Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

RfC Enforcability of logged editing restrictions

An RfC has been opened about whether voluntary editing restrictions logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary can be enforced in the same was as those logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Your input would be appriciated.

The RfC is located at WP:Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions Jbh ^Talk 06:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

IP accusing everyone of bias, malfeasance, skullduggery. Will not drop stick

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

---

1. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made this addition to an article, and was reverted twice by SounderBruce, and again by SarekOfVulcan. SarekOfVulcan posted a {{Uw-biog2}} warning.
2. The IP then kicked off this discussion. IP 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 accused them "a serious violation of WP:BRD", and of "tag teaming". Sarek pointed out the reasons for removing the edit, and Mjroots and myself gave additional explanations. Primarily WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:BLP1E, and the fact that the addition was not cited at all.
3. In spite of the detailed reasoning given, the IP claimed no justifications for the reverts were given. The IP accused me of "threatening" them. Sarek suggested they read WP:IDHT. The IP denied the reasoning given by the three others, and I replied with an even longer and more detailed attempt to explain. The IP denied all of this reasoning again, and accusing everyone of bias.
4. No other editor has expressed support for the IP's position.
5. Rather than waste any more time beating this dead horse, I marked the discussion closed and posted on their talk page that they should proably drop it, or else follow one of the suggested actions at WP:Dispute resolution. They accused me of trying to "intimidate" them. The IP then opened a new discussion on the article talk page, denying consensus is against them, accusing all of NPOV violations, accusing them of not explaining their reverts, accusing them of edit warring, and trying "to hide behind their tricks".
6. Meanwhile over at Talk:Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, where I haven't followed closely, 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 has cast numerous aspersions and was warned repeatedly to stop making personal attacks.

So there. It's your basic WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:IDHT. Probably a temporary or indef block is in order. Reason has not worked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Has the OP returned any of the disputed text to any articles as yet? --Jayron32 02:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• He got to 2RR on one article back in may, but that's the extent of it. 1RR an another article. But that's it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• So then what do admins have to do. Are we supposed to block a user for using article talk pages? That's what they are supposed to do. So long as they aren't currently being disruptive to article text, I'm disinclined to do anything at all. Unless and until this becomes a problem for readers, let him say his piece. If consensus doesn't agree with him, and if he also doesn't edit against consensus, then I feel no need for admins to intervene at all. --Jayron32 03:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, all those polices about behavior towards other editors, aren't a thing any more? All that matters is what happens in the article namespace? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I for one do not enjoy being insulted by users like this, and would consider the user's behavior to be disruptive even if confined to a talk page, considering he chose to call me out by name based on a POV-motivated misunderstanding of how the editing process works. I have been editing for almost a decade and don't appreciate this being permitted without consequences. So far the user has also shown a disregard towards policy even when warned multiple times. It might be time for the "stick" now to get the point across.Legitimus (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting choice of word ... "malfeasance". I was accused of that exact same thing a little over a year ago. I wish I could find the exact diff with that word in it, but not able to readily. Might have been redacted somewhere, as much of this IP-hopper's edits were. But there was This talk page threat. A big thing on RFPP Texas Revolution. A bunch of other edits hither and yon. Bottom line, it was a SPI. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I could extensively address the many misrepresentations by Dennis Bratland which he made above, and elsewhere, but I am quite doubtful that he will be appropriately punished for what he did, and continues to do. Tell me why I should bother. I haven't been actually requested to participate. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

I have been on a trip for a few days, and just saw this. While I am glad to see Dennis Bratland's request be ignored, I still have objections to what he has done. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Editor changing lead on biota articles against consensus + massive IDHT

• Couiros22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Couiros22: has been editing a large number of articles about biota (mainly fish so far), making changes to the lead against consensus, MOS guidance and the Fish Project advice. Typically, if the article title is the scientific name, they change the first sentence from starting with the article title to the common name (not WP:COMMONNAME) and sometimes to an arbitrary choice amongst a number of common names for the species or even ambiguous names. I became aware of this when they edited an article on my watchlist.

A sample of some of his recent changes: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] there are way too many to list them all here, but a quick check of their contributions will find plenty more if you want to look.

The editor was first called to task for this behaviour here followed by considerable back and forth involving a number of editors including myself. The editor has continued to make their changes unabated, despite advice and several warnings that action may be taken if they do not cease [11][12][13][14]and most recently[15]. The editor has made further edits since the last warning, as I write this the first three diffs above were made after the last warning. The editor is simply not listening.

The editor does appear to do some useful work on article categories, but I have not checked whether they suffer from the same idiosyncratic approach as that used toward the article leads. I am not sure what appropriate administrative action should be taken here, I am leaning towards a short block to get their attention followed by a topic ban on biota articles, broadly construed, after the block expires or is successfully appealed.

