Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983

TBAN for Darlig Gitarist

• Darlig Gitarist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count
• contribs to William M. Branham

Please consider a topic ban for User:Darlig Gitarist (DG) from William M. Branham topics, or an outright Wikipedia editing ban. This editor has shown a trend of disruptive editing and using Wikipedia as a platform for activism over the past six years. He often resorts to intimidation, harassment, and insults; which make objectively editing the William Branham page almost impossible except for the most experienced and confident editors.

Taxee and Darlig Gitarist are the same person; the two user names were merged in 2017. diff

It is important to note that he is a "former member of a Branhamite church” diff who engages in advocacy, mainly manifested through disruptive editing. He is a disruptive editor as defined by Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Examples of disruptive editing. The following shows that this is an ongoing pattern and not an isolated incident. I can provide many more examples if needed.

A disruptive editor: Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; misrepresents reliable sources:

• November 2014: Another deliberate misrepresentation of an author: “Branham is viewed as a false prophet by most evangelicals” diff. He attempts to attribute this to author Hank Hanegraaff by adding his own opinion right before the reference to Hanegraaff’s book. This cannot be found in the book he references. Again, displays clear bias and willingly deceptive editing.

Cites unencyclopedic sources:

• October 2014: DG references online articles written by a co-activist to a forum hosted on a San Diego State University server in an attempt to give more weight to the Jim Jones reference he also added diff (More on this below). DG later implies that the referenced material is “ from articles from University of San Diego website.” diff. After contacting the research editor where these articles are hosted, I received this reply to my questions: "Are the articles posted on your website peer-reviewed, vetted, and/or endorsed by San Diego State University?" Editor (No). "Does SDSU have oversight over what is published on your webpage? That does NOT mean that an employee works on editing the site. It means that this is an official University webpage that represents SDSU, not simply a page that is hosted on the University’s server." Editor (No) "Do you represent SDSU in an official capacity? If not, who can I contact with my concerns?" Editor (No. I could refer you to somebody, but I would want to be sure that these email exchanges be part of the record.) This is clearly and attempt to add credibility to the self-published material by saying that they are from San Diego State University when they are not. diff

• August 2012: He added a link to a web site devoted to posting daily anti-Branham blogs (a website commonly referenced by DG). diff

• September 2017: DG blocks another editor’s attempt to add newspaper references to the article “Danpeanuts - one more time - Wikipedia policy requires that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”. diff

Yet he doesn't follow his own advice, and here uses a single article to make an exceptional claim that William Branham is connected to yet another infamous character:

• October 2016: DG adds a reference to William Branham to the Paul Schäfer page, with the sole source being a single newspaper article with a two-sentence mention. diff diff Within minutes, he added a link to Paul Schäfer on the William Branham article diff. It was deleted, but he re-added it a few months later. He then added a reference and link to Jim Jones on the Paul Schäfer page diff.. There is no encyclopedic justification to add a Jim Jones link to the Paul Schäfer article other than to satisfy DG’s activist purposes. This is simply employing circular reasoning to attempt to make William Branham "guilty by association".

Is tendentious:

• August 2012: DG’s edit summary states: “reverted a biased edit that moved a pro-Branham website to the top of the list” diff This tit-for-tat reverting is common on his part, but not with other editors on the page. The other editors seem to just give up.

• August 2012: DG adds non-NPOV wording “Branham’s claim is suspect” diff and references the same anti-Branham web site.

• September 2012: DG’s edit summary: “Added link to an ebook that is critical of Branham's ministry” diff. Adding a link simply because it is “critical” does not seem appropriate for a NPOV editor.

• September 2012: DG advocates for “highly critical”, self-published blog material: “Over the past couple of years a number of ebooks and websites have come out that are highly critical of William Branham's ministry, including: A Logical Refutation of William Branham's Message, Believethesign.com, Legend of the Fall, by Peter M. Duyzer, Seek The Truth website. The information and research provided in these sources must be included in this article in order to achieve NPOV status, which I think is presently lacking" diff

Rejects or ignores community input:

• October 2017: DG protested references BEFORE reading them. “I haven't read any of the newspaper reports but I doubt if they will stand up to the scrutiny of more skeptical editors…Did they do background checks to ensure that the people that said they were healed were actually sick to begin with? Did you look for any skeptical articles with respect to Branham?” diff. ( “…I don't think it is appropriate to doubt a source is legitimate without reading it. ” diff

• September 2017: A different editor complains: “Darlig, Do you realize that you are warring? This site does not belong to you! It is for others to add information too…” diff

• September 2017: Another complaint about his non-NPOV when he refused to cooperate with another editor wishing to add material: “From my outside perspective, it appears valid sources are being discounted” diff

• September 2014: DG’s edit summary: “added paragraph on Branham's 1956 meetings with Jim Jones” diff. This is a BIG DEAL because it was added to make William Branham guilty by association. The inappropriate nature of this reference being in this article is best summarized by this opinion given by a respected Wiki editor here, who is at this time attempting to bring the page up to Wikipedia NPOV standards.

• There is, and has been, consensus among editors to remove the Jim Jones reference, but DG reverts any attempts to remove it. Just a few weeks ago another editor tried to remove it as others have. DG reverted it again and said in his edit summary “The majority of editors agreed to keep this paragraph as it is relevant” diff This is not true. There is consensus to remove the reference.

• After another different editor tried to remove it by claiming consensus and it was again reverted, the discussion on the Talk page came under a sockpuppet attack in order to sway the consensus. (see here) DG was questioned by an admin on his Talk page concerning this: “On an unrelated note, quite a few editors who recently commented at Talk:William M. Branham were recently blocked for sockpuppetry, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Aarynn7/Archive. Do you know anything about that??” diff. DG answered the question in an evasive manner “I am aware of the discussion on the Willianm Branham talk page” diff as he has before when asked about his role as an advocate/COI website editor.

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: manifested in this case by resorting to personal religious attacks to editors DG believes are followers of William Branham

• July 2013: DG removes links to the official William Branham Ministries web site and others, while calling them “cult websites”. diff DG labels disagreeing editors a cult often.

• July 2013: More insults “In this case, followers of the cult of William Branham are trying to avoid the obvious concerns from those outside the cult that the outrageous claims of William Branham are given credibility.” diff

• July 2013: More insults, threats, and intimidation “at the very least, the wild claims of Branham that are perpetuated by members of the cult here on Wikipedia should be eliminated” diff

• May 18, 2015: When other editors disagree with him, he immediately infers that they must be Branham followers “I assume from your comments, Eforsund, that you are follower of Branham” diff

• July 2013: DG looks up editors outside Wikipedia and uses information for further intimidation. “That you are biased in respect of this article is perfectly clear, given you online comments outside of Wikipedia”.diff

• March 2018: I posted my opinion on the removal of the Jim Jones reference on the Talk page according to COI guidelines, and he harasses me by accusing me of advocating: diff I was in complete compliance, as you can see from the history. He went on to discredit and intimidate me further by saying, “but as an employee of an organization (by your admission above) that exists solely to promote William Branham and believes him to be infallible... ” Note that this is not true, and further, it is an insult to me and my faith to say that I believe any human being is infallible, and he knows it. This is another attempt to mischaracterize anyone as a cult member who challenges him, just as he did with Rev107, Eforsund, and others.

• April 2018: I went to DG’s user talk page, asking him if he is an editor of an anti-Branham web site (which he is). He again refused to answer and instead tries wikilawyering by accusing me of harassing, etc., and went on to stereotype me as he does with many of the other editors.

No other editors (other than socks) on this page have used the word “cult” or resorted to personal insults like DG has. This pattern has persisted since 2012.

Please note that I, DEvans, work for William Branham Ministries. It is my opinion that a well-written, neutral, factual page is a benefit to everyone. I plainly disclosed my COI on my user page and on every edit to the WB Talk page. DG, on the other hand, has neither disclosed his COI nor his position as editor of an anti-Branham activist web site. Please consider a Topic Ban or a complete editing ban based on DG’s advocacy and disruptive editing that has resulted in his misquoting of authors, insults, intimidation, original research (opinions published as fact), and his constant harassment of other editors. This will help secure the integrity of Wikipedia in this issue. DEvans (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am astonished at DEvans accusations above. I think a valid question is whether DEvans is being paid by an NRM to try to influence the content of the article on William Branham?

My "crime" is that I spent a great deal of time on William Branham article and managed to get it qualified as a GA in August 31, 2017 which resulted in it being listed as such. This was the first time I have worked on getting an article GA status. It was resubmitted for good article reassessment in October 10, 2017, which result in its status as a GA being kept. I would ask that you please review the GA article conversations to see whether my actions could be considered inappropriate.

I would also ask @Display name 99: (who did a great job in conducting the GA review) or other longstanding editors such as @Theroadislong: or @Bonadea:, who have also been involved in editing the William Branham page (and whom I do not know other than through their editing on Wikipedia), whether my editing has been tendentious.

Achieving GA status was a great learning exercise for me in what makes a good Wikipedia article (and involved me removing information in the article that I and others had previously added). All references to primary source materials were removed and the entire article was thoroughly referenced to secondary source material in accordance with what I understood to be good Wikipedia practice.

The William Branham article is currently undergoing a peer review with the view to making it a feature article. I have been largely uninvolved in this significant rewrite of the article and am happy to see the article improved.

My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham. I am also interested in NRM's in general. A Wikipedia article on a new religious movement should not be a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but the focus should be to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement.

Please note that there are only 2 references to "incidents" in 2018. With respect to the first, DEvans took no offense at the time. My comment was based on the research I had done as to the beliefs of those that followed William Branham. I also commended him for being transparent. If he had taken offense at the time and corrected me in my statement, I would have apologized for misunderstanding his belief set. But he did not. I am astonished he is now taking exception to it.

With respect to his second reference to 2018, it is my understanding that speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. He decided to try to harass me on the basis that I had a COI. I chose not to respond to his speculations, which is my right. It is not surprising that given the failure of his efforts on that front, he has decided to take a different approach.

I do understand why the word "cult" is offensive to DEvans. However, it is used in some secondary sources on William Branham and the word "cult" still can be found today in the William Branham article, even after it has undergone multiple reviews by experienced editors.

