet. MarkSewath (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Mark, you are indiscriminately reverting everything without regard to what has been corrected which includes the misspellings that you reintroduce. I am suppose to present a defense dealing with these bizarre personalities? The guy trhows at me the 3r rule in response to him indiscrimately reverting as if the world is coming to an end. Boy, it really does not take much to ruffle the feather in this pillow case. This is so bizarre and you all call yourself sane. Well, that explains one missing glue bottle.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• @2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6: read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabucho181 and you are 2605:E000:9161:A500/64 place rangeblocks. --MarkSewath (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• 2605, the Wikipedia project's goal is supposedly to give everyone in the world an encyclopedia in their own language, but for some reason the English Wikipedia has almost(?) as much content as the rest of the world's language's Wikipedia's put together. Meanwhile, the other languages are badly underrepresented so we're missing our goal of serving the readers of those languages. Could I suggest that if your native language is not English, that you contribute to your own language's Wikipedia? That way you'd be helping the global Wikipedia effort in a way that monoglot English speakers (most of us here) cannot. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that turned into a circus. MarkSewath started reverting all the gnomish work that the IP6 person had been performing, with the reverts speeding along at about nine per minute, a speed which makes it impossible to see if you are helping to build the encyclopedia. Mark also accused the IP6 person of being a sockpuppet of Gabucho181,[5] which seems unlikely to me. Callanecc then blocked the IP for two days, which raised a storm of righteous protest from that person, and 90 minutes later Yamla revoked talk page access. To me, this action does not address the core concern which is that our IP6 editor from SoCal is a boorish timesink, making an unknown number of faulty changes to grammar and spelling, and provoking conflict in every interaction with other editors. The style of Gabucho181 is completely different than that. I would be happy to see a block placed on the IP6 range while allowing talk page access. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is not Gabucho181. Gabucho181 is located in South America, does not respond with wallsoftext, and does not have this level of English proficiency. Moreover, Gabucho181 likes to troll directly, antagonizing users and purposefully vandalizing pages. They perseverate typically on cartoons like Dan Vs. or Gravity Falls and have not been known to make grammar changes like this.

Given the geolocation, I'd be more inclined to think this was either |Fangusu or the SW Cali vandal. Though the latter is not known to respond the way this user has. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Goodness. I read this late last night and there were a couple comments, now it's all taken off. I'm not sure there's much I can contribute other than putting a few thoughts on the record just in case they may be needed in future. My encounter with the now-blocked IP was at Victoria (TV series). In its first episode, a court lady-in-waiting is forced to undergo a gynecological exam by court physicians when the Queen is lead to believe the lady is pregnant by an adversary of the Queen. Despite the fact the lady had no choice in the matter, and events followed which portrayed her as submitting under force, the IP removed the word force from the episode description, claiming that absent physical force in the manner of slaves, she wasn't forced to undergo the examination. I provided the Oxford dictionary (given this is a British show) definition of force, which includes action against will, and he let loose the dogs of war in a series of walls of text that are substantively unreadable. He adopts some lawyer-esque strategies that lead me to think he's either a para-legal worker of some sort or perhaps a law student who knows just enough to be dangerous: everything is on the attack, but at it's heart, simply says, "I'm going to limit the definition of force to a specific sort of physical force, and preclude the description of what happened to Lady Flora as force." As I noted at the time, this materially alters the motivation for the sequence of events that followed, and mis-represents what was done to the lady. His response was simply more words, and the addition of two additional threads picking at additional verbal nits.

My thanks to Cyphoidbomb for his help. I was told this might be an IP from the UK (despite the geolocation to the U.S., the IP uses some British English) who has argued against similar assaults on women, but apparently, that's not the case. Cyphoid stepped in when I hit a wall trying to get the issue resolved once it became apparent the IP was not discussing in good faith but simply playing word games. I'd also add, BMK, that User:2605:E000:9161:A500:7C06:FE51:3E78:B311 made one post in the thread, but the rest came from the IP above. Oh, and whoever thinks he's an academic, not on your Nelly. I'm an academic and this guy isn't playing in anything like the same pool. Oh, and one last odd thing: depending upon which geolocation site is used, the IP resolves to either Los Angeles County or Herndon, Virginia via Time Warner Cable. There's probably a reasonable explanation why, but I suspect he's actually in VA, since that location is more precise. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi:: Thanks, I realized my error some time late last night, after the IP had been blocked. I also agree that when I went through Gabucho181's LTA page last night, it didn't seem much like this IP's behavior at all. Still, the IP did need to be blocked as an obvious troll and a timesink, despite the small percentage of their edits which were helpful. A net negative for sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh a compliment from Ken? That is absolutely shocking but accepted. Thank you. Now what about all those reverts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:9161:a500:bc89:17b1:2fd6:dd67 (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Regarding the person's tendency to prefer British English, I believe this comes from learning English in India. Many of the articles that interest the person are related to Indian culture. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Funny you say that; I suspected the same thing just based on his syntax and word choice. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Margee--is their in your profession a similar saying as weltanschauung?2605:E000:9161:A500:BC89:17B1:2FD6:DD67 (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Can someone check into WP technology to understand why is it that I am bale to edit? I would not want people to think that I have somehow cracked the system. This is how I have access WP all along with all the varied assigned IP's. See Mark--no conspiracy.2605:E000:9161:A500:BC89:17B1:2FD6:DD67 (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You should not be editing Wikipedia – you are evading your block. The block on Special:Contributions/2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 was supposed to be a block on you the person, not just you if you happen to be using that particular IP address. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You truly do not get it? I am doing absolutely nothing differne than in the past several months when editing WP. I go onto the website and this is what happens. It issues me a new account with a clean contiubtions list page. You make it out to sound as if I hav cracked the system. WP needs to lok ointo their syetm because there is a failure! Are you all conspiratorical idiots?

Ah, and by the way. All AOL/Timwe Warner accounts go through Herndon VI--It is their corporiate headquesters?. Am I to be held responsible for the failure of WP's system?2605:E000:9161:A500:BC89:17B1:2FD6:DD67 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• As the user is evading a block, I have applied a /64 range block for the same length of time as the block on the single IP address. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, that's really what should have happened in the first place. Hopefully, troll-be-gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I was a latecomer to this, I’m afraid; the block evasion was obvious so... Having looked at this wall of text more closely, I see that the user has been disruptive and a block is warranted on those grounds. No comment on whether this is Gabucho181. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have renewed the /64 rangeblock for 72 hours for the resumption of disruptive behaviour. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. A note for those who reverted this user’s edits here for ‘evading a block’, the block had in fact expired at 12:45 today. Nonetheless it was further disruptive behaviour hence the further 72 hours rangeblock (which expires on 15:18, 12 October). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I read about this "discussion" on the internet and could not believe that it was true; is the proper way that Wikipedia deals with people that it feels are threat? That seams rather limited in your scope to exclude someone from defending themselves and at the same time being label contentious. It would seem that if you accuse someone then you have to leave the system open for rebuttal.76.169.36.143 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The above IP 76.169.36.143 is our block evading time-waster and troll. I just tagged the IP as being used to evade the block on Special:Contributions/2605:E000:9161:A500:0:0:0:0/64. If the IP continues to edit here it should be blocked as well. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblocked cannot edit other ranges vandalizing originality Gabucho181 like vandalism, block evasion and trolling account. --MarkSewath (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• MarkSewath has been CU-Blocked so I guess we can discount his input here. That does not resolve the IPs disruptive behaviour however. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

To the blocked IP

To the blocked IP: You are laboring under a fundamental misapprehension. When an editor is blocked, if they have an account, that account is mechanically prevented from editing. If they are using a single IP, that IP is mechanically prevented from editing. If they are what we refer to as an "IP-hopper" -- that is, someone who is either deliberately or through the action of their ISP-provider, using a different IP every time they log on, then a range-block can be applied to mechanically prevent IPs in a particular range from editing. However, the block is not for the specific account, IP, or IP range, the block is for the person doing the editing, which is this case is you. If, through no fault of your own, or by your deliberate machinations (it doesn't matter which), you are able to log on and find that you are not mechanically prevented from editing, you have a moral obligation not to take advantage of that situation. That is, you, yourself should restrict yourself from editing.

Now, if you are actually interested in helping Wikipedia, you will follow this restriction, because by evading your block (which is what editing when you're blocked but not mechanically prevented from editing is called), you risk longer sanctions, up to and including eventually being banned from the site, in which case any edit you make can be reverted at any time by any editor regardless of its value. If you want to participate here, you must honor your block.

If, however, you're only interested in trolling and being disruptive, one of the best ways to show that is not to honor your block by continuing to evade it simply because there are holes in the system. You may believe that it's our responsibility to physically prevent you from editing when blocked, but it's actually your responsibility to show the Wikipedia community that you value being a part of it enough to follow the community's rules and policies.

So, the ball is entirely in your court. I have no doubt that you can continue to find ways of editing here illicitly, but by doing so you are sending a gigantic "Screw you" message to every editor here who endeavors to follow the rules to the best of their abilities. Such behavior will inevitably end up with your being banned, either by name or by description as a "Long Term Abuser." It may take a while, since Wikipedians are notorious for being fair-minded and giving editors many more breaks than I, personally, would give them, but it will happen.

So, make your decision: do you want to contribute, or do you prefer to be a pariah? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And so we are where on this?

(asketh EEng 20:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC))

That is a question that is best answered by those that offer their dick-waving to support those that accuse others of their dick-waving as so expressed by Cyphoidbomb. Personally, I find it impossible to dick-wave or even come close to it having been the end result of baying for blood that comes from the civil disturbances that have been experienced in Africa. Gender-reassignment is just a continued inconvenience to make things look pretty as the human mind is probably the last that we will truly understand what caused hurt that has no scare.

And then there are the countless who say that they never said anything. And that statement is absolutely true--they said absolutely nothing about how inappropriate some expressions used to thrust their accusations into the minds of others. Does WikiMedia want its subordinate bodies to reflect so badly upon the mother organization and its corporate sponsors. I guess there is a wisdom to having an organization of volunteers that no one person has to take responsibility for letting things get out of hand and making it adamantly absolutely that slights of character assassination are not appropriate forms of logic that weight the course of the organization. And that an organization that is unable to let stand the irritant of a paper cut so that people do not have to be mindlessly sacrificed.

So much for those that offered themselves up as the greatest accumulation of the human mind since Dr. Frankenstein; and the other part that allowed themselves to be welcomed into the fold without overt declaration. But information that evolves from boasting is so much easier to find its own faulty base. Maybe, you all were not expecting that is how the cards got played. Let us hear it again from those that prefer emotion.2605:E000:9161:A500:4916:5F95:A9A5:D8C8 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the first libertarian dick waver to point out how embarrassingly easy it has been for rancid libertarian front groups to convince those on the Left that the event is fatally compromised by the prominent leadership and participation of the Libertarian Party and other libertarian student groups [who stand] in direct opposition to almost everything I believe in. What hasn't been revealed until now, however, is how the libertarians got so good at waving their lefty leaning dicks to fool earnest leftists, liberals and hippies into supporting their cause. If you really believe that this failed encyclopedia project is about promoting freedom and humanitarianism, you're going to be even more disturbed by what libertarians had to say about conning liberals in their more unguarded moments. A paradox most libertarians (if not all) are acutely aware of is the gap between the self-evidence of libertarianism, on the one hand, and the difficulty of communicating it to nonlibertarians on the other hand. The fact that the free market is the only economic-political system which makes human existence possible—as human existence—seems to be very easily demonstrable. But alas, the sheeple are too thick to grasp what a wonderfully liberating experience the free market offers to non-millionaires, since by its very definition, libertarian politics will never catch on with a public brought up on majority rule—not unless you trick them as the Wikipedia cabals (oh, but there is no cabal you whisper out of terror for the dread dark winds behind your back) have been doing since time immemorial (or since at least 2001). Vedicant (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you both. Those are very clear summaries of the situation. EEng 11:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor associated with WikiInAction

In the past few days, an anonymous user (or users) posting from a range of IP addresses (listed below) has reverted at least one article with prior consensus, and claimed that volunteer editors are secretly being paid by me (a disclosed paid contributor) to approve changes I have proposed on talk pages, among other lesser and equally spurious charges. To be very clear, these allegations are false, without evidence, and disruptive to normal processes.

The pages in question are:

• Robert A. Mandell, a former U.S. ambassador and a previous client of my firm, where the IP editor is arguing with myself, Billmckern and GabeIglesia, at Talk:Robert A. Mandell, and on the talk page of Billmckern, in this thread and this thread
• Brian Krzanich, CEO of Intel and a current client, where the IP has derailed an edit request I posted just yesterday; see Talk:Brian Krzanich

As purported evidence, the IP editor points to rather unhinged threads on Reddit's WikiInAction, including here and here. Finally, the IP editor also has a similar argumentative style and claims that my work violates EU disclosure laws as did the indef'd Inlinetext, who had previously tried to derail my proposed edits to the Mandell page in April (see here) although I have no way to know if there is in fact a connection.

Here are the IP addresses that have so far engaged in this behavior:

• 103.30.143.51
• 101.63.145.16
• 101.62.181.169
• 101.57.254.37
• 101.60.253.221
• 101.56.56.69

I (quite purposefully) do not spend much time at AN/I, so I am not quite sure what to do here. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Response : I am not connected to what is published on Reddit. I am not IP 103.xxx or the other user he has named. I have strong objections founded in policy to the way WWB_Too is conducting his paid editing business by using unsuspecting Wikipedians who insert his content in good faith. I agree with the Reddit poster that User:GabeIglesias was paid to insert content on behalf of WWB_Too after all established editors avoided doing so. Such behaviour on Wikipedia only demeans the article subjects and highlights that they are using paid editors to overcome the strong anti-paid editing sentiment of the ordinary unpaid volunteers who are the backbone of this movement. If at all I am to be blocked, let DocJames block me. 101.57.250.211 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Think this is yet another example of a Public Promotion company subcontracting WP editing to a cheap Indian firm. Block IP range. Aspro (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are you implying here ? Which is the Public promotion company ? Who has subcontracted WP editing to a cheap Indian firm ? Which is that cheap Indian firm ? These are serious allegations designed to belittle editors of Wikipedia who opt not to open accounts. 101.57.250.211 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on beyond simple harassment of a disclosed paid editor, but I merged the new draft for Brian Krzanich's article, after making a couple of content changes to maintain some controversial yet noteworthy information. My comments are on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no harassment of WWB_Too. Apparently he used an undisclosed paid editor to insert his paid content draft on Robert A. Mandell which another IP 103.30.143.51 objected to and reverted. Are we to assume that it is now policy that drafts suggested by disclosed paid editors can be directly inserted into articles without achieving consensus on talk pages first ? Do such drafts by disclosed paid editors get some special status under policy ? If so, why not just handover all editing activiy to paid editors so that unpaid volunteers can all go home. Also, I am an Intel stock holder and I would like to know if Intel is indulging in such kind of manipulative activities on Wikipedia ? 101.57.250.211 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• I will let the smart people address all this talk of servers and whatnot. In the meantime, I reverted the IP and reinstated the new/merged version of the Krzanich article, with thanks to timtempleton. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment this is essentially a content dispute between a small set of editors. Hence I have listed the Robert A. Mandell dispute at WP:DRN [here. 101.62.164.56 (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - No. As presented at WP:DRN, it was a conduct dispute involving allegations of undisclosed paid editing. DRN is not a forum for such disputes. WP:COIN is, and this noticeboard is. The thread at DRN was closed as a conduct dispute. Besides, DRN does not accept disputes that are also pending here. Deal with it here (or don't deal with it). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I am curious as to why IP 101, whose IP addresses resolve to India, claims to be resident in the EU. Perhaps they can explain this contradiction? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I (IP 101) am ordinarily resident in EU. The IP addresses are that of the present local mobile carrier. 101.60.242.65 (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh really. And you just happened to be passing through India when you decided to troll and harass editors here. Your easy familiarity with the Wiki suggests to me that you have history here; do you have, or have you had in the past, an account here? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Is 'Oh really' a statement or a question ? Yes, I just happen to be travelling around India just now. No, I did not decide to troll and harass editors here. I have no history here. As a Wikipedia administrator surely you have complete access to Wikipedia's history records from which you can answer your own questions (which in any case I am not obliged to respond to under very strong EU privacy regime). Instead of throwing around terms like "harass", "troll" and "disruptive" why not address the issue of how Wikipedia administrators see Wikipedia's European readers are protected against ghostwritten paid content on Wikipedia articles. Why is there no in-article disclosure under WP:COVERT, or are we Europeans expected to go about reading user and talk pages to discover commercial affiliations of American content writers ? What is the evidence for this paid editor's mischievous allegation that I am associated with Wikiinaction ? What is the evidence that WWB_Too is acting on behalf of Brian Krzanich (as distinguished from Intel) ? For regulatory anti-trust reasons I flatly state It is not conceivable that Brian Krzanich has authorised WWB_Too to rewrite his Wikipedia article. It is a very serious issue for Brian Krzanich if he has done so. Accordingly I state that WWB_Too is lying if he states he is acting for Brian Krzanich. If other admins like "Drmies" (who never went to law school to understand the issue I highlight) are now openly inserting paid edits from Mr. Krzanich by "demanding cuts" and "at least a week in the condo on the Gulf Coast" from the paid editors, it is a serious issue for us dour Europeans. In case of Mr. Krazanich (BTW did I mention I am an Intel stakeholder) I believe that the blatantly advertising text inserted is supplied by Intel (not Krzanich) via North of Nine Communications, and the copyright of the text probably vests in Intel. Accordingly, I had asked WWB_Too for a copy of all the contracts involved which he has refused to provide. Instead WMF's user "Drmies", who claims to to be a senior administrator / arbitrator (without a law degree), was induced to add Intel's copyrighted material against expectations of reward. Usually when "pump and dump" scams take place by rewriting Wikipedia entries it implies that the corporate behind it is in deep (usually regulatory) trouble. NB: "INTEL" is not listed by Nof9 as their client on the North of Nine Communications website, further evidence that WWB_Too is lying (or puffing himself up). 101.57.254.247 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