- Nick Thorne ^talk 15:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a problem of Couiros22 causing major problems or vandalism. The edits the editor is making are pretty trivial, and the errors that he is creating are also relatively minor formatting errors. The main problem is Couiros22 is exhibiting clear WP:IDHT behavior after several different people have persistently and politely pointed out the problems with his edits, and he has just continued onward with the same behavior. This type of editing is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment, and signals that Couiros22 does not care whether people have to go along behind him to correct the errors. I support a removal of editing privileges from Couiros22 for the time being. I am on the fence about whether or not he can persuasively convince the community that his manner of editing against consensus can improve in the future. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation develop for some time – I happen to have the user's talk-page on my watchlist. Looking through that page, I see two areas where the editor has come into disagreement with others: the present kerfuffle over fish names, and an earlier one over the categorisation of birds, where two pillars of the birds wikiproject separately took issue with what Couiros had been doing. In both cases there's a fairly alarming reluctance to listen to what others are saying. I don't see that there's been any conflict over, say, articles on French geography, so perhaps this can be resolved without anyone getting blocked. I suggest the same topic ban on all biota articles and categories, broadly construed, that Nick Thorne has put forward above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just spent about two hours replacing the article title at the beginning of the opening sentence of a large number of fish articles edited by Couiros22 (more to come, but I do have to sleep sometime). I noticed a large number of category changes as I was working. I did not investigate the appropriateness of those changes as that's a can of worms I'd prefer not to open, but given this reply when queried about a category change by another editor approximately one day after this AN/I thread was started I am not convinced that Couiros22 understands, or cares about, the collaborative nature of our work here. Seeing that reply, I asked who had made that determination here and received this which to me implies a disregard for other editors' opinions. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Couiros22 simply does not engage properly in discussion, seeming to regard all comments, however polite, and however well grounded in existing policies, as a challenge to be resisted. Couiros22 needs to learn that editing here requires consensus and following established guidelines and policies. I support removing editing privileges for a time in the hope that this will lead to better behaviour. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'd be interested in other editors opinion on this edit. DexDor ^(talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thin ice cracks within the week

Realphi was just unblocked Monday after 6 unblock requests, and said:

• I now understand that I should not indulge in Edit Wars

He currently has warnings for edit warring on 2 different pages today

Dlohcierekim gave the following conditions:

• Please always use edit summaries

He has made 20 edits to Skandha (disambiguation). 5/20 have edit summaries. Similar record on Religion.

I don't think he's technically violated 3RR, but he clearly doesn't care about avoiding the reasons he was blocked. Natureium (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would wonder if a topic ban from religion would give us a chance to tell if this is a problem with the editor in general or just with this topic. That they apparently have continued in the behavior that lead to their block could suggest the problem lies with them, but as all of their edits so far fall into the topic of religion we don't really have anything to confirm that it's not the topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Bloody Hell. Reblocked for a week. Feel free to unblock or change length of block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock unless they provide a good indication that they'll try only editing some other topic long enough to show that their general ability is not the problem (just the specific ability to handle religious pages), or a formal topic ban passes here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The unblock was a last chance. It will take very strong persuasion for me to not make this an indef block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Has he made any positive contributions? I'm not feeling like going through 800 contribs because it would certainly be well buried, but judging from his talk page, I would assume the answer is no. Natureium (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

His edits in religion could be constructive if he had gone about them in a different way. He's especially focused on distinguishing between universal and ethnic religions, which is a concept that I've seen a lot of authors assume that distinction without actually explaining it. If time and money weren't issues, such an article also would be on my list of articles to write. However, he wants to attach so many ideas to universal religions, and especially emphasize Jainism, that the core notability of the idea gets drowned out. He's also been sneaking references to his universal religion article back into articles after the article was redirected. If anyone else had done that, I don't think it'd be an issue.

He's doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, largely because he doesn't get how things work here. That's why I want to see what happens when the topic is changed entirely. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

He actually is somewhat constructive; not sure the "edit warring" justifies an indef block. I'm inclined to wait and see. The lack of response here gives me nothing to work on. (if the problems resume, ping me and I'll take a whack at it.) If anyone feels compelled to increase the block, then that is OK too.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

May I request eyes on Z75SG61Ilunqpdb please?

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

---

I'm a bit lost on this one. Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk · contribs) has only been editing since April but has already amasseda swathe of contributions. Some are helpful, but then there are others, like this citespam which alerted me to their behaviour in the first place. Their version of "discussing" has meant dumping even more links at the talk page and not responding to my explanation of why I had reverted their edits, I then tried to restore a stable version with the common name at the time the title was held and with an appropriate reference [16] and again was reverted [17]. The issue isn't confined to that page, see the dump of links at Bettie Page and Ted Kennedy. I've tried a belated welcome on their talk page, I've tried pointing them towards various policies & guidelines, but they don't seem to take the hint. I also pointed out that their username is confusing which devolved into this discussion. I'm not sure how to interpret this but I'm certainly not hiding my change of username, it's clearly listed on my user page. As I said on their talk page, I don't think me trying to discuss with them further will be helpful so I would appreciate some fresh eyes on it. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• I concur. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• More - since this section was opened ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  01:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have some concerns about this user's attitude and ability to communicate effectively. The mass introduction of citespam in articles and on talk pages is outright disruptive, IMO. I have invited them to respond to these issues here. Swarm ♠ 02:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles are being targeted by the same sock IPs

The following have ongoing socking issues and in every case the IP spams the page with various excessive links. I have provided the article link and history for reference:

• Chibi (slang) [18] (Protected)
• Drifting (motorsport) [19]
• Hand fan [20]
• Nature therapy [21]
• Net idol [22]
• Yonkoma [23]

Is there a way to deal with all of these IP socks? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Have you filed a report at WP:SPI? Aspening (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the different subject matter which doesn't appear to show an overlap, I'd say the behaviour seems like a peculiarly similar case to #May I request eyes on Z75SG61Ilunqpdb please? above. And from what I can see, all since my earlier ANI report, and after the time the above user stopped editing. @Swarm: do you notice a similarity? Or am I drawing too long a bow? (feel free to tell me I'm nuts) ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I would report them to WP:SPI but I'm not the best at writing out those reports. I provided the edit summary histories here which I hope will be enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Knowledgekid87: I've consolidated these threads as they seem to be obviously related. It appears the above account continued doing the same disruptive behavior while logged out, via dynamic IPs, when confronted with the above scrutiny. I'll protect all pages involved. Let me know if you see any others. Swarm ♠ 20:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• @CJinoz: Good catch. I've never before even witnessed this shocking level of cite spam, so to me it's beyond a reasonable doubt that we're dealing with the same person. Swarm ♠ 20:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Swarm... I wasn't 100% sure it was the same person but the timing seemed a little too convenient. Glad Knowledgekid87 reported or I wouldn't have noticed - and even still I didn't believe my eyes at first. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  20:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

