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

User:Akocsg: Ethnic/nationalistic POV pushing, edit warring and IP-hopping

• Akocsg (talk · contribs) and block log
• Blocked on German Wikipedia [1] (Ethno-POV-Account on a mission)

This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.

• I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
  • WP:BATTLEGROUND and misrepresentation of sources[2][3]
  • Removing sourced text and replace it with his own POV[4]
  • POV and labeling his edit as minor[5][6]
  • Removing any non-Turkic info which are based on the sources[7][8][9]
  • Disruptive edits like[10]
• The recent issues:
  • Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[11] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[12][13][14]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[15][16] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[17][18][19][20][21][22] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[23]
  • Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[24] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[25] And this one.[26]

It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would first like to state how surprised and astonished I am by this deceptive behaviour of this user. None of his accusations are true whatsoever. If you check his recent repeated edit diff in the article Baghatur you can see how he simply deleted a statement which was provided with three different academic sources. They simply got deleted by him with the excuse that they are not English and hence not reliable! That's cherry-picking. And not constructive behaviour at all.

The very same case can be seen in the article Ashina, where again a poorly written and unsourced passage was improved and corrected by me backed with sources. He simply reverted them all with the accuse that it's POV, which is the main accusation based on the same examples here! The result was that my objection got a result and the passage was finally removed after an input by another neutral user in the talk page. See here: diff2, the adding of sources by me: diff, then he does it himself what I said should be done, deletes the whole passage: diff3. As you can see, what he first accused me of turned out to be right.

And those older edits, which I mostly can't even remember anymore, where mostly backed by sources back then. Most of them are minor edits anyway, and not destructive in any way. They were definitely not POV pushing or a "nationalistic mission" or whatsoever. This user apparently wants to simply get me blocked because of personal reasons, it seems. See the Baghatur article, where sources simply get deleted on his whim... If you check my personal histoy here in the English Wikipedia, you will see that I made at least thousand edits and created/wrote many new articles. Most of them in the field of sports. Based on this fact alone one can see that I am not a POV-pushing User on a mission, like this user wants to make you believe.

But this part of his report is the best. Please do check this out, it's important and shows how he is trying to manipulate you (if he is aware that it's not me):

"...and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page. 23"

That was made by some totally different user. By this one: User:2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577 You can confirm that by checking the history in his talk page. That was not by me! But it is simply reported by him as if it was me. This is a serious accusation!

And that IP user is not me nor does not have anything to do with me. Please do an IP check or whatever is necessary to clarify this case. And as a major part of his accusations are based on that dubious IP account, one can see how this reporting is based on practically no consistent foundation. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and EdJohnston: Would you (or other admins) please look at this report? 72H has passed and I see no replies from the admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Can the admins please make it clear that comments like "What is it with Turks and their extreme nationalism?" are not acceptable - since when is it ok for IP editors to post racist comments on ANI? I'm not involved in this content dispute but a comment that all Turks are extreme nationalists easily fits the dictionary definition of racism, canard, racial stereotyping, etc. If someone wrote "What is it with the Jews and their shystyness" I imagine there would be a round of objections. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the comment in question. To be clear: No, comments like these are not helpful to resolving a discussion and they not acceptable to make. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out once again that all the accusations in the passage "the recent issues" of Wario-Man are from that already blocked IP account (2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577) mentioned above. They have nothing to do with me. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for administrators and their comments (this report submitted in 28 October). --Wario-Man (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wario-Man - All of the diffs and events you referred to in your initial statement are least three weeks in the past; I'm not sure what you want us to do now. Can you provide diffs of recent edits that show the disruption is currently ongoing and requires action at this time? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Look2See1 (talk · contribs) and categories

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

---

As you can see at User talk:Look2See1, I have recently had two run-ins with this user and posted multiple times asking him to 1.) explain his edits which were confounding and 2.) please stop editing one small section of a much larger category tree to make that scheme inconsistent. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Look2See1&oldid=809266735#Album_categories for a conversation where he made many edits which were not only incorrect but hardly even intelligible and now https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Look2See1&oldid=809266735#Category:Lists_of_countries_in_Africa where he insists on changing list categories to being "lists of lists" when they aren't. I really don't know what to do here. @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: since you helped me talk some sense into him last time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Look2See1 certainly needs to be educated on how categories work and is encouraged to look at how existing schemes are set before embarking on creating their own schemes because they make sense to them. Before making mass changes of a similar nature, L2S1 should attempt to discuss these on appropriate talk pages and with experienced editors, especially those who do a lot of category maintenance. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me}

Look2See1 seems to have a tendency to change things that are just fine the way they are into some idiosyncratic form they prefer, but nobody else does. On Commons, they were prone to take perfectly understandable prose category descriptions and unnecessarily convert them into a list of bullet points, despite being asked numerous times not to do so. [27],[28],[29] Eventually, their continued overcategorization and "injecting entropy" [30] into the category system there [31], [32], etc. got them indef blocked. [33]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This user also has a long history of inserting geologic time templates in inappropriate locations. Abyssal (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This user has a long history of ignoring any comments or requests that edits be discussed, and only when reverted will they occasionally respond. See the conversations at WP:Geology, WP:Categorization and essentially all of @Look2See1: own talk page and archives. As noted its a systemic problem that has resulted in an indef block on commons, and hundreds of hours of clean up here.--Kevmin § 00:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

At it right now, populating Category:Flora of the Cape Provinces with the use of a "." to top sort the articles being added. It's unconventional but is the categorization appropriate? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't really like blocking someone unless that person is clearly a vandal but he's so far off base and seemingly deliberately. Again, his refusal to discuss or even acknowledge (which is being replicated in this thread) makes me think that there needs to be some kind of sanction. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. There are concerns from multiple editors and they are clearly being ignored. With the back history as well, something needs to be done to address this behavior. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• We should have said "goodbye" for the last time long ago. As shown by the links given above, and as can easily be demonstrated from lots of other places (ask me if you'd like more links), Look2See1 has spent years demonstrating that he will not listen to disagreement: either it just gets ignored, or it gets marginalised as "disagreement", or otherwise it's rejected, and at any rate the end result is that precisely the same edits keep getting made. I quote WP:BLOCKP — blocks should be used to prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. Look2See1's years of editing in this manner, his years of coming off blocks and resuming what just got him blocked, basically guarantees that the disruption to Wikipedia and lack of a congenial editing style cannot be stopped as long as he's editing, since the likelihood of repetition is 100%. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Indefinite block

Given the evidence presented above, especially Nyttend's trenchant summary of Look2See1's editing career, and given that L2S1 is simply continuing the behavior that got them indef blocked from Commons, and L2S1's unwillingness to respond to the complaints lodged against them here, Look2See1 is indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia. After 6 months, L2S1 may apply for the standard offer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Clean block log to indef ban over content dispute? Just no. --DHeyward (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• DHeyward, whose block log are you looking at? [34] and [35] militate against your statement. If your sense of "clean block log" includes someone with a single block, or if you would be willing to oppose because this sanction shouldn't be applied to someone with a single short block, please say that; I'll disagree with you, but I can respect a different definition and won't try to change your mind beyond what I've already written. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• DHeyward, you are mistaken. The user has already been blocked here for disruptive editing, and has been indef blocked on Commons for doing exactly what he is continuing to do here despite requests to stop and gain consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, a single block a year and a half ago. I don't see an indef as the next logical step. If he's disruptive now, why hasn't he been blocked for progressively longer than 48 hour in 18 months? --DHeyward (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward, thank you for the clarification. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support if they are indeed repeating the behavior that got them indef blocked on Commons. That and the fact that they don't seem to have ever left a single edit summary, and the fact that they have now vanished (from their utter deluge of non-stop edits), and it's been four days, means it's unlikely they are going to try to justify themselves here. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support User actively avoids discussing any of the edits they make, and persists in disruptive editing when told not to by groups of people, simply looking at the talk page archives shows that its a long series of people correcting L2S1's edits.--Kevmin § 16:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant support as only choice. I came here expecting to strongly oppose, but having dip-sampled the history there's so much miscategorization, and so much unwillingness to learn, that cutting the source off at the root is the only practical option. Just cleaning up the existing mess will be an operation of Neelix-scale proportions, since there are over 200,000 edits that would need reviewing (although it may be more practical to leave them in situ to be repaired individually as and when people come across them). ‑ Iridescent 00:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• If they were content edits, I'd say a concerted campaign to revert would be in order, but since they're category edits, I think your second option is the better one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That's how things have been handled at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Category topic ban

Given the evidence presented above, especially Nyttend's trenchant summary of Look2See1's editing career, and given that L2S1 is simply continuing the behavior that got them indef blocked from Commons, and L2S1's unwillingness to respond to the complaints lodged against them here, Look2See1 is indefinitely topic banned from any and all editing of categories on English Wikipedia, broadly construed. After 1 year, L2S1 may apply to have the topic ban rescinded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - as 2nd choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Commons is irrelevant. Use the dispute resolution process first, not ban hammer. He has a cleann block record so whatever is issues are it hasn't even reached a point where he's been locked for disruption. --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• While not controlling, the behavior of editors on other WMF projects is always relevant data to consider, especially when the editor only began editing here in earnest after being blocked there, and their behavior here is precisely the same as got them blocked there. Closing our eyes to that is just plain silly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• When you disrupt Commons by engaging in a pattern of behavior that would violate our policies if it were done here, and you do it persistently there despite getting blocked repeatedly and absolutely refuse to stop until an indefinite block enforces the stop, and then you begin the same behavior here (including persisting after getting a block; he doesn't have a clean block log here), why should we expect you to change your behavior now? "Hasn't gone through the standard dispute-resolution process, so your proposal mustn't be accepted" = WP:BURO. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• DHeyward, you are mistaken. The user has already been blocked here for disruptive editing. Commons is most definitely not irrelevant; he was indef blocked on Commons for doing exactly what he is continuing to do here despite repeated requests to stop and gain consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support if they are indeed repeating the behavior that got them indef blocked on Commons. That and the fact that they don't seem to have ever left a single edit summary, and the fact that all of their zillions of edits are on Categories. The fact that they have now vanished (from their utter deluge of non-stop edits), and it's been four days, means it's unlikely they are going to try to justify themselves here. Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Carl Sargeant: Legal concerns in the UK (England and Wales) about saying that he had committed suicide

In the United Kingdom (specifically in England and Wales), "suicide" is legally-speaking a verdict, which can ONLY be returned by a quasi-judicial officer carrying out his judicial functions called a Coroner (himself or himself with a jury) in the Coroners' Courts, in an Inquest...in the UK, just because someones has apparently taken his own life, that doesn't mean that you are allowed to say that the person has actually committed suicide...anyone who doing this who is not the coroner is in effect commenting the results (the verdict) of an inquest in advance, and if the person is actually a resident, resident or ordinarily resident in England and Wales, he is in fact guilty of the criminal offence of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 c. 49) [36], which also covers coroners, Coroners' Courts and Inquests.

"Commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future criminal trial as the defendant may not be able to get a fair trial." [37][38]

To put it simply, Carl Sargeant, in his country of death, and legally under the laws of the same country of his death, CANNOT be said to have committed suicide at present. "Had apparently taken his own life" a maybe (just), but "suicide" definitely a no. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• BBC An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood.
• Telegraph: Welsh Labour minister Carl Sargeant takes own life days after being suspended over allegations of sexual misconduct
• The Guardian: Sargeant, a 49-year-old married father of two, is understood to have killed himself. North Wales police said on Tuesday that the death was not being treated as suspicious.

The Telegraph explicitly states "takes own life". I.e. suicide. Jim1138 (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your sources support the IP editor's point - you're allowed to say "killed himself" but in England you're not allowed to say he committed suicide. It's the very narrow committed suicide wording that is problematic in England. Of course, that doesn't count for Wikipedia which isn't hosted in England. DanBCDanBC (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Also, please note that because the WMF servers are located in the US, UK law is not controlling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• It's not controlling the WMF, Beyond My Ken, but very much controlling for UK-based editors :) — fortunavelut luna 12:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm aware of that, and almost included that point in my comment, but decided on not confusing the two issues. It's only a potential problem for UK-based editors who actually edit the article to say something which opposes UK law. And the "potential" is exceedingly small, in this non-lawyer's opinion - even supposing that the IP's point is accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really an issue for ANI, but to the extent that there's a distinction between "take own life" and "committed suicide," we should go with what the sources say. In this instance the sources in th article use the phrases "took own life" and "killed himself," but don't use the word suicide. In which basis I've changed the article to "took own life."Agree with others here and in the talkpage that the specific legal issue seems unlikely to arise in Wikipedia's case. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say we were going beyond the sources in alleging suicide, which I see has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the coroner. The intent to die must be proven as well as the act which caused death, both by that standard, and the UK sources seem to be avoiding the word "suicide". There are BLP concerns regarding his survivors, who might be grieved further on seeing the allegation here, which may never be proven. I think it was appropriate for the OP, who is probably not an experienced editor, to bring it to the attention of administrators.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In England the word "committed" is more problematic than the word "suicide", and here are several sources (the Samaritans, the National Union of Journalists, the BBC editorial guidelines, the Royal College of psychiary) that ask us to avoid using the word "committed".DanBCDanBC (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

But experienced enough to know that you can't say someone (in the UK) have committed suicide before the Inquest has concluded (even regardless of what the family might say or might have said, or the family's feelings), that there can be no argument. ---- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The question was raised whether this was the best venue for the concern. I am saying "good enough". I bring up the family because I am less convinced by English law in its own right, than in our WP:BLP policy, specifically WP:BDP. English law convinces me only that using the word "suicide" prior to any proving of same may cause harm to living people; I looked at a journal article that indicates that families will go to some effort to avoid a suicide verdict being returned in favour of an open verdict, for example. That's what convinced me there was a BLP problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, this IP has been spamming a similar message to many of the article contributors, as well as the article talk page. Dragons flight (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I will just ignore that remark! --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Pasting the same message to many editors' talk pages is indeed spamming. I made no edits to the article about his death, and didn't need a message on my talk page about it. Next time, post your message to the article's talk page, and use Ping there if you feel that several specific editors need to be aware of what you posted. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The change is I am afraid not good enough. Even the BBC only went so far as to report that "An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood" (emphasis added). And User:Euryalus obviously is not aware of instances when the UK Press had got it horribly wrong [39]...UK online news articles these days (even from supposedly reliable news publishers) are (because of the 24-hour news cycle) no longer all automatically checked by in-house ex-solicitors (lawyers) before publication as they were 15-25 years' ago, until their legal departments actually receive angry telephone calls from the Attorney General's Office or from the Crown Prosecution Service. (I am afraid, if false allegations were made in the first place against the deceased, and the complainants were to be charged with involuntary manslaughter at a later date, their defence might e.g. then be able to use editing history in Wikipedia (amongst other evidence) to try and argue that their clients would not be able to receive a fair trial.) --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've amended it somewhat. What is your thought now?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The Christopher Jefferies analogy is overblown. But Wehwalt's version looks ok to me. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Euryalus on this. I think the press have a pretty good idea of their legal position. Deb (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP has posted this sort of guff on a lot of user's talkpages (example) and it has the vibe of a WP:LEGALTHREAT - "...is a fine not exceeding £2,500 or 2 years' imprisonment, or both..." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've posted some gentle advice on the IP's talk page; we'll see if it has any effect. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks GR. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is a view on WP that "UK law is not relevant to Wikipedia", held even by quite experienced editors. This is just not true. WP does not exist in a vacuum. WP is not on a par with the UK legal system (as it clearly considers itself!) and does not get to make legal rulings on issues like monkey selfie copyrights. Nor, in this case, does WP avoid the legal constraints that newspapers are bound by.