WTF are you ranting about? EEng 03:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a attempt by Intel's new PR company to misuse the Brian Krzanich article to spin doctor Intel's numerous controversies like his role in systematically using conflict minerals to lower costs till it became illegal to do so in 2010. Nof9 (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I blocked this Nof9 user earlier (following "Probable impersonation and disruptive behavior by new user "Nof9"", below on this page), and they then proceeded to out me and accuse me of being on the take--for Intel, maybe, and I assume I get paid in those magic minerals. Oshwah cleaned up and removed talk page access. Anyway, these IPs mentioned above are worth keeping an eye on, since I think that this person spouting this idiotic nonsense seems to be obsessed. For the record I do indeed claim I don't have a law degree. Correctly! Drmies (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

AB10002 - paid editing + potential legal threat

AB10002 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that has been targeting the Julie Payette article for a few months now. They have stated that "our team is watching the page and constantly removes the false allegations". The supposed "false allegations" are verified by multiple reliable sources and have been widely reported in the Canadian media; some are not even remotely controversial, such as basic information about her marriages [6] or minor criticisms about her appointment process [7]. The "team" behind AB10002 appears to think they have the right to control what content appears on Payette's Wikipedia page. Their most recent edit [8] made an accusation that "person(s) have attempted to deliberately smear the reputation of this public figure by posting false irrelevant information..." (edit summary was cut off). Given the legal phrasing used and the editor's apparent governmental connections, to me this sounds like a potential accusation of defamation and an attempt to intimidate editors into relinquishing control of what content appears on the page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Notified user of ANI involving them. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I smell WP:OWN here.... Yoshi24517^Chat _{On Wikibreak} 16:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I smell an Aboriginal fighting weapon. This is the sort of non-content (Person had a road accident. It was an accident. So what?) that Ivar the Boneful has been edit-warring to re-insert into this BLP with the only edit-summary being "RV paid editor". Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I support the same aboriginal hunting device, because this edit by the OP is in complete disregard of the clear consensus reached on the article talkpage after Bearcat's comments. Dr. K. 18:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I renew my call for a moratorium on coy circumlocutions for boomerangs. EEng 18:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's entirely possible for their edits to be problematic for WP:COI reasons and yet still at least partially correct. The thing about the car accident has never actually had a compelling reason presented why it needed to be in the article at all — sure, it's sourceable, but nobody's ever answered my talk page question about whether it was noteworthy or relevant to note in her biography. As I noted in that comment, it's sourceable that politicians show up at community events to announce government donations and hand over plastic novelty cheques — but there's no noteworthy or relevant reason why documenting each individual instance of that needs to happen in an encyclopedia, so the mere fact that it's sourceable isn't a sufficient condition by itself. What needs to be shown is not just that the car accident is sourceable — what needs to be, but hasn't been, shown is a reason why it matters to an encyclopedia article about her. Yes, it's true that a person with a direct COI doesn't get to control the content of the article — but it's also true that the information hasn't been demonstrated as needing to be there at all. So, yeah, I think there's a curved hunting weapon in the vicinity too. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree Bearcat. For the record, this edit was sneaked into the article on 2 October by single-edit IP 108.54.54.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), most probably a sock. Dr. K. 19:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"most probably a sock" ... well feel free to open up an SPI, Dr. K., though I think you might find it pretty difficult to explain how an Australian editor is doing so using an IP address traceable to New York City. You might wish to consider the old saying about glass houses – someone on the article talkpage has already pointed out that you seem to have made several edits identical to those of AB10002. Or perhaps you just both share a similar distaste for the mention of divorce? Dr.K. 21 July, AB10002 6 October – quite the coincidence! It's quite interesting that you've managed to magically find your way to this ANI thread despite not being notified and no mention of it being made in any edit summaries – and yet AB10002 was notified of it. It's almost as if you logged in as AB10002, saw the notification, and quickly switched accounts to maintain the illusion of neutrality. That boomerang just keeps on spinnin'! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I would HIGHLY suggest that you do not cast aspersions on editors being socks without some rather concrete proof as you just did. To be blunt, the edits regarding the traffic incident were indeed inappropriate and should been removed, per the talk page discussion. If AB10002 hadn't removed it, another editor would. Also not every sordid detail of their life needs to be in the article, especially if it doesn't add to the actual substance of the article. This discussion regarding what should and should not be on the page needs to go to the article talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ivar the Boneful: In my reply above, I mentioned that the IP was most probably a sock, but neither did I specify whose sock I suspected it was, nor did I did use your name. I am not sure why you automatically thought it was you I had in mind. As far as the rest of your aspersions, you just upgraded that big aboriginal hunting implement in the sky with a radar-homing sensor, and it is not pointing to me at all. I leave it up to you to guess its direction. Dr. K. 19:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest you strike that particularly ludicrous assertion, Ivar the Boneful? I would suggest that you alternatively open an SPI against Dr. K, but since you have absolutely zero convincing evidence, there's probably no point in doing that; indeed, the only likely action that is going to be taken here is against you for casting aspersions. Which would be unfortunate for someone whom, looking at your contributions, is mostly a positive. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Close? EEng 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

User:David-golota

What began as a content dispute at the list of current world boxing champions has devolved into a conduct dispute filled with lies and personal attacks. At talk, I have tried to discuss the (albeit bizarre) intricacies of the WBA's world title rulings with User:David-golota, but all he does is make repeated accusations of ownership:

• "This is not your personal page."
• "You think this is your very own Encyclopedia, which it is not. You are not the boss."
• "Again, this is NOT your own article nor is this your personal website. So dont act like it is."

All of which are ludicrous. Anyone who observes my edits at the article will see that I have never displayed WP:OWN behaviour—for many years I have collaborated with plenty of editors in making routine stats-related updates. A week ago, User:David-golota removed official WBA terminology ([9]), which I reverted with an edit summary ([10]). His next revert and edit summary accused me of ownership ([11]), which is instead what he himself seems to be doing. His way or the high way, others be damned.

What I am claiming is WP:V (namely the official WBA site, which supports my stance), but he chooses to ignore that. Along with the constant ownership lies, he also thinks every one of my posts is a personal attack. I can't get through one interaction with him without an accusation of personal attacks—whereas again, it is his antagonistic tone that needs serious work. Granted, I have indeed said "Screw you" in response to him labelling my edits as "BS". A bit of tit-for-tat, but that's about it as far as personal attacks go on my side.

From thereon, it's just the same thing over and over again—he won't back down from his false accusations, and I won't discuss anything with him until he stops with the battleground antics. All the while, the actual content dispute doesn't move an inch. Every time I do respond, it's a personal attack as far as he's concerned. I even tried reaching out and calling him "Buddy" (which isn't an insult where I come from), but he took great offence to that. So I'm at a loss. There isn't going to be a handshake from either party, virtual or otherwise. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Follow-ups from User:David-golota:

• "Your level of arrogance is beyond what I ever thought anybody could have on this site." – That's some pretty bold stuff right there, and verging on personal attack. Or, he's looking in a mirror and seeing himself. In my first post at the talk page, all I did was lay out my rationale. He then came in with all guns blazing, and hasn't stopped since. He's somehow got it into his head that I've hurled scathing insults at him, which isn't true (besides my abovementioned "Screw you" response; just the one, freely admitted). Since he was the first to bring up tone, and isn't letting it go, I'm not sure what he actually wants—for me to grovel at his virtual feet and tell him he's right?

• "[...] nor have I used offensive word." – Sure he has, by dismissing my original revert as "BS". What was that about tone..?

• "You refuse to read the links from WBA official website because of my tone?" – I've presented my sources, but all he's concerned about is conduct and my tone. How is discussion meant to advance with two issues at hand? I've said repeatedly that I'll discuss the actual content dispute if he drops the conduct dispute, but he brings up the latter every time. Likely any response I give at this point will rejected as WP:OWN.

• "Dont get smart with me." – Posturing and chest-puffing. What is this, high school?

• "We both know that when someone is calling another person while their having an argument it is not ment in a positive or friendly way." – I maintain that "Buddy" is a term of endearment, and he needs to grow a thicker skin.

I'm tempted to go for WP:3O to see if it's just me against whom he has an agenda, but I absolutely will not back out of the content dispute just because he's not a fan of my words. As far as I know, WP:DRN isn't the right place, as that's not for conduct disputes. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"Buddy" is often used in an ironic and insulting way. Such as this:[12] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine, so I should've used "pal" instead. It's not the crux of the dispute. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No, because terms like "pal" and "mate" can also be insulting. Just call the user by ID, or leave it out altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ninjoust

Ninjoust (talk · contribs) and suspected puppets W83dh7d9s (talk · contribs) 85.204.97.98 (talk · contribs)

I never reported anybody, as I do not like to escalate. But today is the day, because today my quite sleepy talkpage was suddenly bombarded by a few comments, that I consider openly insulting. Then I discovered it was not only about me. Sorry, if I miss some formalities, I'll explain as I can.

1) Personal attack. The user concerned, Ninjaoust, seems to have been very dissatisfied that I deleted quite insignificant and dubious addition to Romanization of Persian. So he created a sockpuppet and tried to insinuate me of lacking of civility on my talk page[13]. Then he saw it was not enough, and started, as an IP, to openly insult me[14]. Finally he decided to do formalities, and left a "warning"[15]. And again he could not help but indirectly insult me, that is he did what he tried to accuse me of. All three messages I see quite impolite and insulting. I am not sure whether it was the same person (need to be investigated, but the duck test is enough for me for now), or Ninjoust just campaigned his friends to do so. The latter would be even worse, as it would look like a deliberate group attack on me. In any way, I see such attention towards my persona as unnerving and such comments as quite unpleasant.

2) Sockpuppetry. As per above. I suppose I need to open an investigation?

3) Disruptive editing. As another user quite showed, Ninjoust is known for many disruptive edits, particularly creating and promoting hoax transliterations/alphabets.

I'm not sure what has to be done, I never reported on the AN. I just felt that it had to be reported. Insults I can stand, but issue #3 clearly has to be addressed some way. Of course, I could have talk to the user myself on this issue, but I'm hesitant. My feeling he won't understand and won't listen to me.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I can save a little time here. The sockpuppet is confirmed as Ninjoust's sockpuppet (no comment on the IP addresses). I've not blocked the main account yet - I would have gone for a short block, but I'll leave that for others to have a look at the alleged disruptive edits. Oh, and you should ignore the latest post your talk page, as that was someone else entirely. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this hasn't addressed the disruptive editing behaviour of the editor in question, nor the slow, but ongoing, content additions to multiple national anthem articles where there are no reliable sources for the anthems, and certainly no sourcing for the transliterations which don't follow any known universal system I'm aware of. Every time there's an edit, multiple IPs and other meat(?) come out to reformat the articles, etc. Since when is Wikipedia a circular source for anybody to translate a primary source in a language other than English (that's just the few instances where there is even some form of reliable primary source)... most particularly small language groups that can't be WP:V? That's all the stuff of Wiki Source, anyhow. I've been meaning to report this activity for some time, but just haven't had the energy. I can go on reverting until the cows come home, but the hub of activity keeps kicking in and I've reached the end of my tether. Apologies: I'm not trying to pout, but I'm going through chemo and my input has been limited recently (not in it for the sympathy, either !)... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Communication and sourcing issues

Hichem algerino has been editing for years. If you look at User talk:Hichem algerino, you will see warnings going back to 2014 about creating unreferenced articles, but this is still going on. Hichem has ignored dozens of messages about this, including other editors saying if it doesn't stop they may mass delete his creations (that was back in 2015, no improvement), threats of blocks for continually adding unreferenced information from 6th July 2016, an actual block showing on 30 July 2016, more warnings about a potential block for adding unreferenced information on 25 August 2016, same on 12 December 2016, 31 May 2017, 2 July 2017, and about 20 messages from me, mainly on different articles, just since August, all about creating unreferenced articles or completely blank articles. Hichem has been reminded that WP:Communication is required but only seems to have responded to one of the more than one hundred talk page messages, and that was to say 'I will try' (to add sources). I appreciated that but there has been no change in behaviour or further communication, he continues to create unreferenced articles. I feel I've exhausted all other avenues to solve this. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

He seems well intentioned but I suspect there may be something of a language barrier. I’ve dropped a line in French on his talk page; let’s see where we go from there. I’ll have a look at his creations as well (I’ve added a couple of sources to Djamel El Okbi to start with). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Malcolmxl5, I saw your message to Hichem algerino and I agree that the language may well be an issue. However, Hichem has still not communicated here, and has been able to explain his referencing on his own talk page, which shows he does understand and his answer does not indicate he understands the importance of reliablee sourcing. His English is certainly good enough to understand the main point of the messages, and I think his understanding is probably clear. Hichem, can you please communicate here? Do you understand that articles must have references? Will you start responding to messages? There are plenty of people here happy to help you, but we can't have editors persistently creating articles which aren't verified. It might be worth you reading WP:V. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As i told Malcolmxl5 i could not find sources on the Net i tried so much but without value, sometimes it is based on sources from French Wikipedia or some videos from YouTube and dzfoot.com However, i will not create new pages without source --Hichem algerino (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

If you include sources Hichem algerino, that will be good. We’ll have a chat about YouTube though. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, I was looking at the latest unreferenced issue raised, 1999–00 Algerian League Cup, the sources Hichem is using are in the external links section rather than the references section, a minor error. The previous one, 2013–14 MC Oran season - Hichem was working on that for a few days and by the time he finished, there were two citations and a source embedded in the main body of the article. Similarly, for the one prior to that, 2013–14 CR Belouizdad season, it now has 14 citations and a source embedded in the main body of the article. So, it’s getting done but perhaps not before the articles are reviewed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Some sources from YouTube channel, Malcolmxl5 and his official Facebook page where you can find lots of old photos and videos and results from newspapers --Hichem algerino (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I’ll chat to you about those. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Some have had sources added, but most, like [16] still have no sources two months after a message has been sent to Hichem, a message he hasn't bothered to answer. This is the case for many of the articles. I would also say that Hichem has been asked on more than one occasion if the links he has added to an 'external links' section are actually his sources, but he hasn't taken the time to answer. This may be an oversight, but I don't know that they were his sources, or if he had any sources. This is no big issue for one or two answers, but is a big issue for dozens. Hichem, you are still not demonstrating that you understand WP:RS, WP:V or that WP:Communication is required. Please comment on this. Malcolm is offering you good advice and support, which is great, but I have spent hours reviewing your articles and messaging you, all of which you have ignored. We need to know if you will stop creating articles without WP:RS. Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hichem algerino, I see you have been editing but haven't yet responded to the above - I assume this is because I forgot to ping you, my apologies. Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hichem algerino, you are continuing to edit but not replying to this thread. You will have received pings plus should have this watchlisted. As the concern is partially around a lack of communication, this is particularly concerning. I again remind you that WP:Communication is required. ANI is a serious process, and I think everyone always prefers if the issues can be properly discussed and resolved, and a block avoided. Please communicate so we can help. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hichem algerino, you have now agreed not to create articles without sources, can you please engage in this thread, hopefully so we can close this with no action needed? The questions you have not responded to, are do you understand that sources need to be clear (not labelled as 'external links' if they are actually your sources) and reliable (not Youtube and other Wikipedias aren't good either, see WP:RS and WP:V. Will you start to respond when other editors take the time to message you, and do you understand that WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia? If you will keep to these in future, we have no problem, but you do need to take part in this thread. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, I do not have anything to add i do not know what the problem is now. i said I will not open any new page without a source and about [17] there is no source because it is an individual work of me and it is impossible to find a source And relied on the arrangement of the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 already located in Wikipedia look here Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 season by season --Hichem algerino (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Hichem. I'll try to word my unanswered questions differently so hopefully you will understand them. Do you understand that you should answer messages other editors send you? Do you understand that you shouldn't create articles without reliable sources? Do you understand that your own work, Youtube and other Wikipedias are not acceptable sources? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, Sorry I made a mistake for the 1964-65 season I picked it up from the French Wikipedia Saison 1964-1965 de l'USM Alger --Hichem algerino (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hichem algerino, you did not answer my questions and wrote over my comment. Can you please answer the questions in my above comment.

1) Do you understand that you should answer messages other editors send you?

2) Do you understand that sources should be clear and not called 'external links' if they are your sources?

3) Do you understand that it is important to use WP:RELIABLESOURCES, i.e. not Youtube and preferably not other Wikipedias?

Please just answer these questions. Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, I guess I understand it is that anyone who sends me a message in my talk page I have to answer him yes? --Hichem algerino (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to respond to every message (although it's polite to do so, especially if they have asked you a question). However, according to WP:Communication is required: If you are getting multiple complaints on your talk page or on an article talk page about your editing, you are expected to either stop the action that is causing the complaints, or discuss it with the community of editors at the appropriate venue. That would cover the dozens of messages sent to you about sourcing. Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hichem algerino, thank you for adding sources to some off your articles, this is much appreciated. However, you have still not answered the three questions above, can you please answer them? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I can help. Let's try French. Hichem algerino, Répondez aux trois questions de Boleyn, sil vous plait. That should help. TomBarker23 (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TomBarker23, but I understood the message of Boleyn --Hichem algerino (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, could you answer his questions? If you leave a comment explicitly stating you say yes, we can close this conversation down. Thanks Hichem algerino. TomBarker23 (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, TomBarker23. Hichem algerino, an WP:ANI was initiated because your lack of sourcing, refusal to add sources when it was brought to your attention and your refusal to answer messages was disruptive editing. You are still editing, still clearly reading the thread, but not answering the questions, when asked by different editors in different languages. Again, please respond. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

TomBarker23, I am currently answering his questions --Hichem algerino (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hichem algerino, do you understand that we are talking about the questions I have asked you in this thread? You have not responded and you have been asked many timeūs to do so. The questions (I will write them out yet again) are:

1) Do you understand that you should answer messages other editors send you?