User repeatedly editing article despite COI

ArcadeMuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have an affiliation with the Funspot Family Fun Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but they continue to edit the page despite repeated warnings from multiple editors that they should not do so due to the COI policy. See diffs 1, 2, 3. Aspening (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I gave them a notice about edit warring. Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 04:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Well we should block them anyway for the username, obvious violation of WP:ORGNAME based on their edits. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Reported to UAA. Aspening (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe and NMFD

Earlier today a community-wide RfC was closed making changes to WP:NMFD. It closed with a pretty strong consensus, there was specific language proposed. SmokeyJoe objects to the language, and has now hit 3RR on the article: first by reverting the changes: [24] [25], and then by restoring a disputed tag to the section after I had removed it, because, well, we just had a large RfC advertised at CENT that supported adding this language. He wants to discuss this, but there is really nothing to discuss: specific language was put to the community and approved. He is claiming it is disputed when this is the clear community consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Someone with higher authority than me should revert and SJ should be warned that going against consensus will result in a block. –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I also think the "disputed" link should be removed. The text of that section was literally just decided in the well-attended RfC that TonyBallioni links to, so keeping "disputed" there misleadingly implies that the section does not have community consensus backing it. Mz7 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

He's a good editor but he's gone off his rocker on this issue. There is no disputed wording here - the new wording is the new wording. The only thing wrong with the new wordimg was the RFC did not totally gut WP:NMFD which does not reflect actual practice at MFD. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac is a good editor too, but he’s never been good with details. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Says you occasionally and you are incorrect. I tend to see the principle immediately and shoot for that, not focus on interpreting some details in ways that go against what we are trying to accomplish in the big picture. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

And SmokeyJoe is apparently no good at explaining himself. Care to start? Maybe with some of those "details"? --Calton | Talk 05:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It can be a challenge sometimes? Legacypac and details? Like he says, he looks to the principle and fuzzes over the details, I think that’s how he can review thousands of junk drafts without going brain dead. We have different skills, and usually are complementary. User:VQuakr’s edit to WP:Drafts came out of the blue, the wikilinks weren’t working, and I had completely forgotten that RfC. I’ll see if I can explain better later, Calton, but the detail is mostly there at WT:Drafts. The intent of the RfC is not the issue, but the wording apparently being locked in. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe:: I'd already read WT:DRAFTS as much as I could before my eyes glazed over -- though I didn't comment on the RFC -- and I still don't know what you're talking about. And seriously, after that reply, I don't think you have the standing to issue a veiled personal attack about someone else being "not good with details". --Calton | Talk 05:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Calton, thanks for trying. I can explain, but am now sure that it is not worth your time to listen. Can I go with Legacypac's I fell off my rocker. WT:Drafts has been developing very nicely, I saw an unexpected addition that didn't make sense, edit summary links didn't work, I reverted, I finally found the RfC I'd forgotten, I suddenly didn't like the wording, I got confused with dispute/discuss templates. I actually don't disagree with the RfC or its intent or its effect. I apologise to everyone, can you let me back out of this hole? There are a few lessons for me, one being: don't revert on a mobile device. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• The reversions were ill-advised. However, one point I disagree with is, "We’re not having another RfC. The community was asked to comment on a specific proposal. They did. It was accepted. It is now the text of NMFD." Not immediately (bar exceptional circumstances), but a couple months down the line, anyone (including SmokeyJoe) is free to propose a change to the wording if it is causing problems or simply to suggest something else (just as TonyBallioni did to seek these changes). I would not support any action here greater than a warning not to revert consensus based changes (or to watch the reversions in general) in the future. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That quote obviously refers to right now, not months down the line. Consensus can change but not hours after a well-attended well-advertised community-wide RfC. I’m not seeking sanctions. I’m seeking to get the current disruption to stop. Being forced to relitigate this to satisfy one person is disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

He added "disputed" and linked to the talkpage - we don't link to talkpage like that and I've removed both those additions. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hatnoting disputes to the talk page thread is very common, and good practice I believe. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• No, it's not. You're going to stop doing that, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• It used to happen a lot in policy, and still happens in articles, but ok yeah. The objection feels weird but whatever. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not to belabor the point, but tags like those listed at Template:Content are used in articles, not straight links to talk page discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• You are not familiar with Template:Disputed tag? Currently in use at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BAG, rare, but used to be more common. The very similar tag I placed at Wikipedia:Drafts#Promising_drafts seemed ok to others, although the link to the RfC has now been moved to the footnote. Template:Discuss is currently used on several Projectspace pages. All are links to talk page sections. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe: Please re-read what I wrote above. I said we use templates, not bare links like you did here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, you mean I got in trouble due to not using a template? You know, I didn’t have time, didn’t know the right template, and did my best. I have often done this sort of thing, it has the same visual appearance, it works, it’s easy. What is the benefit of templates except to bar the non-template-savvy from contributing? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe: Template wordings have been worked out so they give a neutral indication of the issue. We don't want editors adding personal commentary to the article (e.g., "This is all lies", "Liberal propaganda") when adding wikilinks. As for getting in trouble, an editor who persisted in adding links to inappropriate namespaces after being told to stop would get blocked for disruptive editing. An editor who violated WP:3RR when (re)adding a template would get blocked for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• So piping a talk page section link through “disputed” is not ok, but using {{disputed tag}} to do the same thing is ok, because the first might allow POV expression? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC). I think that template and {{Under discussion}} produce excessively large boxes for no benefit, and WP:IAR exists for this sort of reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