We should not use the term "suicide" in a case like this until it has been ruled as such. This should be so obvious that I am amazed to even see it at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I would have appreciated a notification that you intended to indirectly criticise me here, in a matter entirely unrelated, for reasons entirely unknown. I absolutely stand by my reasoning that the British legal definition of a political party is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based and hosted in the United States. The British courts and legal system have jurisdiction over Britain. Before going after us, maybe you should go after the reliable sources in Britain, such as the BBC, that have been saying Sargeant "took his own life". AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing in the linked sources (or elsewhere at first glance) which says that you can not or may not call it "suicide" legally, but you may say "took his own life" without any problem. One source linked above[40] says that "commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future trial", but makes no distinction between using "suicide" or "taking his own life" or any other way to say the same. It seems to me that the problem isn't with the word "suicide", but that technically we (or the BBC, Times, ...) shouldn't speculate about the cause of death in any way or shape. This seems an untenable position. Fram (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

And to that end, we're at least saying "reportedly took his own life", not a firm/conclusive statement, but equivalent to what the reliable media is saying. We're fine - this is how we handed Robin Williams' suicide before it was ruled that (which took several months before it was confirmed). --MASEM (t) 15:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problem with handling it this way, but I was amazed at the claim "We should not use the term "suicide" in a case like this until it has been ruled as such. This should be so obvious that I am amazed to even see it at ANI." when I couldn't find any indication that the term "suicide" is the problem, and not the "alleged" vs. "definitely" aspect. When there is reasonable reason (from reliable sources) to presume suicide, it is perfectly allright to write "presumed suicide" or any of the other terms for the same. Avoiding that single word seemed weird, but was alleged to be a problem (and even an obvious one). Fram (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP's specific concerns are correct as they stand. UK editors are bound by UK law on any material they edit. Likewise UK law is clear on pre-empting coroner's verdicts, however unless you are a news organization, they are highly unlikely to ever be prosecuted under. The reason most UK sources use 'took their own life' is a combination of the above (don't call it a suicide before a coroner has confirmed it, 'suspected suicide' is as close as they get) and that UK consumers of media generally prefer a lighter touch with issues involving death. Rather than the more exact but less emotional 'committed suicide'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a slightly silly conversation, nowhere in the world is it possible to say with CERTAINTY, how someone died until/unless post-mortem, police investigation etc. Suicide/ murder/ accident or other are only suspected until that time - except when obvious natural causes of course. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

But in England it's possible to have a coroner verdict saying he killed himself, but that it wasn't suicide. In that case should we use the normal English word with its normal English meaning, or should we use alternaive phrasing? (I'd prefer almost anything over "committed suicide" - died by suicide; killed himself; took his own life.) DanBCDanBC (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a content or style dispute, not a behavioral problem (except the IP committing to spamming and/or NLT-sounding comments). Editors interested in the general problem of "to commit suicide" should perhaps participate at WT:MOS#Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article instead of expounding here. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Seemingly "do as I wish" account

• Lucky For You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Need Admin eyes on Lucky For You. User is not heeding warnings, uploading possible copyvio's, breaking infoboxes, forcing image sizes. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have temporarily deleted recent uploads by this user as spot check indicates they are consistently tagged with incorrect license and invalid fair use claim. Alex Shih (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is this sufficient, or does the user need at least a temporary block for not heeding warnings/policies? There is repeated precedent for giving such users an "attention-getting block" when nothing else has elicited their response or comprehension. Pinging FlightTime and Alex Shih. - Softlavender (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. The tendentious nature reminds me of Emmy Expert (rapid, minor problematic image edits while being non-communicative) from the most recent case I can remember. I'll take another look while inviting more opinions. Alex Shih (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agree to block, seems to have increased activity yesterday. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging @Alex Shih and Softlavender:, I think the block should be applied, however you (Alex Shih) might be considered WP:INVOLVED, should an AIV report be posted referencing this thread ? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I don't think this is appropriate for AIV. The problem with this user is that their edit can be argued as "good faith" and "bold", although I disagree as I have expressed earlier. Blocking now may be seem as premature, and issuing a final warning (for not participating in the AN/I discussion) may be seem as overkill in this context, so I am waiting for more input from one or more editors before implementing any action. Alex Shih (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I'm not involved and I agree that a short disruption block is needed. A "nudge" or "wake-up block" has been applied and determined to be needed many times on ANI, and I think that in situations such as this, it's a logical and appropriate next step if we feel that we've exhausted our efforts to try and help, educate, and warn the user and without success or any kind of communication from the editor in concern. Given the agreement made by everyone else here, I have applied a 24 hour block to the account. I hope this will achieve the result that we're hoping to achieve. I really want to help this editor... I hope that they'll grow and become an experienced and highly respected editor, and I especially hope that this will help accomplish that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I've also added this message to the user's talk page. I.... really do hope that (s)he reaches out and that (s)he allows me (or... us) to help educate them and get them on the right path....... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Concerned about potential paid editing/questionable usage of multiple accounts (whitewashing) on Jobbik-related articles

The accounts in question are Mundzuk (talk · contribs), Bidoistvan (talk · contribs), Newaccount1810 (talk · contribs), and possibly Leveskockaa (talk · contribs). Since mid-October, the first three of these accounts has been active on the Jobbik article, significantly expanding it with consistently descriptive edit summaries and highly similar behavior; these additions, compared to the previous content of the article, can largely be described as whitewashing. While I am personally aware of Jobbik's attempts to realign itself as a more mainstream right-wing party and distance itself from its far-right roots, the content added by the editors has largely had the appearance of attempting to paint the party in a much more flattering light. Two have also made significant contributions to Gábor Vona demonstrating similar behavior. All four accounts use VisualEditor frequently and utilize identical reference formatting and choice of reference parameters. I'm unsure how to describe this behavior as anything other than highly NPOV and suspiciously similar.

Newaccount1810 has uploaded images to Commons that have been handled by OTRS volunteers; how this image was verified may offer some insight into these accounts.

Leveskockaa appears to have been inactive for nearly three years, returning this month to make two edits, one of them also related to Hungarian politics which appears slightly critical of a small Hungarian liberal party, and has some behavioral similarities. The account was attached to login.wikimedia.org on 4 February 2017, en.wiktionary.org on 6 February 2017, and commons.wikimedia.org on 9 February 2017, without any logged actions in that period.

User	Jobbik?	Gábor Vona?	VisualEditor?	Ref formatting?	Images?	Registered?
Mundzuk (talk · contribs)	Yes	No	Yes	Yes, identical	No	11:54, 17 October 2017 (en.wikipedia.org)
Bidoistvan (talk · contribs)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, identical	No	12:16, 18 October 2017 (en.wikipedia.org)
Newaccount1810 (talk · contribs)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, identical	Yes	08:32, 18 October 2017 (en.wikipedia.org)
Leveskockaa (talk · contribs)	No	No	Yes	Yes, identical	No	10:03, 21 December 2014 (hu.wikipedia.org)

Mélencron (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Confirmed to each other
• Bidoistvan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Newaccount1810 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mundzuk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

•  Possible to the above:
• Tzollee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) same IP, close UA
• Leveskockaa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) same geolocation as above but different ISP and UA.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, have the accounts been blocked? If not can someone please deal with them? Having SPI-like reports on ANI is a problem, because they do not get follow-up attention and official admin closes. Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The three shown as 'Confirmed' are all blocked; the others are not. User:Tzollee has no edits. User:Leveskockaa hasn't done anything yet of an alarming nature so I don't see the reason for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Mélencron, the confirmed sockpuppets on EN-wiki have been blocked on EN-wiki. Does this sufficiently address your concerns? Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and edit warring on several business schools

Not sure if this should be be reported as mainly sockpuppetry or edit warring, and/or requests for page protections, so thought to bring it here. Some IPs have been edit warring on several articles linked to education. HEC Paris has seen a particularly heavy edit war [41]. It's obvious that 187.168.4.122, 187.214.154.118 and 201.130.60.179 are all socks of the same person; they do exactly the same edits, on the same pages and with the same edit summaries (examples abound, but here is one for each [42], [43], [44]. Articles targeted by this user include HEC Paris, Grenoble School of Management, University of St. Gallen, ESCP Europe, EMLYON Business School, Skema Business School, IE Business School, ESADE Business School, ESSEC Business School, EDHEC Business School (Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales du Nord), and Global Alliance in Management Education. There has not been edit warring on every article, but it's rather revealing that if anyone disagrees with the user's edits, then edit warring takes off. I take no position on which version is better, as that is besides the point. It's clear their is no consensus for these changes nor does the user tries to establish one. Whenever the user is reverted, they revert back on the spot. This is clearly a user with a serious WP:OWN issue; the user enforces their view of how educational articles should look, reverts whenever somebody disagrees, uses multiple socks, and never engages in any discussion. All of these are indicative of disruptive and unsuitable behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If I may, it would be beneficial if some admin could look into this issue. It continues to spread as the user has since moved on to several other related articles, repeating the same pattern. Jeppiz (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging Kudpung for input as someone from the schools wikiproject; he can maybe make a recommendation. Softlavender (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• All the pages named in this report are now semiprotected. Yesterday I noticed a registered account doing the same thing, BrunoLanafor (talk · contribs). The editor is now blocked for socking by User:TonyBallioni. The IP 187.214.154.118 has been editing similar articles on the French and Italian Wikipedias. It is possible that some admins of the French Wikipedia might have an idea about this. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sekanaya12 for a more complete report of this problem. Not sure if anyone has visited the affected articles to see if any recent changes should be rolled back. Many of the named IPs are from Mexico City, which is a sufficiently unusual location for commentary on French schools that one could suspect a single sockmaster and not a loose group of like minded people. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrey Sabirov

I have a concern about a user named User:Andrey Sabirov and the way he edits. Despite being warned several times (as seen in his talk page about posting unsourced material on WP, he still continues to put various unsourced content in articles. I don’t see how he is improving the encyclopedia in anyway. His edits were reverted many times in the past, yet he still edits disruptively. I don’t know how he is going to change and when he will change his behavior, unless we block this user if he continues to not listen. He has been editing for a while now and his edits are still the same; not improving the project in any way from what I see.

107.77.226.25 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Although he has only made 380 edits [45], the editor has received 9 warnings (including final warnings) since he started editing in January 2016 [46], and hasn't heeded any of them. I agree that this needs administrative attention. Softlavender (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• • I think it's fairly unimpressive too that the warnings on the talk page are from a wide spectrum of editors, making it clear that this isn't just a case of someone treading into someone's WP:OWN garden. I'm not seeing malice here, but I am seeing a lack of understanding as to how we do things. I don't think that urgent attention is needed given that this account has only edited once this month, but it is worth keeping an eye out because if the pattern continues a WP:CIR block might be needed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC).

BlueboyLI

I have a complaint about BlueboyLI. He keeps reverting my edits, then makes edits of his own, only to revert them a few minutes later. [47] [48] [49] [50] He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, he's just using it as a toy. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I went through your recent edit history and couldn't find any attempt, either on an article's talk page or on that user's talk page, to discuss this editing pattern with them. Are you trying to get an editor who's been actively editing for almost four years indefinitely blocked without giving them an opportunity to explain first? CityOfSilver 19:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid an edit war here; he just reverted my edit on WFSB, citing "overlinking".[51] Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvcg66b3r (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I've asked that user about this behavior. I don't necessarily agree that the rationale is wrong; your edit at that page does seem to run afoul of our manual of style's section on how much to link. The problem, as near as I can see, is that this user never bothered to explain this, and they just made an effort to do so at their talk. This discussion seems to have started with an issue regarding BlueBoyLI's content work and behavior, and since they seem to be ready to address both issues, this thread can probably be closed. CityOfSilver 20:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

BlueboyLI has been doing some overlinking himself, as reported by AldezD here. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Van danken

This is about Van danken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This is a new account (3 November) but I strongly suspect it's a sock of Apollo The Logician.