2) Do you understand that sources should be clear and not called 'external links' if they are your sources?

3) Do you understand that it is important to use WP:RELIABLESOURCES, i.e. not Youtube and preferably not other Wikipedias?

Boleyn, Yes, I understand --Hichem algerino (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please just answer these questions. This is just getting ridiculous. Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, Hichem algerino has continued editing but has still not responded to the questions asked here, and repeated several times, with pings. Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn: Remember, his national language is French. I just don't think he understands. Remember Nelson Mandela: "Speak to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. Speak to him in his language, that goes to his heart." Try using French, and note that his first comment to me seems to indirectly say he understands. Remember the existence of Google Translate. Wow, I'm amazed noone else suggested that. TomBarker23 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Following my own advice here... Hichem algerino:

) Comprenez-vous que vous Communication est requise devrait répondre aux messages que d'autres éditeurs vous envoient?

2) Comprenez-vous que les sources devraient être claires et ne pas être appelées «liens externes» si elles sont vos sources?

3) Comprenez-vous qu'il est important d'utiliser WP: RELIABLESOURCES, c'est-à-dire pas Youtube et de préférence pas d'autres Wikipédia?

Please say yes.

(Considering this started with a language gap, the fact I'm the first to do this is worrying.) TomBarker23 (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

TomBarker23, Malcolm already tried French, and Hichem indicated that it is not his first language, in that he said he is better in English. I have no idea if this started with a language gap or not - Hichem just refused to answer messages or change his editing, which may or may not have been wholly or partly to do with not being a native speaker. His later messages indicate he understood what I was complaining about (and what many other editors had complained about) but felt it was OK. Forgive me if I sound terse now, but I have asked the same questions in different ways more than thirty times now, and I still have no proper response yet he is still editing other pages. This ANI was only opened as a last resort, and it's not a process he seems to be taking seriously. Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, I think you will find that if you've messaged him 30 times he will be a bit tired of the questions turning up on his talk page. He has made edits saying he agrees to this page. He does understand communication is required. The original purpose of this page is complete, he's citing sources now. I think he is just of the opinion he has answered the questions and thinks the discussion is over on his part. We've really strayed from the original purpose of the ANI. Can we just forgive each other and close the discussion down now? TomBarker23 (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

TomBarker23, I doubt he's tired of the questions seeing as he has simply ignored them each time. This ANI started because he was refusing to answer questions - he has improved that slightly, but hasn't really engaged in this ANI, wasting other people's time. It was also about a lack of reliable sources - he has indicated on his talk page since the ANI started that his articles are based on WP:OR, Youtube and French Wikipedia. That is concerning. I don't think it's much to ask him to answer the questions as to whether he understands about reliable sources (we're here to help if not). He clearly does not accept that communication is required either, as he is choosing to edit regularly but not respond. He's had many, many warnings over several years about all this. I'd just like him to engage in the discussion so we can be sure everything is understood and then move on. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, we finally have a response - Hichem algerino plans to communicate more and add sources for all articles, sources which are not WP:OR but are WP:RS. I think we can now close the thread. Hichem, if you have any questions about reliable sources, Malcolmxl5 has shown he is happy to talk yo you about which sources are reliable, as am I. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Boleyn for your clarification --Hichem algerino (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Glad we could settle this. Right, somebody close this thread, I'm going back to articles for a while. TomBarker23 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive behavior by IP 67.165.17.94

For a few months I and a few other editors have been dealing with issues related to 67.165.17.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) including sockpuppetry, repeated insertion of erroneous information, and repeated insertion of unreferenced or improperly referenced content on articles related to elections and political parties on Wikipedia, and so far have been unable to bring a stop to such disruptive behavior despite attempts to direct them to stop. There's countless examples of this, but as an example, these include:

• Insertion and restoration of erroneous information on articles

• Insertion of incorrect numbers on National Assembly (France) article and restoration – twice – the first time with a sock;
• as on 15th legislature of the French Fifth Republic,
• and also wrongly on Bundestag, with a sock as well that also edited NZ-related pages

• Insertion and restoration of incorrect or uncited items as ideologies and positions on political party articles

• For example, on Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, on which they've been repeatedly reverted; as well as Ta'al, Balad (political party), Meretz, Scottish National Party (including with a sock), Hadash (including with a different sock), Israeli Labor Party, Democratic Progressive Party, Communist Party of the Russian Federation (with three separate socks), Russian Party of Pensioners for Social Justice (with one sock), Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region, Third Way (Palestinian authority), Golden Dawn (political party), Rodina (political party) (with two socks), Alliance 90/The Greens (with multiple socks), Movement of New Forces, The Left (Germany), Finns Party, Yabloko, National Fascist Party (with a sock), United Russia (with two socks), Social Democratic Party of Germany, Moderation and Development Party, Pirate Party Germany, National Democratic Party of Germany, Communist Party of Greece, Justice Party (South Korea), Japanese Communist Party, Conservative Party (UK), National Progressive Front (Syria), Monarchist Party, Democratic Unionist Party, Pirate Party (Iceland), Korean Patriots' Party, Unified Progressive Party, New People's Party (South Korea), Sudan People's Liberation Movement, Shinui, Animal Justice Party, Party for the Animals, Animal Welfare Party, United Socialist Party of Venezuela, A Just Russia, Jacqui Lambie Network, People's Party (South Korea), Christian Liberal Party, Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Free Democratic Party (Germany), Workers and Unemployed Action, Workers' Party of Korea, Christian Social Union in Bavaria, CDU/CSU, New Zealand Labour Party, Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, Socialist Party (France), En Marche!, Women of Russia, French Communist Party (including with a sock), Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Yemen Region, Nasserist Unionist People's Organisation

The latest incident involves the color of the Peter Pilz List – they keep attempting to restore what they call the "correct" color for the list, despite the fact that the light green used in the polling graph/article was literally my own arbitrary addition which I since realized was erroneous given that the party's paraphernalia is white/gray and it's mostly represented with white/gray in media sources. Despite this, they're insisting that that same light green is somehow the "correct" color – despite my acknowledgement that my own addition of light green on Wikipedia was in fact my error and that the party color is white/gray. (I've previously ignored 3RR in similar cases with this IP with the same justification that their edits were blatantly incorrect, despite their repeated attempts to restore them.) Mélencron (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is very reminiscent of the behaviour of serial sockpuppeteer Greekboy12345er6. All of the cases will be stale, but it might be worth looking at them and seeing if it quacks to you as well. RolandR (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Nicely spotted. Looks like the same patterns of behavior. I've previously reported them to SPI as well, but with no apparent link between some of the accounts despite extremely similar editing habits. Mélencron (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The same person may also be editing using the IP 91.150.250.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). RolandR (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a group of teens on reddit who do this as a form of graffiti and time-sinks. Just teenage hi-jinks. Nothing to worry about. Nof9 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How about a topic ban on politics? It's obvious this IP isnt going to do anything useful there. TomBarker23 (talk)#~

Country of film production – long-term edit warring from east UK

Somebody using IPs from the east part of the UK (around Norfolk) has been disrupting film articles for more than a year. This person edit-wars about the country of production as listed in the infobox. The vandal is currently blocked as Special:Contributions/94.185.135.206 and globally blocked as Special:Contributions/81.106.30.36, but many more IPs are involved. A fine selection of IPs showing the pattern of multiple reverts may be seen at Scott Pilgrim vs. the World – a film article that this person keeps returning to.

In August, this person edit-warred from France using Special:Contributions/46.218.99.78. Later that month they returned to the Norfolk area.

Recent IPs

• 15 Oct 86.157.161.110 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked 1 year)
• 15 Oct 86.128.208.162 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 15 Oct 86.176.104.42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 15 Oct 86.152.91.159 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 Oct 86.157.161.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 Oct 86.157.160.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 17 Sep 81.156.136.241 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked 1 week)
• 17 Sep 81.156.136.199 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 10 Sep 86.132.168.137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked 72 hours)
• 10 Sep 81.156.137.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked 31 hours)
• 10 Sep 81.156.141.168 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked 24 hours)
• 27 Aug 81.156.162.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27 Aug 86.132.168.193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 20 Aug 86.169.161.1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

So the question is how do we stop this person? A a handful of rangeblocks could be set in place but there would be collateral damage, I think. Any ideas? Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• You aren't going to be able to use rangeblocks here. These are BT Broadband ranges, the biggest provider in the UK. Even blocking a /24 would have collateral and as you can see these aren't on the same /16 (or even the same /8!), let alone /24. They're also very dynamic - my BT IP flips around all of those 81x and 86x ranges as well as a couple of others. If the vandalism has a set pattern I'd suggest an edit filter at WP:EFR. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As a UK person, I know geolocation does not work in the UK - all you get is the location of the ISP office, not the editor. My IP would suggest South London, when I'm in North Lancashire. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Depends on the website used, the provider, and the type of connection. The two used on the Geolocate links on IP talk pages are this one, which has my current IP spot on to a couple of miles, and this one, which is 200 miles off. However if all of those IPs above are (or were, as they're dynamic) coming up with a similar location, it's probably likely to be fairly accurate. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
      • A minor aside, but both the links you provide are hopelessly inaccurate for my IP. One is 60 miles out, the other is 150 miles out. --DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This sounds suspiciously like . Canterbury Tail talk 14:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Targeting specific, anonymous vandals can turn out to be impossible. Have you thought about adding some protection to the recently vandalized articles? Dimadick (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• In my experience, BT customers are often allocated IP addresses from a large pool of /23s and /24s. You certainly can't range block a /16 from a BT, but these smaller ranges are sometimes clear of collateral damage. At a glance, 86.157.160.0/23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 86.157.161.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 86.157.135.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) look like him. 81.156.136.0/23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) looks like him, too, but it's stale. The others are harder to nail down, but they're likely /24s. I guess if it keeps up, I could probably do a series of range blocks. The problems I see are that 1) he doesn't seem to edit all that often (only on two days this month so far?), 2) it could potentially take a large number of range blocks to even be useful, and 3) page protection might be a better choice if specific articles are being regularly targeted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

What NRP means here by 'collateral damage' is not that range blocks wouldn't block a large amount of IPs, it means that there is little editing currently in those ranges. As NRP points out, to be effective you would need a number of range blocks covering a huge amount of potential IP's given the UK ISP's method of allocation. And BT is more problematic than most, given how often it changes around its broadband allocation (on a whim sometimes). We don't really want to be blocking indefinitely huge amounts of IP's just because currently there is little activity. We arnt talking a school block here. Some form of edit filter would be better if possible, if not, its something that might need to be lived with until the point where ENWP makes it compulsory to register to edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, BT Broadband operates on the principle of every subscriber's router being available for every other subscriber to use if they're out of range of their home router, to create seamless nationwide wi-fi coverage, so provided you switch your home router (to which your system will default) off, your IP address will literally change every few seconds. A workable rangeblock on a BT range means knocking out the entire country. ‑ Iridescent 09:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha, I forgot about that 'feature'. Makes successfully prosecuting software pirates in the UK impossible (if you are a BT user). 'Wasn't me guv, was someone else using my wifi innit'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Won't XFF filtering/targetting work here if BT can be persuaded to come onboard ? Or has that 2013 program been abandoned? Nof9 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch, part II. Single-purpose accounts, neutrality, self-published, COI, NOTHERE issues.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965#Neutrality dispute_.2B_SPA_.2B_possible COI on_journalist Kevin Deutsch for an earlier report and context about an edit war on the article Kevin Deutsch (my preferred revision), a journalist who has been accused of some major sourcing problems.

User:Ballastpointed was blocked for 1 week, but things have not improved, and the sock / meatpuppet account User:AlexVegaEsquire instantly stepped in as soon as Ballastpointed was blocked (diff). As such, I'd ask for sanctions to be taken against either both or neither of them. I'm not asking for a Sockpuppet investigation because, thanks to tags, it seems likely that Ballastpointed is the user's mobile phone account - almost all their edits are tagged as such - and AlexVegaEsquire is their desktop account. So they likely have different IPs even if they're the same person. But it doesn't matter, because WP:DUCK applies - both accounts are single-purpose accounts who have never edited anything other than Kevin Deutsch. Talk page collaboration has also stopped, not that it ever went very far to begin with. For example, I responded quickly to an Oct 10 edit on the talk page (diff), no reply, I cautiously make my edit on Oct 12, which is promptly reverted within hours (diff).

Without getting too deep into the content dispute, suffice to say there's a fundamental failure to agree on what sources say. Ballastpointed / Alex seem to deny not merely the claims against Deutsch (which is fine, and good per WP:BLP; Wikipedia shouldn't state in its own authorial voice what happened), but also deny the claims happened at all and bury the scandal under the rug, despite this scandal being by far the most notable thing about Deustch - for example, repeatedly removing from the lede that Deutsch was accused of inventing convenient quotes for his news stories, despite multiple sources accusing him of just that (example source if you're curious). Again, Wikipedia shouldn't necessarily say he did actually fabricate the quotes, but reporting the accusation and the fact that the quotes/sources were unable to be confirmed is perfectly legit. They also like to quote WP:SELFPUB sources very extensively... I think that the article already over-quotes Deutsch himself as is, when he is not a neutral source and is making a number of self-serving claims.

I should note that in fairness, some of Ballast / Alex's contributions have been fine, and others are stylistic preferences on emphasis that editors can legitimately disagree over. I had hoped that they might chill out. However, their general style of instantly reverting to their preferred revision isn't the way Wikipedia should work. I might have been willing to let it go for some of the more minor changes, but when I tried waiting them out, they used that as an opportunity to cautiously include more dramatic revisions (example diff; this was from October 8 when I tried letting an October 5 edit stand), so I think this edit war will last forever as is. If you think that the most recent revision looks harmless or too minor to care about, it might be, but Ballast will use it as an opening to revert the article to how it looked a month ago eventually, which was a straight-up puff piece that excised almost all of the scandal. They are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia or reflect the sources, they're here to fluff Kevin Deutsch's article.

As a side note. In my opinion, these two users are most likely Deutsch himself. It perfectly fits the pattern of someone obsessed with just one article and making it as admiring as possible and adding in links to Deutsch's blog (diff) and using the same phrasing as Deutsch from his website (e.g. crowing about his fifteen year career... as if that's something unusual among journalists. blog, diff). Ultimately, this is largely irrelevant, but I just figured I'd throw this out there. (They have denied having a COI, for the record. They just "care about accuracy".) SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to why my accurate edits continue to be reverted. They are clear, concise, accurate, objective, contain indisputable facts, and comply with Wikipedia's living persons policy. Alternatively, the edits made by @snowfire are inaccurate, presumptive, conclusory, and violate the LP policy. I believe his edits constitute vandalism, and that he is an author of one or more of the sources for this article. He could also be a party with a grudge against article subject. Either way, he has a clear/obvious conflict of interest, as is demonstrated by his one-sided edits. I request an objective party arbitrate this dispute.

As I have stated numerous times, I have no connection to article subject. I am simply a person with interest in the controversy (having learned of it via Wikipedia). I don’t see why my revisions are being subjected to vandalism when they are neutral and harmless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Deutsch is currently open, and has been open for almost 3 weeks. Deleting the article is certainly one solution to the content dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: Ballastpointed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account; having only edited Kevin Deutsch, Talk:Kevin Deutsch, User talk:Ballastpointed, and this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: True, that would be one way to do it... but per my comments in the AFD, I think that Deutsch is notable enough, and would rather normal editor discipline be applied here to stop the edit war. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Deutsch has since closed with a keep result. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would support deletion at this point. The back and forth is completely absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs)

@Ballastpointed: If you find it absurd, stop doing it. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Additionally: @snowfire, do you feel neutrality is an important element here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes? In that I don't believe your edits and comments on the talk page have been neutral? SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ballastpointed: Your claim of neutrality is hard to accept at face value. Your actions do not support it. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I now see that Ballastpointed was blocked indefinitely from editing for long term edit warring as of 05:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC). -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Mass mango/australia education related vandalism

An editor has been using multiple socks to vandalise mango/australia education related articles. See User:Bread1690, User:Itsyaboy18, User:FFalex, User:Wikiwhat6, User:JerryC13, User: 203.31.11.5, User: 124.169.105.239. Please stop them. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Another sock: User: 122.106.168.121. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Not multiple socks, it’s multiple different people, as you can see from the different ip addresses. It’s a cohort of over 70000 people. You can’t win — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFalex (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Standard RBI, etc. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a regular invasion by multiple separate users. I've got to admire the Australian examination system. Last year questions about Punched cards and Lucas numbers caused quite a storm. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Plus it produces vandals who can properly pluralize mango [18]. EEng 12:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from non-administrator: Obviously I can't do anything to act on this note, but why not cascade-protect anything to do with mangoes or Australian education and ask good faith editors to suggest edits in the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBarker23 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Ellen van Neerven

Ellen van Neerven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Current page protection hasn't been enough to stanch the flow, regarding the use of a poem in an Australian school. JNW (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• See also Mango, NSW Education Standards Authority and Higher School Certificate (New South Wales), which have been protected for same. JNW (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is related to the above "Mass mango/australia education related vandalism". Bennv3771 (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance on Persistent Disruptive editing by user

Requesting assistance. A non-registered user of IP-address 116.15.94.199 had been repeatedly reverting contents without any specific rationale (except for one, but should have raised it up on discussion instead of a forceful reverting action) or raising any rationale up on the discussion. This is despite warnings by multiple users and a block applied a year ago (as dated on the block log). Failed attempts had been made to reach out to the user via the talk page or the edit descriptions (basically much of the actions appropriate under a extended confirmed-user privilege). Lyg 2001 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lyg 2001: The IP address appears to be shared by multiple users. I have semi-protected the article for now, and will keep watching for developments. Alex Shih^Talk 11:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks made by an IP on edit summary

Suspected IP sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov who is an edit-warrior, made personal attacks against me in English on the edit summary. Check here please: [19]. He is calling me terrorist and Macedonian Muslim. Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jingiby: Done. In the meanwhile, is it possible if you could contact individual admins privately if another block evasion occurs, or start an sockpuppet investigation since this has been recurring on frequent basis? Thanks in advance! Alex Shih^Talk 12:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jingiby: re the above, feel free to ping me directly about these socks, I've become pretty familiar with the editing patterns over the last month. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Reporting Gugi2001 for edit-warring and disruptive editing

• Problems started with a sweeping change by Gugi2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the Enis Bytyqi article ( link) with the edit summary being "Correction!". It was full of issues: typos, broken grammar, unexplained removal of references, addition of broken links. For that reason, I reverted the change before successively implementing constructive changes from the user's massive edit (1, 2, 3).