using Hibiscus as personal gallery

Not sure I'm reporting this in the right place, but wanted to bring it to admins' attention. Please see this history page. Tried several times to revert the edits, but the editor is adding pics too quickly for me to do so, and I keep getting edit conflicts. Eric ^talk 03:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh. I think it might have been better to address the editor in question before posting here. If the images are high quality and germane, it might be OK. I know I've seen a policy on this somewhere, but don't recall. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:NOTGALLERY apply? Dozens of images, all of Thai hibiscus, appears to be an undue concentration, without explanation of why this is necessary or constructive. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The additions seem excessive and indiscriminate. When I looked at some of their images, I noticed that they seem to have started out under another username, One World Thailand, and that the metadata lists PHOENIX_AGENCY in the author field. An example of both may be seen here. I've little experience with image metadata; the copyright holder is listed as TRISORN_TRIBOON, and the author field may be irrelevant. I left them notices about the multiple usernames. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Trisorn Triboon. I just wondering how many picture allow for gallery ? I also want to know if someone allow High Definition image to contributions for free usage and want to be part of create free knowledge would it not allow to have a group of people helping ?

I own advertising company and I believed I could help to support at lease high quality of images. If you have over 10000 images to use for each article how would you upload images as quick as you would ? One World Thailand are partner of our group so they allowed to have my images to help upload for contribution at lease if something happen to me such as car accident or sickness at lease I leave something for the world. not sure if varieties of Plant I put in gallery would be an issue ? if Wiki not allow to have that much I believed Wiki should have solution to have warning directly to author. One more reason I am trying to contribution as you can see Thailand only have around 1xx,xxx Articles while other country have more than millions. So I think with pictures I allowed to use would at lease give inspiration for someone to write more article for more knowledge for next generation. Sorry if part of my answer are not good English but I did my best trying to explain my point of view. and thank you for bring it up as issue at lease we can have better generation of wiki for new user to be part of it and use it the right way. so please let me know if too many of species not allow in gallery I would stop it right away. for other genus. Please also see Adenium and Plumeria gallery and Kindly give me explanation. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trisorn Triboon (talk • contribs) 09:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Dlohcierekim, BlackcurrantTea, and anonymous. In my experience, this kind of editing pattern does not come from someone interested in learning about the project and improving the encyclopedia. I just wanted to bring the behavior to others' attention. The system won't let me revert the additions, apparently because of the number of consecutive edits (56 on June 6, 62 on June 11). Eric ^talk 11:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

From what I am reading here, the user in question wishes to help, but needs some advice on how to do so in a manner that aligns with best practice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Would it help to create some stubs about the species (most are redlinks) and diffuse some images there? They are indeed high-quality and it is a pity we do not have a use for them.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Your hibiscus is here

Mmmmmm... Eucalyptus!

-EEng

• Pretty BITEY, I'd say, and this certainly never belonged at ANI. Urgent! Encyclopedia under siege! Too many hibiscus images! EEng 16:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus please kindly look at this page about difference plantae we are talking about

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents, chronic, intractable behavioral problems, and too many hibiscus images." Natureium (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Trisorn Triboon: The trouble is, and correct me if I'm wrong, you would need to upload them under creative commons, GFDL, or public domain. You would in effect be giving away your rights to the images. If you are willing, commons would be willing to host the images. that's their mission-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckles, gang. As I said in my first post, I didn't know where I should sound the hibiscus alert, even after searching WP's superbly indexed guidance for the appropriate place. So if it was completely out of line to post here, someone wiser than I could have simply removed my post and told me where to go, so to speak. Re "bitey": This is an encyclopedia, not a personal image showcase, and I think anyone who came here to improve the encyclopedia and took a few minutes to learn how we do things would have refrained from adding 60-plus images to an article in a WP whose language he/she does not master, all with captions in Title Case reading "Colorful Hibiscus Flower". Eric ^talk 18:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

They might very easily have come here to improve the encyclopedia and not realized they need to take a few minutes to learn how we do things, and just gone ahead and done something they thought would be helpful. AFAICS you never even left them a talk-page message before coming here. EEng 18:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng:Same as Koala eating Hibiscus it actually Eucalyptus not Hibuscus if you check type of leaf before you put title on image--Trisorn Triboon (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eric: Humor aside, it could look spammy if one adds too many of one's own images, so I think it reasonable to discuss the matter. We do need to find a best, highest use. Certainly, if one does not mind giving away one's images, commons is the place to do it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eric:I am wondering on talk page of Eric why he got so many of talked and IBAN ? and nobody answer me if today i give away high resolution of 100 species banana and 100 species of mango and 100 species of herbs and put in the list of banana cultivars article and in the list of mango cultivars article and the list of herb article just because i am lucky that i am business owner of advertising agency dont give conclusion that pictures in gallery i put in or i made would be personal gallery ! because wikipedia are free to improve anywhere anytime and especially anyone. so if someone find difference species or the same species i put in but can improve quality of image which better lighting, better color better mood better tone better resolution, etc. in the same species i did put in feel free to put it up for other people in the world to see and use for education or anything so kindly do so. but do not give conclusion what i put are my personal gallery because anyone can help to improve it but not delete all of it ! so let me know if i got this wrong so i can stop what i am contribute right away. Thank you.-- TrisornTriboon (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding the photo File:D85 1108 Sunset Through window after rain in Thailand photographed by Trisorn Triboon.jpg to sunset and adding File:D85 0751 Photographed by Trisorn Triboon 50.jpg to photography are representative of one aspect of the problem here. These two photos were added as the lead images for the two articles, but they are not appropriate: the sunset photo doesn't really exemplify what a sunset is, and the flower photo added to photography is only related to the topic in the sense that it is a photo. In a nutshell, Trisorn Triboon is here to highlight his photos in Wikipedia articles regardless of their appropriateness. @Trisorn Triboon: your photos are wonderful, but please be more selective in their use and make sure that they are used only where appropriate (perhaps by using the articles' talk pages to suggest new images and see what other say first). Peacock (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually IMO (unrelated to the specific case) seriously enforcing of WP:GALLERY is way overdue. We have quite a lot of galleries not compliant with the policy, and a lot of images which do not illustrate anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDing by Admin User:Buckshot06