Attention should be made to DEvan's contributions which clearly show that he is only focused on one thing on Wikipedia and that is to influence the content of the article on William Branham (DEvans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I would ask why he is making these accusations against me. Is it because he wants to benefit the users of Wikipedia or is it solely because he is being paid to influence the article in a particular direction? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Here's my take on the situation: the Branham article used to be a glowing hagiography, as can be seen in pretty much every version before mid-2014. Darlig Gitarist was one of the main editors working hard to set that situation right, by for instance removing claims in Wikipedia's voice that supernatural events took place in reality, and by adding tons of scholarly sources. I first noticed the article in August 2017 (I have forgotten what brought my attention to it, but maybe a Teahouse post?) ; I had never heard of Branham before, but it became rather obvious rather quickly that this is one of the many articles about various religious persons or organisations that suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way. That is not uncommon, I've seen it in many other articles, but that's why we have NPOV policies in place. Anyway, Darlig G is not the POV warrior here, and the fact that the article was evaluated for GA status and passed after DG's efforts to improve it is indicative of that. I don't know exactly what's been going on there recently. I removed the article in question from my watchlist a couple of months ago because I couldn't take the constant POV pushing and sniping from Branham's followers, but I applaud DG's persistance in maintaining a NPOV stance in the article. There is absolutely no cause for a tban against Darlig Gitarist. --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea Thank you for your comment. Although I don’t agree with some of your edits/opinions on the WB page, I think you are a NPOV editor, and you have a great history of all kinds of contributions. You certainly have my respect. I also 100% agree with you that some of these pages “suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way.” DG is VERY close to the “faith in question.” In fact, contrary to what DG said above, “My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham”, he is a disgruntled former church member diff. Do you see the pattern of dishonesty? His contribution of what you termed “scholarly sources” is limited to scouring text for any obscure negative comments and adding self-published material as long as it is negative (please read the case). Further, I and at least one other editor, asked him about his role as an editor to an anti-Branham website, and he would not answer the question. diff. I, on the other hand, could have easily chosen to edit the page under another user ID and had a whole lot more impact, but I chose to be honest and divulge my association. As you can see from my history, I’ve only weighed in on the most egregious anti-Branham edits by DG and have done my best to follow the rules to the letter. Please take another look at what I have written above along with the DIFFs. His own words should show you his intentions. Also notice that he did not address any of his actions listed above. His only defense was to try and discredit me. DEvans (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for what's gone on at the article since the GA review, having not kept track of it, but during and before the review I saw nothing particularly wrong with Darlig Gitarist's edits. There was some disruption at the article which did cause me to consider failing the review, but it seemed to me at the time that the blame would go mostly towards other editors using the article to push an agenda. Display name 99 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Thank you for your comment. No reviewer should be responsible for much more than spot-checking references, so I am in no way questioning your GA review. I believe you did a professional job. However, would you have supported the GA nomination knowing this type of misrepresentation of authors was in the text? diff diff DEvans (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The first edit that you linked to concerning Branham being viewed as God does seem problematic, but having checked the article history from when it was promoted in August 2017 I can see that it was no longer there. I found nothing wrong with the second edit except for the fact that it wasn't sourced. I presume one was eventually added or else I would not have passed the review. Basically, both problems seem to have been corrected by the time I arrived. So yes. Display name 99 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There have now been 3 responses and no one has addressed any of the facts I presented. DEvans (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by Volunteer Marek in page subject to DS

User:Volunteer Marek has repeatedly made uncivil comments towards me at Talk: Home Army, which is a page related to Eastern Europe, and as such subject to discretionary sanctions. Diffs: [1][2][3] François Robere (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 100.33.106.43 (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out and backing up that someone is misrepresenting sources is not uncivil. Pointing out that someone is engaging in original research, and particularly obnoxious and over-the-top POV original research, is not uncivil. Frqancois Robere's edits in this topic area have been a significant source of disruption for about a month now (due to his persistence and attempts to insert said OR into other articles, they had to be put under 1RR). And I'm totally sick of dealing with someone who's clearly playing games. For example, he keeps asking me "what did I misrepresent", "what OR did I engage in" - and then I replied THREE TIMES. Hell, one of those times I was tired of writing the same thing in different ways so I just copy/pasted myself (as the diffs show): "I note that there's still no source for "late", in either war or "rebellion"." And THEN he comes back and demands to know AGAIN [4]. How are you suppose to have a discussion with someone like that (he finally quoted... another author)??? I don't appreciate having someone sit there and waste my time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't back anything, Marek:

1. I addressd your question about "late" several times [5][6][7]. Instead of trying to reach consensus, you disappeared [8].
2. You claimed I made aMn accusation against AK, which I didn't. I asked you to clarify - you didn't.
3. You said I distorted some quotes; I asked you to show me where - you didn't.
4. You claimed I was "deeply ignorant of basic facts" just two sentences after getting a basic date wrong, but you didn't retract it.
5. You claimed I was "slapping this over-the-top extremist and fringe POV", which is supported by at least 6 RS.
6. And finally, you claim I "brought" 1RR to the article, despite the fact that the whole field has been contentious since at least 2007 [9][10].

This isn't "backing up" anything, this is smearing. François Robere (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"I addressd your question about "late" several times " <-- No, no you didn't. You pretended to address it. The question was "please provide sources for your claim that the Home Army only provided weapons to Jewish Fighting Organization "late in the war"". Let's look at your diffs.

First diff: [11]. First you try to weasel out of not having sources by changing "late in the war" to "late in the rebellion". Then you cite a source WHICH DOES NOT say EITHER! That IS misrepresentation of sources.

Second diff: [12]. This particular comment from you is the one that is over-the-top obnoxious and POV and offensive. It's classic WP:TEND. And it's so wrong I don't even know what to call it. Where are you sources? You're just throwing up a bunch of ridiculous and absurd original research, the gist of which is that the Home Army should've supplied weapons to the Jewish Fighting Organization ... before it actually existed and since they didn't they're responsible for deaths in the ghetto from starvation and in Treblinka. I'm sorry but that is just fucked. "They didn't supply weapons to an organization which didn't exist so they're guilty of Treblinka!" It shows exactly how biased and absurd your WP:AGENDA is on this article. And did I mention no sources?

Third diff [13]. Again, no sources, just more (incorrect) original research. Oh, wait, you quote... a Wikipedia article (which happens to have gotten it wrong). And this incorrect original research DOES NOT actually address the issue!

I'm sorry but this isn't "answering the question". This is straight up obfuscation and weaseling intended to mask the fact that you got busted misrepresenting sources.

As an aside, I've actually had conversations and communications with families of the Ghetto Fighters (I'm actually the guy who wrote quite a number of Wikipedia articles on these guys) and inquired about historical details, memories, etc. What you are doing here is offensive to their memory and is just shameful. Go screw up some other topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And " just two sentences after getting a basic date wrong" <-- I didn't get any date wrong. You just either have no clue what you're talking about or you're making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I take to the diffs, note that you've only answered the first point; apologies are still due for the other five.

• First diff: Again, you start with an insult ("weasel out"). I gave you a source stating arms were at a "meager supply" until halfway through the war, and on several occasions suggested you rephrase as you see fit. I see it as "compromising to reach consensus"; to you it's "weaseling out".
• Second diff: You asked for a timeline, didn't you? [14] So I gave you a timeline. Considering I based it on both "my" RS and the ones already in the article (and other articles, like Warsaw ghetto uprising), saying it's OR is OR in its own right. The rest of your comments about bias and POV are completely fictional, and not as much as tethered in anything I wrote.
• Third diff: There's nothing OR about it. It's all very straightforward, and I really don't get what's your problem. If we have sources saying the ghetto was ill-supplied, and we know the resistance was hesitant to supply it, and we know they only agreed to do so after a personal appeal to Sikorski and a "proof of concept" battle with the Germans - both of which took place months, or even years after the ghetto resistance was formed - then what's the problem? All of this is well sourced, and considering I didn't even insist on that word - you did - I really don't get what's your problem.

I didn't get any date wrong - you said ZOB didn't exist until November 1942; it was actually founded in July of the same year, as its article correctly states (RS). So yes, you got it wrong, and you should apologize for the slew of insults that followed.

As for your conversations with families of ghetto fighters: Wikipedia is based on RS, not on your or my personal feelings. What's more, you assume you're the only one who's had "conversations and communications" of this kind - how well do you know your fellow editors that you'll make this assumption? Even worse, you're blind to sources that were themselves fighters or survivors: Krakowski, Feiner and Bauer - who are you to say their words are worth any less than yours? François Robere (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't find Volunteer Marek's comments uncivil, especially considering François Robere constant coming back with the same issues. And he does it on multiple Poland's related articles, over and over again,[15] and again, [16] and again,[17]. It appears his actions are intended to exhaust the opposition. Troubling and should be finally addressed.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Bella, you don't find anyone's comments "uncivil" as long as you agree with them. You didn't even mind citing this handsome gal as a source when it suited you [18], and just today you decided - after months of distoring sources and refusing to budge [19] - that Jews can't really be communists because they're Jews [20]. This should indeed be addressed. François Robere (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What I meant was that they were not religious Jews but communist partisans of Jewish heritage, STOP making things up. On top of that, it appears that you just accused me of being racist! [21] This is too much!GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so there's no such thing as secular Jews? Bella, how many Jews do you actually know? François Robere (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

MYSELF! Anything else you'd like to add?GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You described historical anti-semitism in Poland as "small conflicts" [22]; characterized wartime anti-semtisim as marginal, and backed sources that claim it was due to some Jewish affinity to communism; made a point of marking sources according to their nationality, suggesting their reliability is compromised [23][24]; suggested on several occasions that the whole discussion is motivated by money [25][26]; characterised the whole discussion in ethnic terms - "Polish" vs. "Jewish" - and backed the former [27][28][29]; repeatedly made edits that portray Polish collaborators as "unwilling" and "tacit", while pushing narratives of Jewish collaboration [30]; and finally, for the pièce de résistance, brought a source that claims that "ghettos were not that bad" [31]. I don't know what's your story (and it doesn't interest me in the slightest), but I'm well past believing anything you say that isn't backed by RS. François Robere (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• comment Holy cow! François Robere is accusing Volunteer Marek of incivility! Is this a sign of the end times?! I don't know how you ANI regulars do it. Anyway, proposing a TBAN of each against posting about the other at ANI or AN of maybe anywhere else.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't reported FR anywhere (though he sure deserves it) so I'm not clear on what the purpose of such a ban would be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course you didn't. You accused me of "making shit up" as early as March 18th [32] - why would you want to report that? François Robere (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

per GizzyCatBella, perhaps it's time for TBAN of François Robere on relevant articles. My impression is they are a greater net negative than Volunteer Marek. Too much drama and disruption.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

per GizzyCatBella, travel guides are proper sources [33]. I'd hedge my bets better if I were you. François Robere (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see much actionable in either VM or FR's comments on the talk page; VM's comments aren't personal attacks (edging on them, but not there), and FR is trying to get specific information from VM that VM seems to not be providing. I would think that it would help if VM addressed the specific comment on what mis-characterization of Zimmerman that they state FR is using, as that's what FR is trying to figure out to address their argument better, but instead VM is deflecting it. Again, we can't act on that behavior, but it's not helpful to keep heated discussion away. --Masem (t) 17:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what info I'm not suppose to be providing. He made a claim. I asked for sources. He evaded the question. I asked for sources. He evaded the questions. As to Zimmerman, it's simply NOT the case that he says anything like FR claims he says. I don't know how I'm suppose to prove a negative, except to say "no, he doesn't say anything like that".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't disappear for five days only to come back and claim "I already answered this!!!". What exactly did I "evade"?