• The following day, Gugi2001 reinstated their previous edit including all the problematic changes (Edit summary: "Correction, adding facts and don't abuse the article"). I reverted and posted to the article's Talk page elaborating on why I reverted.

• Another ten days later, they reverted again ("Correction!") and so did I, this time explaining on the user's Talk page.

• Gugi2001's next revert ("Correction the apps and goals!") occurred another ten days later

• Since then an IP editor has twice (1, 2) tried to reinstate Gugi2001's changes. I don't think it is too far a stretch to assume this is the same user: Gugi2001 last edited three days ago, the IP made changes a day later.

I realise I should probably have reported this much earlier, and to the edit-warring noticeboard. I am also aware of the fact that I reverted more often than I should have.

I am now reporting Gugi2001 here for multiple issues:

• Edit-warring, at the same time lack of any communication, no response to attempts to discuss changes on Talk pages
• Disruptive editing: huge edits, misleading edit summaries
• Potential socking
• Competency issues: edits and edit summaries point to difficulties with the English language.

Thanks for looking into this. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: I thought I was doing a good job with my editing in the article of Enis Bytyqi, but since that's not the case! I'm sorry. Gugi2001 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparent legal threat

74.96.141.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on article for sheriff Donald B. Smith diff Putnam County Sheriff: removed illegal and incorrect information that will be investigated Jim1138 (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

IP is removing sourced content and sources Jim1138 (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Alex Shih^Talk 05:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Clear legal threat

Cbssport17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on my talk page: diff The information you restored is inaccurate, I have been informed that if not properly removed and put in the correct context WIKI will receive a legal notice of defamtion, whom shall I tell them to address this to? Please remove and or advise. Thank... and more. Cbssport17 created account just before I left the NLT notice on 74.96.141.8 (above) Jim1138 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Thanks Jim, indeffed. Alex Shih^Talk 05:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the article Donald B. Smith is causing this problem. Obvious WP:NLT is obvious, and Cbssport17 should have discussed this rather than making a threat. Possible WP:COI or WP:AUTOPROB here as well. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot use first hand knowledge and has to rely on what secondary sources have said.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile I was trying to update the article with Smith's wife's death using his official county bio, through edit conflicts. I have also condensed the lawsuit material and added a second news source. There was no need for a threat at all, so silly. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't agree here. Cbssport17 removed the investigation info and replaced it with election info. here left a misleading ES not mentioning the removal. Jim1138 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen that particular edit. That's about the upcoming election; I was trying to find results of the last one, which is what's encyclopedic. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me mention of the man aquitted of the rape charge is a pretty clear BLP issue, no? John from Idegon (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hence I added that he was cleared. I don't want to overload the article with references to this matter, and I cut it back considerably on BLP grounds as well as pure UNDUE, but I've searched for references to the elections he's won, to use as counterbalancing refs, and haven't found any, just repeated statements that he has been reelected each time. I hope more experienced BLP/political editors will further balance the article. I just dove in. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Of note; User:Cbssport7, active four years ago on the same article. Likely no need to take action as yet, but someone may wish to keep an eye on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft: Yes, I'd noticed, since in 2013 that editor also uploaded a slew of images to Commons that I was getting up the courage to mass nominate as likely copyvio/inadequate licence: commons:Category:Donald B. Smith. The other Cbssport accounts either have not edited or seem to me to have no relevant edits. Maybe a lost password situation; to supplement your ping I'm going to message Cbssport7 on their user talk. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    • All of their image uploads on Commons are now up for deletion, most of them in a group nomination. It's blatantly evident they were just uploading images they found on the Internet for most of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
      • So I now see. Thanks to you, and to Wikicology for figuring out how to mass-nominate. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I think Wikicology has a tool to do that. I don't have it, and he was very expeditious in handling it. Kudos to @Wikicology:. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
        • A downside; in that nomination, we're going to lose File:Sheriff Don Smith 14.jpg. This would be a correct deletion, as we can't confirm the provenance of the image. I'm quite certain it came from the U.S. Army, but I can't prove it. Also; regardless of the legal threat, it appears Cbssport17/Cbssport7 has a direct conflict of interest and is likely in violation of WP:PAID. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Let me tell you what's going on with this article. This is about a multi-term elected sheriff in New York state that is up for re-election this fall. The sheriff made false allegations against the local District Attorney, which resulted in lawsuits back and forth, covered in the press, ending with the sheriff making an abject apology for having made the accusation in the first place and retraction, covered in the press, and paying out $25K out of pocket, leaving the rest of the six figure settlement to country taxpayers (their insurance company). Now, reelection coming, this little detail is being scrubbed from the biography for political reasons. Here is what should happen: (1) This article should remain semi-protected through the election, because it is under attack from IPs for clearly political reasons; (2) CBSSports17 should be either topic-banned off this article or banned outright as wP:NOTHERE. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Cbssport7

Cbssport7 is indefinitely topic banned from Donald B. Smith and all articles relating to Putnam County, New York. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Note: I've corrected CBSSports17 to Cbssport17. I'm not one to change someone else's posting, but felt it had to be done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think a topic ban is necessary, as the account has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. Even if they come back from that, it's clear they and their old User:Cbssport7 account are (a) single purpose accounts, (b) almost certainly have a direct conflict of interest, and (c) are quite possibly in violation of our terms of service, as laid out at WP:PAID. It's doubtful this editor is coming back from all that. We need to watch the article for sockpuppet/IP abuses, at least until the election is over. A topic ban won't help much in this case. IF they come back from the NLT violation, IF they come back the COI problems, IF they need and do comply with PAID, then yeah a topic ban might be warranted. Not now though. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The NLT block is easily ended by retracting the threat. It's a far stretch to call this a "paid" editor, it pretty clearly is a political actor, not a commercial actor. This account needs to be shut away from this topic, whether there is a standing NLT block or not. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Whether they are compensated for their contributions or not isn't my call to make. Should they come back from the legal threat, I will make sure they are given a {{uw-paid}} warning, as I believe there is a possibility they are being paid for their contributions. If they aren't, fine. Also, [20][21] broke the name again :( --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

SALT needed, potentially NOTHERE

Hi all,

Sorry for putting this here, Twinkle's RFPP module is crashing for me.

Over the past year or so, User:Shahriar al mahmud has repeatedly attempted to create autobiographies which are WP:NOTWEBHOST violations. Just recently Shahriar Al Mahmud and his userpage were created, both of which I've tagged for speedy deletion. SALT may be needed on all capitalisation forms of the name as previous talk page warnings have indicated that he has used camel case to avoid SALT protection.

DrStrauss talk 07:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss: Done. This could probably have been done by contacting individual admin though, instead of coming to AN/I. And I am puzzled that you cannot use RFPP without Twinkle. Why? Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Alex Shih^Talk 08:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I was in a bit of a rush so I stuck to the simplest method :) DrStrauss talk 08:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Death threats

Any admin up? Feel like blocking User:Maccabee32 for this cute little death threat? Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision deleted too. Alex Shih^Talk 09:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, don't shine your flashlight too bright on those snowflakes. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Is an underlying IP range block feasible?

User:Maccabee32 has come back as User:Jewish and Proud and as User:Death to communist oppressors destroying America with the same kind of personal attacks and death threats. If there are any checkusers watching, could you possibly check the underlying IP addresses and see if there's a feasible range block? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI, there are probably more sleepers out there too – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Has anybody submitted the threats to the emergency team? If not, I can take care of that... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No one has replied with confirmation that they've contacted the emergency team, so I went ahead and did so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Oshwah: I don't think there's any real-life danger, but it's better to be cautious. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Boing! said Zebedee. I agree, and I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Meh, open proxies. No range block. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, shame about no range block - but presumably someone can at least block the open proxies? (I know, there are thousands more out there.) For the record, we also have User:Maccabee54 now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

According to the SPI they were blocked, clearly there are more. I watchlisted that talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Notably, Death to communist oppressors destroying America doesn't appear to be currently blocked, and may or may not be free to edit. Honestly, the username alone is enough reason for an indef. DarkKnight2149 23:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Block log says blocked "11:22, 17 October 2017 Alex Shih". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Might I ask where you are getting this? The Block log seems empty. Though, I just noticed, his user rights say "Blocked" in parenthesis... Which is odd. DarkKnight2149 01:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the username has now been suppressed, and the block log shows to me as "11:22, 17 October 2017 Alex Shih (talk | contribs | block) (log details removed) (Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy)". Presumably only admins can see that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• For the historical record, these could be linked to ChickenFingers6262 and 216.118.132.115, even if those aren't using open proxies. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/216.118.132.115. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Bachcell's POV editing

I am here to report Bachcell, an occasional editor who needs to be warned about inappropriately asserting his POV at talk pages and AFD. Some of my diffs may be older but Bachcell only edits maybe once or twice a month. However, during that brief time he expresses political beliefs and opinions almost never based on policy.

Most recently Bachcell cited I was "deleting an wp:obvious-terrorist-attack for political reasons". Not only did Bachcell completely make up a policy to attack the nominator, he completely ignored the fact that the incident is considered a case of mental illness. In a talk page discussion, he asserts we must prevent routine whitewashing of obvious terrorist attacks which should always be notable.

Going back a month to when he was last active, Bachcell made another highly POV comment claiming anything that may even look like terror is inherently notable. He preceded to note at an editor's talk page a coordinated assault of terrorist articles from "apologists". Once again, in another discussion, Bachcell claimed a routine merge proposal was disruptive because all ISIS attack are notable (according to him alone). He has a long history of POV editing [22][23][24][25] (consider his talk page as well) that demonstrates compentency issues on a subject that needs to be met with objectivity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): these aren't article edits, which is where we're concerned about POV. These are talk page discussions and deletion discussions, where we expect editors to have their own points of view about what is important. Having someone suggest that new guidelines should exist is not objectionable; that's where we get guidelines from. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Unrealistic/unhelpful policy "proposals" and POV-pushing have no place at a talk page or AFD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Nat on this one. Those are venues where we generally expect people to have an opinion and express it. For AFD's its up to the closer to disregard and weight the !votes according to their backing in policy. As an aside, 'All politically motivated terrorist attacks are notable' is way down the list of 'stupid reasons to keep articles' as at least a politically motivated terrorist attack will have media coverage. Even the minor ones. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Bachcell's behaviour is of concern. Some of their behaviour suggests WP:NOTHERE namely "Treating editing as a battleground" and using Wikipedia for advocacy and propaganda contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE. I'm not suggesting a block, but I think some of this behaviour is problematic and needs to be watched. AfD and other discussions are not for expressing personal opinions, but policy-based judgement. Also, accusing other editors of being "apologists" for terrorism is incredibly uncivil. AusLondonder (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not as simple as Nom presents. Multiple RSes ([26] [27] [28] [29] [30]) have listed this incident in the context of terror, and ISIS/AQ inspired vehicle ramming attacks. Actual charging of mentally unstable perps (even when they make political stmts during the attack, as here - "acting for the children of Palestine".) is a complex issue Corner, Emily, and Paul Gill. "Is There a Nexus Between Terrorist Involvement and Mental Health in the Age of the Islamic State?." The CTC Sentinel 10.1 (2017): 1-10. APA. That the Dijon incident is (per TheGracefulSlick) grounded as a "fact that the incident is considered a case of mental illness." is far from a bulletproof fact. The chargesheet is a fact.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I have also been active at this AfD. And I want to point that it is a highly POV AfD on a hotly disputed topic (the French authorities are widely accused by journalists and politicians of diverting the adjudication of possibly terrorism-related crimes by administrative rulings of mental health causation. This is also an academic conversation. As the article cited by Icewhiz puts it, writing about the case at this AfD: "when confirmed diagnosis were present, there was a tendency to try to dismiss the possibility of terrorism altogether." What I am here to say is that there is a potential WP:BOOMERANG here because while Bachcell's opinion was POV, it is arguably not more POV than the TheGracefulSlick's nomination and AusLondoner's iVote, both of which make inaccurate assertions about the article, incident and sourcing that can be read as misleadingly POV. Not to mention the fact that this is one of a long series of AfDs by TheGracefulSlick that administrators have described as being WP:POINTy. Full disclosure, I have a POV on terrorism at variance with that expressed by GracefulSlick.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That "article" was published by a military thinktank, E.M.Gregory. Please take those conspiracy theories elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Can we stop trying to make this about a petty content dispute? If anyone has issues with an AFD with a fully relevant nomination statement, take it to my talk page. If I was incorrect in believing Bachcell's behavior is problematic a neutral (preferably admin) user can close this. But consider this: Bachcell's inaccurate, often insulting, opinions taint neutral talk page discussions, and I am not the first editor to point this out to him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that WP:FORUM applies to edits such as this, and let's not forget that WP:NOT applies across the board, to all spaces, though not always in equal measure everywhere. An AfD doesn't run for much longer than a week, usually, so disruption is limited, as opposed to article talk pages. If I were closing an AfD like this, and I think I speak for most admins here, I would just utterly disregard that rather ridiculous post (we have enough conspiracy theories already) since it presents no argument based on policy. I am not sure that The Graceful Slick is making a good case here, but in principle, if this is what Bachcell does on Wikipedia, at some point there's been enough soapboxing. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW apply to practically all of Bachcell's edits. I first became aware of this editor nearly 2-1/2 years ago because of their incessant fighting to add unsourced and poorly sourced incidents to List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Bachcell appears to be unable to unwilling to follow WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR, three "core" content policies. Sadly, personal attacks such as this one are typical of their m.o. I recommend a close perusal of their talk page, their contribution history, and a perma-block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am troubled by the fact that each of the editors arguing here for blocking Bachcell holds strong political views opposed to those held by Bachcell. When we humans find a fellow human's political opinions wholly inimical, we find it exceedingly hard to judge that individual fairly. I suspect that we are hardwired that way. But the arguments being made here would be more persuasive if this were not so politically fraught, and not being advocated by individuals with such strong political opinions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually E.M.Gregory you are the one trying to create a political divide here. I honestly do not give a damn about his political beliefs; he can keep them to himself. My complaint was filed in light of Bachcell's comments applying to WP:FORUM and creating a non-neutral atmosphere for discussion. His personal (often inaccurate and uncivil) opinions display a severe WP:COMPETENCY issue and motives beyond being here to build an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked editor evading block and disrupting articles

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

---

• Amy. Firehoof. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday a new editor User:Amy. Firehoof. was created and started making a series of edits to articles related to Wales. These edits were mostly reverted, including by User:Andy Dingley and myself. The edits were problematic, and included this edit which attempted to remove the assertion that a specifically Welsh invention was Welsh, this edit that removed the Welsh language name of North Wales from the article about North Wales (with the alarming edit summary that this was "irrelevant info) and this edit which remove the Welsh name for a Welsh town, claiming that this was "fixing my own typo". Amy. Firehoof. entered into an edit war on Car gwyllt to get their changes into the article, including this change which is both factually inaccurate (see the citation in the article on Wales which establishes it is a country]] and irrelevant to that article. User:Amy. Firehoof. was blocked last night by User:Alexf for edit warring.

Today, a new user User:SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK was created, who started making the same edits to the same articles (e.g. this edit and this edit) and also interacted with the blocked user's talk page. It is clear to me that User:SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK is an account created to evade the block on User:Amy. Firehoof. and the underlying user is clearly violating Wikipedia's rules on maintaining a neutral point of view. The user is not engaging in meaningful dicussions about their concerns, is violating the requirement to maintain factual neutraility and is not here to help the project. Could an admin take a look and help with the right next steps? Thank you. Railfan23 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I was just writing up an SPI, but it's a lot of typing to do all the diffs and the massive crossover! This duck isn't quacking, it's neighing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that User:SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK just removed this entire discussion in this edit. I have restored it Railfan23 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• This was going to be an ANEW post, but now we've started here...

Amy. Firehoof. appeared last night and walked straight into a triple 4RR edit-war over removing descriptions of anything Welsh as Welsh. This morning, a 31 hour block.

Tonight, a very obvious sock or meatpuppet appears. Repeats a couple of the edits and wikilove the original's talk: page. This is either a sock (during a block) or a meat, and CU might answer that.

That aside, we've got definite 4RRs.