My recent interactions with User:Buckshot06 started here: User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 23#Tuy Hoa Air Base on 7 May when I questioned them over the deletion of Tuy Hoa Air Base and then later Nha Trang Air Base. Buckshot06 was "presumptively deleting" entire pages as part of the Bwmoll3 CCI. My questioning of Buckshots06's approach eventually led to this response: "I am acting in full conformity with that rule and I am tired of you attacking me for doing my job as an admin. I do not expect to be criticised again for acting in full confirmity with the rules that keep the site legal". I then opened the entire issue for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 145#Potential deletion of USAF/RAF pages where I showed on 17 May that Buckshot06 was not in fact following CCI policy. Since opening that discussion Buckshot06 has been hounding me on various pages and issues.

Starting with User talk:Mztourist#South Korea in the Vietnam War on 13 May Buckshot06 became involved in a debate I was engaged in with an IP User (later registered as User:A bicyclette) regarding purported massacres by South Korean troops in the Vietnam War. Early in that discussion I stated "I find it strange that you as an Admin are siding with an anonymous IP which has made repeated POV changes, may well be a sock for a banned User and is unwilling to discuss the issues on the Talk page." Buckshot06 became involved in the debate, opening the issue of body count. They questioned the reliability of the AFD process and the competence of other Users with this comment "simply getting three or four other wikipedia editors with no specialist knowledge to agree is no particular evidence that the actions did not take place" and assumed without any evidence that I had a US military background and so was inherently biased, "Clearly from your U.S. military background you would, indeed, tend to suspect enemy writings." a claim which they subsequently covered up here: [[26]]. Buckshot06 then moved and continued the discussion here: Talk:South Korea in the Vietnam War#Copied over from User talk:Mztourist.

Also on 13 May Buckshot06 began revising categories of various Vietnam War bases leading to this debate: User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 23#Military bases of the Vietnam War.

On 16 May User talk:Mztourist#Military articles being deleted by Buckshot Buckshot06 stated "Do you not see (a) that the reason I started keeping an eye on what you're doing currently..." I advised them that "keeping an eye on what you're doing = WPHOUND."

On 31 May I started this discussion:User talk:A bicyclette#Your recent changes which Buckshot06 joined discussing body count. I suggested that the correct procedure rather than edit warring claims on each page was to reach a consensus that could be applied to all Vietnam War pages, Buckshot06 ignored this. Buckshot06 incorrectly asserted that I had "defend[ed] U.S. official body count figures, en generale" and was "saying they should be left in the articles without even giving the other side's figures, which would be equally biased". The dispute then moved to edits to the body count page. I noted that A bicyclette was making changes without providing edit summaries and asked Buckshot06 why he wasn't enforcing this.

On 31 May I opened an edit warring complaint against A bicyclette here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Declined) regarding his changes to numerous Vietnam War battle pages to insert US claims" etc and Buckshot06 became involved in the discussion addressing underlying issues rather than the edit warring by A bicyclette.

Also on 31 May Buckshot06 posted this: User talk:Mztourist#Army War College Study on Military Professionalism, 1970 on my Talk Page to push their view on body count. I suggested that instead "why don't you look into this sudden surge of Vietnam War edits being made by User:A bicyclette and IP: 172.86.241.3 who both appeared out of nowhere 5-10 days ago or don't they concern you because you like their POV and they are causing issues for me?"

Also on 31 May Buckshot06 made various changes to the body count page here: [27] to enforce his views on the unreliability of Vietnam war body counts. I added further WP:RS that were a counterpoint to this on 2 June: [28] and then A bicyclette joined in making multiple changes to try to undermine my changes and support his view of a "Vietnamese Government" document which he claims represents the only truly reliable figures. Edit-warring followed and there were discussions on the Talk page: Talk:Body count#Last edits and Talk:Body count#Discussion of Body Count Sourcing. Buckshot06 being involved did not act impartially, not questioning A bicyclette's claims that a 1995 AP story which gave different figures was incorrect nor questioning the reliability of A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document. Buckshot 06 did, thankfully, block the body count page from editing for 1 week, however as soon as that block expired yesterday A bicyclette has gone straight back to making his changes as I have noted here: Talk:Body count#Unbelievable.... Buckshot06 moved the discussion to Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates stating that A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document "This is probably the best source I've seen put forward from the Northern side for whole-war casualties" but finally acknowledged its deficiencies. I suggest a resolution of the entire issue here on 4 June: " I am asking you to adjudicate a final position on PAVN/VC casualties to go in the Vietnam War infobox, I suggest this should be the following range: 849,018 (with A bicyclette's ref when he provides it properly) - 1,489,000 (with Rummel ref). Please confirm and obtain confirmation of this from A bicyclette as he seems to still be contesting all other references other than his Vietnamese document" but Buckshot06 did nothing.

On 5 June due to the ongoing edit-warring I opened a 3RR here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive369#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned user(s)) and Buckshot06 was asked by the Admin to contribute and they once again discussed the issue of body counts and my skepticism regarding Vietnamese sources. On 7 June both I and A bicyclette were warned but this did nothing really changed.

On 7 June, as suggested by the Admin I opened two discussions here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages regarding the whole "claims/body count" issue and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties regarding the reliability of A bicyclette's "Vietnamese Government" document. I posted these on the edit-warring complaint, Talk:Vietnam War#North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties, Talk:Vietnam War casualties#North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties, both remain open and I would have assumed that until they are closed the edit-warring would have stopped.