As for Zimmerman: I asked you a simple question: What did I supposadely say that he didn't. The answer should be straightforward. François Robere (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And like I already said several times, I already answered it several times Like here. Here it is again. You claimed that, according to Zimmerman ""Keep in mind AK and other organizations routinely referred to Jewish refugees and partisans as "bandits" regardless of their activities"" This is completely false. Zimmerman says no such thing. I guess you can try to get out of this by claiming that the claim is made by ... someone else, Krakowski, in a volume edited by Zimmerman. Ok, but then there's also this: "As for Rashke - he's just a secondary source here, but his claim is established by Zimmerman quoting the actual message from the Jewish resistance to Sikorski." Which again, is a misrepresentation of Zimmerman (and your own original research) And this is the part you are trying to falsely portray as supporting the "late in the war" nonsense ("late" being 1943, a few months after ZOB was first formed). This discussion right here is a perfect example why it's impossible to talk to you about this topic. You just jump from one falsehood to another and then claim that when people don't immediately respond to your nonsense they "disappeared". It's a standard WP:CPUSH tactic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is another misrepresentation of Zimmerman. You say: "Zimmerman, p. 255[5] suggests the difference between the report and the order was due to outside criticism, or fear thereof". Here is the source [34]. What it actually says is omission of any mention of Jews in the actual order "suggested" (as in "maybe") that "Komorowski was aware that (...) (mentioning Jews in this context) would make the underground vulnerably to accusations of antisemitism". Now, you can interpret that in a way which is charitable to Komorowski, or in a way which is not charitable to Komorowski (Zimmerman more or less splits the difference), but one thing for sure, **there's nothing in that source about "outside criticism"**. Komorowski decided to word his actual order the way he did all on his own, and Zimmerman is clear on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that, according to Zimmerman... - No, I didn't. I quoted Zimmerman regarding Bór-Komorowski's orders (116 & 220) [35]. Krakowski is a whole different source.

I already answered it several times - I don't know what you're referring to, but I know I gave you 4 RS on it [36].

What's wrong with stating that Zimmerman and Rashke both cite the same order, but only Zimmerman also quotes it? That's not OR, that's two sources in agreement.

this is the part you are trying to falsely portray [Zimmerman] as supporting the "late in the war" nonsense - no, I don't. The article already quoted Zimmerman (Zimmerman describes the supplies as "limited but real) - I merely summarised it [37]. I already told you that [38], but you keep insisting.

there's nothing in that source about "outside criticism" - what's "accusations of antisemtism" and "[evidence] to accuse the Home Army of complicity" if not "oustide criticism"?

This is important: You keep reading into my comments things I didn't say: You think I accused the AK of the ghetto calamity, but I said nothing even remotely close; you think that by using the phrase "outside criticism" I suggested that Komorowski got "help" with the letter, but I didn't - the way I used "criticism" was completely in line with Zimmerman's "accusations". It's like the discussion is taking place in two parallel channels: I say one thing, you hear something completely different (then complain about it). Why is that? François Robere (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment2 - François Robere should focus on the matter of this complaint instead of attacking people commenting not in his favor.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You inserted yourself into the discussion, Bella. Don't pose. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I commented on the matters related to the complaint, that is a usual procedure. Instead of focusing on the claim you attacked Dlohcierekim and me directly for addressing remarks that were not in your favor.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You gave your point of view, and I gave background on where you're coming from. It's all pertinent. François Robere (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You attacked the reputation of people who are not directly involved in the alleged uncivil commentary complaint for merely daring to comment. That is not okay.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What's not okay, Bella, is smearing an editor (or a source [39][40]) just because they disagree with you. You know what? I encourage anyone reading this to follow your comments links (I'll even fix the broken one for you), and see for themselves how these discussions unfolded. Then they can opine on whether your comment had any merit, or was it another smear. François Robere (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• AE time perhaps even in this thread I evidence of TE , POV pushing and aspersions in a DS area. Sounds like a good candidate for AE to look at Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ARBCOM is on the verge of accepting a different case related to editing World War II topics; I've discouraged them from pulling the ongoing Poland-related WWII disputes into that case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: ArbCom (new cases) and AE (enforcement) are different processes, as I understand. DS system already exists under the Eastern European case, so this perhaps should be taken to WP:AE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive / edit warring editor

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

---

• Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lapadite77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alicia Keys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unconstrutive/disruptive drive-by editing and edit warring by Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Alicia Keys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). First unconstructive, incorrect edit, revert, second revert Editor repeatedly removes factual notable roles of artist, which are noted per multiple reliable sources, a number of which are cited in the #Career, #Artistry, #Influence, #Philanthropy sections (and one can continue supporting notable roles with dozens more reliable sources). Editor clearly did not read article and is not remotely familiar with the artist. Anyone who is familiar with the artist/reads at length about knows the artist is prominently notable for the stated roles (songwriting, production, philanthropy), and has received nominations and awards for them; Keys also co-owns a music production company, as cited in article. Again, editor clearly has no knowledge of artist or even bothered to read the article, but repeatedly removes notable, sourced information regardless. See talk page discussion I started, after their revert, where I noted the roles are supported in article by reliable sources, WP policy, which editor ignored before reverting again. I'll quote policy and MOS guideline again here: WP:V: “[WP] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors”. MOS:BIO: "The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played ... The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph".
Editor is making these kinds of edits in multiple articles per their contributions page, and has been called out for disruptive editing on their talk page. Lapadite (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: Editor is also trolling/disrupting my talk page, most recently by adding the required ANI notice I posted on his talk to mine: [41]. Lapadite (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please talk to this editor about reducing drama, not reverting good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, and not templating the regulars. Thanks. LK (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, as evidence by editor's comment above, they have no issue with their behavior, and feel entitled to it. Also disregard their templating me, a "regular" (which is irrelevant), and trolling my page with their ANI link. I think a preventative block for editor is evidently warranted by now (also note: editor has been blocked before for edit warring). Editor clearly will continue to inappropriately and disruptively remove/revert reliably sourced content per their own desire. Lapadite (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: Another trollish comment from editor: [42]. Lapadite (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Your inability to work through a content dispute in good faith is concerning. You participated in the edit war as well, but the only difference is that LK has started an RfC to resolve the dispute, has not assumed bad faith, has refrained from dismissing you as a disruptive editor or a troll, has commented civilly, has not become over emotional, and did not run to report you to admins. I think now would be a good time to stop commenting on LK entirely and either focus strictly on the content or let it go, before we start looking into your behavior more closely. Swarm ♠ 20:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please, how suspect is your comment. First, there is no "content dispute" when an editor is merely driving-by articles removing 'reliably sourced information - against WP policy - and reverting on it without discussion (which I started, and he ignored before reverting again), and said editor has not even bothered to read the article and knowns nothing/has not read about the subject of the article he drive-by removed sourced content from. Second, another editor also reinstated the sourced content editor disruptively and incorrectly removed. Third, editor started an RfC to promote his pov (vs plethora of reliable sources - against policy) after that other editor reinstated the content. Fourth, editor's disruptive drive-edits and reverts as well as his arrogance and trollish behavior are by no means "good faith". Fourth, you falsely accuse me of multiple things (and thanks for your condescension, I don't have any emotional problem - you conveniently decide to interpret and dismiss legitimate policy/guideline-based response to a disruptive, topic-uninformed editor as "emotional"), and you have nothing to say about the disruptive actions and trolling behavior of editor reported. Please. I haven't been here so long, I forgot how biased/prejudiced some admins are, play favorites and disregard objectivity, and often those are the first ones to comment too as others have pointed out before. You accuse me, more than once, essentially target me, with no concern of reported behavior and actions of editor, and one has all the right to question your intentions. Spare me those tired, biased, 'boomerang' threats the aforementioned ilk of admins automatically trigger while disregarding the wrong actions of the reported 'regular' editor, when the disruptive editor, who you implicitly defend and find no problem with his actions which started this, is violating more than one WP policy, and WP guideline, and trolled my page, and has an entitled attitude problem as evidenced above, which you also implicitly seem to validate. You disregard his multiple incorrect actions, and yet target me, the one reporting. Funny. Lapadite (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with Swarm that your best solution to avoid a likely boomerang is to let this go. I didn't bother to read your whole reply above as the first part was clear nonsense. Saying there is no "content dispute" because someone is "driving-by" when said person took part in the discussion on the article talk page that you initiated and also took part in, and then themselves initiated an RFC as a means of dispute resolution I guess when they felt the discussion with you wasn't going to solve the issue suggests you either don't understand what "drive-by" or "content dispute" means or worse are making stuff up despite knowing what they mean. If you want people to take your complaints seriously, don't make such utter nonsense claims. The whole thing is even more nonsense since this appears to be a dispute over the lead, and without commenting on the merits of the dispute, anything on the lead should already be reliably source elsewhere in the article. If it isn't, this is a problem which needs to be fixed independently over the dispute over the lead. If the content is already in the rest of the article, then it cannot be removed by a dispute over whether or not it should be in the lead. It's simply a dispute over what should be in the lead. (Of course, even in a dispute which isn't over the lead, there are still a bunch of reasons to remove reliably sourced content like WP:UNDUE. So it being reliably source content still tells you little about the merits let alone existence of a content dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • "without commenting on the merits of the dispute, anything on the lead should already be reliably source elsewhere in the article." .... It is, as has been said multiple times - here and on the talk discussion I started - and why another editor reinstated the reliably-sourced content. "If the content is already in the rest of the article, then it cannot be removed by a dispute over whether or not it should be in the lead.". It is; I don't know how many times it has to be said, and this is why there is no legitimate content dispute - as the content (the prominent, notable roles of the artist) is supported by multiple reliable sources, which is what WP is based on, not the opinion of editors, and the editor doesn't become aware of this as they did not read the article or listened to what has been reiterated (as has been the case here). Hopefully the point doesn't have to be repeated so many times: Once again, the content (notable roles of artist) is widely supported by reliable sources, and the editor disruptively removes and reverts it, without knowledge of article subject or reading article, because he wants to, against the support of multiple reliable sources, against policy. This has nothing to do with wp:undue. Also, again, another editor also reverted the reported editor's incorrect, repeated removal of reliably-sourced content. That is more than one editor that reinstated reliably-sourced content on this. (amazing that one has to defend reinstating reliably-sourced content against a disruptive editor removing it, violating policy & guideline). What a waste of time this becomes; response here: "shut up, don't report disruptive regular editor who's making willingly uninformed, against-policy drive-by edits on article/subject he has read nothing on, and you are at fault for responding to them with content and policy facts even though they disruptively edit against policy, trolled your talk page, and did not start discussion before reverting twice." Just speaks for itself. And this report isn't on content dispute (otherwise it would've been taken to a content dispute page), and shouldn't be made to be one so it can be easily dismissed; it is on the editor's behavior and actions - illegitimate, disruptive editing and multiple revert of reliably sourced content (which another editor also reverted), before discussion, based on their incorrect, subject-uninformed pov, against-policy and multiple reliable sources, as well as their entitled, trollish behavior. Again, editor has been blocked before for violating policy and called out by others on disruptive editing on their talk page serval times. But yes, let's continue to ignore that and continue to project it's accepted behavior here. I'll not waste more time on this specifically; rather continue to focus on constructively improving WP articles per WP policy & guidelines, not repeatedly, disruptively driving by articles removing reliably-sourced content. But hey what works for others and is condoned by some is what it is. My bad for reporting someone repeatedly removing reliably sourced content, against policy, not reading article/sources, reverting twice before discussion, and trolling my page. Chuckled really at the absurdity of this, and at the absurdity of trying to turn this around on the person reporting the "regular" editor entitled to their disruptive, policy-violating behavior and actions. Lapadite (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Lapadite77: Hey, I apologize if my comment upset you. I understand you came here in good faith with a sincere complaint, only to feel ignored and attacked. That is not the goal here. I did not mean to be condescending. I did look into your complaint, and unfortunately, I don't agree with your assessment that edits such as this and similar ones on other articles are a policy violation. There is nothing inherently wrong with removing content that satisfies WP:V. Whether or not it is disruptive depends on the reason for doing so. In this case, the reason given was MOS compliance. That's a legitimate, policy-based reason. MOS:BLP#Positions and roles does indeed provide clear guidance: "describe the person as he or she is commonly described" in the lead sentence, and "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable". LK's edits have every appearance of matching up with the rationale given. That's not to say there can't be disagreement, but that would be a content dispute. Rather than accusing him of being disruptive and dismissing him entirely, you should have heard him out and responded directly to his argument. There should have been no reason for any personal commentary whatsoever. LK is an established editor in good standing, and there was quite simply no reason to dismiss his edits like that. Personal commentary is prohibited. Assuming good faith is non-negotiable. You breached both of these rules, whereas the disputed edits do not actually break any rules. That's why it was "turned on you". When there's a content dispute, which is most definitely what this is, disagreeing editors are supposed to treat each other with civility and respect. I don't think you have an "emotional problem", I just think you took the removal of content you added too personally. That's understandable, but it's part of editing here. Swarm ♠ 00:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Islam84