That aside, it's been involved in personal attacks, vandalism/edit warring, removal of referenced material without explanation or misleading edit summaries, etc. Essentially we've a POV warrior continuing on ATL's crusade. Pinging Snowded, Mabuska, Guy Macon and Doug Weller, all of whom are familiar with the patterns... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh - adding user-page vandalism - (two counts). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked them temporarily. I was going to warn, but the userpage vandalism was too much. The SPI should sort any issues out before the block expires. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I have noticed similar dubious edits and believe that they are at least Wikipedia:NOTHERE.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I had a suspicion but was willing to let them reveal themselves a bit more. Editing Troubles related articles and articles to do with space is an ATL hallmark. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

After one of the British Unionist intrusions and misleading edit summaries on Welsh Labour it was obvious we had one of the multiple sock farms, but would need more evidence over time too guess which! Black Kite's action seems to have the thing in hand.----Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looks like I jumped the gun, then. Hope my report didn't result in making it more difficult to sniff out other socks (no pun intended!) or preempt a wider solution. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The userpage vandalism just confirms my suspicions raised by looking at their other edits. @Black Kite: I hope you don't mind, and if others object I won't, but I don't think we should show tolerance to anyone making this sort of edit[52] - it's like ringing an editor's name with Triple parentheses. Racist attacks (and edits) should lead to an indefinite block (I can hear him now saying he can't be racist because Jews aren't a race, one of his edit summaries). Anyway, if he isn't indeffed through the SPI I'll do it if no one beats me to it. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not waiting. I just saw an edit I'd missed looking at him earlier on my iPad. "(Undid revision 809866643 by Bastun (talk) untermensch stalker)"[53]. Blocking him now. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've also blocked Liam archer (talk · contribs) Dizzydozzy (talk · contribs) and Enderf (talk · contribs). I'm about to block two proxy servers also. I can't confirm that they are Apollo though. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Van danken might need a vacation from posting to his user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 12:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The focus on acting like a Nazi fanboy would be more of an attempt to look different from precious socks I'd guess but the continued focus on articles and topics that were within ATLs area of interest show right through it. Whether they are ATL or not they do clearly have issues and should not be allowed to be on this site. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"attempting to look different from precious socks" is an interesting topic on its own. You can add new interests (like a sudden emphasis on white power, anti-abortion, or socialism) but if you remove old interests, it becomes harder to do what you started engaging in sockpuppetry in order to do. One key point that many users miss is that if someone fails the WP:DUCK test they probably are a duck, but if they pass the DUCK test the correct conclusion isn't "not a duck" but rather "duck status unknown". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It took me just a moment to figure out what you meant there because I've always considered quacking to be passing the duck test. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Foolish lock-out

Er. I seem to have locked myself out of my account. AFAICS I deleted the email linked to the account, probably due to some privacy paranoia (why on earth would I need that? Oh. To reset password). AFAIR I was frequently getting locked out of the account on different computers. Is it possible to re-enable access if I supply the email I used to use? The account has a variety of addins enabled, and edits linked to it. Sorry about this, thanks for taking the time to consider it. Jabberwoch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.176 (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If you lost the password and don't have email enabled, there isn't really anything we can do about it. Check your browser for a stored password, I guess. If you can't find your password, create a new account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• If there's no solution, you may have to simply create a new account. Fortunately you old account only made 841 edits [54], so it's not a massive tragedy. You can link to the old account on your new userpage and explain that you lost the password. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out above, your account is not recoverable if you have completely lost your password and have absolutely no way of finding it stored somewhere and you did not add and confirm and email address with your account. You'll have to create a new one. I'm sorry to give the bad news, but looking on the bright side (as pointed out above), your account isn't excessively huge with a massive amount of edits, and you can simply redirect the user and user talk page of your old account to your new one. Just make sure to confirm an email address this time! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban violations

C. W. Gilmore persists in violating his TBAN on the Patriot Prayer article, his latest violation is here, he has been warned several times about violating it and skirting the bounds of it, but his obvious dislike of me leads him to violate the TBAN. I would like an interaction ban enacted as Gilmore just can't seem to get over the fact he was TBanned and not only has he followed me to article's to revert me, he cannot seem to stop commenting on me commenting at the talk page of an editor I was in a content dispute with, At the talk page of an editor about an article I had AFD, a comment on a content dispute at PP, he even gives wikilove to editors who revert me on PP for Christ's sake. He had requested i stay off his talk page, so could someone let him know about this please. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The last warning was "you should stop all mention of Patriot Prayer ANYWHERE on wikipedia, even your sandboxes. Don't lawyer about it. Don't pester admins with multiple posts. Just. Drop. It. And, I'll add, just as another piece of advice, drop the topic of Darkness Shines too. If you keep up with the trajectory you're on with him, you're going to end up totally banned from wikipedia" diff Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Even after this report he continues commenting on PP and on me. Another violation Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -Though DS has repeatedly attempted to say I have violated the TBAN, no such violation has been found. His current complaint is that I'm discussing his actions[55] in regards to not gaining consensus and pointing out what others have been saying to DS. I did not mention the article, but did quote others that mention the article for it pertains to DS current pursue of another editor. I have not edited on that page or it's TP and will not until my appeal is accepted, as per the terms of the TBAN. This is all an effort to distract from DS' disruptive behavior that continues even without my presence on editing that article. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note Ban as presented and followed: "I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note I continue to comment on the actions of disruptive editors, I do not mention 'that article' and only link to it(if needed), or quote people that may speak of it as needed to make a point about another subject, such as an editor's disruptive behavior. I have not, nor will violate the TBAN; I have commented on the actions of DS in regards to 'that' and other article,[56] so I can only think that this must be at the centre of DS's issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Correction DS wrote, "Even after this report he continues commenting on PP and on me. Another violation Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)" This is incorrect as I do not comment on either; I comment on DS's actions and will quote others regarding those actions, that may contain information which I will not comment on. It is misleading to say this is any but a discussion on DS's continued disruptive behavior, not just on 'that article', but also currently on Antisemitism in the United Kingdom where after promising 'not revert the content on the article again, can you unblock me please'. DS turns around and puts in motion changes to the article on the talk page, after the block is lifted.[57]. This is what I comment on, DS' disruptive behavior, that it all. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore, please see WP:DIFF and use them to present what was said elsewhere. It gets very confusing when you copy and paste conversations from elsewhere to a noticeboard or talk page. Copy pasted conversations and or links to talk pages are not acceptable ways to present evidence here. John from Idegon (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, everyone who you've quoted here via your copy paste quotes must be notified by you on their individual talk pages. John from Idegon (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) C. W. Gilmore When someone is told not to revert, they are supposed to discuss the changes they wish to make on the talk page, this is quite different from reverting. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a day after pleading to be unblocked, DS goes back with a RFC (24hr) to push through their agenda. All this after getting a break and special consideration; this is a pattern that stretches back years with DS and my point is that it will continue. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@C. W. Gilmore: He was unblocked because he agreed not to edit war, starting an RfC is VERY different from edit warring. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I only meant to say that one moment DS is begging to have the block lifted and within the day, is right back, into the fight on that page. This is a pattern going back for years and a big part of the reason for his current TBAN. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@C. W. Gilmore: Arguing about the content on the talk page, starting an RfC, ect is NOT edit warring, he was unblocked because he said he would not edit war, nothing about starting an RfC or discussing stuff on the talk page is against the unblock conditions Tornado chaser (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As an editor who has been involved in the content dispute at PP (after finding it on the BLP noticeboard), I am surprised that User:C. W. Gilmore is topic banned, from what I saw C. W. Gilmore and User:Darkness Shines have opposite biases and both could be stubborn at times, but I did not see anything that I thought was disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban (the dispute had been going on before I was involved so I don't know everything). Tornado chaser (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• C. W. Gilmore, per WP:Editing restrictions and WP:TBAN you are topic banned from the topic of Patriot Prayer. You cannot mention the topic, talk about the topic, talk about editors editing on the topic. Unless you are making an appeal or asking for clarification per WP:BANEX, you are not allowed to mention, discuss or otherwise do any editing related to Patriot Prayer on any page on wikipedia. If another editor makes an edit you dislike on Patriot Prayer you cannot comment on it. Do you understand this? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This was what I was given as a TBAN, as quoted above: "I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You are topic banned. You may not edit about the topic anywhere per the restriction logged at WP:Editing restrictions and the definition of a topic ban at WP:TBAN. Given the alternative people preferred was indef blocking you, now is not the time to be playing silly buggers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not playing and as the ban was presented to me, I have not violated and will not, even though I felt it the wrong thing to do. What I argued for was a ban block between DS and myself; but no one listens to me. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This[58] is what DS is so upset about, and all I did was to quote someone. I did not even mention the article on User:MSGJ talk page. It was not even about that article but DS's actions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, no. I had no idea I could not quote someone that speaking about it, as evidence of an editor's actions. -That was not explained, or any of the other pages of rules you just throw at me; I have stayed away from 'that article' and all pages around it as per the instructions given me. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) A topic ban means no mention of the topic anywhere on wikipedia, this was not made clear when the ban was first implemented, but hopefully this is clear now. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no, a topic ban does not mean no mention of the topic anywhere on Wikipedia, it only means specifically what the wording of the ban says. Not all topic bans are the same, and not all are "broadly construed". In this case, if the wording of the ban referred only to "...Patriot Prayer or its talk page" then those two pages were all that C. W. Gilmore was banned from. Obviously the community can amend the ban here, as is being discussed below, and I have no opinion on that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Many experienced editors made this mistake, I can see why CW is confused, sorry for adding to the confusion. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What's confusing about "you should stop all mention of Patriot Prayer ANYWHERE on wikipedia, even your sandboxes. Don't lawyer about it. Don't pester admins with multiple posts. Just. Drop. It. And, I'll add, just as another piece of advice, drop the topic of Darkness Shines too. If you keep up with the trajectory you're on with him, you're going to end up totally banned from wikipedia" diff Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines:The original ban said that he "is not to edit patriot prayr or it's talk page" Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I think DS wanted this diff, where I gave CWGilmore some advice. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was advice. Very good advice, certainly, but it does not replace the wording of the topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note This [59] is what I was told and what I've strictly observed: "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" I was given no instructions to contradict these instructions. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

To ensure clarity of topic ban

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

---

I suggest that to ensure C.W.Gilmore is clear about his topic ban, and to prevent him being blocked, that the topic ban is amended to be crystal clear. "C.W.Gilmore is banned from making any edit relating to the topic Patriot Prayer, in any namespace". Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If there is a two-way block, then there should be no need for the topical ban, that did not solve anything but a two-way block would, IMO C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Anything that promotes clarity is much welcomed. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support I consider discussing edits to the Patriot Prayer article anywhere on Wikipedia to be a violation of the topic ban, so if this adds clarity, it is a good idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I tried to give some advice to Gilmore to avoid the topic/etc but it didn't sink in. Hopefully, this will. And Gilmore - anyone can look into your sandboxes - you do not own your talk pages or sandboxes. It's not "snooping" ... it's perfectly allowed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I objected not to the snooping, but then adding snarky comments on my Talk page after telling me that I could not comment on their Talk page. This is why I have, from the start, been asking for a two-way interactive ban. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support, the original ban was poorly worded and open to interpretation, I trust that this wording is crystal clear. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC).
• Support, seems this clarity is needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose that wasn't what the TBAN was. It was for Patriot Prayer and the talk page. Why are we now adding more to the ban just because someone brought an ANI because they think the TBAN was for all Wikipedia? If the ban only applies to the PP page (as it does) then there is nothing wrong with commenting about it on a different page, and this action is punishing someone for doing nothing wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Note There is NO need for a TBAN at all, if you would PLEASE install a two-way-interactive ban as I have been asking for, from the beginning. The problem lay in the interactions between us, not any one topic. This is my opinion, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban with Darkness Shines

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

---

There are three options here. A two-way interaction ban, a one-way ban preventing CWG from interacting with DS (I note the diff above showing CWG following DS to another article to revert), or no interaction ban.

• Support two-way interaction ban (or one-way as a second choice) as proposer. Black Kite (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support two-way interaction ban This is what I've been asking for from the beginning, and not a TBAN. It needs to be a two-way interaction ban so DS does not 'again' go snooping around my sandbox and them making snarky comments on my TP, please. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support two-way interaction ban These two editors waste alot of peoples time and energy, including their own, with constant incoherent bickering. Gabriel syme (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Not to sure what I have done to be IBanned, I'm not the one following another editor and commenting on them all the time, but if it stops Gilmore then support Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You mean like calling me 'obtuse' or asking if 'English is my first language' or accusing me of sharing my account; or the many other times you have thrown abuse my way: Or could it be that you revert my posts within 1 minute [60], even when I was trying to return it to the original while discussions happened on the Talk page. This way you REALLY can stay away from me, and do it this time. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you think a one-way ban preventing CWG from interacting with DS could be better then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please, DS promised User:Doug Weller that I would be left alone but still I get the simplest edit reverted by DS and it turns into a big mess, like the Antifa edit. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Gilmor deleted my response to this here I shall leave it at that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I think this is a better diff; it doesn't look intentional to me though (could be one of those ec overwrites). Alex Shih (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, but I was just linking to my comment for those who might want to read it Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

My apology, it was an 'edit conflict' and instead of going back to save my comment, I pressed the wrong key and saved my edit. It was unintended. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support two-way interaction ban best for all concerned.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Two-way ban as first choice, one-way on CWG as second choice, as I think one-ways can lead to more problems han they solve. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Definite two-way. A one-way on CWG won't solve anything, nor will one on DS. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Can this be enacted now please? Cos this is taking the piss Darkness Shines (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That was me following Slatersteven; DS, you think too much of yourself. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This little interaction maybe of note [61] DS commenting on the user not content and [62] SCWG doing the same (after being asked not to [63], so can we have the interaction ban in force) and maybe a wider ban on CWG.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• DS is making this article political by attempting to expanding Chakrabarti Inquiry beyond a it's current mention; that is my objection and offended that Slatersteven considers me to be the one politicising things. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven can threaten all they like, this article should not be politicised. I will object to this, fully. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Thucydides411

This is about Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

He keeps on reinserting this comment [64]

As well as throwing about accusations of bias and censorship. [65] [66] [67] [68] and other PA's [69]

All in less then 24 hours (there is more, but I got bored at this point).

I asked him to stop

[70]

His response was

[71]

I even asked on the articles talk page for everyone to stop

[72]

This is now turning into an edit war over the offending comments.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What I object to is the constant removal of my comment on the talk page, but the preservation of the personal attack directly above it. If you want to remove personal attacks, remove all of them, rather than keeping the personal attacks made in one direction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not removed any personal attacks, just asked users to stop posting them, you choose to re-insert a (twice) PA. PA's are never allowed even in retaliation for others.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've now removed all the personal commentary there ([73]), including the personal attack against Marteau and the one directed against me. Those were directly above the comment of mine that was removed. You can't remove one comment in the name of civility, while preserving personal attacks directly above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but n o you have not, just your interaction with Volunteer Marek.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've been reverted and it's all back in again: [74]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thuc, you've been warned on numerous previous occassions not to refactor other users' talk page comments. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, what happened here is that my comment was removed in the name of civility (not that I refactored other people's comments), while the personal attacks directly above were not removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven, thank you for volunteering the time and effort to make this report. I wonder whether it belongs here or better at AE, in light of the two prior Arbcom Enforcement sanctions against Thucydides411's and now this escalation of disruption at American Politics articles under DS? SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to correct the record: I received exactly one sanction (not two, as you claim). That sanction was under the "reinserted material challenged by reversion" clause which has caused so much trouble and confusion, and which was subsequently removed from the page. I appealed that sanction at the time, and the majority view of the admins commenting on the appeal was that the sanction was unwarranted. However, the sanction ran out before the appeal came to a conclusion, so the appeal was considered moot. One admin commenting on that case called the sanction a miscarriage of justice. I asked for a decision precisely because I expected that in such a contentious topic as AP2, editors would try to leverage that sanction into future sanctions, as is happening now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement sanctions I regret seeing you misrepresent so easily verified a fact: first sanction and then the second sanction.