Also on 7 June A bicyclette made this change [29], which I reverted here [30] commenting "no explanation or justification given for revert, discuss on talk page rather than edits warring again", A bicyclette referted again here: [31]. Buckshot06 made an intervening edit but did nothing to stop A bicyclette making these changes or enforce Talk page discussion. On 9 June I reverted A bicyclette again here: [32], Buckshot06 then reverted my change here: [33] stating "2 to 1 consensus ; accurate; improves context". On 10 June I reverted Buckshot06 here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_allied_military_operations_of_the_Vietnam_War_(1966)&diff=next&oldid=845104222} stating "2:1 is not a consensus, take it to RFC". On 9 June Buckshot06 opened this discussion on the Talk page: Talk:List of allied military operations of the Vietnam War (1966)#Mid-2018 threatening me with Admin sanctions. I advised them that "As you should be well aware, I have raised this whole issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages and you should await the outcome of that RFC and ensure that A bicyclette stops making these changes until that RFC is finalized rather than threatening me with sanctions." Buckshot06 then proceeded to block me for 3 days.

I successfully appealed my block as discussed here: User talk:Mztourist#Block and here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block and unblock of Mztourist.

I believe this all shows that Buckshot06 has clearly been hounding me and request appropriate action/sanctions to stop this and prevent any recurrence. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I note that you started a blatantly POV pushing "request for comment" at WT:MILHIST#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages, and have followed up on the complaints about this by starting a RfC which also falsely presents a live dispute in the abstract at WT:MILHIST#RFC: How should Vietnam War casualty figures be presented?. That you are giving these as an example of good conduct on your part suggests a lack of reflection on the matter: this is poor conduct which indicates that Buckshot has valid concerns about your editing. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D you are the first to categorise my RFC as "blatantly POV". Several Users indicated that my RFC was poorly framed and I have attempted to correct that creating a new RFC in the form suggested, how does that "falsely presents a live dispute in the abstract"? I have been getting nowhere in my disputes with A bicyclette and Buckshot06 on US claims/sources/reports/body counts and so am seeking comments/consensus on this issue which I thought was the correct procedure. If not, please explain to me exactly what procedure I should be following there rather than casting dispersions on me here and distracting from my complaint regarding hounding. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lodging a SPI report about your opponent in this content dispute (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam) and then badgering the checkuser [34] and closing admin [35] when it was declined on the grounds that you saw the report as a way of ending the dispute is also poor practice. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D Amanda the Admin who declined the checkuser of A bicyclette said on 7 June "If after a few days no further evidence is provided, I'd recommend closure w/o action". I provided further evidence on 7 June and then again on 10 June but Bbb23 closed the entire SPI on 10 June while I was subject to Buckshot06's block. Once I was unblocked I raised the issue with Bbb23, I don't believe that I have badgered Bbb23, but if so I unreservedly apologise. I believe that I have legitimate grounds for the SPI because A bicyclette's edits follow a familiar pattern and POV to previous blocked Users. I am especially frustrated by the fact that I am receiving so much criticism from so many fronts for trying to follow proper policy and procedures while A bicyclette ignores all policies and procedures and attracts no criticism or sanctions whatsoever. Do the checkuser, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but if I'm right then I have been sorely wronged. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't feel badgered.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit I would have done that Checkuser. There is certainly enough evidence (overlaps in editing, time of creation of account etc.) to do so IMO. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Body count is a mass of SYNTH and OR (some of which I've deleted). EEng 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge that this discussion is underway; I'm signaled my acceptance of the decision regarding the reversed block - clearly I acted too hastily regarding the body count issue in articles; Mztourist has repeatedly got in my way as I have attempted to continue the copyvio cleanup after Bwmoll3; I have grave concerns about Mztourist's POV on Vietnam matters, but I've also had to rollback some of A bicyclette's edits, and to advise him to lodge source complaints with WP:RSN. I believe that both Mztourist and A bicyclette are getting a little too worked up over the issue, and a cup of tea and pause for reflection might be in order. I do finally however note that I do not agree with some of Mztourist's characterisations of our interactions above. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"Repeatedly got in my way"? You were not following CCI policy as you repeatedly claimed. Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Kiva Gordon

Help, I already warned this user about his/hers disruptive editing, can someone check him out? (Article: Marshmello) Thanks. hueman1 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Just for future reference, it's easier if diffs are provided as opposed to just linking an entire article.

I've also notified the user of this ANI report on their talk page. AryaTargaryen (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

User:Brad-XXVII

Help, this user uploaded non-free images (I guess) and claiming it as his own work. hueman1 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Please provide diffs for this report. I've also notified the user properly as a warning on the users talk page is not sufficient in my book. AryaTargaryen (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

hueman1

Sigh... the above two reports are disingenuous. I see no talk page activity from HueMan, only edit warring. Suggest a warning that consensus and sources are required for such statements. --Tarage (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Subzzee

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

---

This morning I blocked this user for persistently making unsourced edits to articles. They are now attempting to WP:OUT me, mentioning my hair colour here and my surname and hometown here (which I have redacted). They have attempted to OUT me previously, using my first name in June 2017 (again, redacted). Please can an uninvolved admin review the situation? GiantSnowman 11:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm strongly inclined to indefinitely block them and throw away the key. Any objections? Fish+Karate 11:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request posted, FYI. GiantSnowman 12:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Suppressed all the personal details. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

stwalkerster has declined that unblock request and adjusted the block length to indefinite with talk page access removed, which saves me the trouble of doing the exact same thing. Fish+Karate 13:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)... yeah, that. :) stwalkerster (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. GiantSnowman 13:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Shevonsilva