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

---

I have contacted this editor four times about their creation of blps with no clear references (see User talk:Islam84#Sources.) They have continued to edit in between messages but have not responded despite it being pointed out that communication is a matter of policy at WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT. There are regular messages at User talk:Islam84 since 2014 asking them not to add unverified content and this was part of the reason for a previous block. They have been editing for six years and clearly know how to edit their talk page, but have only responded to other editors twice, and one of those was making an unblock request. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The user has been warned by Doug Weller that they need to respond to their talk page messages and they have edited since but have not responded to any messages. They created and continue to edit 2001–02 Zamalek SC season with poor sourcing. Competence is required and i'm not sure that this user has it. At the very least i'd suggest a block to prevent further disruption until the user decides to communicate. -- Dane ^talk 18:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess it will be soon ripe-time to allot Boleyn a seperate board to bring up cases of incommunicado users.....And, I agree with Dane on this case.Communication is integral and important. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Continued to edit after the AN/I post until 2018-05-06T22:22:22.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Per their last unblock request, I’ve been blocked because some users don’t want me to add any information but that they see it right from their point of view, no one have the right to accept or refused any edits, especially when it came from a fan of the rival club or from another user who don’t know much about the argument and builds his view based on the number of rejects of the edits no matter if its right or wrong. I feel a block is in order until they are ready to discuss matters. Not so much a matter of IDNHT as I don't want to.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indef. I don't see how we had any other choice at this point, especially considering the fact that they ignored Doug's warning. Swarm ♠ 02:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

IPs and accounts vandalizing pages by insertion of "Firооz Oskооi" references

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

---

Most likely new sockpuppets of Jaredgk2008 .

• 45.222.194.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
• 39.60.201.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.225.36.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
• TwoRosesMeanRaws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KaleJanese288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both accounts and all three IP addresses vandalized different pages.

• 45.222.194.34 vandalized Diddy Kong Racing DS on 23:18, 2 May 2018
• TwoRosesMeanRaws vandalized Office Space on 21:18, 4 May 2018
• KaleJanese288 vandalized The Princess Bride 21:31, 4 May 2018
• 213.225.36.213 vandalized Kentwood, Louisiana on 14:42, 5 May 2018
• 39.60.201.60 vandalized List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees on 00:32, 6 May 2018 . He actually did that twice, reverting his own first version.

All of the above edits have in common:

• Referencing a "Firooz Oskooi"
• Asserting he is located in Orange County, California - with four referencing more specific locations of either Newport Beach or in one case, Irvine (located in close proximity)
• Asserting antisemitic tendencies from said person
• Other than 45.222.194.34, who did not use the term, misspelling "antisemitic" as "anti semetic"

"Firooz Oskooi" references have apparently been used by Jaredgk2008's alts since 5th March 2017 or so (indicated by the sockpuppet investigation archive)

The Fifth Horseman (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:The Fifth Horseman. It appears that User:NinjaRobotPirate has been active in the last few hours in cleaning up this problem. They have blocked all the accounts and IPs listed above. If you see any more occurrences of the abuse, why not contact NinjaRobotPirate on their talk page? Since it is being handled, this report can probably be closed out as an ANI matter. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few people who habitually clean this stuff up. It's probably best to ping me or report any suspected socks to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008. This is someone who should be checked for undetected sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User makes repeated reversions; fails to respond to messages on talk page

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

---

Anonomys7‎ (talk · contribs)

User:Anonomys7 has been improving articles related to the entertainer Shari Lewis. The user's edits are generally constructive, but I had some concern about the user removing information (names of sources and dates) from references (see, e.g., [43]). I reverted these changes, but the user reverted them back in later edits ([44], [45]. I made attempts to reach out to the user on their talk page, but they simply blank the messages ([46], [47] and continue reverting, ignoring my questions. I'm thinking the reference changes might be from some kind of automated editing tool (I don't use these tools so I'm not familiar with them), but if that's the case it doesn't negate my concern about their lack of communication. Note, the user also appears to be editing from an IP as well, looking at very similar edits to the Shari Lewis article and other articles; for example, [48]. Anyway, could an administrator please get this user's attention somehow? I don't understand how removing reference information is helpful to these articles, but I don't want to get into an edit war with the user on it. Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Left them a polite but firm message.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

get this user's attention somehow- Meh. My preferred method is a two-by-four, but that's just not appropriate in all situations.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

PS. They don't edit much each day, and we might have a wait.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:, much thanks for responding and leaving the message on the user's page. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Blanked my message. <sigh />-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a week with another request for a response.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Request topic ban for new SPA Aheezau

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

---

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

This account is exclusively attacking BLPs mostly of centrist Democrats but also of at least one conservative thinker: [49]

I see that other editors besides me have reverted many of his edits, with explanations concerning POV, OR, SYNTH, etc., resulting in edit-warring in at least one case I am not sure what our policy is, but I am confident this is not the first time Wikipedia has encountered a similar problem. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This account is two years old but only started editing just yesterday. He's been informed regarding discretionary sanctions due to his edits to the topic area, but other than a note left by Doug Weller, nobody has reached out to this user or offered to educate or help them in a non-templated manner. Wouldn't this be an ideal thing to try and do first as opposed to jumping straight into a topic ban discussion? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

He got a nice welcome note from Doug Weller, but is showing zero interest in that welcome. I am sorry if my message was bitey, but it is rosebuds and whipped cream compared to the stuff he is putting into BLPs, with a clear purpose to do maximum damage. I did go to IRC first to try to figure out what to do, but nobody was there to help, so my second choice was trying to get admin advice here at ANI. I noticed somebody else had asked for a topic ban on somebody, so I thought "That looks good." Sorry if it wasn't the right suggestion.HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Following suggesgtion of ~Oshwah~, I did just add a more educational message linking to various Wikipedia policies: User_talk:Aheezau#WP:BRD_"Bold,_revert,_discuss" — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Dohhh sorry I forgot to sign the above. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange - How's it going here? Any luck sorting things out or do you still need help? Let me know and I'll be happy to. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. Yesterday I got a copyright image deleted that he'd uploaded. I think there's a competence problem here also. If he continues to cause problems.... Doug Weller talk 16:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Has not returned since .. "2018-05-05T13:58:10 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . m Ben Shapiro ‎ (Undid revision 839727629 by Grayfell (talk) Sure, but there has been considerable public interest in getting an accurate height, it's been raised by a lot of people, including Ben himself) (Tag: Undo)"--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• He seems to have vanished, so I am content if you want to close this. But can you give a link to wherever it is archived in case he starts again? Thanks. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Footballinbelgium

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

---

I have contacted this editor five times over five weeks about creating blps with no references. They have continued to edit in between these messages, but just aren't responding. I have pointed them towards WP:V and WP:BURDEN, and that communication is mandatory per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE, but no response. Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup we need a notice board just for Boleyn!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gave them a templated warning. Another rare bird who'll never get frequent flyer miles this way.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

199.101.62.36 still combative towards North American/US editors despite previous ban

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

---

Please see previous ANI here. 199.101.62.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for two weeks in November for this behaviour, but judging from their talk page it has continued unabashed. I haven't had any interaction with this user per se but I do have Charlotte Martin‎ on my watch list and these edits [50] [51] appear problematic which is what lead me to their talk page. A number of their other talk page contributions since being unblocked are also concerning [52] [53] and see also the edit summary here [54] ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  15:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by naturopath

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

---

After replying a couple of times to a comment on the Naturopathy talk page, I realized that I should probably report this as a legal threat by User:Dr Anna Nordin: "This is sheer discrimination and Wikipedia should be sued" and "I am looking for a lawyer. You need to prosecuted for written false conveying information." --tronvillain (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Multiple failed login attempts

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

---

Hello.
I am aware this is not the right place for this issue, also of the fact that there is nothing that can be done regarding this. But I wanted to get opinions from other editors as well.