I haven't misrepresented anything, and you should strike that falsehood. As you can see, the second sanction was struck. And you're very familiar with the first sanction, and the fact that on appeal, it was viewed as unjust and incorrect by most admins who commented. You've been hounding me for over a year now, as a look through my talk page history will show, so you're very familiar with all this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, here is my appeal of the first (and only) sanction: [75]. It was closed on procedural grounds, because the block had expired. MelanieN said about that sanction, "I am distressed that no-one has done anything about what seems to me to be an obvious miscarriage of justice here." NeilN said about the sanction, "Appeals are supposed to review the decision. I believe based on the evidence presented, the decision was in error." NeilN also said, "It's not really fair to Thucydides411 to have this appeal rendered moot simply because the block expired." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your convoluted solipsistic denial of your AE blocks is old news by now. No need to repeat. I hope you don't bother to attempt to explain away your other sanction. Tha Admin's notice speaks for itself. Your aspersions against me without diffs are themselves basis for a block or ban. And if you try to cherrypick a few diffs, just remember that others can easily look up the context and see through any spinmeistering you might decide to attempt. And really, ANI is not smart place to try that sort of thing. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thucydides is at 4RR on the article talk page. The article is under 1RR DS per ARBAP2. [76] [77] [78] [79]. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You've told me (directly above) that it's important not to refactor other users' comments. I was restoring my own comment to the talk page. I objected to removal of my comment on grounds of civility, while personal attacks against me, directly above my comment, were preserved. In any case, I removed my comment, along with the other personal attacks, but have now been reverted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides411 has a valid point, he only reinserted it 3 times.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember what policy this is in but I'm pretty sure restoring comments isn't a 3RR exception. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the talk page is not under 1RR, just the regular 3RR. Which he also broke. Note also that Thucydides411 was topic banned from this very article (it's pretty much the only article he edits, he's an WP:SPA) by User:Lord Roem for exactly this kind of behavior [80]. The topic ban was for BOTH trying to edit war non-consensus text into the article (which he has now resumed - it still has no consensus - and which is what prompted this renewed exchange on talk) AND for misbehavior on the talk page (in that case it was restoring disruptive comments by an IP).

There's also a more serious matter here. Thucidydes411's comments directed at me have nothing to do with the article itself, but they bring up (in a dishonest way) an ArbCom case I was involved in ... EIGHT years ago. Back then I was naive enough to edit under my real first name. The linking by Thucidydes to that case is then not intended to bring up anything specific but to just intimidate and WP:HARASS. This is particularly true in light of the recent ongoing vandalism and harassment on my own talk page by throw away accounts. These accounts are making "we know who you are" kind of edits and Thucydides, observes my talk page, and is surely aware of that vandalism. He's playing up to them (I'm assuming it's not actually him) by posting the link to the eight year old arbcom case and because he knows that bringing it up will irritate me in the same way that the vandalism is meant to irritate. He's basically trying to pile on.

The Russian interference article is more or less the only thing Thucydides411 edits on Wikipedia. He's a single purpose account. And he has a long history of disruption on that article (though because he gets reverted by others, mostly the disruption involves unproductive edit warring and posting rants and accusations on the talk page). It's way way way way past time he was banned from this talk page. That part is pretty much a given. The fact that he's now decided to use the talk page to engage in harassment and attacks - and since this is all he does on Wikipedia - clearly establishes that he's WP:NOTHERE and really - not gonna mince words here - should be told to leave the project (until he can figure out how to be a constructive editor). He's contributed almost nothing and has just caused constant headache and strife. And that's putting it nicely. Volunteer Marek  19:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to my comments on the talk page, you brought up my old sanction - and then accuse me of harassment when I raise your related sanction as well. What was the purpose of your raising my sanction, if not to intimidate and harass me?

You can look through my edit history and see that I'm not a single-purpose account. That line of attack falls apart pretty quickly when you look at the article's I've written and improved, having nothing to do with American politics (e.g., Felix Bloch just yesterday).

The lack of self-awareness above is astounding. I don't think I really have to go into specifics. Everyone who frequents this page knows what I'm talking about. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"you brought up my old sanction " - yes, the sanction for that very article and for that exact behavior. You brought up random shit from eight years ago that had nothing to do with anything, except possibly the throw away account harassment on my talk page. And people can look at your edit history and see for themselves how much time you've devoted to this article compared to others. Volunteer Marek  20:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thucydides411 would be well-advised to note the first law of holes and voluntarily step away from the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article and talk page for at least 48 hours. They should probably step away from this ANI thread as well; I oppose any other sanctions if Thucydides411 does something along those lines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Shall we take the above as a no then?Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It's sort of unreasonable to ask someone to not respond to attacks made against them. Saying one will only oppose a block if the defendant doesn't defend themselves just puts the defendant in a Catch-22. In any case, as I've said, I don't have time for this nonsense. You guys can proceed as you wish. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason that I suggested you avoid ANI is that your responses haven't helped you at all. Everyone on this board can look at the diffs and editor histories for themselves. My offer technically still stands (if you have questions, comment on my talk page and not here). Separately, I think this thred should be closed in favor of the WP:A/R/E discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I have been following that talk page for some time and I am struggling to recall a single PA initiated by Thucydides. His uncivil comments are always or if not, in almost every case, in response to uncivil comments. The problem of uncivil comments is solved by preventing them not ignoring them. It is unfortunate so many editors chose to apply a double-standard removing only his comments, which may be evidence of another fundamental problem. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid it as much as possible. The Marek/EEML stuff clearly doesn't belong (and edit-warring is always unacceptable, especially on talk pages); I have no strong opinion yet on anything else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a reasonable decision. My understanding of WP:NPA and WP:TALKNO is that no personal attacks belong. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My reason for this was the reinsertion of blatant PA's, it does not matter if others were made, they were hated. It was the attitude of "but my PA's must remain to balance the other PA's" I found problematic. MArak at least has the savvy to not remove off topic material form a hat.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think Thucydides411's actions are appropriate here, but I will agree with the statement that differential treatment of multiple PAs from different editors is not helpful. Either they all should have been hatted or all should have been removed. I do think Thucydides411 has a point their comment (a clear PA) is being treated differently than the comment it is in response to (VM's, also a PA by the same measure of discussing the contributor, not the content). However, that gives no reason to edit war on re-inclusion or to remove all others, particularly when they are involved. This is probably a case due to the DSes where admins watching that page should be doing a better job to stall any descent towards PAs ASAP by hatting threads going that direction, rather than let it get towards the point where PAs happen and then we get situations like this. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I may have missed something, whose PA was not hated?Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban

Given the attitude shown above to a very lenient offer I think it is clear this will just continue, even after a wikibreak (enforced or otherwise).Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose any action - there's nothing actionable here, despite what the usual AP2 suspects have to say. Cjhard (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn't helping. GoldenRing (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You seem to share Thuc's suspicion of the majority of your fellow editors here. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Not the majority, SPECIFICO. Cjhard (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I don't know if this is the right place or WP:AE, but a topic ban on this article is long over due. Thucydides411 impact on the actual article content has been minimal - precisely because consensus is consistently against him. Yet he's managed to waste a tremendous amount of editor time with his obstinacy, talk page disruption, derailing threads, dragging down the level of discussion with rants and accusations etc. But like I said, given that now he's making comments solely with the intent of provoking and irritating people, an indef block wouldn't be inappropriate either. Volunteer Marek  08:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Opppose Not really, none of the diffs above really struck me as personal attacks. I see the word "you" being used which is fine in a discussion. More importantly I don't see any actual incivility, but comments that are about article content and the position of editors, not ad hominem - and these sorts of comments I would say are not sanctionable. I see two comments that might be over the line, and others that are just padding the complaint. A warning would be fine for those. I would say considerably more is required for a topic ban then the diffs presented in this report. I've seen worse.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is an WP:SPA who creates disruption in the narrowly defined area of their interest. Their recent comments on the article talk page are very clearly a disruption aimed at another contributor, nothing else. Article talk pages exist only for debating improvement of content. The user was previously sanctioned twice in relation to WP:AE. Therefore, I think this needs to be decided on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This can be a very tough topic to edit, and I don't think singling out action against one user would be a good solution. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing talk page disruption outside of the hostile behavior by many editors there that Thucydides411 is only a part of the problem. Yes, Thucydides411 is approaching WP:TE, and as I learned at GamerGate, that's when one should back off and maybe take a wikibreak, but being active on talk pages to discuss how to present content in an encyclopedic fashion is exactly what talk pages are for. As long as they are not disrupting the main article(s), there's no reason to block here. I will though offer that Thucydides411 should voluntarily step back for a week or so. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think that removing clearly inappropriate comments from article talk pages is OK. However, repeatedly restoring clearly inappropriate comments on article talk pages is not. That is what he did. If anyone else did the same, they must at least be warned. However, this contributor was already sanctioned twice. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically only once: the one in Feb 2017 for edit warring on the mainspace page. The second "sanction" was reduced to a warning on review. Here we are talking about the talk page (which is not under the same restrictions within the AP DS, though is under the same DS overall), and a frustration of seeing very selective enforcement of NPA. This is a trouting situation, but one that all editors should be aware that will not be tolerated in the future. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It was reduced to warning only because he promised not to do exactly what he's doing (again) now. At this point a sanction would be preventative, not punitive, since there's no indication he intends to change his behavior. Volunteer Marek  16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from American Politics or WP site ban. Thuc has been sanctioned twice in this topic already. He routinely mischaracterizes content disagreements by editors trying to reflect mainstream sources as POV-pushing. He accuses editors of following their personal opinions and engages with disparagement and denigration rather than discussion of content, sources, and policy. This behavior is not only at the Russian Interference article; it's on other related articles as well. For those who are not familiar with his conduct, here are some threads that demonstrate his personalized battleground style:

[81]

ANI

[82]

And meanwhile he’s been going after Marek on a long list of pages for a long time and has been politely asked over and over to stop.:[83]

What's particularly weird, to me, is why Thuc would think that these years-old irrelevant ad hominems against Marek would hold any sway over current editors Thuc is presumably trying to win to his POV? It seems to me he is so invested in personalizing routine editing communications that he doesn't even realize that the overwhelming majority of editors thinks these ad hominems are useless and beyond the pale. The AE thread concerning Thucydides411 should also go forward. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I seem to recall multiple prior sanctions in this area (including previous topic bans), and at least two failed instances of someone admin shopping to try to get me sanctioned over some of the most laughable complaints in this subject area. This is an editor that has no business in politics, because the systemic problem this editor is "only" a part of is, in large part caused by this editor. Even if that weren't true, surely removing part of a problem is better than ignoring the problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose because the matter is being addressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thucydides411. Putting aside double jeopardy, it seems awfully inefficient and time-consuming to go through the same exact debate at two different drama boards. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose because all editors should be instructed that comments about user conduct do not belong at article talk pages. More than this editor have been spouting off at the article talk page, regarding user conduct issues. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related articles, primarily per Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes who summarize the tendentious conduct quite well. Of course this is an exercise in futility because the usual wikilawyers and drive-by commenters have shown up to excuse this behavior. This is why I raised this issue at AE before I realized that the issue was opened here.

Thucydides411 has persistently engaged in assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, edit warring, refusal to abide by consensus and general tendentious editing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections for nearly a year as part of his campaign to inject his fringe POV[84], that election interference by Russia didn't happen, into the article. He has been warned several times at several venues to stop but he continues to exhibit a pattern of behavior that is disruptive and a drain on everyone's patience. These last personal attacks on Volunteer Marek are way over the line.

Recent evidence

November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring) November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring) November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring) November 12, 2017 Blatant personal attack and personalizing disputes. November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith: "This just looks like an attempt to hide the mainstream view of the JAR from readers. Given the discussion above about "purging" the article, the intent of this RfC is quite clear." November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith October 11, 2017 Personalizing content disputes July 4, 2017 Refusal to accept consensus

Setting aside the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks, and documented history of previous sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS, the more insidious issue is Thucydides411's polite but persistent horse beating in a transparent effort to discredit, disparage, undermine, and deny the well-established fact that Russia interfered with U.S. elections on many fronts. He has wasted far too much time pushing a fringe point of view and wasted a lot of other editors' time in doing so. It is nearly impossible to show this through diffs, so I refer you to his 48 comments here: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive_12 as representative of these less obvious problems.- MrX 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

On closing this in favour of AE action

Originally a response to the !vote of Anythingyouwant above. GoldenRing (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the matter is not being address the, it was raised there but pretty much is not being dealt with for the reasons you state.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the AE case is open, hasn’t been postponed, and no admin has pointed to this ANI thread that you started, or suggested that this ANI proceeding come first. You say at AE “We should close this (or that) and only have one running”. It is entirely within your power to close this ANI complaint, but you have not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No, because I am not sure which is more appropriate for this discussion. But I am not sure it is serious enough to warrant an AE as I am not sure he has been previously alerted to the fact they are under discretionary sanctions. If I am wrong and he has been warned then maybe AE is a better venue, has he? You will note I have not commented on the AE, as I do not fell at this time it is valid, but as I said please point out of I am incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You said at AE that “We should close this (or that) and only have one running” but you decline to do so. You started this complaint, and User:MrX started the complaint at AE. Please close this thread, and if the AE case is closed then this one can always be re-started. It is too confusing right now to have simultaneous proceedings. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me for laboring a point, but why should this be closed? Also if an ANI was closed I was not aware it could be re-opened, thus double jeopardy comes into play. This has had input, the AE has not (and was only launched after this had been going for some time). So (again) I ask, has correct procedure been followed to launch the AE?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I find he has been informed about discretionary sanctions (but there may be an error in that he was informed, not that he informed anyone), so am requesting that this is close doe to the AE being open. But only to keep this in one place.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The person who opened this thread has requested that it be closed. I second thatcrequest. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note this is a request for a procedural close only, not a withdraw of the complaint on the grounds I was wrong. It is solely based on the belief that there was forum shopping going on here, and that we should only have one complaint open, not that Thucydides411 has decided to mend their way, and will no longer be disruptive (I believe they will be).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me add I am disturbed that an involved edd choose to close this. I have no issue with an involved edd closing it, but not someone who basically told me to ask for a close.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You can close it yourself. When an OP says a matter is resolved, anyone can obey the OP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It was not (and has not been) resolved, just moved to another forum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is resolved for now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So far there is no any sign that any uninvolved admin on WP:AE will address the request (it may be completely ignored and archived - there were such cases). Therefore, closing this discussion here is premature. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So editors now have to give their viewpoints in two separate forums on the exact same matter, or else risk that the matter will be decided without their participation? That makes no sense, User:My very best wishes. I have never heard of a complaint being reopened against the wishes of the OP. This is becoming a circus, unfortunately. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is something to be resolved by uninvolved admins, rather than by contributors involved in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No it has not been resolved, and if you are using my request for a close to claim that then I have no choice but to withdraw the request on the grounds it has not yet been revolved, and the question of his actions remains open.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A request for a close means the matter is resolved for now, and will be addressed somewhere else before it is addressed here. That doesn’t seem complicated to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You guys just need some patience. Wait for a couple of days, and this question will be resolved by others, one way or another. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes, I have not edited the article in question since October 1, and I really have no idea what the dispute is about. If I want to analyze the dispute and give my opinion, where would you suggest that I or other editors dive in, here or AE? Or do you recommend that uninvolved editors just stay away from the matter and let it be decided by the involved editors? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that the discussion has progressed somewhat here and nothing has really happened at AE, I would suggest continuing here. Any admin who acted at AE in the face of a discussion here would be fairly open to accusations of acting against consensus; although admins are allowed to act unilaterally on AE complaints, if they decide differently than a consensus here then the chances of the action being overturned are fairly high. GoldenRing (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This was in essence my original point in rejecting the request to close this. I withdraw the request to close as are at least doing something here (unlike at AE, which seems dead).Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the complaint at AE as on hold in favour of the discussion here. I imagine this will be resolved one way or another here, but didn't want the complaint to get lost there just in case. I think I've managed to prevent it from being archived, but if someone with more familiarity with the workings of sigmabot could check for me, I'd be grateful. GoldenRing (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A temporary ban