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

User:Shevonsilva has been creating a lot of stubs with a lot of problems. A lot of time has been spent on their talk page by PamD, Vexations, Nick Moyes, Imaginatorium, and me. They have issues with things like sourcing information, mass creation of stubs with the same misspelling, bad titles, and using Wikipedia as the source for article creation. Despite a lot of patience, things have now devolved into personal attacks like:

• I never expect you as a big liar. [...] You have no idea about the subject there [...] You do not appreciate other, and, telling lies and discourage other. If you cann't understand the article it is fine. STOP LYING to other people. [...] This is dis-graceful. You are attacking me personally. I am very unhappy about you, now. I hate liars.[36]
• You like to involve in arguemnts with me and impress others while others are supporting me and suggesting me important things like bots and stuff. You only created two pages (according to your page), look like you got no idea how much effort we have to put to create pages[37]
• and the ironic Your English is much like Gangster English.[38]

I suggest they be banned from creating articles due to WP:CIR and strongly warned about civility. Natureium (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I am on Kenya constituency stubs (actually, already for three days) and I am steadily improving them. No need to intervene in this area. Just in case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This is about me. I will post the full discussion. There were personal attacks towards me and my work. I will post the full discussion. Creating stubs are something else.Shevonsilva (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Removed

Sorry for the whole mess. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Here are the full discussions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mass_additions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shevonsilva&diff=prev&oldid=845405728&diffmode=source

Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Indeed, Shevonsilva has created more than 1000 stubs on subdivisions of Africa over approximately 6 weeks. Many of these have included lots of careless errors (each one mass-duplicated); the most recent couple of samples I looked at did not have any obvious errors. So I find it easy to assume good faith, but I cannot see how all this effort is improving Wikipedia. For many of the countries concerned, there is absolutely minimal information, and some sort of list of subdivisions (e.g. Departments of Gabon): putting this list in tabular form, adding information such as "Capital" or "Population" would obviously be an improvement. But instead what happens is a mass of microstubs, giving the same information in less convenient form. Worse, when there is an occasional division with a useful article there is no way of distinguishing it, since every division has a microstub link. A few other points:

• Shevonsilva does appear to be engaged in a bizarre "point scoring" exercise. When it is pointed out that many of his pages (for example from a previous mass-creation of "units" pages) have been converted to redirects, we get comments like "Re-directions are regarded as a creation."
• The history for the page M'Bagne Department is curious. (See User_talk:Shevonsilva#Mauritania_now). Originally there were eight extra paragraphs after the usual boilerplate, the first duplicating the boilerplate (with the usual punctuation errors), the rest of an oddly poetic style. Shevonsilva replied to me that this "was in another source", and progressively deleted the last three, then the last two paragraphs. I cannot imagine how anyone capable of reading the text could truncate it progressively in this way; it simply makes no sense.
• Many people (from the very first comment on his talk page) have asked Shevonsilva to "slow down"; the response to these requests has always been evasive. It is very difficult to cooperate with an editor with this approach. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I had no idea about point scoring thing. I don't need any point. Shevonsilva (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway in reality, all are worring about the issues to improve the encyclopedia Shevonsilva (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• These issues wouldn't be a problem if they weren't repeated by the hundred. The title of almost all of the stubs need to be changed because they all end in the descriptive word as though it is part of the title. Ex, Farafangana District. District is not part of the proper noun. There are hundreds of articles that need to be moved. I informed them about the title thing a few days ago and they are still creating new articles with the same problem. Natureium (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Before they recently removed a bunch of comments from other users, Shevonsilva's talk page looked like this. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, they've removed a lot of comments. (Just a few examples.) And this may explain some of their approach to mass creation of sub-par articles. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That is very very motivational, please refer full discussion (the approaches are well discussed there): [39]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shevonsilva#Please_get_your_bot_to_take_a_little_more_care!. Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, FYI, I stopped stub creation of administrative divisions. Anyway, I am glad to discuss naming issues of the articles with policy makers and we have re-structure naming of over 10,000 articles (I never created or edit those) if we are going to make a change on naming. I am thinking to focusing on my own works. Thanks all. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The issue here is whether Shevonsilva should be sanctioned for their conduct. I lean toward an indefinite block based on a mixture of WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, and WP:IDHT. Shevonsilva has over 5,000 edits. They didn't start editing in earnest until 2014, and in the three years 2014-16, they made between 350 and 700 edits each year. In 2017 they had one edit. In less than half of 2018, they have made a whopping 3400 edits, but apparently mostly not benefiting the project. I don't see a temporary block as serving any purpose, other than perhaps to slow them down, as I don't expect their abilities to improve.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly a ban on article creation with an appeal only allowed after they have diligently worked to repair the mess their mass creation made? I do fear, based on their writing here that there may be an English competency issue i.e. I am unsure whether they are not comprehending the issues being brought up and the need to address those issues, if they are simply engaging in willful WP:IDHT or if they simply lack the necessary clue to edit. If the first then it is possible they can learn to contribute constructively. Jbh ^Talk 18:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree to a ban from creating any new articles or redirects, widely construed, for an indefinite period. GiantSnowman 18:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That would give thee time to practice editing, expanding, and sourcing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