I have been sort of inactive since last few days/weeks. On May 3, 2018; there was one failed attempt to login to my account. I ignored that (it wasnt me). But when I logged in today, there was another notification telling me that there were multiple attempts to login. This wasnt me either. Just to be sure, I have updated my password.

Has something similar happened with anybody else recently? This is why I actually I brought this up here, in case somebody is trying to login to others' account. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• PS: I am aware nothing can be done about it, but I request to other editors to keep this thread open for a while (2-3 days?) so that other editors may comment if they are having the same issue. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help-_who_tried_to_break_into_my_account?. Short answer, this has happened to everybody. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Scott Pruitt page

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

---

My family frequently use wikipedia, however, the page about Scott Pruitt seems to be politically motivated. Normally you have a subtitle named controversy, but in Pruitts case almost the whole text is of that type. It appear to be the authors ”Activist” and ”Snooganssnoogans” that are behind this. I think it is unfortunate if I would have to caution my kids about english wikipedia. By the way, I am Swedish, no fan of Trump and I like energy efficiency and nature.

Best Wishes Adam Wikstrom, Ph.D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.83.73 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some editors, as you have noticed, have such a strong habit of belligerently defending their positions on political articles that editors with more moderate views avoid them, and we end up with very biased articles. Natureium (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

There do appear to be some non-neutral edits to the article. But it would be best to address those on the talk page, per the closer's comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Can a non-admin relist Afd articles

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

---

Hi admins,

I noticed that a few of Afd are relisted or closed by an non admin, in general, non admin closure is allowed for clear cut consensus , but can they be relisted by a user not an admin. That is where I need clarification.- read WP:NOTBADNAC, understood, but the rate of relisting / closing for a user is a little alarming. So I just wanted someone to look after this issue. --Quek157 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User involved: Kirbanzo. Do look through the entire list of Afd closed or relisted. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Update user notified [55] --Quek157 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• 78.26 could possibly answer that question for you. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @78.26:, since requested, can you enlighten me. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but IMO they generally shouldn't per WP:RELISTBIAS. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• I make sure to avoid relist bias, and only relist those with minimal responses or really obscure consensus. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• We had an RfC last February on this. Discussions with no responses can be closed by default as soft delete, which is why I generally think it is better for non-admins to avoid relisting them as non-admins do not have the technical ability to close as soft delete. I'm not commenting on your actions specifically here (I haven't looked at them), just answering the general question. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Kirbanzo and TonyBallioni:[56], this relisting I have an issue on, it is relisted by an admin on 3 May, for a 7 day repeat discussion, but then you relisted on 7 May which is way beyond the 10 May allowed. No action should be taken till then. Given your Afd stats [57] which yes there's a lot of Afds, but not all are correct, I will suggest you wait for other experienced non-admins to do it as well as admins. I don't do Afd closure whatsoever as this is very controversial.--Quek157 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

one more [58] --Quek157 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• In general relisting is ok but I've got a couple AfDs that have been relisted incorrectly twice instead of waiting for an Admin to close and delete. Be careful. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• A reminder that it's generally better to !vote on an AfD with insufficient participation than it is to relist it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Kirbanzo, TonyBallioni, Power~enwiki, and Legacypac:yet another [59] - clearly consensus is not met yet and the time is not up yet, it is out on 3 May and you closed as Keep on the 7th May, "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)", I am very concerned about such actions.--Quek157 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, that is a fair question as to why they relisted early besides the soft delete question, and I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dolby Cinema venues as delete. I don't see a need for any sanctions here, but Kirbanzo, but by the looks of it, roughly half of your AfD participation was within the last 2-3 weeks. It might be better to become more familiar with the commenting and how the community !votes before taking part in the closing process. Anyway, I'm closing this with a warning to be more careful relisting because I don't see the need for any sanctions at this time, and because keeping this open any longer isn't likely to change that outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Regarding the above closed section

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

---

Hi @Kirbanzo, TonyBallioni, Power~enwiki, and Legacypac:,

Sorry I can't give my closing statement which is null and answered by mods well. This is the last statement I will like to give "*Can I humbly suggest a RfC for the user to stop closing / relisting Afd until more suitable. I would have completely no problem if a New Page Reviewer, Autopatrolled user, users with good understanding of deletion policies doing whatsoever. It is good for non-admin (me included) to be given rights to do so, I even tried to write (but abandoned an article NAOO in my user space called stupidly Non Administriative Adminstrive Action (Sic) for something like this) to relieve the load for admins. But this is clearly a little risky.".

I am happy with the outcome. To the user, it isn't personal but this is the first ever time in my 1 year of editing wikipedia (active timing) I had took someone to ANI. I just don't want Afd to be shortcut and consensus to be stopped. I don't dare to close Afd at all / relist as I know I am inadequate to do so. Doing moderator things aren't easy and I am sure you will be a good one when you have enough experience. I hope that you can participate more in Afds as well as other areas (editing stuffs). I know you had been a vandal fighter (though mixed results), so don't be discouraged. --Quek157 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruption at AfC/AfD

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

---

User:Securityreligion is doing inapproriate things like moving his page back to Draft twice when taken to AfD and adding his own AfC approval template to his creation. Could an Admin look through he contribution history and his talk page as there are other issues. I foresee a block coming. Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not know using Wikipedia properly. I did that mistakenly--Securityreligion (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The first time that the page was userfied in order to speedy-close the AFD could have been good faith. The second time, it is a pattern. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See Soubhik Das . Robert McClenon (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made a note at the AfD. Page protected by DMacks. Leaving open in case further discussion is warranted.11:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

User has been blocked as part of a UPE sock farm (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spiritualbanda). Probably nothing more to do here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Non-admin closure

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

---

Umm, this closure was not a case of clear consensus and should not have been closed by a non-admin. As per Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure. I ask it be reverted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm involved (though I don't have a strong opinion or preference between the titles), but I tend to agree; this wasn't an obvious decision. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you asked the closer to revert it before raising it here? I agree that the close was an incorrect NAC but ANI is not the right venue to raise it. That's what WP:MRV is for, although I'd urge Red Slash to just revert their close voluntarily and let an admin handle it. Regards SoWhy 14:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

^^^ That; the closing instructions say that the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure, so if Red Slash refuses to revert, move review is the next step. (edit-conflicted with SoWhy while trying to add this to my post above) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Moot now, since Ymblanter has reverted the NAC without discussion. Regards SoWhy 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec)  Done on purely formal grounds (I am not an admin either) and left a notice on the talk page of the closed; also I left the closing statements in the discussion. I have no idea whether the closure was good or not, it just had a potential to be (and was indeed) contested, so that we need an administrator (who may choose to upheld the previous closure).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Next time, don't. The policy Casliber cited is clear that a wrong NAC cannot be reversed just because it was a NAC. Now you have reopened the discussion but left the page moved, creating more confusion... Regards SoWhy 14:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, it is indeed against the policy. I will revert myself now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Nixela

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

---

Nixela appears to be very new to Wikipedia, although I would be interested in whether they have edited under a different name previously. Despite numerous messages from myself, as well as messages from others, Nixela does not answer messages and has added a lot of unverified content to Wikipedia. I don't know if they are reading any of their messages, but I have pointed them to WP:V and pointed out that communication is mandatory per the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE. Perhaps they will comment here and we can resolve this? Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Nixela, do you have anything to say about your edits? Are you unaware of how to how to use your talk page? Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No edits after this was posted.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request

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

---

Hi. Please could someone look into the possibility of a rangeblock on this 39.57 IP range? The editor pops up pretty much every day and makes non-constructive edits to articles and has been blocked nearly a dozen times under different addresses in the past few weeks alone. Sure enough, after the latest block (today), they are back again doing the same. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Yeah, 39.57.0.0/16 blocked for a month. I thought there'd be more collateral damage, but everything back to at least 23 April is the same editor, so this isn't an issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you (didn't expect that to be solved so quick)! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

Dude this bot undid my edit of Ron pearlman. I edited that page because it said he voiced both the stabbington brothers in tangled the series. But he only voiced pachy stabbington while sodeburns stabbington was voiced by John DiMaggio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywarp499 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Skywarp499: Probably not-- removed content w/o an edit summary.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Community ban for User:*Treker

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

---

User recently received an indefinite block for profane personal attacks against multiple users (this follows a block two years ago for 3RR violations). User does not respect the sanction, and openly admits block evasion via IP.[60] A community ban seems relevant. 5.68.200.207 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That was not whole the reason for his block. Not going into details. If he's ready to return, he needs to seek unblock on his user talk. He left a message with on his talk for NeilN. He'll need to take the lead on this. Sorry if you are one of the people pissed off with him, but not endorsing this now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Not that we know w/o a CU that is not someone imitating him. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the IP left a message the other IP reverted. We seem awful hot-to-trot here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Not endorsing (a non-admin comment). My interactions with the user have been good, and seeing the productive edits go by on my watch list it's easy to tell that the user is an asset to the project. I hope the current situation is resolved and a quick return can occur. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

• Just a note that I have blocked 5.68.200.207 for repeating the removal of Treker's apology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Urgent rangeblock request to stop active disruption

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

---

I'm requesting a short rangeblock for 49.229.0.0/16 and 49.230.0.0/16 and 182.232.0.0/16. These two ranges have been reverting hundreds of edits targeting a couple users. Please see the linked range contribs. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC) It looks like Ronhjones is handling this. Request withdrawn. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Proxies and banned users