Penarth

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

High Contrast

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

Car gwyllt

(a hugely obscure article, but the only one I created which is obviously Welsh to a quick scan of my creations list)

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
6. [44] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)
7. [45] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)

North Wales

1. [46]
2. [47] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)
3. [48] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)

Conwy County Borough

1. [49]
2. [50] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)

When we start seeing POV edits to a local council page, from someone who's userpage claims naively, "Interested in learning more about the United Kingdom", then we have a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

<ec>> That was rude. No wonder I got an EC. I added to the SPI while trying to create a new one. A veritable barnyard of neighing and quacking.18:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amy. Firehoof. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• For the sake of redundancy I placed a CU block. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies, much appreciated. Railfan23 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

both blocked per SPIDlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Questionable edits.

A few day ago I ran across KingQueenJack (talk · contribs) making questionable, unsourced edits in Carolingian Empire, which is on my watchlist. I went to 3RR and screeched to a halt there. Fortunately, so did KQJ. I invited KQJ to discuss things several times (see relevant talkpages). KQJ did not respond. Checking up on this user, I found the same kind of behavior is repeated in other articles (here and here) and other edits are generally not considered helpful. I think some admin action might be helpful. Kleuske (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, since you brought this here we might as well discuss things--I see basic incompetence (note how they changed a book title to help make their date change work: "H. Garipzanov, The Symbolic Language of Authority in the Carolingian World (c.751–843,884–888) (Leiden: Brill, 2008)"). Plus, we've blocked editors for being uncommunicative before. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Most (if not nearly all) of the recent edits I'm going through by this user appear to be changes to text in Chinese, or at least include changes to text in Chinese. I'm wondering how well or fluent this user is with English... maybe this is what is contributing to the communication issues? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

IP gets reverted, doesn't like it, starts being deliberately disruptive.

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

Natural gas is a Chinese invention. Fascinating story, well recorded contemporaneously in the West, but China was exploiting and even drilling for natural gas centuries ago.

The "invention by country" categories are a problem. They're a magnet for nationalistic trolls. They're unworkable per WP sourcing rules, I favour deleting the lot. But as that isn't happening (CfDs passim), we're stuck with trying to agree criteria for them via Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Technology#National_invention_categories. Fruitlessly as yet.

An IP reckons that Natural gas isn't a Chinese invention: [51] [52] (September) This was refuted at Talk:, with no reply Talk:Natural_gas#This_article_is_not_about_an_invention.

Today they reply, with a TL;DR wall of text (dumped needlessly onto my user talk too). But this isn't about what they think (or what I think), it's about what consensus has landed at - and for the country invention cats, we're using (and have used for a long time) a definition including both inventions and discoveries. So China is there for natural gas.

When reverted, they (unsurprisingly) edit-war, but then start getting nasty and adding obvious untruths to unrelated articles. This was added by another IP, and I reverted it as either vandalism or extreme lack of clue (the 2015 final retirement of Avro Vulcan XH558 was a massive story in UK airspotting. It did not fly again in 2016, it is not flying again this year.). To re-add such a thing isn't about content accuracy, it's just trying to wind me up personally. See ANI above. I am tired of this sort of rubbish. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And now they've re-added the Vulcan fake. [53] Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And of course, the required ANI notice gets described as "deficient editor may have added to wrong section". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking into this now. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope that I'm not subject to prejudice, just because I choose not to formally register as a wikipedia user

TL:DR!?!? @Andy Dingley: I am insulted that you didn't read. It's not a "wall of text" it is reason explained! I took the time to vebosely explain to Andy Dingley the difference between discovery and invention and how in the context of technology there may be some confusion. I suspect bigotry, and I don't think that Andy Dingley is unique as a bigot against Wikipedians who choose, for one reason or another, to edit without formally registering for an account. The fact of the matter is whether if it's Jimbo Wales, an unregistered (AKA IP editor) or a rabid turtle that submits edits, all edit submissions should be judged on their own merit.

@Oshwah: What's your take?

--IPEditor (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I read all of your vast screed (which you have dumped in three places) and found it equally confused in all three. You seem to think that being "natural" prevents natural gas from being an "invention", thus not belonging in the category. As you have been told repeatedly, it is included there as a discovery, not as an invention. This is our established practice for these categories.

I agree with you, it is better if I read your screeds rather than ignoring them; and so I do so. That does not make your inability to express yourself concisely any better.

I object to being termed a bigot and I see that as another personal attack from you today. In particular, none of my reaction to you as an IP has differed at all from how I would treat you as a registered editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  User blocked for that unwarranted attack. And suffice it to say this behaviour reminds me strongly of a particular user who disrupts national invention/discovery categories and casts aspersions as to the racial motivations of editors who revert them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There are so many disruptive editors focussed on national invention categories (one of which is from the same geographical area as this editor) that I simply can't think which one of the many candidates it might be. But they're usually trying to include the tenuous, not exclude the obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't check WHOIS or geolocation before blocking, calling people "deficient" and "bigot" is enough for me. The one from the same geographical area as this user is the one this reminds me of, though I haven't seen him edit from this city or this ISP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Good call on the block, Ivanvector. I was on the phone with a client; else I would have done so myself. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for the IP's position. (I don't know whether it's literally true, but the point is still valid even if Lincoln didn't say it “No,” Lincoln says. “Calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.”) If we have a category that's demonstrably incorrect, we ought to fix it and not castigate people who make the "mistake" of assuming that words have meaning. How on earth did we decide that a category covering inventions also includes discoveries? It's tiresome to have to explain to readers that what Wikipedia means by notable isn't what is meant in general usage but at least those terms are close enough that confusion is understandable. If we now have to explain to readers that "inventions" doesn't really mean "inventions", we are reducing our own credibility.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a pretty well known issue that these categories are problematic, and yeah there have been discussions seeking solutions for quite some time. That's all well and good; I believe Andy posted a link to one of the recent discussions somewhere above. I don't necessarily agree that the "invention" categories also include scientific (or other) discoveries, and at any rate the treatment is highly inconsistent, but I believe Andy is referring to the various "list of fooian inventions and discoveries", in which inventions and discoveries are pretty much always lumped together. It's not optimal, it's confusing, and it's a mess, but none of that warrants calling someone a bigot because they disagreed with an edit you made. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Switch the status of the players and the outcome becomes "Yes, the remark was inappropriate, but they were in the right as to the content issue so let's forgive the remark. Some editors need to grow thicker skins." I am bewildered that the double standard is so hard for reasonable people to see. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"How on earth did we decide that a category covering inventions also includes discoveries? "

Literally, because one of the warring socks (the pro-German one) advocated it, and it seems the most workable approach. The set of most interest is the set of both inventions and discoveries, so we us that as our basis. If you dislike the category names as "inventions" alone, then that's a choice which has been made, possibly as a de facto, but it's how it is and there is no advocacy on the Technology or Inventions projects to change it. IMHO, it's better to have such a linguistic discrepancy (which isn't unusual) than to have an over-verbose set of category names.

For this specific case, it was explained on the Talk:Natural gas page a month ago (unresponded to) and trailed to the longer discussion on the project page. The IP editor was welcome to discuss that, but they didn't: instead they just kept arguing that the agreement simply wasn't in place and reverting regardless.

Finally I would ask people commenting (and I cannot understand what Mandruss is on about) to read this ANI post: it's not about this categories issue (ANI doesn't do content) it's about an angry editor switching to obvious vandalism to re-insert an unsourced and challenged untruth on an unrelated article. That's just deliberate disruption, and that is an ANI issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a new VPN IP: I was trying to submitted a minor edit to a wikipedia page and I got some error page. I reset my VPN connection and it worked. But, in hindsight I remembered seeing the word "blocked". When I check out the history of my previous IP it shows that @Ivanvector: has "executed administrative privilege" for an alleged attack. Let me be clear about two things: Firstly, let me be perfectly clear: my new IP was NOT a result of any attempt to circumvent an administrative ban and the edit I made was completely unrelated. Secondly, I make NO personal attacks! Please let me clarify: I call noone bigot! I specifically implied that it is possible that there is bigotry on Wikipedia and I honestly suspect this is so, but I don't know of any current specific examples! I explicitly stated that I did not think that Andy Dingley was a unique bigot who opposed so call "IP Users". I even explained on Andy Dingley's talk page that I, as a matter of practice, I assume good faith. (I clarified here that I, also, do suspect that not all act in good faith).

With regard to the article Natural gas, I thought it's clear that something that existed before humans could not have been invented by humans. I removed the "Chinese invention" category and not only made a note in the edit summary, but also explained on the talk page. Andy Dingley reverted my removal of the category they added without seeking consensus.

Long story short (maybe TL;DR?) If someone has an ally with admin privileges, it doesn't even matter right or wrong because the "IP" (derogatory for 'unregistered user') is going to get banned. --IPEditor (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC) 135.23.235.144 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You're already blocked, and now you are IP-socking to avoid that block. You also called me a bigot, and suggested that I was not unique as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"IP" is the actual term for the designation. Next you'll be saying that the term "Caucasian" is derogatory because it excludes some people, I presume? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 14:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick - I agree with you regarding the IPs position and I completely understand the frustration that the IP feels regarding this issue - no doubt. I mean, yeah, calling "natural gas" an invention (in a way) does seem silly, even perhaps ridiculous to some. While I do make civility blocks for repeated personal attacks and agree with the civility block here, that does not mean that I don't see their viewpoint and understand why people who are frustrated over things (such as this category usage dispute) and resort to such behaviors. It's when users come to a noticeboard and begin becoming overly combative that makes me feel that there's a line between this understanding and where we have a responsibility to put an end to combative and disruptive uncivil behaviors if it's clear that it will only just continue. As it is fair to see calling natural gas an invention as silly, it's equally fair to see someone's incivility, personal attacks toward others, and their combative response here and over something like a category placement on a page - as equally silly (and also disruptive, against policy, and when it will only aim a discussion that should be or was originally on the pathway to consensus - to hostility and destructive reasoning). This is where I believe that the line between being understanding of the IP's frustration and incivility and attempting to help and defuse the heated situation ends, and the responsibility we have to reasonably take action to enforce Wikipedia's civility policies and put a stop to open and combative behavior and allow the other editors involved to stop being sucked into a toxic discussion environment begins. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Calling natural gas an invention is deeply silly and I can see why the IP was annoyed. --John (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Then you, or the original IP, are welcome to discuss this on the Technology talk: project page, where I have been trying to tidy up these categories for months now, with little interest from others.

They are not though entitled to start vandalising other articles "because they're annoyed", which is the subject of this page. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is inventing the natural gas more or less inventive than inventing the concept of night market ? Instead of being shocked and defaulting into incivility, the IP should have taken this discussion seriously. Any more letter soup ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Well natural gas exists (naturally) and does not need to be 'invented', as opposed to night market, whatever that is. I'm surprised (and worried) that you don't see the distinction. -- Begoon 12:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Stalking complaint

Permalinks to context, Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Template_editor#User:Magioladitis & User_talk:BU_Rob13#ANI notification. —prepended later by Sladen (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest example here: [54]. Please protect me. Rob has commented in all my BRFA's, my BAG membership and in many more places. Usually, he is the first to comment. I have evidence that he has been contacting others offwiki about me to others. -- Magioladitis (talk) Note: I corrected my statement after explanations given Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

...then post that evidence. It simply hasn't happened, and the unsupported accusation is a blatant personal attack. This is only being filed because I said 3 minutes ago that I planned to take this to ANI tonight when I get to a computer. He wanted my name in the section header instead of his. Magioladitis has been wikihounding me blatantly for weeks since he was desysopped. I've tried to have little contact with him, but that hasn't worked. I'll post a comprehensive list of evidence (actual evidence, with diffs and stuff) when I get home tonight. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Rob said for me be removed from BAG member "This has been going on for years, and a bot operator that doesn't comply with the bot policy should obviously not be a BAG member" (06:39, 27 December 2016, emphasis is mine). [55]

Rob comments about me: "The behavior over half a decade is far below what's expected of any editor on the project" (20:04, 19 January 2017, emhasis is mine). [56]

Rob comments in a BRFA 2 minutes after I placed the time stamp: [57].

A list of all of my bot's task in the last month. Rob has commented (usually the first to comment) in the vas majorit of them (pobably in all till Task 50).

I have already warned in the past that this will end in ANI or somehing similar. If I get time I an prove tht people were receiving emails about me.

Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Noting here that I removed the name from the heading. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• I am not that familiar with the context, but I don't think it is necessary stalking if valid points are being raised. Since both editors work with the technical aspects of Wikipedia, overlaps should be expected, and I think it would be wrong to look away if there are pressing concerns. Alex Shih^Talk 01:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I second this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's true in general but something in my communication / interaction with Rob fails. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, Magioladitis' own presentation of evidence here reinforces the impression that there's something wrong with his judgment and needs monitoring: first on his list of complaints above is that BU Rob opposed his reconfirmation as a member of BAG, which you might think was a mean thing for Rob to do until you read the discussion Magioladitis himself links, in which eight out of eight editors commenting shared BU Rob's opinion, citing behavior by Magioladitis which, in the context of a bot operator, is downright frightening. One little passage is especially telling. Someone asked:

Two questions:

1. Why are you running an unapproved bot from your account to make edits like this?
2. Why is this not grounds for yet another block?

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis' response was incredible:

The questions are unrelated to my BAG nomination. BAG checks mainly the technical part of the story. The question asked here is if have the technical skills and related knowledge to be part of BAG. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Magioladitis, it's not just your technical skills that are at issue, it's your judgment (and, to be blunt, your ability to communicate in the English language, from my long observation). And Exhibit A is that you apparently think that, in considering you for membership in the Bot Approvals Group (whose members individually are empowered to approve bot tasks), we should simply ignore the apparent fact that, at the very moment of your application, you were running an unapproved bot. That's shocking.

EEng 02:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

EEng I am not complaining on negative commenting. I am complaining on constant commenting'. Robs has supported some of my bot tasks but he has commented in all of them. I thing that I do not like because I feel exposed to a specific person online. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your long history of going off the reservation is such that someone ought to be watching you. EEng 19:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have evvidence that he as been sending emails about me to others.[58] If I get time I an prove tht people were receiving emails about me.[59] @Magioladitis: It has been over 36 hours since you opened this complaint. You need to provide evidence for this claim, or you need to retract it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

DoRD I retracted. It was explained to me that the communication was via the IRC admin channel. Still offwiki but not via emails. I sincerely apologise. If this has been explained to me earlier I would not have written anything about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Response and boomerang

I initially wrote up a long thing refuting what Magioladitis wrote about me stalking, but instead, I'll just refer you to "past me". These claims go back months, and I wrote a very detailed explanation of the interactions I had with Magioladitis in the past. You can find that here. As a brief summary: We interact about the normal amount of times for those editing the same area. I've only ever started a single discussion related to Magioladitis, as I intentionally avoid him whenever possible. I've initiated zero interactions with him since the second ArbCom. Every time I've criticized him, the community has agreed with my criticisms. I think that about sums it up. Now onto the evidence that Magioladitis has been continuously harassing me, as promised:

• During the first ArbCom case, he openly and needlessly speculated about my location on-wiki in violation of WP:OUTING multiple times. [60], Special:Permalink/757731590#Canada.
• In April 2017, he started a discussion about one of my bot approvals without even discussing the concern with me, in apparent retaliation for my criticism of an unrelated third-party bot task that was violating the bot policy. (link) The community concluded that I could fix the bug in my task as normal and Magioladitis was warned by a BAG member (Headbomb) that he shouldn't retaliate against me in that manner.
• In May 2017, he started another discussion about the same bug in the same bot task, despite me not running that bot task at all in between the two discussions. (link) The section was speedily closed with a warning not to harass me.
• In June 2017, he started a discussion claiming (falsely) that I gave incorrect advice to a bot operator. (link) Other BAG members have since stated my advice was correct based on the information available in the bug report at the time.
• During the second ArbCom case, two arbitration clerks had to redact large portions of his evidence section because he made unfounded accusations and personal attacks against me, including the "off-wiki coordination"/email accusation he made above. See here and here.

At the risk of trivializing things, up until this point, we have "run-of-the-mill" incivility, abuse of process to harass, etc. After the second ArbCom case, it was ratcheted up quite a bit to wikihounding me everywhere I go.

• In September 2017, he suddenly popped up on my talk page to demand an apology and retraction for a comment I made during the first ArbCom case. I stand by my original comment, which was supported by the findings of facts in the case. See here. This proves Magioladitis was literally going through 9-month-old edits and contributions to find something to hound me about.
• In October 2017, Magioladitis removed a PROD I placed on a file (now deleted, so I can't show the diff); File:Seleccionada3.JPG. This was his first edit to the file namespace since August 2017, when he (ironically) accidentally rolled back one of my edits on another random file, showing he was going through my contribs at that time as well ([61]). This is an editor who so infrequently edits the file namespace that if you try to retrieve his last 100 file namespace edits, the site returns an error. A discussion on his talk page made clear he had no legitimate rationale for removing the PROD [62].