As the Topic ban does not have clear consensus how about we go with an enforced version of an request made to Thucydides411 above and go for a 48 hour topic ban. I think a message does need to be sent that his actions are not acceptable (unless anyone here thinks they are?).Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• No one who makes edit summaries like this one when their only "evidence" of political editing (a blatant violation of AGF, of course) is throwing around EEML-related accusations should be editing a politically charged topic. For crying out loud, that was almost a decade ago, and Marek's offense was mild enough for his editing restriction to be rescinded within half a year. Now, in the mire of this thread, I don't know where to place this, but I support a topic ban--a broad one. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Abusive edits by User:Darkness Shines

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

---

The thread became too long as I posted a number of lengthy posts for explanation. Then the admin Giant notified me about "Too long, didn't read" issue. As a result, I collapsed all of my earlier lengthy posts as suggested by the admin SarekOfVulcan. Please read my complaint at the end of the comments of other users. I wrote about final issue very clear now, so the earlier discussions can now be ignored. Idel800 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:TLDR

It's the article - Genocidal rape. I added a new section "Occupation of Germany" describing the mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army soldiers and also by American, British and French soldiers during the later stages of World War II. I also added a section "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" (during World War II). And I added another section "Nanking massacre" describing the mass rapes, sexual mutilations and murders of Chinese women in Nanking, then the capital of China during Second Sino-Japanese War by Imperial Japanese Army. (Rape of Nanking was already described in the article though, but very briefly, so, I created independent section for it and added further details) The user User:Darkness Shines reverted all of my 3 different edits leaving an edit note that my I copied contents from the Wikipedia article Comfort women and I need to complete attribution. But even if he thinks one my edits requires attribution, be can't revert all my edits back. After that I made some minor edits in "1971 mass rape of Bangladeshi women during liberation war of Bangladesh" which was already there in the article. Later, I posted my 3 reverted sections one by one again. And while posting "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army", I gave reference to Comfort women article in the edit summery to complete arbitration. But again, the user User:Darkness Shines reverted all my 3 posts leaving an edit note that mass rape of German women during the occupation of Germany was not a genocidal rape. Both in edit note, in article's talk page, my personal talk page, he leaves message that mass rape is not genocidal rape. But, an estimated 2 million women were raped. Many were raped to death. 240,000 women and girls died as a consequences of rape. The troops forcibly impregnated German women and fathered 400,000 war child. No wonder it was a genocidal rape. Furthermore, the genocidal rape article deals with number of other mass rape cases such as rapes in Democratic Republic of Congo, rapes during 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh, War in Darfur, rape during Battle of Nanking, rape during Rwandan genocide, rape during Bosnian war, rape during Partition of India, and all of which are described as genocidal rape. And there is no reason the largest mass rape case in human history (which is rape during occupation of Germany) is not a genocidal rape. Despite my explanation in the article's talk page, the user User:Darkness Shines only reply with the statement that mass rape is not genocidal rape, but doesn't clarify anything about how is all other wartime mass rapes mentioned in this article genocidal rape but the mass rape in Germany during World War II isn't. He states that none of the references I provided for the mass rapes in Germany during Word War II describes these rapes as genocidal rape. I replied him that none of the references provided for other mass rape cases mentioned in genocidal rape article describes those rapes with the term genocidal rape either, and that doesn't matter at all. The sources mainly documented the instances those took place. In his reply, he then claimed that the references used for all the mass rape cases listed in the genocidal rape article describes those cases with the term genocidal rape, which is a false claim. Anyway, then, I again posted my 3 sections one after one, and for the "Occupied Germany" section, I left an edit note that, "I disagree that mass rape in occupied Germany was not genocidal. Women were raped to death. 240,000 died as a consequences of rape. An estimated 2 million women were raped. The troops forcibly impregnated German women and fathered 400,000 war child." But after that the user User:Darkness Shines again reverted all of my 3 sections back and again this time he left an edit note that "At least one copyvio, http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm". He indicated a partial copyright violation that I may have made in the "Nanking massacre" section. Actually, I did not copy pasted the original texts from the article. I wrote most of it myself. But the instances I described are same as the instances mentioned there. The phrases, expression are different. However, my post was long and I included many of the instances described in the article. So it's possible that I have made a partial copyright violation, but not a complete intentional violation. But again, if the dispute is about the "Nanking massacre" section only, the user User:Darkness Shines can not revert all my other separate edits. He not only reverted my "Nanking massacre" once again, he also has reverted my "Occupied Germany" and "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" sections once again. Even he reverted the minor edits I made in "rape during 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh" part earlier. After that, I posted only 2 sections - "Occupied Germany" and "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" and re-enabled my earlier minor edits made in "rape during 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh" part, but did not post the "Nanking massacre" section due to the copyright dispute by the user User:Darkness Shines. I told him that I am keeping the section "Nanking massacre" removed for now, will review this section for copyright issues and will post revised version later. Also, I requested him not to revert my other edits backs as I have temporarily removed my section "Nanking massacre" which was under his copyright dispute. Here is my edit note that I posted for that edit, "Removed 'Nanking massacre' section to find out copyright issues. But you can't revert my other edits - World War II 'Military brothels of Japanese army' and 'Rape during occupation of Germany' and my earlier minor edits on 1971 rapes in Bangladesh". But, unexpectedly, he again reverted my 2 sections "Occupied Germany" and "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" along with my earlier edits made in "rape during 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh" part leaving this edit note, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb. Please check his edit version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809990887 But this was completely a false allegation of copyright violation as the article he specified was not used as reference anywhere in any of the edits I made and I have not copied any single content from the article he specified. In the "Military brothels of Imperial Japanese Army" section, I copied contents from the Wikipedia article Comfort women which I also mentioned in the edit summery for attribution. Thus, the revert the user User:Darkness Shines was unfair and of course his false claim of copyright violation and providing a false and misleading article link in edit summery was absolutely unfair. So, I reverted his misleading edit back again leaving this edit note, "Undid revision 809990887 by User:Darkness Shines: False allegation of copyright violation. No content was copied from the article he specified. As mentioned in earlier, "copied content from Comfort Women; see that page's history for attribution"" See my edit version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809994405 But he again reverted my edit back without specifying any reason in edit note. Here is his edit version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809995777 By doing so, he has made 4 reverts in same page within 24 hours period which is a violation of 3 revert rule. Furthermore, he made a false allegation of copyright violation, posted link to misleading article in edit note (which was never used as information source in the article) and reverted a number of different posts at the same time without any reason. Idel800 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Two revisions are now revdel'd due to copyvios, another which I thought was a copyvio was a circular reference which was copied one of our articles, i acted due to suspected copyvios. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC) The complainant sounds like the ref desk Nazi troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC) WP:WALLOFTEXT. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC) This should be closed with no action; the content-dispute isn't a concern for ANI. WP:ANEW is thataway if you want to argue the edit-war thing further, but it probably isn't worth it. While there are clearly 4 reverts by Darkness Shines, one is of a revdel'd copyvio, so there's no 3RR violation that justifies a block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC) There is no copyright violation. Please check the last 2 edits he made: This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809990887 Where he writes an edit note as "Reverted 1 edit by Idel800 (talk): Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb. (TW))". But actually, I never used his specified article as reference in any of my edits. And I never copied any texts from the article he specified. He made a completely fasle allegation and reverted a number of my edits. As a result, I reverted his edit back leaving an edit note as, "Undid revision 809990887 by User:Darkness Shines: False allegation of copyright violation. No content was copied from the article he specified. As mentioned in earlier, "copied content from Comfort Women; see that page's history for attribution"" But despite this he made his 4th revert without mentioning any edit note: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809995777 There is no valid reason behind his last 2 reverts, so it clearly violets 3 revert rule. Furthermore, he made a false claim of copyright violation and posted a misleading and deceptive edit note, which is unfaithful behavior. Idel800 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Ummm. This revert came immediately after two edits that were revision-deleted by Diannaa for "Copyright violations: http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm" (page log. So, it is clear that at least some of the reverts by Darkness Shines are proven reverts of copyright violations. It stands to reason that the other reverts by DS are good-faith reverts of copyright violations and are exempt from the three-revert rule. @Idel800: I'm not sure what administrative action you are suggesting be taken here. The only possible one I see justified would be to block the editor who made these edits ([85] [86]) today that were removed from the public archive (since that action has already been taken). Are you really suggesting that? —C.Fred (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC) For the love of God, if they've violated 3RR, all you need to post is four diffs. What you've written has two downsides: it probably took you hours, and there is a vanishingly small chance anyone else will read it. GoldenRing (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC) My complaint is not just for violating "3 reverts rule". My complaint is for potentially abusive editing. So, I change the title to Abusive edits by User:Darkness Shines. About the edit [87], it may be a copyright violation, but that is not my fault. I did not know it's still a copyright violation. I tried to write the entire article in my own words covering all the instances and not directly copying and pasting. I did so, but it appears as it's still a copyright violation as I have written a long post to cover many instances in the source page: http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm. I can summerize it again, so that's not the issue. About the edit [88], making that edit was essential as I created independent section for "Nanking massacre" and details of "Nanking massacre" would have to posted under the "Nanking massacre" section. Now come to the point. Even if my edit [89] constitutes a copyright violation, that is not an excuse for User:Darkness Shines to revert all of my edits. As you can see, by making this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809977782, the user User:Darkness Shines not only reverted my [90] [91] edits, he also reverted all of my previous edits at the same time which includes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809972618, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809970963 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809800033 And the copyright violation he indicated can not be an excuse for reverting all my earlier individual edits. He has made an abusive bulk revert. Furthermore as you can check the edit history of genocidal rape, once my edits [92] [93] were reverted, I never posted those contents again. My next post was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809989496 where I reposted my previous edits except the one which is disputed for copyright issues ("Nanking massacre"). And I wrote the edit note as, "Removed 'Nanking massacre' section to find out copyright issues. But you can't revert my other edits - World War II 'Military brothels of Japanese army' and 'Rape during occupation of Germany' and my earlier minor edits on 1971 rapes in Bangladesh". But the user User:Darkness Shines again reverted my edit. This edit had nothing to do with the copyright dispute he is talking about. So the copyright things is irrelevant here. As the reason he reverted this edit, he left an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" which is a false allegation. I never used the link he specified as reference in my edits and I did not copy texts from his specified article. No wonder, he has made an abusive revert here. And is also responsible for posting misleading and deceptive edit note and making false allegations towards another editor. As a result, I reverted his edit back again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809994405 and wrote my edit note as, "Undid revision 809990887 by User:Darkness Shines: False allegation of copyright violation. No content was copied from the article he specified. As mentioned in earlier, "copied content from Comfort Women; see that page's history for attribution"" But the user User:Darkness Shines once again reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocidal_rape&oldid=809995777 without mentioning any reason for making this revert in the edit note. So, I report User:Darkness Shines for abusive editing. Idel800 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC) "it may be a copyright violation, but that is not my fault. I did not know it's still a copyright violation." WP:COPYVIO is the fault of the editor that inserted the violating content. "I didn't know it was copyrighted" might mean you get a {{trout}} instead of a block, but it's still your fault, and the fact that you have repeatedly, based on this continuing WP:WALLOFTEXT, inserted copyvio information reflects poorly on you. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC) The copyright thing is irrelevant here. I didn't mean I thought it was not copyrighted. I just meant I thought it would not be a copyright violation as I rewrote the article in my own grammar style rather than direct copy pasting. But later the post was challenged for copyright issues and was removed. But that incident is totally irrelevant to my complaint here. The user Darkness Shines not only reverted my edit that was under copyright dispute, he reverted all my other 3 individual edits back. I reposted those contents again after he reverted, but I never reposted the contents those were under copyright dispute. But the user Darkness Shines continue to revert my edits, which are in no way relevant to the copyright dispute. As you can see, by making this edit [94], the user Darkness Shines not only reverted my [95] and [96] edits, he also reverted all of my previous edits at the same time which includes [97], [98] and [99] And the copyright violation he indicated can not be an excuse for reverting all my earlier individual edits. He has made an abusive bulk revert. Furthermore as you can check the edit history of genocidal rape, once my edits [100] and [101] were reverted, I never posted those contents again. My next post was [102] where I reposted my previous edits (those were reverted by Darkness Shines) except the one which is disputed for copyright issues ("Nanking massacre"). And I wrote the edit note as, "Removed 'Nanking massacre' section to find out copyright issues. But you can't revert my other edits - World War II 'Military brothels of Japanese army' and 'Rape during occupation of Germany' and my earlier minor edits on 1971 rapes in Bangladesh". But the user Darkness Shines again reverted my edit. This edit had nothing to do with the copyright dispute he is talking about. So the copyright things is irrelevant here. Here's his revert- [103] and as the reason he made this revert, he left an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" which is a false allegation. I never used the link he specified as reference in my edits and I did not copy texts from his specified article. No wonder, he has made an abusive revert here. And he is also responsible for posting misleading and deceptive edit note and making false allegations towards another editor, which is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. As a result, I reverted his edit back again. Here's my edit [104] where I wrote my edit note as, "Undid revision 809990887 by User:Darkness Shines: False allegation of copyright violation. No content was copied from the article he specified. As mentioned in earlier, "copied content from Comfort Women; see that page's history for attribution"". But the user Darkness Shines once again reverted my edit. Here's the revert he made [105] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Furthermore, his misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. So, I report Darkness Shines for abusive editing. Idel800 (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "The copyright thing is irrelevant here" Nope! When you drag someone to ANI, your conduct in the case is scrutinized just as closely. And the more you insist you shouldn't be scrutinized the fishier your case smells. Anyway, you're still WP:WALLOFTEXTing, but what I can pry out of it is that you're basically accusing him of making up copyright claims when he is providing the source that the copyvio is claimed to be from. In that scenario I find it very hard to believe the claim that it isn't copyvio, especially since there are demonstrated cases of your violating copyright, and your statements make it clear you don't fully understand Wikipedia's copyright policy. Just so it's clear you understand: copyvio does not have to be cut and pasting; WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE is a thing. Unless I'm missing something (quite possible) your best bet here is probably going to be to drop the stick. (Also, please indent your replies.) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC) My complaint is for the last 2 reverts made by Darkness Shines, where no copyright dispute is involved, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is reverting the edits for a copyright violation, when he is reverting my valid edits abusively. One of my edits was previously challenged and removed for copyright violation [106], [107] though, but I never posted those disputed contents again in the article afterwords, and that incident is completely out of this discussion now. And as you can see, in his last 2 edits, the user Darkness Shines reverted my other valid edits those have no relevance to the previous copyright dispute. In this revert [108], the user Darkness Shines writes an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" to make it appear as he is reverting the edit for a copyright violation. Now please have a cross check. I don't recognize the article he specified and I never noted down any information from the article he specified. Also no such reference is used in my edit either. He writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is making the revert for a copyright violation while he is reverting my valid edits abusively. I reverted his action back afterwards [109] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [110] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Furthermore, his misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. So, I report Darkness Shines for abusive editing. Idel800 (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Keep in mind that Hitler had already metaphorically raped the entire nation of Germany. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FAO everyone here - WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 13:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My complaint is for the last 2 reverts made by Darkness Shines in Genocidal rape, where no copyright dispute is involved, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is reverting the edits for a copyright violation, when he is reverting my valid edits abusively.