At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan, who even claimed that he was blocked for using a proxy at [61]. Some of them are proxies, e.g. Special:Contributions/158.169.150.5, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.4, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.6, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.8, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.8 Suspected proxy servers, Special:Contributions/23.83.37.154 Network sharing device or proxy server, Special:Contributions/196.245.9.70 blocked for two years by Zzuuzz as a VPN proxy. Iovaniorgovan also has left behind a trace: [62], namely hiding Special:Contributions/2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40. Why is this important? Well, similar IPs, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:95FD:D613:D79F:3876, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:B0C3:AD74:2C0B:5DC1 and Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:C4FD:1E27:9714:EFE1 have edited Timeline of Romanian history and are behaviorally WP:DUCKs of Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37, who was still blocked when Iovaniorgovan started editing. At [63] 158.169.150.5 has shown behaviorally being a WP:DUCK of Special:Contributions/Avpop, who has been indeffed as a WP:SOCK of Special:Contributions/Iaaasi (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi). At [64] Iovaniorgovan spilled the beans that he used the IP which Zzuuzz has blocked for two years and he is arguing with Vanjagenije, maybe because Iovaniorgovan thinks that he is still blocked (maybe he still uses a proxy/VPN, so a checkuser may investigate the matter, even if checkusers don't tell the IPs of usernames). Iovaniorgovan displays awareness of his probable wikifate, Anyway, like I said, I may get kicked off of Wiki for posting about DNA, at [65]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms what exactly it was that I did wrong? Thanks.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:SOCK and WP:PROXY. Now a completely new user, Cealicuca claims he was socking, instead of Iovaniorgovan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

May someone close this topic? I have initiated an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Tgeorgescu:, This is difficult for anyone not intimately familiar with the LTA case. Iovaniorgovan does appear to be advancing a nationalist POV, but the evidence of socking is ambiguous. This would appear to be covered by WP:ARBEE though - these articles could usefully be tagged under DS and that might provide heightened awareness. It does strain credulity to believe this is Iovaniorgovan's first account. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Nationalist: • a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others." Would you kindly point out even ONE of my comments which the definition above applies to? And yes, I never used Wiki before this year, this is my first Wiki account ever.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You have included Iosif Constantin Drăgan on a short list of "many reputed scholars". Dragan was a nationalist extremist through and through, he is reputed for propagating pseudohistory. And you have attacked Lucian Boia as a "Secretary of Propaganda for the Communist Party". Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Long-term sneaky insertions of apparently non-notable individual

There is an editor or set of editors who has been insistent upon inserting the name Ivan Taslimson into various wikipedia articles for years now. There are no clear references supporting this person's notability, and the insertions often have a devious nature: wikilinks that have no clear relationship to this person, or references with nothing besides the name "Taslimson Foundation". It seems that the actions of these person(s) is to the detriment of wikipedia, and I want other editors to at least be aware of what's going on. Some examples over the years (by no means exhaustive) include: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. —Myasuda (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, this is indeed at best spam of a non notable individual, at worst some hoax, but certainly something that has no place on enwiki. I have removed all entries which remained in articles, but probably they will be back soon. Fram (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I requested an edit filter. Swarm ♠ 23:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In case it's of use, here's the resolution of a prior related interaction [76] that was in part triggered by the edit [77] almost seven years ago. — Myasuda (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Internet archive bot abuse

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

---

As you can see SheriffIsInTown and Saqib are abusing internet archive bot. They are increasing edit counts using this bot. The concern is serious, they have been massively increasing article size with no real benefit, hence creating nuisance for users on mobile devices. Pinging @NeilN:, @Vanamonde93:, @Dennis Brown:, @Ivanvector: for better input on this overkilling habit.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@ರಾಹುಲ್: You've provided no diffs that show the perceived problem or where this has been previously discussed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See [78], [79] [80]. Like the problem, diffs are also massive.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Archiving dead references is desirable, see WP:LINKROT. Would SheriffIsInTown or Saqib like to join me in pondering why an eight-minute-old account's first edit is a frivolous ANI request naming them but pinging a bunch of administrators who are active at SPI? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been editing by IP and i created account to reverse them but preferred seeking opinions. Why will one rescue massive number of sources when they are not dead and adding them to article thus increasing article loading time. How it is frivolous? How it can be justified [81], rescuing tons of sources which are not dead at all. They can be rescued to save them from linkroit but it is not necessary to add archives to articles.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see the issue. They're adding archive links to protect against reference linkrot. This is, as far as I'm aware, in no way considered disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in some ways it can be. For example, it makes you go to the archived link instead of the live one, which might have had corrections since it was posted. You can, of course, click on the "archived from" link, but the general assumption is that that link is dead, which is why it was archived in the first place -- except not. It adds significant length to the reference. If you have four columns on a desktop, it would go quickly, but one column on a phone, not so much.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I am doing this out of an honest appetite to improve Wikipedia otherwise nobody have time to do this. If someone is worried about someone's edit count. I invite them to join us in benefitting Wikipedia by doing the same. I have taken long breaks when needed and am not worried about edit counts, that is a petty thing to say and think about an editor. I will request admins to please block this few minutes old account for filing this frivolous report, this is someone who is trying to just find excuses to get me blocked. Also, if you can find the master for this sock, it would greatly benefit the project. Admins know there are many editors against whom I have filed SPIs and they are deep down hurt because of that plus all those content disputes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not frivolous nor I am trying to get you blocked. I have no personal grudge against you. If this task was necessary, a bot can do this job on full site. It affects user experience on mobile devices.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sympathetic to this argument at all. Adding 14K to Duffy (singer) adds a fraction of a second load time on a dead-slow 1 Mbit connection and the mobile site collapses every section, including References, by default. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since we're talking about it, I have noticed that some editors (not the two named here specifically) add archive links to even very recent sources. I assumed this was sort of a way of permalinking the citation in case it does move or its content changes, but after I think about it I'm not sure that's good practice if the original source is still live. What if the source publishes a retraction after the archive date? I'm just thinking out loud, perhaps this would be better discussed elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see a problem here at all. And the concern about "They are increasing edit counts using this bot" seems to suggest Wikipedia values large edit counts... which it does not.

@SarekOfVulcan: That could be a concern, but because they set deadurl=no, the first link is the live page, not the archived one. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why I was pinged, and I don't see the issue, either. Yes, it inflates edit-count, but so what? Anyone judging another editor purely be edit-count deserves to be misled by the raw number. Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I pinged you for opinion. You said right but I think it is not true in all cases e.g. like calls against me to be blocked. This issue is important, @MelanieN: raised it here [82].--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Ah, missed that, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m not concerned about download time and don’t care about edit counts. I do have a concern over articles with large numbers of cites as all the extra non-text bytes can be very annoying when editing the articles. O3000 (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've used IABot just twice this month. This report is amusing. --Saqib (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Providing my reason for using IABot for the eyes of my edit-count-worried buddy. I use reFill to fix references but it leaves some of them, IABot is taking care of those thus effectively fixing the page. We all try to contribute in our own way and I am doing it in my way. If my edit-count-worried friend can convince all editors to not leave bare urls in articles then I will not have any need to do this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as NOTHERE. The probability is the account is a sock, but I can find no conclusive evidence supporting that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No comment on most of this discussion, but adding an archive link at the time of adding the citation in the first place is a good idea. I assumed this was sort of a way of permalinking the citation in case it does move or its content changes, but after I think about it I'm not sure that's good practice if the original source is still live. What if the source publishes a retraction after the archive date? It's a good idea to produce a permalink (as long as the archive is fine, linkrot won't matter), and the whole point of providing a citation date is to provide a sense of what the page looked like when you cited it. Changes to cited pages are problematic; if a page says "A and B" and you cite it to say "A and B", and then later it gets changed to "A", the casual observer will wrongly think that you faked the citation, i.e. you've added a hoax. Conversely, if it says "A" and you cite it to say "A", and later it gets changed to "A and B", the user who changes the text to "A and B", without changing the citation, has created a hoax because the source didn't say that. Provide a permalink, and these problems go away. They're not always useful (e.g. a citation to a scanned text on Google Books), but for most webpages they are. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of reFill

• The OP's concerns might be suspect, but there may be a genuine issue lurking nearby. When they use the reFill tool, SheriffIsInTown seem to be adding to the citation the current date as an |accessdate= parameter. Such an action implies that they have 1) checked that the link is live, and 2) inspected the text at the link and made sure its current version supports the part of the text that cites it. Given the speed of their editing, I'm finding it hard to imagine they do these checks: for example, how can they have checked the 14 citations that they expanded at this article in the interval of one (+/-1) minute since their previous, unrelated, edit [83]? This issue was raised by another editor last month, see User talk:SheriffIsInTown#reFill and accessdate. – Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe I am doing a good work and that is why I am doing it. I think my work should be appreciated instead of criticized. It requires a lot of time investment, I have experience with this tool and as of now have fixed thousands of pages which looked quite messy before that. reFill does not fix the links if it cannot access them so there is no question of it adding an accessdate to something which is not there. That's where comes in IABot. Instead of blanket criticizing, please point out any errors you find out. You will only find 0.00001 percent if you found any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

ReFill() will fetch whatever it finds at the url, even if the original webpage has moved. One such case, where you used reFill() to add accessdates to something that wasn't there, was pointed out in the discussion I've linked to above. – Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well then, if you aren't checking the bare links you expand, then you're essentially working like a bot. Given the scale of the task, if it were appropriate to do these edits in such a manner, a bot would have already been created and there would be no need for you to expend your time on it. But this is not an appropriate task for a bot, and neither is it for a user acting like one, see WP:MEATBOT. – Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You do not have any experience with reFill, you do not know what it fetches and what not. This is one problematic edit out of many thousands of good edits you are pointing out, anyone can make such a mistake. Your comment suggests that bare links should be left in the articles and neither a user nor a bot should fill them which is not a constructive comment. We have these tools to assist us with such tasks and I have capacity to do so and I am doing it. Also, I see from above comments that most admins did not see it much of a big issue. I am not going to leave bare links in the articles just because of some folks who are worried about edit counts and will keep working towards improving Wikipedia. ANIs like this cannot deter me from contributing. I will do whatever I can to keep contributing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

ReFill has an option to not add accessdates, which I leave on by default, since I'm not necessarily going to visit all the links I fill in.--Auric talk 11:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Person attempting to log into TedEdwards's account

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

---

What sort of person on Wikipedia, if any, would be able to determine the location of someone attempting to log into my account, and if it is possible to find the location of this person, could someone do that for me. I just want to see if it's someone I know possibly. TedEdwards 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There's been a major attack going on this week - it's more likely to be a complete stranger. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help-_who_tried_to_break_into_my_account. Natureium (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, cheers. It's just I've been on Wikibreak for a while, and I was getting these emails, so I just wanted to make sure everything was OK. TedEdwards 20:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editing - User: Uiscfd

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

---

Uiscfd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User Uiscfd is violating Wikipedia's guidelines by editing disruptly. On multiple articles such as United States men's national ice hockey team, United States men's national baseball team, United States men's national basketball team, United States men's national soccer team, and many more articles. This user is making multiple small edits that are changing articles, and are changing graphics. This is very disruptive and are causing many people to disagree with this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTbook365 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@ANTbook365: please notify user of this discussion per instrutions at the top.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) @ANTbook365: It might be best if you would discuss with the user first. I see nothing about this on their talk page.(notifying)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior: Beyond My Ken

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

---

• Alt-right
• user:Beyond My Ken

This editor is engaging in disruptive behavior which is preventing the improvement of the article Alt-right. The user has benn informed that they are being disruptive and have indicated their intention to continue disrupting the encyclopedia. I request appropriate sanctions to be levied in order to further improvement of Alt-right. Here are the facts:

1. Lionelt adds {{lead too long}} maintenance template [84]
2. Lionelt states his reasons for the template here Talk:Alt-right#Incels
3. Beyond removes the maintenance template with editsum "get a consensus forthis" [85]
4. Lionelt warns Beyond not to improperly remove maint. templates [86]
5. Beyond indicates they will disregard the warning [87]

The purpose of a maintenance template is to alert editors that another editor has identified a problem with an artcle. These templates are designed to create awareness and bring editors to the talk page to discuss the issue. This important process of article improvement is thwarted if the template is improperly removed.