I'm philosophically opposed to interaction bans, especially one-sided ones. At this point, I just want his harassment to stop. I think a site ban is appropriate given the history here. Magioladitis has had many last chances. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It saddens me to be editing this response right now... I can understand how disheartened and perhaps frustrated or angry that Magioladitis is feeling since the ArbCom case that recently closed, but I can't help but be honest here... I feel that these problematic accusations by Magioladitis are only going to continue until action is taken and we (the community) put a stop to it. We've gone through complaints and discussions on different talk pages, numerous ANI discussions, two ArbCom cases - how far do we allow this to go? When is enough enough? Do these continued and repeated discussions involving Magioladitis' behavior show that perhaps we've reached a point where he's stopped becoming net positive for the project? I'm not sure how to feel... it's just truly sad and disappointing... :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Unless there's a serious reason to believe an IBAN would not work, besides any objections anyone personally has to the concept of IBANs, I don't see why we don't try one. Magioladitis and BU Rob13 each claim to want to be left alone. It seems the perfect candidate for an IBAN. So let's do it. If one or the other is the instigator of harassment, then the IBAN will lead us to the culprit far faster than more arbitration, and more empirically than an ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, please. It's clear that Rob's replies cause me stress in all cases. I don't even want to have positive comments in my BRFA's from him. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • If Rob13 is "philosophically opposed to interaction bans", both of them work in the small world of Wikipedia bots, Rob13's actions on BRFAs are to validly point out horrific bot-related misbehavior on the part of Magioladitis, and Magioladitis welcomes the removal of Rob13 from BRFAs, that doesn't seem like a very constructive solution to me. It might be possible if we simultaneously ban Magioladitis from anything bot-related, broadly construed, but otherwise no. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • David Eppstein on the bots area we have a cease fire. I am banned from bot policy related discussions and Rob said won't do any BAG action on CHECKWIKI anymore. We have no conflicts there anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Who cares what benefits either of these individuals bring to the Wikipedia bots world? If they can't work together, and the trouble their interactions cause outweighs the benefits of their work in the bots realm, then why should we give a damn about the benefits of their work with bots? I see no reason to put on kid gloves with respect to either. Things do not simply get this bad and stay this bad for so long based on the unilateral misconduct of a single person, the removal of whom would fairly resolve. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Well actually quite a lot of people care about the benefits Rob brings given there has been no downside. They don't care about the benefits Mag can potentially bring because he comes with a history of negatives which have had a huge amount of community involvement even before it got to Arbcom in order to get him to change his ways. Things do get this bad and stay this bad for so long as the result of a single editor if that editor refuses to change their ways. To disregard all the previous dealings with Magioladitis inability to abide by ENWP's requirements on editing behavior with a hand wavy 'well other people are at fault too' is ludicrous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
          • It takes two to tango. Things do get this bad and stay this bad for so long as the result of a single editor if that editor refuses to change their ways. Bullshit. ArbCom or the community would have banned Magioladitis ages ago if this were so simple. Neither ArbCom nor the community is so stupid as you are painting them to be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
            • 'It takes two to tango' being the best you can come up with to smear another editor? 'Where there is smoke there is fire' is another good one. So as much evidence as Mag has presented then got it. Do you have any actual evidence other than clichés that 'well everyone is at fault' despite the overwhelming extended evidence to the contrary? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
              • You kinda skipped the rest of my response. You might want to strike yours and write a new one. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                • What? Where you stated I said the community or arbcom were stupid? When I did no such thing? I tend to ignore complete bullshit. The community and Arbcom have wasted far more time on Magioladitis than they are worth in good faith. That does not make them stupid, it makes them extremely tolerant. There is a limit. You on the other hand are implying that tolerance means that there must be other people at fault because they have not decided to outright ban Mag yet. Which is again, ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                  • You can't have it both ways! You indicate below that ArbCom and AN/ANI are extremely effective at topic banning and sitebanning disruptive individuals when it's merited. You indicate above that things could stay this bad for so long purely because of the conduct of a single editor. Magioladitis has been before ArbCom twice and at these boards who knows how many times. Now you say the reason Magioladitis is still around is because of tolerance. But why be tolerant when, as you say, AN/ANI or ArbCom could effectively be rid of the intolerable conduct wrought solely by Magioladitis against innocent bystanders? These claims are not consistent with one another unless you admit that Magioladitis is not solely at fault, or unless you are calling the community stupid. I'll assume good faith on your part, however, and assume you mean to say that Magioladitis is not solely at fault. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                    • You appear to be having trouble reading and comprehending what I wrote. This is the second time you have said I said something that I clearly did not. There will not be a third. To explain further - I said AN/ANI and Arbcom do have a history of cutting editors loose who cause too much disruption. In Magioladitis case they have extended time and again various options in order to keep them around. These are obviously not mutually exclusive positions - the willingness of the community to keep an editor editing is in line with the amount of good work it feels can be extracted from them. The willingness of editors to extend (an overly generous imho) effort to keep Mag editing does not mean it thinks that anyone else is at fault - it merely means Mag has not become disruptive enough yet to be banned. If you actually look at all the past discussions, sanctions, arbcom etc, you will find almost no indication that any other editor has caused any issues regarding Magioladitis other than Mag themselves. You on the other hand seem to think that because they have not been banned so far, someone else must be the problem. This has been a staple of Magioladitis defense for the past few years 'I am not the problem, everyone else is, leave me alone to do what I want to do'. And this has been soundly rejected time and again. You have used ridiculous cliché's like 'it takes two to tango' to suggest sanctioning a productive editor who is currently being harassed by another with a history of bad behaviour. Because an interaction ban *is* a sanction on an editor and requires evidence to justify it. Not 'well it cant just be Mag's fault'. So please in the form of diffs, provide evidence that BU Rob should be sanctioned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                      • Stow the attitude. I'm not providing diffs because I'm not arguing Rob has culpability. I don't agree with your analysis and I'm showing the logical inconsistencies in your argumentation. I'm not misreading what you're saying. I understand full well the draconian outcome you're trying to rationalize. As for me, I would rather work for the good of the community and greater peace in the long term, and the way forward is through a mutual IBAN.
                        Both Rob and Magioladitis have stated they want to be left alone. Let's have them leave each other alone. Preserving the atmosphere of collegiality takes precedence over whatever improvements any of us individually could make to the encyclopedia, especially those improvements that could be made at a later date. At the core of your argument seems to be the spurious claim that we shouldn't make an IBAN mutual because it would be an indignity to Rob. This really isn't a credible concern. We're not punishing, we're preventing. If we were punishing, we would care about things like culpability, and the indignity of punishing the target of one user's bad behavior.
                        In any event, by your own characterization of Magioladitis there shouldn't be much of a delay between the implementation of an IBAN and Magioladitis receiving the indef block or community ban you appear to think is necessary. Honestly, this is where I am a bit confused about your position: Do you not believe Magioladitis would violate the IBAN in short order? If so, then what's there to lose? If not—that is, if Magioladitis complies with the IBAN—then how could you argue the IBAN wouldn't work? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                        • "I'm not providing diffs because I'm not arguing Rob has culpability." Yes you are. You have repeatedly. You have suggested sanctioning another editor based on clichés and zero evidence. You have deliberately twice stated I said something I didn't. So any 'attitude' you receive, like Mag, is entirely of your own doing. Since you decline to provide any evidence another editor deserves sanctioning, I can safely assume there is no evidence that anyone else is at fault. Thanks for confirming it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                          • Um, no. I'm not arguing culpability. I'm suggesting applying a nonpunitive IBAN to two editors who can't get along. Culpability isn't required for a sanction, only that the sanction will cure the underlying behavior. Nor do I have to provide evidence that Rob is disruptive: The disruption caused by their interactions, regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, is evidence enough. You've not provided one substantive reason why a mutual IBAN is improper here, while I've provided numerous arguments why one would work great. All you've done is said it's unfair to punish Rob with an IBAN, but as I've explained, that's flat out wrong. This is not punitive. Moreover, any sanction that Magioladitis receives won't be to provide relief to Rob, but to protect the community. You can go on denying that if you like, of course. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Only in death what ways do you want me to change? The ArbCom case examined the part of my editing and my contact with people. I had no issues with my edits or whatsever after that. I have only one request: The community to find a way that Rob and me do not inteact for a while. Any try to have interaction has gone bad. Maybe it's my fault or I don't know. Rob does not seem to understand that a while I do not want any comments from him in my talk page or in the areas I am trying to contribute. To be honest, I have tried to interact in various occassions but it seems my actions are understood as impollite the same way I understand Rob's actions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
          • You are an editor who has no intention of desisting from editing in the BOT area, asking the community to prevent one of the other experienced editors in the BOT area from interacting with you when you have an extended history of causing issues is ridiculous. Per WP:HOUND given your history, every editor with even a passing interest in the bot area could watch you like a hawk and it would be justified by policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Only in death I already have a ban in the bot related area which I respect so any action here is not related to bots and bot policies. I have not even made an automated edit the last month (and perhaps more). I pursuit to change area and switch back to things I 've been doing before bot work. This includes all types of gnome editing, template standardsation and participating in xFD discussions. I already found a compromise with Rob on some parts. I do not discuss bot policy, he does not get heavily involved in CHECKWIKI project. I think we should and can extend that. I think there is field of communication. There is bad faith on the air but we need to find a way (even if it technical in the beginning) to work it out. Something like "no comments to other's talk page" would suit me. It's not the first time I write this. Rob needs to give me space. There are other admins out there to discuss matters with me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
              • There are other admins out there to discuss matters with me. I have tried and you didn't like me discussing matters with you, to the point where you ignored and refused to answer questions I put to you, then complained that I might have had your talk page on my watchlist. (The background here is that Rob expressed a concern that Magioladitis behaviour might have been stalking, so I offered to ask). I arrived at your talk page, asked a series of questions to try and get to the bottom of the issue, and I'm still waiting for answers concerning your behaviour, but since we're here and talking about your behaviour - I'll ask again, how exactly did you find the edits Rob had made to some old images proposing their deletion if you weren't stalking his edits ? The reality, as I see it now, is that you don't want anybody to discuss anything with you, you want carte blanche to continue your disruptive behaviour, that you've gone rogue and are now a loose cannon on deck. If you intend to avoid a site ban, you need to think fast and explain now what you're going to do to change your behaviour. Nick (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                • Nick I think I replied to all your questions. Check my talk page. The fact that I arrived to this image it was an unlucky coincidence. I stated my comments in the FfD. I offered my email to you for further communication exactly because it was a concern about the Magio-Rob interaction. I am willing to reply to any questions about everything and I never denied an discussion with you at any point. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                • Nick I am willing to take a wikibreak for a month of needed. I still need someone to ensure that Rob won't reply to other in my talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
                  • I believe a short break on your part would be useful. It should not be a way to avoid an interaction ban or other sanction however. Nick (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's quite clear that Magioladitis behaviour is now at the boundary of net positive/net negative to the project. The behaviour on-wiki is clearly a net negative for the project but is offset by outreach and technical contributions to the wider Wikimedia project. I support an interaction ban but I'm also not opposed to a straight site ban (of fixed duration - 6 months to 1 year in the first instance). This behaviour cannot be permitted further. Nick (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nick the interaction ban is the first step to take. If this does not work we will have to think of stronger enforcements. But I am confident interaction ban will work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nick I do not have good interctions with Rob. I don't critise the comments themselves but the fact that I get so many comments by him and that he keeps writing on my talk page even to third-parties. Do you think it's normal that he replies to others in my talk page after all this things that have happened? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way I-ban--Notwithstanding Magio's outright false accusations, his terrible on-wiki behaviour and the fact that two ArBCom cases coupled with the general views of the community about his actions have not eased things up, I feel we could give him one very last opputunity before we seek to site-ban him.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• No opinion on I-ban; site ban doesn't seem justified. Supportive of a bot operation / high speed editing ban on the general principle that running bots is outside of our "anyone can edit" principle, so people who do it should be held to high standards. I wrote some similar things in the discussion sections of Mag's two arb cases if anyone cares. It's also perfectly fine to be a bot developer without operating the bots on the live server. Test the bot on an article or two or in some userspace pages, then let someone else do the production runs. That's how most real-life system software works anyway (the programmers and the operators are separate sets of people). 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Given the overlap an I-ban is worthless and implies that Rob actually should be restricted in some way - anything that would restrict him from the good work he does regarding bots should be shot down. I would support anything from a one-way I-ban for Mag, up to and including a complete ban from bot-related editing, or even a site ban at this point. Its clear from the evidence presented he has been stalking Rob's edits in order to harass him and is just the last in a long list of anti-social behavior. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Only in death where is shown that I am stalking his edits? On the contrary Rob has been even commeting my ta page addressing to others: [63]. My talk page is clarly in his watchlist. What is part of my behavior? I feel that I am being stalked and I came directly to the community. --- Magioladitis (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Rob has presented evidence in the form of diffs that indicate you have been going through his past edits - and linked to the relevant discussions where your concerns were investigated and found to have no legitimate reason to do so. You on the other hand have presented.... what? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As I state above, if these two cannot get along professionally, and their interactions are so damaging to the community as to outweigh the benefits of their contributions to any particular area of Wikipedia, then who cares what benefits either provides to bots? IBAN them from each other. If one or the other is gaming it to lock the other out of bots, then that person will be sanctioned. The logical leap that an IBAN means that Rob would somehow be restricted from doing "good work" on bots goes too far. Rather, this would let Rob get back to work. I am unconvinced that any overlap here is actually a problem. These are intelligent individuals. If one is obsessed with the other, then that one will violate the IBAN in pretty short order. The implication that this longstanding problem, that has not resulted in a siteban despite two ArbCom cases and untold other drama, can be cured entirely by cutting one person out of the equation is contrary to everything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Disputes don't last this long unless there's at least some toxicity on both sides. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • There is no issue with the two of them getting along professionally. There is an issue with Magioladitis stalking another editor's edits in a vindictive attempt to get revenge for being blocked from playing with his favorite toy. "The implication that this longstanding problem, that has not resulted in a siteban despite two ArbCom cases and untold other drama, can be cured entirely by cutting one person out of the equation is contrary to everything I've ever seen on Wikipedia." Well you clearly have not paid attention, Wikipedia at AN and Arbcom have a long history of cutting disruptive editors out. It stops the disruption extremely quickly. "Disputes don't last this long unless there's at least some toxicity on both sides." Ah the Donald Trump 'both sides' approach. Yeah that argument has no basis in fact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Wow. I think we have a new version of Godwin's Law being born here. I'm weirdly honored. Anyway, to get to the logical inconsistencies in your response, compare Wikipedia at AN and Arbcom have a long history of cutting disruptive editors out. It stops the disruption extremely quickly. with the facts. Neither AN/ANI nor ArbCom have taken the step of "cutting out" any particularly disruptive editor here, nor has there been any cure it would seem. As I said before, if these two editors cannot get along professionally, then require them to stop interacting. If Magioladitis is the panting, drooling, unhinged monster you make them out to be, then the IBAN will be violated in very short order, and we'll move to a proper siteban. Honestly, even for ANI, I am stunned with how quickly the torches and pitchforks came out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure if you are being deliberately dense or you genuinely are unable to read an archive. You do know AN/ANI has handled hundreds of site ban discussions for disruptive editors right? Likewise Arbcom over the years has often site-banned editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
          • As I say above, you can't have it both ways. AN/ANI and ArbCom can't be so effective at handling disruptive editors as you claim, yet impotent to handle what you are painting as a clear-cut, one-sided, obvious case. Come on now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• I support an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to automation, broadly construed. This will resolve the interaction issues, as this is the topic area that the interactions were being made from. The community has clearly, repeatedly, and continuously expressed their frustrations, concerns, and their lack of confidence with Magioladitis' judgment in this topic area, as well as exhausted community resources and time (including numerous talk discussions on many pages, multiple ANI discussions, and two ArbCom cases - and to no avail), and this topic ban will resolve the concerns and put and end to it completely. Most importantly, this topic ban will allow Magioladitis to remain a member of the project (a logical and fair alternative to a full site ban) and give him the chance to contribute positively and be a net positive in other topic areas, while prohibiting him from the topic area that we agree will cause him to become a net negative. This will also place the ball completely in his court; either things will go well and we won't have any more problems, or they wont - and we'll know that the writing is clearly on the wall. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to put on record that, as a Software Engineer myself and as someone who has a passion for computers, code, scripts, and automation (that probably cannot be matched with the level of passion that Magioladitis has for the same thing)........... this was very very hard for me to write. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As I have said in several other venues, technical ability without the ability to work with other people is useless. --Rschen7754 02:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Oshwah I recently had interactions with Rob in an FfD and in a rights request. This is outside the automation area. It turns we iinteract in more areas than expected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

More evidence

• Rob interacts with me in a template: [64]
• Rob comments to other in my talk page on an AWB issue: [65]
• Evidence of ofwiki communication : Rob expressed a concern that you could perhaps be stalking his edits This did not happen in Nick's page.