One of my edits was previously challenged and removed for copyright violation [111], [112] though, but I never posted those disputed contents again in the article afterwords, and that incident is completely out of this discussion now.

And as you can see, in his last 2 edits, the user Darkness Shines reverted my other valid edits those have no relevance to the previous copyright dispute. In this revert [113], the user Darkness Shines writes an edit note as, "Another copyvio https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/willful-ignorance-and-the-legacy-of-the-comfort-women_us_5922de2be4b0b28a33f62deb" to make it appear as he is reverting the edit for a copyright violation. Now please have a cross check. I don't recognize the article he specified and I never noted down any information from the article he specified. Also no such reference is used in my edit either. He writes misleading and deceptive edit note to make it appear as he is making the revert for a copyright violation while he is reverting my valid edits abusively. I reverted his action back afterwards [114] and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again [115] without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Furthermore, his misleading and deceptive edit note (while reverting valid edits) and making false allegations towards another editor is unfaithful behavior and is a violation of community trust. So, I report Darkness Shines for abusive editing. Idel800 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion Darkness Shines was making good-faith attempts to remove copyright violations from the encyclopedia. About half an hour after performing the reverts, he asked me to have a look at the suspected violations. Things like that are tricky to investigate, and that's why he asked me to double check his work, as I've done literally tens of thousands of these copyvio searches. It seems unlikely to me that if he was knowingly violating any of our policies or guidelines he would draw attention to his actions by calling in an administrator to examine what he was doing. I discovered that the content he found at the Huffington Post had been present in our article Comfort women since at least 2011, and thus was okay to copy as long as the proper attribution was given, which it was. The other instance he asked me to look at was a copyright violation, material that you copied from http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm. Not all the content he removed in that edit was copied from that source, but lots of it was, so I did revision deletion. He removed some of the content for editorial reasons other than copyvio, which is something that you will need to discuss with him on the talk page if you propose to re-add the content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Adding: I just realised that I used the pronoun "he" when speaking of Darkness Shines without noticing they have not specified a male gender. My apologies if this was presumptuous or incorrect. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC) 🍁🍁

I have blocked User:Idel800 48 hours per the complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. There is no urgency in this particular article that prevents Idel800 from waiting for a proper discussion before restoring their material again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

There is no reason for this bot to revert all my edit. This bot is malfunctioning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantismenos (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dantismenos. Although your edits are not vandalism, you are adding massive amounts of unreferenced content, which is obviously based on personal experience. We call that original research, which violates policy. This is not acceptable in a Wikipedia biography, and raises the possibility that you are writing about yourself. These issues are not a matter for this noticeboard. If you have further questions, I recommend the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Davey2010: While some of the additions by User:Dantismenos were problematic – unsourced or insufficiently sourced, potential autobiographical editing, etc. – it looks like the edits were made in a good-faith effort to improve our article on Christos Dantis. Cluebot reverted Dantismenos' edits with the edit summary m (Reverting possible vandalism by Dantismenos to older version. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (3186616) (Bot)). Whatever Dantismenos' edits were, they certainly weren't vandalism. Dantismenos – or someone – should report the error (using the link in the edit summary), as Cluebot did indeed misclassify Dantismenos' edits as vandalism and disappear them with a minor edit.

That's not saying that Dantismenos' edits should be immediately restored, but Cluebot clearly erred in this instance. It would be wrong for us to just slap Dantismenos down without addressing Cluebot's mistake. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, please note that I began by saying that the edits were not vandalism, and directed the editor to the Teahouse for further discussion. I fail to see how that amounts to slapping the editor down. You are welcome to discuss your concerns with ClueBot's operator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades - My apologies I didn't actually look at the issue - I simply assumed Cluebot reverted the editor and that editor thought it was a false positive or was trolling (as has been done before here) and that was it, Anyway I've undone the close, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for any inconvenience caused. I am really baffled with all these since I havent posted for a long time (since 2013) and there are a lot of robots autodeleting while I still write my modifications for my favourite Greek singer. As to the photo removed Christos Dantis.jpg which I re-uploaded after it was taken down two months ago being dantis2011.jpg I have to wait 77 days on the ORTS queue to be verified yet I claim that this is my own photo which I still have the camera body and all original photos before and after the one taken. Further more as to the unsourced unreferenced text that was massive, I was invited to write even more edits by wikipedia alert messaging. All sources need time for referencing as well to append the index AFTER writing the final document. Nevertheless my first three sources are two TV interviews where Christos Dantis is saying about his years on RIA – CBS 1. Christos Dantis 1999 interview at OK with Themis Georgadas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9lEuO-SeEU1 Source of information Christos Dantis is saying about his years before RIA – CBS 2. Christos Dantis 1994 interview at Tsai me Kanellh with Liana Kanellh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WSmpEhEafw and his interview on people magazine which states about his family and early years as a child. So even now that I have provided the necessary information, and (although flattering) why am I treated like I am a relative or the singer himself since I am clearly not even living in the same area and havent seen him since that photography session? The situation seems getting worse instead of better. But nevertheless thanks for all the goodwilling humans around. More sources to be given if needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantismenos (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Multiple problems with Steven Heine

Hi there. I am requesting assistance regarding what to do with the article Steven Heine. After noticing that the article reads like a resume, I looked into the editing history and found that the user:Xxdogenxx had added most of the content. All of that user edits over an 11 year period are confined to the article on Steven Heine. This suggests to me that someone with a close connection to the article's subject, or potentially the person himself, has been adding its content with that username. Furthermore, 100% of the citations are potentially self-published (WP:SELFPUB) because they come from the university's department website affiliated with the article's subject matter, which can be changed at will by the department and/or the article's subject. The person is a notable academic in the field of Buddhist studies, so I don't think it should be deleted, but all of the references seem problematic as do the circumstances of the article's creation, and I'm not sure how to proceed. I posted a conflict on interest warning on the user's talk page and at the top of the article, but have not yet altered any content. Thanks for you help. DJLayton4 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have removed a lot of puffery and unsourced material, but the rest of it is still sourced to primary sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it just. This looks like a case of vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• WP:TNT. There's something very distressing about promotionalism by a scholar of Zen. EEng 09:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess someone was messing with his Zen thing, maybe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • One might even call it...zensationalist... I'll see myself out. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance everyone. I'm pretty sure he's not actually a practitioner of Zen, just a wannabe :-) DJLayton4 (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Robsalerno

This is about Robsalerno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user is persistently adding information that is not found in his provided source and virtually does not have anything to back it up. This starts here [116] when he adds that Georgia has now constitutionally banned same-sex marriage. While it is true Georgia has voted for a new constitution that includes a ban on same-sex marriage, as per source [117], it clearly states that many of those amendments will not be fully enforce until 2030 and it is unknown where the same-sex marriage ban stands as no information has been provided. Plus the new constitution has to this day not even been published and cannot be used as a source for this either. Regardless of the fact that the status of the ban has not been clarified in the provided source, the user continued to push this information on the article despite a number of warnings. He is first reverted with a simple explanation that Georgia's constitution has not yet taken affect [118], he reverts back [119] saying that this provision will take place in 2018 (despite that being nowhere in the source) and that it is already the law, however once again nowhere in the source does it say that the Constitution is already enforce and is now 'the law'. He is reverted again [120], with this explanation "Nowhere in the provided source does it say that it will take effect in 2018. Where are you getting this information from?", he reverts back [121], saying "The context is clear: The electoral/parliamentary provisions are being phased in, everything else comes into effect in 2018." which was once again not in the provided source. He is once again reverted, [122] this time with a warning saying that he will be reported if he pushes to add information that isn't in his provided source, he reverts back [123] saying that there are many articles on this however he still fails to provide any source that specifies and backs his information. He is reported once more, [124] telling him that that is original research and that the information was not in that specific source that he provided, he revert back [125] now saying that a source should be found to disprove his added information which is absolutely ridiculous as his information in the first place was not backed up by the source. He is reverted with a final warning, [126] telling him that if he adds the unsourced information one more time then he will be reported, however that does not stop him to revert again, [127] once again repeating the ridiculous statement that a source should be provided to disprove his unsourced information while also saying that the constitution and the clause exist omitting the fact that neither were published as of now or taken effect. Thank you for your time. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:CC61:56B8:62B5:CE8E (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Note - I originally reported this user here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but it was recommended I do so here instead.--2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:CC61:56B8:62B5:CE8E (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The source says nothing about same sex marriage at all. It is mostly focused on the topic of the change in the electoral system. So both of you are edit warring over nothing. I've left an edit warring warning on their talk page and you should also consider yourself warned. There is no discussion on the talk page at all about it, which should have been the first step. Blackmane (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that there was nothing about same-sex marriage in the source is the exact reason the user was reverted. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:CC61:56B8:62B5:CE8E (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring is not allowed even for a good purpose. Leave the article alone for a bit, somebody else will sort the problem out. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm basing my statement on this line from your OP, While it is true Georgia has voted for a new constitution that includes a ban on same-sex marriage, as per source. The way you had written implied that this was your stance, hence my comment. Blackmane (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Correcting page histories and redirect pages

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

---

Could someone please restore the history of the page Atrocities in the Congo Free State? Someone changed the name to Congo Horrors back in June without obtaining consensus and since I lacked moving permissions at the time I just manually moved the text back. Unfortunately the history of the page was left at Congo Horrors. Could someone please fix this? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You should never do a move by copy and paste (as you apparently now know). As there have been further edits since it was done, a history merge is needed now - I'll see if I can sort it out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

History merge done, and the whole history is at Atrocities in the Congo Free State. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

New round of Nsmutte socks

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

---

Could an administrator, and preferably a CU, please swing by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte and block the latest group of socks, and also run a checkuser, as I believe it again would be helpful here. No notifications being sent. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering that a SPI case requesting CU is open, there's no point of this thread as a CU would come by at the SPI anyway (who check SPI quite more frequently). --QEDK (愛 • 海) 07:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Eithe genoimin

User:Eithe genoimin is an WP:SPA that after failing to push POV in Pathology Partnership, POVforked it to The Pathology Partnership (I've marked for CSD A11) ([128]. Although the account has no edits after a final warning was given by User:DGG about edits in the new article (presumably undiscovered as being a fork at that time) [129], this editor is disruptive, WP:NOTHERE. Widefox; talk 11:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

As for the article, The Pathology Partnership is currently the clean version as I left it, but Pathology Partnership] has the edit history; Rathfelder has cleaned it considerably, and I am now cleaning it the rest of the way, to approximately what I had before. . I leave it to someone else to do the deletion pf The Pathology Partnership, block,and, probably,semi-protect. Thanks, Widefox, for spotting this. You are of course right I had not noticed the fork. DGG ( talk ) 12:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Always a pleasure DGG. Do we have a bot running WP:dupdet on (new) articles? Widefox; talk 12:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

CopyPatrol does plagiarism checking on new articles, it occasionally picks up splits and copy and paste moves. MER-C 12:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Threat to ... Wikipedia's servers?

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

---

80.192.7.85 left a weird threat in an edit message:

If you mess with my talk page, I will personally destroy your back up Apache servers and post Practisher Isealismus as the only page on wikipedia.org.

WP:911 says treat all threats as real threats, but it also says only email the emergency address if it's a real emergency. So I'll just dump this here and let somebody else deal with it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP's been given a week off in light of the contents of this edit. Given that the threat included the use of nuclear weapons—and the IP is located roughly 6000 miles from Wikipedia's servers—I don't consider it credible. ‑ Iridescent 13:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha. Ha. Ha.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could be Trump. EEng 16:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Definitely not credible then... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC) And not Albert Shanker either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC) Well, there's a blast from the past. EEng 18:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC) What, your words aren't backed with nuclear weapons? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC) The closest thing to nukes around here is F-bombs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I notified emergency the WMF is aware. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

questionable account

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

---

Hello, A user DCKLieutenant (talk · contribs) is adding inline links. I looked at some of them and they appear to be SEO related, specifically a Blog network.

For example, this edit[130] links to a URL that appears to be a Private Blog Network. You know

Note that https://www.nestwebia.com/mutahimuriithi/ the links on the bottom of the page are unrelated to the domain's content. Also note that the link added to wikipedia has no relation to the article's content. I suggest the user's account be deactivated.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That is most definitely WP:REFSPAM. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming, but I don't have time right now to go through their contribs and revert them. GoldenRing (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I think between User:NorthBySouthBaranof, myself and one or two others we've got rid of the recent spate of adding refspam. Someone might consider requesting nestwebia.com be added to the spam blacklist if they've got a moment. GoldenRing (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for making sure that the links were removed and for cleaning up those articles. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Radiation15 and unsourced content

Radiation15 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly asked add citations to content added or changed. This doesn't seem to be taking.