WP:MTR says "It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first." Beyond has made no attempt to remedy the situation. Furthermore, he violated the enumerated conditions for template removal found at WP:WTRMT. If we allow the arbitrary removal of important maint. templates we will lose an important tool for article improvement. – Lionel^(talk) 06:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Alt-right#Incels - normal discussion is ongoing there in which I am taking part. We don't need a tag if the issue is being discussed on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. (1) You don't understand the purpose of a maint. template: to draw editors to the discussion. (2) the maint. tag is removed AFTER the problem has been resolved. Not during the discussion. Not before discussion even starts.

You are subverting the maint. template system. – Lionel^(talk) 07:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• At least there is some point to the infobox wars—having or not having an infobox makes a difference. However, battling to insert {{lead too long}} at the top of an article is absurd. Please find something useful to do. Jimbo gave us talk pages to discuss issues and a tag won't help. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges. The infobox conflict is a content issue. Improper removal of a maint. template is a black and white clear cut case of disruption. – Lionel^(talk) 07:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not if you haven't identified the problem. Just slapping a "lede too long" tag on and saying "this lede is too long" is insufficient (and frankly useless) - you need to explain on the talk page what needs to be removed, and why it needs to be removed. Since you haven't done that, the tag is pointless. Black Kite (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Presumably you think the lead is too long. Why not discuss the matter on the talk page and suggest which parts of the lead should be omitted and why? Yes, the lead is long. But it is a big article covering a lot of points. Which points should be skipped in the lead and why? Someone in a hurry might want to tag an article that gets very little editorial attention to alert a passing gnome (in case they are too dumb to notice the problem themselves) that they could fix it. In the article under consideration, there is plenty of editorial attention and insisting on a tag is a misunderstanding of the point of tags. They are not a weapon to force opponents to bend to your will. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The lede of that article looks too long because it contains two images and a portal template (most articles on political movements I've seen do not have any images in the lead except in the portal template), and it technically violates WP:LEDE by being split into five paragraphs rather than four. Adding a banner that says the lede is too long actually aggravates this problem of the lede being overly crowded, so it's difficult to take as a good-faith content dispute on that basis (if the OP, who curiously refers to himself in the third person, legitimately thought the lede's looking too long was a problem, he wouldn't be actively trying to make that problem worse), and its being forum-shopped to ANI underlines this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: with all due, WP:TC says "Tags must be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion." And I did that here [88] But that is really beside the point.

The clear cut violation here is improper removal of the maint. template. – Lionel^(talk) 07:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Another clear cut violation concerns WP:IDHT. How about working constructively by making suggestions about a solution to the problem you perceive? So far there appears to be only your opinion that the lead is too long. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Not just my opinion. The consensus on the page is that the lead is too long. This is due to (1) my tagging the article and (2) starting the discussion on Talk. – Lionel^(talk) 07:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, the question of the length of the lede has come up before, just in March, for instance, in this discussion, which unfortunately didn't go anywhere. ANI is not the place for discussing content questions, but some practical good looks like it will come out of the current discussion (which didn't need a tag to be started, simply opening a discussion on the talk page), as two small trims have been made, and two others have been suggested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. It is the consensus of AN/I that it's ok to remove a maint. template and leave just "get a consensus"? Please let me know. It would certainly make my life much easier. And we can close this.– Lionel^(talk) 07:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I sometimes get dinged at DYK because my articles have maintenance tags. As everyone knows, I'm so close to my 25DYK Medal I can taste it. So now I can just delete them all and leave behind "get a consensus."– Lionel^(talk) 08:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. With or without maintenance templates, it remains that the lead of this article is horrible. It seems that the topic is U.S.-centered. But it seems also that the T.H.E.M.-readers don't deserve to be advised of this simple fact. To which alt-what belongs such a nationalist vision of the wide world ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pldx1: ... Totally Hidden Extreme Magic? On a more serious note, you seem to be complaining that an article on a largely American phenomenon (and an almost purely American term) is focused on America ... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the word "American" should appear within the first sentence or two. I'm afraid the systemic biases of too many of our colleagues from the US inhibits them from realising that it is not always blatantly obvious that a particular topic is exclusively American. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Prehaps the opening paragraph suffers from WP:SEAOFBLUE, but that, along with the length of the lead don't really need to be brought here. Maybe an RfC would help get some neutral eyes involved? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know but I'm sure you know of WP:Point. Anyway I agree with others this seems to be a largely pointless discussion. Personally I would have left the tag in, but I also wouldn't have made a deal over it being removed when there was active discussion on how to try and fix the issue. Discussion which seems like it could be close to reaching consensus and which you haven't participated in beyond your initial comment. (And you seem to be only person who cares about the tag.) I'd note that if you disagree with the proposed partial or complete resolution, you should say so in the article talk page rather than fighting over the tag. Even more so since the the {{lead too long}} is probably one of the maintenence templates which is not so useful to the reader. (I.E. It should be obvious without much reading and even if it isn't, knowing it isn't something that is likely to be that helpful. It's not like they're going to avoid the article because of it or treat the info with caution.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Where can I ask about issues related to RFC in an article's Talkpage ?

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

---

I don't know where to put this question. Please remove this section if this was not a right page to ask this question.

My question is: Where can I ask about issues related to RFC in an article's Talkpage ?

Gustmeister (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Gustmeister - Really it depends on what the issue is?. –Davey2010^Talk 13:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010I want to ask about the qualification of participants in a RfC related to a certain topic that only people familiar with this topic could discuss about it. Other people who are not familiar with such an topic have no clue about it. Gustmeister (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Luigi.a.cruz

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

---

Luigi.a.cruz's userpage appears to promote copyright violation. According to the WP:UP policy page, this is not permitted. I looked at their talk page, and they also seem to have a long history of being warned about copyright infringements and improper edit summaries. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

I do not read that userpage as promoting copyright violation. It is an expression of disappointment at how strictly we adhere to our copyright policy. I too was disappointed when I first encountered that policy, but I never advocated breaking it. And as time went on, I came to understand the wisdom of that policy. Let this editor have the chance to accept the policy. If their failure to comply with the policy is the problem as opposed to their userpage comment, then please make that case instead, with evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There are several warnings on Luigi.a.cruz's talk page regarding issues with copyright, as well as inaccurate edit summaries, although none are recent. The latest one was from 2016. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

This editor's activity has been on the decline since 2015, and they have made only four edits in 2018. The last copyright warning I see goes back to 2010, so I see no need for administrator action. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

New user account raising eyebrows

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

---

New user account 12LA is making some pretty odd first edits over just a couple of days. Contributions here [89] and here [90] Account creation was four days ago, then quiet for three days, with first seven edits yesterday being at their userspace. After that, immediately going to AfD then a few article edits with the warning bot tagging their edit summaries, "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits, Undo" on several of them. The vast majority of their edits show prior knowledge and editing savvy. I became aware of them because of this (their first edit to another editor's userspace) [91] followed up by this [92]. I'm thinking sock, but no idea who it could be, otherwise I'd file an SPI. Whatever the case, they don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, rather, to cause some havoc. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Josh.172, perhaps. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I ran a CU based on their wikistalking me (demonstrating a sudden interest in GAs I'd worked on, which they claim as their own on their userpage) - there's no clear master, but they are proxying all over the shop and seem to be making an effort to hide their identity. But I agree with Winkelvi; there's no way this is a brand new user, the edit history is extremely suspicious. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I also CU'ed the account, and my findings were the same as Yunshui's. That said, this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case, and I have blocked indefinitely. Courcelles (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this when he sorted my AFD. I was surprised to find out he's been on the site for only a couple of days. They also put put up topicons stating they helped make some articles GA, despite the fact that they clearly couldn't have, since they only joined so recently. I'm guessing they are A) a sock puppet trying to make a goodhand account or B) Someone like me, who forgot the name of their old account and decided to start a new one. If that's the case, then they forgot to state that they had a previous account to conform with policy, so someone should inform them about that.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless they're alt of Yunshui, per above, they're not a forgotten user in good faith, people acting in good faith don't claim other people's work as their own (they were claiming GA's written by Yunshui, not some other account). Courcelles (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NLT violation

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

---

To be found in the mainspace edit. I leave it in ANI's capable hands. Scr★pIron^IV 21:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Intellectual dark web

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

---

Intellectual dark web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page Intellectual dark web was recently re-created following additional coverage after a recent New York Times piece. It's clear that it will be a disaster area for quite some time. Can uninvolved admins please place the page on their watchlists, and possibly place it under discretionary sanctions if any apply? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The re-creator of the page has begun edit warring to restore BLP vios. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

well damn. Looks like a 1rr and insta block for blp situation, but I'm lousy at DS.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course that's not what I did. I assumed good faith on your BOLD edits but reverted them because I thought they were unwarranted. I then went to your talk page and made a suggestion and tried opening a dialogue. Then before starting a conversation, you reverted my completely legitimate reversion of your BOLD edit. --IDW5605 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Having trouble understanding the BLP concern. Did not see anything defamatory.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A whole lot of content saying specific people were part of the "intellectual dark web," without reliable sourcing to support it. Nothing earth-shattering, but BLP vios nonetheless. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And a user whose name starts "IDW". And whose first actions were creating this article in a sandbox. I hear the sound of quacking. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No person can be totally objective about oneself, so I don't even try... I'm a big fan of these folks and have never tried concealing it! -- IDW5605 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you know what a conflict of interest is? --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a conflict of interest because I am not pushing an agenda, I wasn't the one who opted to recreate the article. I was perfectly content with the AfD discussion. But every editor edits articles they have knowledge or interest in, that's human nature. I also said I am not objective about my self, not that I am not objective about the content of the article. --IDW5605 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