This shows that the intearaction is not limited in one area. I am requesting i-ban for months now. -- Magioladitis (talk)

I found that template because you showed up in my watchlist converting many pages to use {{Official website}} instead of a regular hyperlink, with some of those changes resulting in errors due to bad data on Wikidata. Your edits were highly visible because you did a large number of them from a non-bot-flagged account, something editors have been trying to get you not to do for years; that's on you. I quietly reverted the erroneous addition to the documentation because I thought that was the path-of-least-drama; the alternative would be to start an ANI or something to get others to do it. As for "off-wiki communication", WP:INVOLVED states to pass issues to uninvolved admins as necessary, which is what I did; I posted openly in #wikipedia-en-admins on IRC, a channel available to every enwiki admin, asking someone to look at the de-PROD. I suggested no particular action for them to take, just asked for eyes on it. This is what the policy tells me to do. I have never privately communicated with anyone off-wiki about Magioladitis' behavior, such as by email, as Magioladitis has claimed (except to the Arbitration clerks when asking them to look at the personal-attack-riddled evidence section). I did it where any admin could see. I was trying to avoid the drama of ANI, though I'll just take it here in the future, given how severe things have become. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I will refrain from any comments in your talk page. Please, respect me and do the same. I don't want to avoid control of my editing. I only ask you to limit your interactions with me to the minimum. Is that not possible? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem doing that, mostly because I've been doing it already. The totality of interactions with you since the second ArbCom case have been you coming to my talk page to complain about a 9-month-old comment, you de-PRODing a file I PRODed for no apparent reason, and my intentionally brief oppose to your request for template editor (where you responded by personally attacking me). Where in that do you see a lot of unnecessary interaction on my part? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For the first: I believe that you tried to defame my work outside the frame of the ArbCom scope since my work is much more than just the bot editing. I think your comments were negative and unjustified. For the second: I had a reason because I worked in a smiliar way that we do not speedy delete redirects that are too old because of incoming links, etc. The FfD was the right route and as you see I did not pursuit further. The third one was only an echoing of that unfortunate situation. I have good intentions and I really would like that we discuss in a better environment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment what is this supposed to be evidence of? There is no existing IBAN, and this behavior is generally fine without one. Most of these diffs are very stale, and [66] is a very weak argument; I would expect somebody familiar with the case could figure out everything Nick said without detailed off-wiki conversation. @Magioladitis:, apart from the single comment at WP:PERM, do you have any diffs from September or October that are relevant? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

power~enwiki I am not sure if there are more diffs since I have done little editing the past 2 months due to my busy schedule. The thing that annoys me is that after my topic ban to bot policy I decided to switch back to other areas I have been editing for long time (xFds, template standardidation, Wikidata transition, etc.) and I still find Rob in all the forums I try to comment or act. So I do not want to see more drama with this person and I would like to protect myself somehow. Seeing the same person commenting in every BRFA I submitted, replying to people in my talk page it's too much. I do not want to see that happening again; at least for a while. Even his nomination for BAG member had a specific mention to CHEKCWIKI, a project I 've been running for years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've seen enough. The last BRFA he interacted with you on was in August. Your only interaction with BU_Rob13 at XfD appears to be a response to a file he nominated, after you declined a PROD. This obviously isn't stalking or hounding on his part. I think you're acting in bad faith with this complaint, and after two ARBCOM cases I see no reason to give you more time. I Support any sanction up to a site ban of Magioladitis if this farce continues. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

power~enwiki The de-prod led to a complain and then there was on more interaction in the rights page but there is a long history of comments in the past. Rob, I think, has agreed to stay away from my talk page and I'll stay away from his. I think we are finding a solution here. Some other misunderstandings have also been discussed in this thread. Don't you think that the situation de-escalates via this disscussion? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is no doubt that BURob has been very active in putting the case against Magioladitis in a number of fora in recent years. I think we may also accept without cavil that Magioladitis sees this as going beyond "just happening to be involved in that area", and that even if wrong, this is not an unreasonable belief.

Therefore it would be wise of BURob to avoid this sort of behaviour, unless we are to believe that no other editor is ready, willing and able to present the other side of the coin to that proposed by Magioladitis. I am pleased to see from the above comments that he is trying to disengage, though I have to admit it comes as a surprise given history of these interactions.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC).

I've voiced my opinion, certainly, but I must insist on noting that I have started a grand total of one discussion about Magioladitis ever. This is compared to Magioladitis starting at least four discussions about me this year alone (two attempts at revoking one of my bot approvals, this discussion, and a discussion falsely claiming I gave false advice about bots). Ever since Magioladitis openly speculated about my location on-wiki, I have not felt particularly safe interacting with him, and so I have taken quite a bit of personal attacks, harassment, etc. from him without comment. It would have been possible/reasonable to take him to ANI after just about any of the incidents I noted above, but I never did, because I don't want to deal with the ensuing interactions. I've tried the "Ignore him and he'll go away" strategy from grade school pretty much since the beginning. No luck so far, although I remain hopeful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The location comment came from my will to meet you in person and de-escalate any misunderstandings that have happenned on-wiki. If you check by that time many people were discussing who and how they go to Wikimania. If you think this was insulting or outing attempt, you can request the hide the edit in question. I apologise if you felt that way but my intention is to descalate any situation that has happened with you and not the opposite. I have met many of the people participating in the project offline and I always try to meet the people who contribute to the project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would be very opposed to a two-way interaction ban here. Besides the fact that legitimate criticism != harassment and that BURob13 has done nothing wrong here, it sets the precedent that all someone has to do is cry "harassment!!!!" and the admin is sanctioned at ANI. I would support a site ban for Magioladitis. I just don't think he understands or will listen to criticism. --Rschen7754 02:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Rschen7754 Rob has also made supportive comments in my BRFAs and has replied to others in my talk page. I am not complaining about critisism here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Rob has said that he won't comment in my talk page (in addition to the fact that he has already walked away from CHECKWIKI bot related discussions), I am OK satisfied that we are finding a way to cooperate in a solution here. From my side we can close the thread. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a coincidence that this thread was filed against me 3 minutes after I said I had reached my breaking point and was going to file something when I got home. I also don't think it's a coincidence the person filing this ANI desperately requesting protection against something that wasn't even happening is suddenly happy to pack up and go home as soon as it's clear the community isn't buying the baseless accusations. Personally, I'm very tired of this, and I'd like an actual solution. This very thread is the latest attempt to target me, and so I just don't buy that this will go away if nothing is done. It's about two ArbCom cases and a half dozen ANI threads late for another chance. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I have told you that I am going to seek solution even before the second ArbCom. I am not sure why you want to have so much intearction with me. You have commented in all my BRFAs. What was the reason to even reply to others in my talk page? E.g. [67] and one minute later this: [68]. And these examples were during the cases. Do not you think this causes extra stress to me? Can you please name me another person you had so much interaction as with me? Were you just trying to help? Here you commented in m BRFA 1 minute after I posted. Here: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75] (and in many other places) you were the first to comment and all comments were within less than an hour. Here within 2 minutes: [76]. Sometimes you comment to me that fast you had to reconsider: [77]. Some things I do may seem to be outdated (like my comments about trying to defame me etc) but this is because of my workload. I am trying to find a way to cooperate with you but for reason it fails. I do not try to limit your actions as admin and I would like to find a solution that you keep commenting when necessary but we do not interact that much. Sometimes with your comments you seem to want me out of the project. I have told you already that your actions, whether you wanted it or not, led others outside the project. We would not be doing this. Doing your admins tasks is not a reason to comment that much in the places I comment and participate. Wikipedia has many admins to control. I do not try to defame your work but sometimes you seem to act too much when it comes to me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Those diffs from the BRFAs come less than week after all of Magioladitis' bot approvals were revoked for cause. He chose to file 25 BRFAs within 48 hours, which was extremely noticeable, since it caused the WP:BRFA page to basically break. Since the issues with the past bot approvals that led to revocation were mostly caused by lack of oversight, yes, I went through as many as I had time to check and evaluated them. I supported many and opposed a few or asked for more details. I think I commented on about half of the 25, which is consistent with the number of BRFAs I comment on generally – I am, after all, a BAG member. That's what the community wanted to happen when the bot approvals were revoked. The only reason there's so many diffs is because he spammed the bot approval process. This was way back in February, for the record, not recent at all. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This may get me an SPI but I agree with Magioladitis, in part. You've stressed him out a lot, and two of you used this API to argue with each other (ahem, Only in death and Mendaliv, that's not what we do on the Administrators Noticeboard.). I hate to be the voice of doom, but nobody else has commented for hours now. We've had a result already.This API is dead, let's close it. Sorry if this tone offends anybody, it's not intentional. TomBarker23 (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it "offends anybody", but I do have to confess that I don't have much idea what you're talking about here. -- Begoon 11:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This is perhaps the harshest criticism of ANI that I've ever seen; if we don't implement a sanction without thinking within hours, the whole thread is dead? Harsh (but possibly accurate). In any event, multiple editors have called for a site ban. At this point, if nothing is done, I'll probably kick it to ArbCom as a dispute the community is unable to solve. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to go back to ArbCom honestly. I'm very uncomfortable with the torches-and-pitchforks attitude that has dominated this discussion, as well as the "It's 100% Magioladitis" attitude, which strikes me as hopelessly simplistic. We should seek a nuanced outcome, and the Committee at least provides a structure in which nuance can exist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The diffs in Magioladitis's post of 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC) are all pretty stale. The most recent one is from July 10, and most of the remainder are from February 2017. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa Yes. In my first attempts to do something else after 2 months of rarely editing I had two bad interactions after months of a lot of interctions with Rob. That's why I came here. If I want to edit I just need less stress from Rob. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

User 他删之石 on Deaths in 2017

• 他删之石 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps adding the next day at Deaths in 2017 before the LINT time has passed midnight, latest instance today: [78] (Midnight LINT is 10:00 UTC, this was made at 08:41 UTC). This issue has been raised with the user at User talk:他删之石, no response received.

He/she also keeps adding entries to Deaths in 2017 in non-alphabetical order, despite being told not to. This person doesn't seem to interact and adhere to instruction.

This issue was raised twice at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, at the first occasion the user was warned by @Ad Orientem:, and at the second occasion the admin advised me to bring the issue here. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This user does appear to be problematic, failing to respond to several previous warnings on their talk page. But the two previous discussions at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism don't appear there or at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1... what am I missing? Andrewa (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:AIV is not archived and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1 appears to be a mistakenly-created one-time snapshot of the AIV reports from a few days ago. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! But these reports don't seem to be in the page history of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism either. Is there any way of finding them? We don't want to be re-inventing the wheel. Andrewa (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Here you go: response to the first report and responses to the second one. --bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It was created (innocently I would assume) using OneClickArchiver (a script that's a bit problematical as it's very widely used but there's no support for it at present). It's now redirected to the parent page, not by me but that seems like the best idea. WT:AIV is archived (so far only to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 1). Our software etc doesn't handle his very well; Viewing the talk page archive now offers a Project page link that redirects back to WP:AIV. But that's probably adequate and best we can reasonably do right now. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Certainly there's cause for concern that User:他删之石 is not communicating with other editors. However, the part about adding the next day too early seems a very minor point. Yes, he's been referred to the FAQ, but the FAQ does not say "don't add a day before it has begun in the Eastern Hemisphere". It's a bit more equivocal than that. Further, when editing Deaths in 2017, there is nothing in the very long (longest I've ever seen embedded in an article) set of instructions in the comments at the top of the page...that says nothing about when to add a day. Also, if you directly edit October, such instructions are not displayed in the edit window because they're at the top of the page, not in each month. Even if you did copy the instructions to every month, an editor might not see them because they could edit day 19 and add day 20 without every seeing the instructions.
• I took a look at Deaths in 2015, and that page has a page notice (see Template:Editnotices/Page/Deaths in 2015). There's also one for 2014 and 2013. 2016 and 2017 do not have one. Also, if you look at 2016#Deaths, it has "Main article: Deaths in 2016". That takes you to Lists_of_deaths_by_year#2016, where it has "See also: 2016 § Deaths" which is a circular redirect back to 2016#Deaths. Just a cursory review of this seems like how these pages are managed is a bit random and unclear to the outsider. I'm not surprised that 他删之石 at least appears to have not known when to add days. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair points, although the FAQ does say "A new date is added when a new day starts in the Eastern Hemisphere." That, in my view, implies "not before" the new day starts. But I agree that it can be made more clear. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The alphabetical order issue is now, in my view, even more problematic. In previous edits the user generally added new persons at the top of each day's list. In the latest edit [79], he/she added the person at the bottom, when it actually should have been added at the top... --Marbe166 (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• And that edit postdates the notice of this thread. @他删之石: you need to respond to this thread please. Ignoring this thread and continuing as you have before is NOT an option. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

And it continues. [80] [81] --Marbe166 (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked the account for 48 hours and dropped a note for the user. Alex Shih^Talk 07:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of YahwehSaves on Audie Murphy

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

---

I am proposing a permanent topic ban of @YahwehSaves: on the Featured Topic Audie Murphy. A temporary ban will be useless, since this editor's history has been to make disruptive edits on articles and talk pages, and then lay off for several months or years, only to come back and repeat the pattern. In the latest, he laid off from January 2016 until this week. By much that I see at AIV and SPI, this is vandalism, masquerading as "improving" the article.

My first edit on Audie Murphy was February 5, 2013, so this issue with YahwehSaves pre-dates my involvement. Regarding diffs, you need an overall picture, because this is more than just a handful of recent edits. Let me try the short and tidy version. YahwehSave edits on Audie Murphy article beginning May 16, 2011. YahwehSaves edits to Talk:Audie Murphy beginning May 23, 2011. And there have also been Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of YahwehSaves involved at times. He has already received multiple blocks for Audie Murphy and other articles.

His agenda is whether or not Murphy is the top US decorated WWII soldier, mostly to prove Murphy is not. The Audie Murphy article does not make the claim of "most decorated", but YahwehSaves reworks his military service, and is fixated on the medal/awards/decorations count. This time when rewriting the prose, he shrunk the Medal of Honor image and complained on the talk page that it was "puffed up". When he is reverted, he claims to be the victim of unfair editors/admins. He is active on Matt Urban and Llewellyn Chilson - the two competitors for "most decorated". Please apply a permanent topic ban to stop this. — Maile (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• We seem to have had a lot of patience with YahwehSaves, at the expense of the editors they interact with. They're currently under a 2-week block by @HJ Mitchell: for "disruptive edits to Audie Murphy and belligerence and incivility on the article's talk page". In view of YS's recent actions at Audie Murphy, their intemperate personal attacks on its talkpage, their one-month topic ban in December 2016, their block log, and their SPI, I propose extending the block to indefinite. If that's not acceptable, I support the topic ban as proposed. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC).
• That looks like the IP has continued to edit on at least one same article as YahwehSaves since that SPI. I would support an indef block. We don't have time for intermittent nonsense from intermittent editors. I would also block the IP for a year, no account creation allowed, as it appears only he uses it. The topic ban would be my second choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• I support a community site-ban. He's the only editor I've ever been given specific warning about. He has no article accomplishments that I've seen, a long block log, and I see no point in expending further tolerance. I'd suggest a topic ban for all of MILHIST (broadly construed) if you want to re-arrange deck chairs for the time being. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block This WP:TENDENTIOUS editing has gone on far too long. CT's suggestion of a topic ban for all MILHIST topics is proper if an indef is not to take place. MarnetteD|Talk 17:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• I support the topic ban, at the least. I came to the talk page unaware of the history set forth above. An attempt to help resolve the situation resulted in immediate, stark WP:IDHT on YS's part. They refused to accept clear consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block While I'd consider a topic ban on all MILHIST topics, this behavior has gone on for far too long (and the socking via IP only adds to my concern). RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support full site ban no need to pussyfoot about. Removal will be a net positive for the project. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• I considered an indef but thought it was a bit too bold for a unilateral admin action. It would have been my next port of call if the disruption resumed after the current block. I have no problem with my block being changed to indefinite if that's the consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support either indefinite block or site ban. Eight blocks in six years, consistent refusal to accept consensus, years of continuous IP socking, insulting other editors, and pushing a personal agenda. Clearly a net negative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Will block indefinitely per ANI consensus. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Probable impersonation and disruptive behavior by new user "Nof9"

Last week I posted here about an IP editor who had been engaging in disruptive behavior on a few articles, including the biography for Intel's CEO, Brian Krzanich. As disclosed at Talk:Brian Krzanich, Intel is a client of mine through an intermediary PR firm, North of Nine Communications. Following this, Drmies and Timtempleton stepped in and the issue seemed to be settled. Now a new user account, registered only yesterday, has commented in the thread linked above (live here, until archived) and also in a series of confusing, argumentative posts at Talk:Brian Krzanich echoing those of the IP editor. This account makes some incoherent arguments about the article content, and accuses me of lying about Krzanich being a client, but the reason I bring it up is because the account name they are using is Nof9 which seems to me an obvious effort to impersonate North of Nine (whose website is nof9.com). If nothing else, this account can surely be blocked under WP:ORGNAME. I also suggest this article continue to be closely watched, as whomever is behind the chaos doesn't seem ready to give it up yet. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Funny timing, I was just finishing a response to this user at a deletion discussion I initiated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeAndre Harris, where the user is making a peculiar argument against BLP1E, then happened to see the same username in the newest entry on this page. There is rally strange editing history here, such as the seemingly disjointed nonsense text at User:Nof9/sandbox, which btw was the users first edit, then the afd, then this Brian Krzanich article. ValarianB (talk)

• BU Rob13? Drmies (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• OK, we are dealing with ongoing disruption here. The arguments brought up on the Krzanich talk page and in that AfD are pure nonsense. Plus, and BU Rob can confirm this, there is...well, whatever we want to call it. Then there is the matter of the user name, of course: it is clear to me that a block per NOTHERE is warranted.

  Now, lest it be argued that I have some sort of interest here, because I supported Timtempleton's edit on the article, I have no interest in this person, and the careful reader will see I de-fluffed it some, but I invite your scrutiny. I also think that this user has some sort of obsession with the subject, and so we'll need to keep an eye on it. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, we also need to keep an eye on Robert A. Mandell. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor creating poor machine translations of French articles with no attribution

بلهواري محمد فيصل (talk · contribs) has created 22 articles, almost all if not all being very bad translations from the French Wikipedia. I posted details of how to fix this on the 15th, asking them to stop creating articles and fix the old ones first. User:Mathglot made a similar request in French. Unfortunately these requests were ignored. Two of the 22 articles have been deleted, one after the editor blanked it and the other as an expired Prod added by User:Cabayi. That one was prodded as gibberish, eg "He made a long journey towards consecration. They were very efficient and fought with a valiant heart and an exemplary correction. Today, the face marked by the trial and the challenge, he returns to the news of the ring that has so much capsized the hearts of Algerians." and "The Algerian pugilate had just discovered a charming slugger, a baby-face without any sprain. A headliner which raised a clamor to the rhythm of a December 1960. A euphemism that the legend has put back on the carpet after the famous fight Maxschmilling-Joe Louis before the Führer."