• November 7: added an unsourced production company to Venom (2018 film)
• November 7: added unsourced production companies to List of Columbia Pictures films
• November 7: added original research to Peter Rabbit (film)
• November 8: added unsourced production compmanies to The Post (film)
• November 8: added an unsourced film to List of DreamWorks Pictures films
• November 8: added unsourced production companies to List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)
• November 8: again added an unsourced film to List of DreamWorks Pictures films
• November 10: When one of the articles was finally put under full protection to force discussion, Radiation15's response was to tell me to "chill out" about requiring sources and said of the IMDb "there's your fuckin' source". The IMDb is, of course, not a reliable source.
• November 13: changed a sourced release date in The Greatest Showman
• November 13: again added unsourced production companies to Venom (2018 film)

I recommend a block for edit warring to add unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - I've blocked the user for 36 hours for persistently adding unreferenced content to articles. There's clearly a pattern of doing so, and talking to the user and leaving warnings have not stopped the behavior. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal

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

---

Could I bring to your attention the current activities of the above Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal, who is now contributing under 86.174.164.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and recently under 86.174.165.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); with the same unsourced,unreferenced and in some cases inaccurate changes to various actors articles. Today they have reached 3RR on the Richard Farnsworth article. I have tried communicating on the latest Talk page to no avail. I have also tried to communicate with admin Ponyo, who has previously been involved - but they do not appear to be active today. Could I suggest yet another block for this long-term abuser? With thanks, David J Johnson (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The specific source cited in the article doesn't say what time of day Farnsworth killed himself, but other newspapers reporting it said it was Friday evening, not Friday morning as the IP kept inserting.←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Trolling

I am a victim of trolling by a Wikipedia user User:Deb who made racially motivated remarks about my background, gender and religious believes on my Wikipedia talk page, as well as making various unfounded accusations about me. I have complained about this person's actions to the police. Trolling is not good for Wikipedia. Regards--WikiRecontributer47 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No diffs from you, just a legal threat. You've been here long enough to know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been through every single edit Deb made on your talk page. There is not a single remark about your gender, background, or religious beliefs. The only statement she made is that your editing shows a poor command of the English language. Either provide specific examples, retract the statement and apologize, or I will block you indefinitely for personal attacks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This same issue was opened at WP:HELPDESK#Trolling; please choose a single forum for this discussion, to avoid appearance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And likewise with no diffs, but with the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

And in response being told they needed to retract said threat: "I have not made any threats...and I have reported this to the authorities". Given the continued and doubled-down WP:NLT violation, combined with what is either a blatant case of WP:CIR or trolling on their part (the things they are accusing Deb of saying, using direct quotes, were never said), I've blocked. If they retract the legal threat, nobody need hesitate on my part to unblock them so this can be hopefully resolved, even though I personally don't see this ending in any other way but one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've interacted with WR47 for years and I've got no idea what they're up to at the moment. See this note I left them a few weeks ago where they deleted a load of content that they'd added to an article. Note that this thread was started after WikiRecontributer47 was listed at COIN by Deb. See also my earlier comments at COIN about WR47. Their edits seem dodgy and they're failing to communicate. The Bushranger (talk · contribs) has already blocked them, but regardless of legal threats, it seems to me that a block is merited. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Looks to me like a good block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• No comment on the "regardless of legal threats", since I've not looked into it, but this is not a NLT situation — NLT is meant for "If you don't do X, I'll sue you", "...I'll sue Wikipedia", and the like. It's not meant for "This person broke the law, so I've requested law enforcement, and would you please stop him on-wiki too?" Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• A complaint or threat of criminal complaint to the police is about as legally threatening as it gets. NLT isn't confined to civil actions. Acroterion (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think the frivolous nature of the complaint is what qualifies it under WP:NLT. A proper complaint about a criminal matter is not grounds for an NLT block. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Frivolous or not, "I have complained about this person's actions to the police" warrants a block, particularly absent any actual problem that would warrant such a statement.. This thread is an attempt to harass behind a (flimsy) veil of legal accusations. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to argue about why the block was warranted. I support the action of multiple administrators. However, the behavior of the blocked user was just weird, and raises competency issues. The OP gave this thread the heading of "Trolling", which may have been an accurate self-description. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that what the user made does constitute a legal threat given what I've seen enforced in the past, and how "legal threat" is defined. However, I absolutely acknowledge the lack of wording on the policy page in regards to threats of this exact kind and in this situation here, and I think that this may potentially be problematic when it comes to enforcing this with confidence as an administrator.

If you read through the policy page, the summary paragraph links to the article Legal threat, which says that "[l]egal threats take many forms. Common to all is that the party making the threat will take some form of action of a legal nature. Most common is the threatened initiation of a lawsuit against the second party. Other threats might include an administrative law action or complaint, referring the other party to a regulatory body, turning the party into the legal authorities over a crime or civil infraction, or the like." However, the NLT policy page only references and makes examples to situations where editors threaten litigation (or to sue or file a lawsuit against another in court) and not a threat to involve legal authority such as the police or other law enforcement agency.

In the end, I think that we should acknowledge that the NLT polict page lacks reference to these threats specifically, and (if worse comes to worst) perhaps seek clarity for certain if the NLT policy includes these specific kinds of threats as well. I, however, believe that they do. If anything, such threats are disruptive and only cause damage to discussions by destroying them and making attempts to collaborate and improve the project harder on others. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line is "has the user stated they have, or will, take action or actions that will result in legal consequences for another user/other users/Wikipedia? If (y) = NLT applies". 'I have reported to the police' qualifies, especially when appended 'as trolling is illegal in the UK' (not sure if that statement is true or not, but they explicitly said that). It's a blatant attempt to at least imply 'you're in legal trouble now'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are users seriously suggesting that if someone say, threatens a user with physical violence, that user could be blocked under WP:NLT for stating that they have notified the proper authorities? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that the person making the threat would be blocked so fast they'd ablate on the way down... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not getting into the specifics of this particularly case, you are frankly wrong here. I have reported multiple editors to various legal authorities for a number of reasons in the past - child protection being the main one. The WMF was/is amazingly bad at acting on child protection issues, and since 2 of those I reported for child protection issues were subsequently hit with SanFranBans (and one of those was under active investigation in the UK) I feel pretty confident I was correct. If you make threats of violence I will report you to the police. If you act inappropriately (trying to get personal contact with an underage editor being a big one) I will report you to the relevant authority. 'I have done X' is not a threat, it is a statement of fact. You cant retract something you have already done. If an editor makes RL threats against me, and I report them to the police, and then you block me for stating I have reported them to the police, you will very swiftly learn that the error of your actions - the WMF is not going to be drawn into a situation where it gets labeled as punishing the victim. 'No legal threats' is for editors who are making threats of legal action in order to enforce an on-wiki outcome. It is not carte blanche to block people who have reported actual or potential illegality to the relevant authorities! Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: I understood The Bushranger to mean that the person making the threat of physical violence would be hastily blocked, not the person reporting the threat. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know, I was addressing his previous remarks where he made it perfectly clear what he meant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. I don't think this should have been an NLT block as CIR would have more than sufficed as a block rationale. Also, I find it amusing that the OP filed this under the heading 'Trolling'. It's fitting, but not in the sense the OP intended. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Using your example here: Even if the response to the threat of physical violence and stating that you're going to contact the police wasn't a legal threat, it's certainly a trout-worthy response if anything. Taking the disruption and and other factors out of the equation... what's the point of making that response in the first place? Wikipedia is not the place for this, and the user who made the physical threat at you most likely isn't going to care... if anything, it's only going to feed and encourage the user to continue threatening you; it's getting a reaction out of you and that's usually what they want. Anyways, I'm not going to delve further into this example. I see this getting way off topic, so I'm just going to leave it at that :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

'Don't do that or I will report you to the police' is a legal threat per the policy, 'I have reported your actions to the police' is not. Its not a 'threat' under any definition of the word in common usage or under Wikipedia's definition. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There are deep waters here. Because of roles I fill in RL, there are certain situations that I am legally compelled to report to the police (or, in certain situations, other relevant authorities); it would be a serious offence for me not to. And OID outlines some situations above where just common decency would ought to compel people to report situations to the police (child protection situations and so forth). But WP:NLT doesn't forbid doing so; it only forbids doing so and talking about it on-wiki. If there are users who are involved in a legal dispute with each other whether as a direct result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, it does not constitute a valid reason to block them, as long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia. So if you see something that needs reporting to the police, report it. There is no need to talk about the report here. If the police decide to follow it up, they will probably not thank you for warning the editor. GoldenRing (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no indication whatsoever that this is one of those situations or that Deb has in any way made me doubt whether I should be contacting the police; this was a general comment on the policy question, not on this situation. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Review of my Ban

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

---

I'd like a 36-hour discussion period here in which my longstanding block/ban is reviewed. I seek the following terms:

A) Only neutral and previously-uninvolved persons monitor and adjudicate (i.e. block me, put things in that little box, etc.).

B) The "Not a Punching Bag" rule applies. I adhere to a solid standard of civility, but when falsely accused without even purported evidence or subjected to personal abuse, I am allowed flexibility in civility in responding.

C) I am allowed to respond to each person who opines against me, and they shall be discouraged from turning each mini-exchange into a never-ending debate. In other words "have your say, and I may respond, but then we go on with our lives."

I will be back to sign my username to the post in a few hours, if I am able. This reason I don't do so now is to try to deter my, diplomatically-said, "pursuers" that are prone to wiping out my appeals before anyone else may see them. Lastly on that note, I would really like some neutral person (and I guess it would have to be an administrator) monitoring the appeal to avoid somebody shutting it down prematurely.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.199.55 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If the post above is indicative of how you plan to conduct yourself in the future, I predict your block/ban will remain. EEng 02:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Weird. I don't know who the blocked account is, but they are providing reason to think that competence may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with both my conduct and competence above, and urge others to read for themselves, rather than be swayed by EEng and Robert McClenon. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.199.55 (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, by all means don't listen to us, everyone read it for yourself! EEng 02:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:TPO

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

---

This is about

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

The pages being disrupted are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pioneers in computer science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Timeline:

• 11:56, 10 November 2017: EEng makes WP:UNCIVIL remark directed at CapitalSasha: "This is one of the stupidest AfD nominations in a long time, and that's some stiff competition."
• 15:52, 10 November 2017: CapitalSasha replies noting that EEng's remark could be read as a personal attack: "please let's try to keep the conversation civil, I know your comment isn't intended as a personal attack but it can feel that way."
• 16:48, 10 November 2017: EEng makes a new WP:UNCIVIL (and unjustified, see below) remark directed at CapitalSasha: "Oh, for Christ's sake, you've wasted a large chunk of editor time by making this silly nomination. With your limited experience you should have consulted one or two more experienced editors first..."
• 17:39, 10 November 2017: EEng makes personal attack directed at me (Zazpot): "Your accusation that someone's out to expunge women is paranoid." Note:

• This is a personal attack because "paranoid" is an adjective that, even if used about a statement, constitutes a pejorative reference to the state of mind of a person. WP:NPA#WHATIS is clear: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."
• This is also a personal attack due to the insinuation that I had acted inappropriately (i.e. in a "paranoid" manner) by expressing concern about the deletion of women from the article concerned. Again, WP:NPA#WHATIS is clear: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [are personal attacks]. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." EEng had provided no diffs to justify the assertion that my statements were "paranoid". By contrast, I had provided evidence for my concerns, so they can hardly be called "paranoid". Specifically, at 20:42 on 9 November 2017, I linked to diffs showing:

• that numerous women had been deleted from the list concerned (without consensus and in some cases despite WP:VERIFIABILITY). Here are those diffs again, plus a couple more, showing evidence of repeated removal of women from the list: [131], [132], [133] and [134].
• three other editors voicing gender bias concerns similar to mine: Andy Dingley here, SemanticMantis here and here, and David Eppstein here.

• 18:25, 10 November 2017: I ask EEng to WP:KEEPCOOL in relation to CapitalSasha's decision to file an AfD, and link to evidence of other editors discussing going to AfD before CapitalSasha actually did so.
• 18:27, 10 November 2017: I ask EEng to be WP:CIVIL towards me, and link to WP:NPA. I also remove EEng's personal attack, leaving the rest of EEng's comment untouched. This is consistent with WP:RPA, which clearly states, "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor."
• 19:16, 10 November 2017: EEng restores the personal attack, and makes two follow-up comments. In the first comment, EEng repeats the personal attack twice, swears towards me, and insinuates that I am a "PA-crybaby". In the second, EEng makes another personal attack: "Your inexperience seems to extend to the point of not knowing what constitutes experience." This new personal attack again squarely fits WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."
• 02:32, 11 November 2017: I respond politely to a request EEng had made for additional information. I also replace EEng's personal attacks with Template:RPA, which is self-explanatory: it displays the text "(Personal attack removed)" with a clickable link to WP:NPA. I leave the rest of EEng's comments completely untouched.
• 05:47, 11 November 2017: EEng restores the personal attacks, swears at me anew, and makes a threat: "The next time you [remove my personal attacks] I'll simply undo all your changes back to before you did that." WP:NPA#WHATIS is clear that threats are another form of personal attack.
• 13:01, 11 November 2017: I restore the Template:RPA templates and politely state, "I'll follow WP:RPA - "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor" - and I respectfully ask you to leave those edits as they are."
• 14:02, 11 November 2017: EEng again restores the personal attacks. EEng also carries out the threat, by deleting several unrelated comments of mine, in breach of WP:TPO.
• 14:12, 11 November 2017‎: Not having yet noticed EEng's above edit, I announce a Wikibreak on my user page. Why? Because I come to Wikipedia to build a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. I do not come to be sworn at, threatened and unjustly disparaged. (Nor, for that matter, do I come to post at WP:ANI. This is the first time I have reported anyone to ANI, and I hope it is the last.)
• 20:46, 13 November 2017: I notice EEng's previous edit. Upset by the reappearance of the personal attacks, I again restore the Template:RPA templates. For absolute clarity, my edit summary reads, 'Rv personal attacks by EEng per WP:RPA: "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor".'
• 20:53, 13 November 2017: I restore my unrelated comments: the ones that EEng had previously deleted in breach of WP:TPO. My edit summary reads, "Restore comments deleted by EEng in violation of WP:TPO in oldid 809799219."
• 21:15, 13 November 2017: EEng again restores the personal attacks, and again deletes the unrelated comments of mine, contrary to WP:TPO.
• 22:02, 13 November 2017‎: GRuban warns EEng on EEng's talk page about having removed my unrelated comments.
• 22:39, 13 November 2017: EEng confirms to GRuban that these deletions were not accidental. (EEng seems to justify this by saying it was less work this way. This hardly bears scrutiny: EEng has reverted my last two edits, which is scarcely less effort than reverting just the one edit that redacted the personal attacks.)
• 23:17, 13 November 2017: Tornado chaser restores the unrelated comments that EEng had again deleted in breach of WP:TPO, and warns EEng of the violation in the edit summary.
• 23:40, 13 November 2017: EEng files an edit summary, again confirming that EEng's deletions of my posts were not accidental, and (wrongly and without evidence) accusing me of deleting EEng's posts.

Collating the above was far from enjoyable. I hope it answers all the questions one might have about this unpleasant incident, because as noted above, I am attempting a Wikibreak. The decision to take a Wikibreak was prompted primarily by EEng's behaviour, which I have not enjoyed one bit. (I am sure ANI sees much worse behaviour than EEng's above, but this sort of thing is still bad enough to put me off: I am not on Wikipedia for drama.) Liberated by the Wikibreak, I have taken on some commitments outside Wikipedia that will require much of my time. For both these reasons, I hope not to need to respond further here, sorry. Zazpot (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Filing an extensive ANI thread while at the same time stating "I hope not to need to respond further here, sorry" is fairly ineffectual in my opinion. Either stay and answer queries and defend your points, or don't file at ANI -- that would be my recommendation. (Especially since you did not include any direct quotes with the three initial and precipitating diffs, which are arguably the most important posts/events.) Softlavender (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I second Softlavender here. You filed an ANI report for many reasons and it's highly likely users have questions for which you have to answer and defend your actions and why you brought it here in the first place. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above. If you file a complaint about another editor, you have an obligation to stick around and answer questions about it, and about your own behavior, which will automatically become part of the discussion. If you're not going to be here to do that, this complaint should be archived, without prejudice toward your re-filing it at a later time when you are available to participate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As you can probably see, I am not familiar with ANI. The instructions say nothing about needing to be available after filing a concern. I have modified my last sentence above, and will attempt to answer questions if they arise. But I really do have outside commitments, and this ANI report is "long" because I really have provided or linked to what would seem to be all the pertinent facts upon which a decision would be made, so I hope there will not be (m)any questions needing me to answer them. If necessary, I may ask for a raincheck, as suggested by Beyond My Ken.