IDW5605 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for sock-puppetry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to hear from @Spartaz: as to why he rejected an AFD whole cloth, starting this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Because of additional coverage after a recent New York Times piece. The discussion on the talk page should provide enough explanation. (Note: I filed the original AfD after an attempt to redirect to Eric Weinstein was declined, and felt the reversion at this time was reasonable) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering how absolutely gutted the article is, and how people on the talk page were calling for waiting till the 17th, I don't see consensus for this unilateral change. I'd like to hear from Spartaz. --Tarage (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of voiding an AfD. The thing to do is to leave it be and recreate the article and take your chances on a G4 or another AfD.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Or take the AFD to DRV for any of its reasons. The New York Times piece might be a basis for DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

If you had the script that strikes through Nansen of blocked editors you'd see the creator is blocked, and checking, it's a sock. Doug Weller talk 05:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay so... we're deleting the article again yeah? Since it was improperly restored and created by a sock. Do I need to tag it or can an admin just delete it? --Tarage (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the major and recent New York Times piece discussing the topic at length, published since the last AfD, I have concluded that another AfD is the best way to resolve this, and have declined a speedy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times piece is conspicuously marked as opinion, not fact-checked like the Times' reliable news coverage. So a second AfD would seem to be an exercise in futility. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

DanaUllman

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

---

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
• Indefinite topic ban [93]
• User talk:DanaUllman contains discussion of the scope of this ban, DanaUllman is well aware that it applies everywhere.

DanaUllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, he is, by admission, Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a tireless promoter of homeopathy. He has made exactly one mainspace edit since his 2008 topic ban, and that was promoting a purveyor of bogus diagnostics, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted.

He was blocked for two weeks on March 24, 2018 for violating his topic ban. He then advocated homeopathy again at [94], promoting his idiosyncratic view that homeopathy is "nanopharmacology", and with [95] he retreads his long-standing fringe argument that a small and badly conducted study in a journal unrelated to medicine somehow provides a plausible framework for homeopathy.

In this diff [96] he asks for help undeleting Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but immediately veers into characteristic apologia for homeopathy itself: Despite any person's belief in this system of medicine, it is still used by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and there is still positive studies being published on it in major medical and scientific journals (NOTE: I certainly admit that there are also "negative" trials too...but as in ALL areas of medicine and science, there are studies with positive and negative results.. His comments when challenged include: My contribution did not mention "homeopathy" and it seems that the British Medical Journal is not a fringe source, nor is the President of the British Medical Association a fringe person. He simply does not seem to understand the problem, even after all these years.

His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. I think he should be banned outright. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support community ban. If his last article edit was to add a section "Significant Support from Esteemed Individuals", then he clearly still has either no idea of how, or no willingness, to write neutrally even after all these years. And the comment "Despite any person's belief in this system of medicine, it is still used by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and there is still positive studies being published on it in major medical and scientific journals" is a clear breach of his topic ban. Generally looking at his contributions, I see only the promotion of homeopathy (and related fringe things) and the promotion of himself - and really nothing else. If the promotion of his own support for homeopathy is the only thing he's here for, then the topic ban is effectively a site ban anyway, and I think it would be clearer (and with no boundaries to push) if we formalize it. Should there ever be anything else he wants to do here, he can always appeal - in just the same way a topic ban can be appealed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll just add that I see he was editing in defence of his own biography, which was fine, but it was not fine to engage in a tangential argument about homeopathy during that discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Purely as an aside, I've just read about that "Langmuir" paper by Chikramane et al, and it's been a long time since I've seen such genuinely head-shaking incompetence. It says quite a lot about an editor who thinks it's valid science. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Those authors published a paper suggesting that homeopathy is valid because they detected silicates in solutions after indefinite dilution and agitation. In glass vessels. And no, they did not wash them in HF beforehand, according to the method section. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

And, they tested multiple commercial homeopathic "remedies" of different dilutions based on heavy metals and found similar levels of heavy metals in all of them. And instead of the obvious conclusion that there was probably heavy metal contamination in the water used for the dilution (they'd used ultra-pure water as a control rather than the water actually used by the manufacturers, and it is apparently common for such products to contain heavy metal contaminants in India), they concluded that the concentration stays the same no matter how much you dilute it. That is moronic. And anyone who uncritically accepts their claims is an idiot. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I know, I'm getting off topic, but incompetence of this order really annoys me, as do those who try to promote it - and they should have no platform here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose One edit since 2008 in mainspace? Seems we can do better than get too upset with the person, as otherwise we open the gates to banning all whom we think are "whacko" from the start. I suggest we use bans for those whose edits are causing problems with the actual project. Sorry. Collect (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty open to banning all "whacko"s, assuming that TBANs do not stop the whackery, and that by whackos it is meant those who cannot contribute as they do not believe in reality. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As a general note, we shouldn't only consider mainspace edits when determining whether or not an editor is a useful contributor. Wasting the time of other editors on talk pages and in project space – especially in the absence of meaningful or beneficial mainspace contributions, and while repeatedly testing or violating the bounds of a long-standing topic ban – is certainly sanctionable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue is the constant violations of the topic ban, the relevance of the single mainspace edit is that he brings no value to offset the tban violations and self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support CBAN waste of time to deal with continual TBAN vios and their comments - it doesn't appear he wants to contribute outside of promoting homeopathy and thus there is no benefit to him being here; If he does wish to contribute other than promoting homeopathy he can appeal this ban if it is enacted Galobtter (pingó mió)
• O.K., Support CBAN Noting that the last edit mentioned above was not supported by a ref meeting WP:MEDRS. If the user wishes to contribute meaningfully, rather than as has been mentioned, he can let us know. This promotionalism and COI rises to the level of WP:NOTHERE-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - per Guy Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBan - Per above. --Tarage (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBan. Wasting editors' time and patience is a big deal. Those are our most precious assets. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
• Support CBAN per everyone above - They're only here to promote themselves or do a bit of POV pushing, "Time sink" would be an understatement to describe this user, Net negative to the project. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Per WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. I note with interest that, having read through the (incredibly confusingly formatted) 2009 ANI, I can find no place where there was firm consensus expressed for a topic ban--there definitely wasn't a formal close, though a slight majority did favour a ban. In any event, DanaUllman must have themselves believed that there was a ban in place, given that they disappeared immediately after being apparently removed from their favourite topic area. So the SPA-oriented thinking and the attitude needed to return to an area they understood the community wished them to stay away from remain compelling factors for me, regardless of the formalities. "Alternative medicine" is a contentious enough topic area as is without our failing to enforce lines drawn for those who come to advocate for a very specific outlook, rather than to improve the project broadly. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

HouseOfChange editor should be banned.

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

---

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

I'm not 100% certain about the exact process that needs to be followed here. But this HouseOfChange editor has multiple biographical articles on watch, which they use to suppress valid, correctly sourced information about controversies these figures have been involved in. Their excuse is always that "Wikipedia doesn't allow information about controversies" and that essentially, Wikipedia pages should look like polished biographical resumés more than a collection of facts about individuals and groups. I'm not aware of all the rules here, but I am dead certain you'd have some rules aimed at preventing this kind of memory hole style censorship.

You cannot have an accurate encyclopaedia if you allow editors to remove inconvenient facts. Check their history on the Neera Tanden page, where multiple editors have brought up the fact that controversies aren't covered, check Al Giordano, all of my edits have been factually based and correctly referenced, there's no excuse to continue removing them except for suppression of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezau (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

New editor causing problems by inserting POV? Check. Accusations of censorship? Check. Not using the talk page? Check. Calling out an established editor wanting them banned? Check. Multiple warnings on their own talk page? Check. Oh, and special bonus round, a warning from an admin! @EdJohnston: want to share your thoughts? --Tarage (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You did notify @HouseOfChange: of this as required, yes? Don't worry, I did it for you. --Masem (t) 06:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: My personal opinion is that Aheezau is not the same person as PerfectlyIrrational. The latter seems to attack Trump and his supporters, while Aheezau seems to be re-fighting the 2016 Democratic primaries against previous allies of Hillary Clinton. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Aheezau: Holding the sock issue in abeyance as that will be determined elsewhere, I see that OP has found the way here very quickly. I see that other fronds of WP:DR have not been utilized. OP has not sought discussion despite calls to adhere to WP:BRD. Has jumped at once to sanctions for those with whom they are in disagreement. My inclination is to block OP as OP has already received DS notices, is clearly disruptive, and gives the appearance of nothere. Any sanction levied here will not be against HouseOfChange.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Masem and others for notifying and speaking up for me. Anyone who looks at talk pages for Joy-Ann_Reid or Lawrence_M._Krauss can see that I try to reach consensus on controversial material. Aheezau and an IP who agrees with him are double-teaming me at Al Giordano and WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Al_Giordano to add sexual harassment allegations sourced to a HuffPo article by a freelancer who has feuded with Giordano in the past. My understanding of WP:BLP is that if even one more RS takes up that topic, it will go into the Giordano article, but certainly not using the draft proposed by Aheezau[97].HouseOfChange (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed, in this 2016 hit piece against Giordano by the same HuffPo freelancer above that Neera Tanden is also on his bad side, considered part of the "headass" region, which a link from the article informs me consists of people supporting Hillary Clinton. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Feels like we're in Australia again... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

re-fighting the 2016 Democratic primaries-""We have met the enemy, and he is us" -democrtic party, 2016-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Removing my own frivolous comment, which did not add to the discussion.) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• It should also be mentioned in this thread that on May 5 I came to ANI about Aheezau after he made edits I considered disruptive to multiple articles:[98]. (So it is reasonable that Aheezau knew about ANI even if he is in fact a new editor.) ~Oshwah~ closed it because Aheezau apparently stopped editing. But he started again, so here we are again. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Let's go over some of the the alphabet soup violations associated with this user's 21 edits: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:EW, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:IDHT, WP:BRD, WP:DR, WP:V, WP:CON. Also, given that we just let a complaint against them slide, and are now dealing with a bad faith retaliatory report, I think there's sufficient case for a WP:NOTHERE boomerang. Blocking OP indef. Swarm ♠ 23:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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