The longer this is left the more cleanup will be required. If anyone has a solution other than a block, I'd like to hear it. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to add the observations that their sole talk page edit so far has been this one which looks like a misplaced attempt at article creation. They have used no non-auto-generated edit summaries and have not yet appeared to be interested in communicating with other editors, despite attempts by others to communicate in English, French, and Arabic on their talk page. For whatever that observation is worth to any passing admin. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

In the terms of the question as posed by Doug Weller, for the duration of ACTRIAL, stripping the user of autoconfirmed would have the desired effect BUT I don't think it's the right thing to do.

The user's contributions, though incomprehensible, are obviously well-intentioned. They are clearly the result of having insufficient grasp of English to polish up the machine translation, or even to spot that the machine translation is meaningless.

The user's failure to respond on their talk page is either a refusal to collaborate, or the result of insufficient English skills to realise that collaboration is required. The second explanation would seem more in keeping with the general pattern.

Stripping autoconfirmed and forcing (permitting?) the user to create drafts which are unusable and, on past experience, beyond rescue, is a cruel misuse of their time which could be better and more fruitfully used on the French or Arabic wikis.

An assertion of WP:CIR, a block, and an explanation in French is, in the bigger scheme of things, the kinder action. Cabayi (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Their failure to respond is apparently not due to their English skills, or at least, it doesn't explain their failure to respond on their French talk page. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thy appear to have started on ar.wiki. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity, does that mean, "They appear to have now started responding on ar.wiki" or, "They appear to have previously started their editing pattern on ar.wiki?". Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: They've never edited any talk page there and, from the looks of the translated version of their contributions page at the Arabic Wikipedia, they're doing the same kind of no-summary edits there. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:D0C6:2280:DE2C:8344 (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

So, the second version of the question, then. Thank you for clarifying they are not collaborating in either wiki. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Given the timeline, the poor communications, the unattributed copying, and the reported similar conduct on other wikis, I have blocked indefinitely. I thank Doug Weller for bringing this up. --John (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I don't think there are grounds for simply deleting the articles created, but they are extremely badly written. I guess stub and there must be a template for the talk page about the translation? Doug Weller talk 12:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban violation by Mwest55

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

---

Mwest55 (talk · contribs) was indefinitely topic banned earlier this year from Wind turbine syndrome for disruptive editing, and later given a two month block for violating that ban. He had previously been blocked for edit warring on the same article. West has returned with a new account, MWest55 (talk · contribs) and violated the ban again. Not taking action myself as I am quite involved. From looking at his interactions, I think it's possible he actually doesn't realize he's topic banned. After all the attempts to contact him, that would bring into question issues of competence in addition to the edit warring and conspiracy mongering. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This should probably be enough for indef (soapbox). Alex Shih^Talk 00:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Vivegam

Page has trolling contents by anti social elements who tries to insult the celebrities of this Movie.. Kindly unlock this which is locked by bot.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabu0 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not seeing any of what this user is describing, but there is pretty much constant vandalism over box office returns, among other issues, which has occurred despite semi-protection. Perhaps time to up the protection level? ansh666 05:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

User:KA$HMIR

I can't file any SPI without knowing the sockmaster account. He says I am an old user who has taken special admin's (yunshui) permission to edit from this alternate account. @Yunshui: states I would therefore appreciate it it if you would remove the claim that I have given you "permission" to edit from this account, since I have not done so. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Might be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan based on overlapping interests (such as Kashmir conflict), although there's not much behavioral evidence right now to make a judgement. Kautilya3, any thoughts on this account? Alex Shih^Talk 06:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: It's most certainly him; same exclusive focus on Kashmir, same modus operandi, use of identical edit-summaries[82][83][84][85][86][87][88], etc. He shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia anyway until and unless he discloses his original account. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 06:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: Noted, thanks. I have temporarily blocked the account and left a note for the user. Alex Shih^Talk 06:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% happy about the phrasing of the "permission" thing on their userpage, but KA$HMIR has now disclosed their former account to me via email - they are not under any sanctions, have not violated the multiple accounts policy, and are using this account in line with the privacy provision of WP:SOCKLEGIT. I've therefore unblocked the account. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Thanks Yunshui, hope everything works out well. Alex Shih^Talk 16:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Krissmethod again: POV vandalism

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

Please refer to my previous ANI filing about the user at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive963#Krissmethod_behavior_regarding_Christianity_and_White_Supremacy.

The behavior described in the previous report had resumed. Diffs: [89], [90]. This user's POV appears to be causing disruptive editing (removing relevant text, removing sourced text, adding insured text in its place), specifically the removal of mentions of Christianity from White supremacists related article.

This user seems to be a constructive editor on music article. Perhaps a topic ban around Christianity or race would be better than a block?

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Relevant discussion of interest. The POV editing is quite obvious and should be sanctioned; it's interesting to note it might not effective though, seeing the user has seemingly never engaged in any kind of communication (100% of 349 edits are in the mainspace). Alex Shih^Talk 06:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the complete absence of communication I don't think it's unreasonable to block the user until they agree to start collaborating. Communication is not optional. A Train^talk 07:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I certainly would not oppose a block in this case. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

As the editor hasn't edited since this report, I would wait for their next input before taking any action. Alex Shih^Talk 16:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Borderline legal threat by Karlwinn

In this diff a borderline legal threat can be found -- Is it admin / Wikipedia policy to leave it to the victim to obtain fairness via legal action against admins or Wikipedia ?. Some appropriate action ought to be taken -- it might be best to read around a bit, concerning the subject and the content dispute on this article. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Karlwinn It's against two of Wikipedia's main principles to threaten legal action. Nothing posted on Wikipedia that does not violate copyright is illegal. Keep editing, but please don't threaten to use legal action again, it makes you really unpopular.TomBarker23 (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

TomBarker23, I mean the following in all sincerity. It's great that you're an eager new contributor, but ANI is not a good place for newbies to get their feet wet. You've been adding comments all over here suddenly, and a lot of them make no sense; your statement that Nothing posted on Wikipedia that does not violate copyright is illegal is preposterous. With your multilingual skills you'll be a great asset as a content contributor, so take my advice and hold on to your ANI-virginity as long as possible. Keep your mind on article editing until you've been around the block a few times. I repeat that this is sincere advice meant to help you remain a happy editor, and avoid premature aging. EEng 17:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

n.b. the user in question is an WP:SPA whose mission is to whitewash an article about a racist neo-Nazi. Vanishingly little of value would be lost if the user were indef blocked for making legal threats, as is typical. A Train^talk 10:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep. An user eligible for WP:RBI. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to do the honours, A Train? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'm on it. Just had a good tour through the user's contribs and.., yeah. A Train^talk 10:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ouch, good call. Okay, we can close this one down now. He's not making any more threats, so the topic is redundant. TomBarker23 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't close this down until another admin has reviewed my block and agreed that it's kosher. That's half the point of ANI. A Train^talk 12:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban for tendentious editor Kautilya3

I was preparing to start edit some pages and I went through the old talk page archives to understand how the articles I was interested in have been built so far. What I saw shocked me. I read some of the old discussions and say that a highly active user Kautilya3 has been engaging in Civil POV pushing/tendentious editing. Though these discussions are now many months old I see that Kautilya3 has not changed his skewed style of pro-India editing. Indeed this edit summary still displays a tendentious mentality.[[91]] Such skewed and nationally motivated editing is ruining the encyclopaedia.

Given Kautilya3's anti-Muslim and anti-Kashmiri and anti-Pakistan prejudices I propose he should be topic banned from editing anything related to Muslims and Kashmir.

I am tagging here respectable senior editor @Fowler&fowler: and administrator @Dbachmann: to note these diffs and check the tendentious editing which has taken place so far on many Kashmir pages.

Diffs

Here Kautilya3 makes clear his anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan and anti-Kashmir prejudices [[92]]

Responsible editor @Vice Regent: noticed his anti-Muslim comments: [[93]]

But Kautilya3 shows even more history in displaying prejudicial views

This comment is particularly telling [[94]]

Here he remarks These Muslims might think that running around with guns is their birthright. We, in civilized world, don't think so.

Here [[95]] he describes large numbers of Muslims as 'treacherous'.

And unfortunately this anti-Muslim prejudice has carried over into his editing. He calls reputable political scientist 'Christopher Snedden' a 'biased source'. Therefore, he not only discounts his views but demands to do research (something outside the scope of wikipedia editors).

Here [[96]] Kautilya3 claims Regarding the larger Kashmir dispute that you are talking about, let me just say that I am a Wikipedian and my job is to inform. It is not my place to make judgements on any party, nor to identify with them as being a part of "we". You should not do it either because it is prohibited under ARBIPA sanctions

Unfortunately he fails to live up to this standard. (example: attempting another round of original research: [[97]]

You can see this through his above linked anti-Muslim comments and also on the rest of the comments on his talk page which is basically original research where he picks sources suiting his prejudices to form views which later impact on how articles such as 1947 Jammu massacres and 1947 Poonch Rebellion were written.

You can also see this failure to live up to the standard he quoted through reading his comment here [[98]] which reads And, I suppose one could fault India for failing to enforce its legal obligations. But this is nothing like what Pakistan and its British officers had done. The "neutral" "third party" British scholars have no option but to cover for them.

He fails this standard once again in his comment here, where he rejects 'most studies' because of his own personal opinion [[99]] Here he says Most studies of Kashmir also think of the Maharaja as a dimwit. But I don't think he was. He knew exactly what was happening in the State and was taking defensive measures.

Once again in this same comment he shows a prejudice towards a scholar such as Christopher Snedden due to relying on Azad Kashmiri sources even though he himself had no problem with calling a RSS-citing scholar a 'reliable source' whom he freely cited on 1947 Jammu Massacres.

Kautilya repeats this behaviour here [[100]] Kautilya3 is doing original research and discounting scholarly opinions where it does not suit him in total disregard of NPOV policy. (Kautilya3 says We have practically no information available about it except for Sardar Ibrahim's memoirs. All the scholars have been basciall repackaging what he wrote)

Kautilya3 was also warned by a respectable senior editor Fowler&fowler to not engage in such behaviour here[[101]]

Kautilya responded against what he termed as the'Muslim POV gripe' [[102]]

Fowler&fowler told him not to compare unequal sources [[103]]

Folwer&fowler also expressed concern at what Kautilya3 had been doing to the page [[104]] and also castigated his use of low-quality Hindu nationalist sources on the Kashmir page [[105]]

Kautilya3 forms 'judgements' prejudicial not only to Muslims but also against the British. In one comment he goes to the extent of mocking the death of a British citizen. (Kautilya3 says that he paid for his sins) [[106]]

Even his friend TylerDurden, a blocked sock master, noted Kautilya3's comment as strong [[107]] He says So I feel we shouldn't say that he deserved his early death at 35 years. Just saying. :)

Here [[108]] he claims a figure of 30,000' and '20,000' Hindus and Sikhs killed by Muslims. When user Mar4d pointed out that the source for the 20,000 figure comes from a RSS activist being cited in a scholarly book Kautilya3 responded I am afraid you are second-guessing a reliable source. If we were basing our information on Balraj Madhok, we would definitely attribute it. But we are basing it on Das Gupta. How he gets information and what he finds reliable and what he doesn't, is not our business. Unless you have a reliable source that contradicts the information, it is not proper to question it.

So according to Kautilya3 when a scholar conveys Hindu/Sikh casualties from a RSS source it should not be asked where a scholar gets their information from. [[109]] But when a scholar backs a Muslim perspective then Kautilya3 will even declare that reputable scholar such as Christopher Snedden as 'biased' because they used 'Muslim' or 'Azad Kashmiri' sources.[) and ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1947_Poonch_Rebellion&diff=766823687&oldid=766794415]

I will quote his comment about scholar Christopher Snedden from the second diff here: If you look at his book, the majority of his sources are Muslim Conference sources, in particular Sardar Ibrahim's book. He only uses the State government sources for confirmation. He ignores the British government sources. For example, the British High Commissioner's evidence, covered by Rakesh Ankit, is found nowhere in his book. So, I maintain that his book is a biased source. It cannot be treated as neutral third party source.

So as you can see Kautilya3 is a POV pusher due to his treatment of scholarly sources as 'biased' or 'reliable' as per his own opinions.

Even his friend the blocked sock master Tyler Durden had noticed Kautilya3's convenient discounting of sources if they are linked to Pakistan [[110]]

While here [[111]] Kautilya3 has discounted a writer who works for Pakistan he has no problem relying for content in the name of 'neutrality' on someone linked with the Indian state [[112]]

Again Kautilya3 makes a comment where he refuses to countenance Richard Symonds for being pro-Pakistan according to Indian Prime Minister Nehru.[[113]]

But he himself takes seriously sources from the Indian Government [[114]]

It becomes even more obvious when checking this discussion between Kautilya3 and Tyler Durden that Kautilya3 is here on a pro-India agenda, discussing on what India should have 'done', how scholars are regurgitating a perspective they do not like (again contradicts with Kautilya3's own comment that reliable sources should not be second-guessed).

Take a look at these comments. [[115]]

The comment by Kautilya was What can you do outside Wikipedia? Well, you can do a Ph.D. on it and write high-quality journal articles. Then we will be able to cover them in Wikipedia.

[[116]][[117]] [[118]]

Basically its all personal research and conclusions (last link) which they plan to somehow enter into wikpedia (see Kautilya3's comments in first link). Since they are not happy with what the 'scholars' (RS) and 'most studies' say they are clearly here on wiki with an agenda to influence scholarly opinion and and have abused the writing of wikipedia articles with biased treatment of sources

Again this comment here [[119]] also shows us Kautilya3's pro-India editing. Sardeeph (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban?

This needs a block, not a topic ban! He seems to be out to offend as many people as possible. I'll try a warning. TomBarker23 (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not actionable. Two brand new editors proposing a block and a topic ban in one our most contentious areas? Rather fishy. The diffs provided above seem to be an attempt to sling enough mud that something sticks. Sardeeph really needs to read WP:TLDR. Those diffs that I've reviewed are not a problem; at worst, Kautilya is engaging in off-topic discussions, which isn't remotely a block-able or ban-able offence. These diffs aside, I've worked with Kautilya for many years now, and he is among the few folks demanding fealty to reliable sources in a topic that is ridden with POV pushing, socking, vandalism, and many other forms of disruption. The fact that he is accused of being anti-Muslim more or less as often as he is accused of being anti-Hindu is a sign that he is doing things right. Vanamonde (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia no editor is indispensable. It does not matter how many years K3 has been here. His edits are full of discreet POV pushing and these comments are open proof of that. Do not overlook that he has publicly floated over the death of a Briton here, besides saying prejudicial things to Muslims, calling them jihadis and treacherous and what not. Sardeeph (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid these prejudices go even further back than I thought. [[120]]Which shows me that if he has not improved in so many years he won't be getting better anytime soon.

Here Kautilya3 says But I myself think that there is an inherent "clash of civilisations" in the Hindu-Muslim relations and I believe this would have happened sooner or later no matter how the history went.

Vanamonde93 should take a glance at what other respectable senior editors such as Fowler&fowler and Vice regent have experienced with the same user.

Also read this [[121]] should experience hold so much meaning to you.

Wikipedia is also not a place for nationalistic propaganda. [[122]].13:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 an Indian nationalist? LOL! In that case, I'm one too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not Sardeeph's first attempt, by the way. See Arbitration Request Enforcement archive 218. What's he doing here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBlaze Lightning/Archive. GAB^gab 15:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Sardeeph. To anybody with any experience here, it is fairly obvious that your allegations that hold no merit. To clear this up once and for all, though, let's take an example out of that wall of text. Can you please explain how this edit demonstrates prejudice, as you claim above ("I am afraid these prejudices go even further back than I thought.")? Vanamonde (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sardeeph seems to be sharing same feuds as SherriffsInTown, who long targeted MBlaze Lightining for socking[123][124], and also reported Kautilya3 numerous times.[125][126] D4iNa4 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Letters from the Portuguese (actually, Brazil) an/i version

Last night (my time) I saw a series of user pages in Portuguese with link spam. Deleted per U5. Blocked the accounts as spambots.

I was going to add to spam blacklist, but have never done it before and the instructions say not to if unfamiliar, so I bring it all here. I formatted it with summary templates, but don't know how that will work here.

formulanegocioonline: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

PabloOsgood5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• User page consisted of Portuguese text w/ link
• Blocked as spambot

queromeudinheiro.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

TrentStelzer0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• User page consisted of Portuguese text w/ link
• Blocked as spambot

namoroagora.com.br: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

LasonyaHarbison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• User page consisted of Portuguese text w/ link
• Blocked as spambot

RobtSteffey107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• User page consisted of Portuguese text w/ link
• Blocked as spambot

If someone familiar with spam blacklist could look this over and list as needed, I would appreciate it. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Help wanted in finalizing Phase 1 of the new Wikidata infoboxes RfC

A few editors (not me!) have worked on an RfC about the use of Wikidata in infoboxes on enwiki (the previous RfC on this dates from 2013, since then there have been scattered discussions). For a number of reasons I feel it is rather urgent that this RfC is held, as a number of issues have surfaced (or been spotted) recently. I have posted my reasons at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 RfC draft#Time to start phase 1 of this RfC.

What I would like is some experienced editors (admins and non-admins) going over the RfC question to make sure that the question is as neutral, clear and adequate as possible, and then when they are happy with it to post it. I prefer not to edit the actual RfC or if possible post it because I have a rather outspoken position and don't want the RfC to appear slanted before it has even started. I will obviously provide background and my opinion at the RfC, what did you expect? ;-) More info, if needed, can also be found at Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs and its talk page. Thank you! Fram (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Billy Connolly and Roy Chubby Brown vandalism needs rangeblock

Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:460E:9200:0:0:0:0/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)