As for direct quotes, the instructions at the top of the page say, "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting", and I did so. If direct quotes are also required/desired, it would be helpful for the instructions to say so. Anyhow, I will add them shortly. Zazpot (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

In colloquial English, "paranoid" is an overused slang term that has nothing to do with psychosis. It's not really a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

has nothing to do with psychosis. I don't buy that. I am a native English speaker and well-travelled in Anglophone countries. I have never heard anyone use "paranoid" except as a harsh pejorative calling into question the subject's mental health. It's not really a personal attack. I don't buy that either. It is derogatory and meets WP:NPA#WHATIS as quoted above. Zazpot (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your buying it or not does not make Baseball Bugs's statement any less true, any more than your claiming that "first couple" necessarily means "first two" makes that particular claim true. Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I've read the first five diffs containing EENG's actions, and there's nothing remotely actionable in them. I have a lower tolerance for incivility than most of the community, and EENG doesn't cross a line beyond 'slightly rude'. The paranoia comment wasn't a personal attack, and continually trying to remove part of EENG's comment was always going to end badly. I don't think you'll get any sort of result that you'd like from filing this, but if I could offer some friendly advice: people are direct and often rude on Wikipedia, you'll have to develop a thick skin; when filing a report, it's best to keep it succinct, limited to describing the behavior that is most worrying, a 20 point timeline of everyone's behaviour takes you too much time, and discourages others from taking interest; don't continue to edit part of someone's comment on a talk page once they've reverted your first edit, it'll end up like this, almost every time. Cjhard (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I could offer some friendly advice: people are direct and often rude on Wikipedia, you'll have to develop a thick skin. I appreciate the good intentions behind your advice, but I have to differ: I don't think it's wise or constructive to condone unnecessary rudeness from colleagues. (Cf. Matthew Garrett: "I know that I always respond better to criticism when it's couched in the form of abuse wait no hang on".) Zazpot (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - After reading the first couple EEng diffs, I would concur that the complainant is a personal attacks crybaby. Neither of those are within 1.62 kilometers of an authentic personal attack. Hat this soap opera... Carrite (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

At no point did I say that the first two EEng diffs represented a personal attack. Maybe try again, and be less quick to judge? Zazpot (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Couple" does not necessarily mean "first two". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but "first couple" does. Zazpot (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

And that last comment, dear friends, is all you need to know about this entire matter. EEng 04:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No, "The first couple" does not necessarily mean "the first two". Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't swear, I don't like swearing, but "he swore at me!" isn't something remotely worth bringing to ANI. And with that and with the rest of this, I don't see any personal attacks here. Suggest the OP withdraw the complaint and accept that on Wikipedia, as in the real world, people are adults and sometimes use adult language. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You're entitled to your view. What about the WP:TPO violations? Zazpot (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what about your TPO violations? Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you actually accusing me of TPO violations, or is that a typo? Zazpot (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be a TYPO violation. EEng 04:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm sure Softlavender will come by in a moment to enlighten you.

[135], [136], [137], [138]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, not everyone on Wikipedia is an adult. In general, editors should not make unwarranted assumptions about any other editor. Assuming that someone you have never met is fine with being insulted and sworn at because they are an adult would be a doubly unreasonable assumption to make, IMO, and does not make for a constructive or safe atmosphere in any situation. Let alone for a global editorial project that aims to be welcoming and inclusive. Zazpot (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment (2): I agree with others that this is going nowhere. Passionate opinions/comments at AfD are the norm. Best ignored and best stick to the AfD criteria of one's choice rather than try to respond to or restrain the passions of others. Recommend closing this ANI (or recommend that the filer withdraw), since the worst and precipitating offenders seem to be those trying to police passionate and hyperbolic discourse at AfD. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment removing his comments is not going to lead to anyone's happiness. Saying someone is paranoid is not a personal attack, just an opinion or soemthing. EEng is a respected experienced editor and a sanction is very unlikely. A little wikibreak is good for perspective - wikipedia does not matter to your life and it's good to get away when it stops being fun. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang

As much of a time-waste as this lengthy ANI filing is turning out to be, the OP is making it even worse and even more of a time-sink by doubling-down on their disruption despite universal agreement among the highly experienced editors and administrators that have responded so far that this complaint is unwarranted and unactionable. I am recommending that the community consider a WP:BOOMERANG if this continues much longer without any constructive resolution/withdrawal/close. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, you want to lose an editor? I've busted a gut this year to make good contributions and encourage new people to edit Wikipedia. I've downplayed the "macho" culture to help new editors feel confident contributing. But I guess I was kidding myself. Evidently swearing at people for no good reason is fine; calling people names is fine; completely deleting other people's entire unrelated comments is fine; and if anyone calls it out, they'll be told they're a timewaster who shouldn't have complained. Kthxbye. Zazpot (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not mandatory; and if you want to rage-quit because an ANI filing precipitated by your own ill-considered (in the overall scheme of things) actions is not going your way, that's entirely your choice. Another option is perhaps taking a wikibreak, as you and others have suggested. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I am not angry, but I am very, very disappointed. To see a slew of admins defending unnecessarily rude behaviour that runs directly contrary to project guidance is much more disheartening than you might realise. It has made me seriously question whether I want to contribute to the project, much less ever again spend weeks of my life - as I have done this year - volunteering in order to help others learn to do so. I can't in good conscience encourage anyone to take up a hobby in which they'll face this sort of treatment from the administrators - the very people who ought to be upholding high standards among the participants. If anyone who joined Wikipedia with my encouragement encountered similar unpleasantness to the above (or worse - seems entirely possible) and felt that I had knowingly led them into a cesspool, that would be excruciating. I knew Wikipedia still had problems on this score, but I really didn't think they ran this deep and this has caught me by (horrible) surprise. Zazpot (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I was about to add a calming comment here defending you as a typical eager newcomer who just needs to learn how things are done, but you beat me to it. Look, you have much to offer – I've looked at your contributions – but on the AfD you've gone off like a loose cannon accusing people of a conspiracy against women. You gotta get over that. Everyone knows there's systemic bias, but that's not because of a conspiracy. You can help counter that bias by building women-related content that interests you, but people aren't always going to see things your way, and when that happens you just have to accept it and move on to building the next article or whatever. Many people were trying to tell you that when I showed up, and since their gentle guidance wasn't working I applied my patented direct approach. Unfortunately that didn't work either. EEng 04:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

When you say "People aren't always going to see things your way" it shows me that you don't really appreciate how difficult it is for editors to "counter bias", or just "move on to the next article or whatever" - I don't know all the details of what happened here, but these Boomerang proposals, and inability of the community to mediate these disputes is not helping. It shouldn't just be about sanctions, because then we'd all be sanctioned, I get that. But a statement that "we know there is systemic bias, but we won't always see things you way" does not make sense. I've come to believe that the only way that this will improve is if editor diversity improves (incidentally, a position that Jimmy Wales shares, for what that's worth). But for that to happen, one editor at a time, is very difficult with the editing environment being what it is, especially when editors are told that other editors are "established" and they are not. That should not even be a factor in these decisions, you know? Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"People aren't always going to see things your way" = there comes a point on any particular issue (e.g. an AfD) where you need to accept that the discussion is not going your way. I never said "we know there is systemic bias, but we won't always see things your way" – whether or not that "does not make sense" (as you say), it isn't anything I've said, so I'd appreciate your not putting words in my mouth. Z was bludgeoning the AfD process and wasting many editors' time, and I told him so. Usually that works; this time it didn't, that's for sure. EEng 05:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"I don't know all the details of what happened here, ..." I recommend at least understanding the basics of what you are opining about before opining, rather than making largely uninformed blanket statements Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really going to dig through the edit history to confirm if this is true deliberate, repeated removal of many of the women present - I'm usually not willing to do that even for issues I'm personally involved in, but I do I see a number of editors have raised objections about non-representation of women. It's definitely not worth a BOOMERANG and I don't think it was stupid or silly, but a lot of our articles have problems that we have to fix by working on them and not through deletion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh good grief, the boomerang proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with objections raised about non-representation of women. Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Personally I think this diff does cross the line [139] ie doubling down on uncivil comments after someone has politely taken the first step to constructive dialogue. It's easy enough to tell editors to "discuss on talk pages" but part of that is being civil, not rude to one another. There is no good reason to be rude to other editors, if they are being polite to you. Adding to that that this "highly experienced, respected editors" line is used a lot even though it's been pretty thoroughly documented at this point that retaining and attracting "highly experienced editors" is not currently one of the problems that Wikipedia is facing. Here's what MIT Technology Review wrote about it : [140] - Wikipedia's a good project, and a number of problems have been identified. It's the sheer amount of nothing that's being done to address those clearly identified problems that is troubling. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Zazpot's report and their conduct in it has been silly and unproductive, but not disruptive. The report just needs to be closed. If there's something actionable against Zazpot, it should be described somewhere other than Zazpot's report, because reading the report is torture, it shouldn't be inflicted on anyone else. Cjhard (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and trout Softlavender for this suggestion. Mr Ernie (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Me

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

---

Have I been blocked from editing as I seem to be unable to make edits on certain pages?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever it was it seems to have rectified itself, very odd.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Aleenf1

A user by the name of Aleenf1 is reverting the routes for the Olympic routes. I'm trying to be as accurate as I can regarding these routes based on the maps and images I've found. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Aleenf1 reverted your edits with WP:NOSTATS in mind. When adding extensive statistics, it should be done so as not to hinder the readability of the article. -- ChamithN (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible LTA IP

The edits from 74.70.97.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have the whiff of LTA, but I don't know exactly who it would be. I believe I've cleaned up all of the damage, but it continued (unnoticed) after a 31 hour block. Diffs: [141] [142] [143] agtx 14:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like block evasion by 74.70.113.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I might be able to do a range block if it keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Zimbabwe - heads up

Just a heads up that there are strong rumours of a military coup in Zimbabwe, with Reuters reporting tanks heading towards Harare. May be worth keeping an eye on related articles, including Robert Mugabe, Emmerson Mnangagwa (the sacked vice president), and Constantino Chiwenga (head of the armed forces). DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Very contentious new editor

User:Infamia has only been an editor for a few days but has already made many POV edits and received a number of warnings for WP:CIVIL and trying to provoke other editors. Among the edits and comments he has made are:

• [144] POV
• [145] "I came here to find out how long it took coal to form, and then had to go look it up myself since this article decided to uninformatively declare that the processes "take place over time." Tell me, what processes DON'T take place over time?"
• [146] "plus there is widespread belief Trump will pardon himself or his henchmen for their crimes", also linked to henchmen in the article itself
• [147] "I don't think you know what you're talking about. You also should have allowed someone else to review it rather than just turning it down again. The topic is obviously notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Sorry to say, you're simply wrong and you're citation of WP:Too Soon is not even remotely on point. (Nor is it true that a list cannot only contain one item.) If you're going to decline an article, please use logical reasoning."
• [148] "Please do not review my article Sulfurboy. You clearly do not know what you are doing and your comments lack relevance. This is an obviously notable topic and I have sources."
• [149] "I think you're full of it, and that YOU fail as an article reviewer and you should be removed from your post for such failure."
• [150] "I think you're full of it, and that YOU fail as an article reviewer and you should be removed from your post for such failure." again
• [151] "Why don't you try doing a better job?"
• [152] "Sulfurboy is not a competent reviewer, and should not be allowed to review articles anymore per WP: Competence is required" and "Sulfurboy is terrible at reviewing new articles"
• [153] "My article obviously was not worth declining for the fallacious reasons he jerkishly cited. [...] is not competent at his role as a new page reviewer. Thus, he fails WP: Competence is required.."
• [154] "I noticed one of your edits indicates you may be not be familiar with WP: Competence is required, and which you are manifestly in gross violation of. I'd highly recommend you review this policy, and try to bring yourself up to the level of competence which is required of all editors. For instance, don't cite policies which have no application as a reason to decline an article which passes the General Notability Guidelines, and has adequate sources. "
• [155] "you merely wasted my time by sending me there without even specifying what precisely you had in mind, when clearly no item on that list had any relevance to my article. Why don't you try doing a better job at what you're doing, or stop reviewing articles? You fail at it."
• [156] "He should be deterred from continuing to do a shitty job. He had no right to tell me my article failed WP: What Wikipedia is not, which was obviously false. (Note that he knew his claim was bullshit, since he failed to answer which item on WP: What Wikipedia is not actually applied, and so was just being a jerk. He fails WP: Competence is required."
• [157] "I don't have time to deal with incompetent reviewers who clearly don't know how to read and who cite irrelevant policies."
• [158] "Dude, get a grip. This is not the only notable thing about Arpaio, and there are thousands of sources on this incident. It may bring down the presidency. What exactly is lost by having this? Stop acting unilaterally."
• [159] "I didn't delete any comments. What is the purpose of your lying?"
• [160] "Violent oppose. Atsme, your comment merely indicates your own ignorance of the legal issues involved here. I suggest you read some of the sources before ignorantly opining on matters on which you know next to nothing." and "If you'd like to insert your foot deeper into your mouth, please be my guest though."
• [161] "Is the nominator possibly as uninformed as his comment makes him appear? This is a "newsy" event? Are you joking?"
• [162] "I honestly am struggling to see how this nomination could have been made in good faith, the arguments are, frankly speaking, embarrassing." (Infamia is the one that nominated the article for deletion in the first place)
• [163] "Have a heaping of salt, if you'd like. Doesn't make your opinions correct, or supported by sources."

So far I've only gone through the first page of edits, but this is clearly out of control. Natureium (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of someone, but I could be in the wrong here. Just seems very similar. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was highly skeptical that this was a new editor based on his knowledge of wikipedia policy. Natureium (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wait, do we know for sure that this user is Kingshowman? I haven't looked into any edit comparisons or similar behavior yet... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If we did, there would be a CU or sockpuppet investigation and a block notice. There isn't any of that. I am glad though that some people think WP:CIVIL is something that if one violates, they get blocked. However, not all of these comments are a violation, and furthermore, you can't block a person without any notice, or reason. How do you expect that person to grovel for forgiveness if they don't know why they're blocked? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

They're clearly not a new editor, in fact they appear to be fairly familiar with Wikipedia, so they probably understand why they're blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)