can anyone kindly, confirm me, in Districts of Madagascar do I have to change the naming for the articles which only I have created, or, do I have to change the naming of all pre-existing ones too with the syntax, "name department"? Shevonsilva (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Question Oh wise admins, is there a tool for mass moving of pages? Natureium (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, bots.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then, I will move articles I have created as this is everyone expects and that is my responsibility to do it as I am the creater. Heavy work. I will follow the pattern e.g. name (department). I will try to move other pre-existing ones (a heavy bulk, which I never created or edited, over 10000 articles) if I have a free time. Hope this is what all are expecting. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, the name should be discussed first, and per country. Do not rush to move before we establish consensus. I am actually happy with Kenyan stub names, and they follow the same pattern earlier articles did.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, dear, I am very sorry. Just now I saw your message. I changed the naming for the articles I have created as everyone was expecting it(except for Kenya as someone was in it). I really feel this is breaking the Extended metaphor. I think we have amend the policy of naming related things like this. Anyway, no worries. I will revert the naming if it is helpful. Anyone can easily trackdown the pages through my user page which has all the link for the articles. I am always here to help and go with consensus. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am a Senior Software Engineer and Researcher. There are a few cases. In user interface design (including web pages), we always follow the same metaphor to make the user less confused. The other part is search engines give more weights for URLs sometimes. If we use name (department), search engines have to use lexical analysis and probably gives a less weight, but, if we use name_department, it will filter the underscore, and, easily pick it. And, as I know it is a common practice to use name department than name (department). One good example is we call Hydrogen ion not Hydrogen (ion). To be honest, I only tried to help. I am getting nothing with these changes, only tried to help you all. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• One of the saddest aspects of all this is that this flood of stubs are so ridiculously minimal. "X is a [type of unit] in [country]." and nothing else, except an infobox giving the same information (except when it's mangled, as for Madagascar). Even where the sources cited clearly state the intermediate unit(s) (eg Regions in Madagascar), Shevonsilva will not add that extra information which could transform a pretty useless stub into one which enables the reader looking for "X district" to find out roughly where in the country it lies, and get more information about the area. I've upgraded Sakaraha District from the original version, using the source provided. I've pointed this out several times, to no effect. The flood of all-but-useless stubs, many of which would be much more useful as a redirect to an existing sourced and informative list of administrative units, has continued unchecked until it finally arrived at ANI.

There's a huge amount of cleanup to be done, which ought to be done by Shevonsilva before they are allowed to create any more mess.

There is also a need to add navigation links - thus Sakaraha District should have a hatnote link at Sakaraha, and similarly every article called "X [unit]" needs a link by a hatnote, dab page entry or redirect from "X". If this editor had the interests of the readers at heart, they would be making these links. It looks as if their sole goal is to add to the length of the list of "Articles" created, seen on their user page.

Editors with long memories may remember a slightly similar set of problems around obscure units of measurement a few years ago - over-enthusiastic stub creation based on a very dodgy source, and necessitating a lot of cleanup. PamD 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

yes, as I promised, now I am going to improve the articles I have created as the second round, after resolving the naming issue with moving articles. These are really my responsibilities. Thanks all. After resolving all the issues, I am really going to focus on my own stuff. I will try to finish all the issues tonight. I am measuring myself how fast I am. Thanks everyone. Shevonsilva (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I will go for coffee and come back address all the issues.  :) [As, I am in a break of my job, I really tried to help Wikipedia.] :) Shevonsilva (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE learn how to indent... --Tarage (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Title problems are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sub title problemsa are fixed now. Shevonsilva (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Added additional information for all the minimal stubs (as my stage 2 work). Hope things are fine now and resolved the issues. I am thinking to take a break now.Shevonsilva (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, Shevonsilva. I'm afraid I do not see all the issues resolved. I recognise your keenness and enthusiasm to create all these microstubs. But I feel this editor is still not properly listening to, or acting upon, editor feedback here. Seeing some of those concerns deleted from their talk page raises 'alarm bells' with me. All these errors, taken on their own, are not normally of huge concern. But this user is clearly automating the process of stub creation in some way, and is not taking enough time to check that their work is good enough. Magnified over hundreds and hundreds of stubs, and possibly not always based on reliable sources, this is really not acceptable. (We had detailed discussions prior to Qbugbot going into operation making entomological stubs, which produced very high quality content. Sadly, and despite the best of intentions, this is not happening here.) I raised my concerns (diff]), and the user assured me s/he was doing this work manually, and admitted they shared my concern over the reliability of some of their key sources on which some pages' existence was actually based. But then the user deleted their answer to me (diff) and has not address my request for them to go back and fix the issues I raised. Since then, it's clear their process is automated. For example, looking at their contributions on 9th June between 16:57 and 16:58 they created 87 articles. That's one every 1.3 seconds! So the question we have to ask ourselves is whether we tolerate innumerable microstubs that a user doesn't work to clean up any errors (either before page creation, or afterwards) but which we wouldn't have had without their input. Or would we prefer not to have them at all if their content - or sometimes even verifiability - is in question? I tend to lean slightly towards the former, but remain very worried at the quality of such rapid, sloppy content creation. As with Qbugbot, a Village Pump discussion required page creation to be throttled back, and for checks to be made on batches of new pages. This isn't happening here, so perhaps a temporary block on page creation would be helpful, only to be lifted when there is a consensus that past articles have been cleaned up, wikilinked, referenced to WP:RS and any unverified content like this removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That description for Ibanda was in French encyclopedia as I remember (I check it later again). Yes I will re-scan all the stubs again and do another clean up for the content. Every work was Manuel, but, I use some different techniques to speed up (that is why I removed that description from the conversation as readers get wrong idea. Sorry.) I will do the clean up today (I have to do these as I am the one responsible for creating) :). Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Boockvar

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

---

Need a block here. Account is either John A. Boockvar, someone working for him, or someone impersonating him, who is in any case not talking with us and just edit warring. Block is to stop disruption and hopefully get them to start talking. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would normally suggest WP:COIN, but since s/he isn't communicating, maybe a short-term block would be in order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

exactly. There is no point to COIN in this instance because they are not talking and there is nothing ambiguous here. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them for a famous person user name, coi warned and invited them to answer the ANI on their talk page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

thx. need to make that page decent at some point. Bunch of Northwell related pages have been extensively edited by PR people there. :( Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Boockvar (2nd nomination) EEng 01:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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

User:SPECIFICO: Non-neutral editing and inappropriate behavior

Greetings, all. I hereby assert that editor SPECIFICO has engaged in a series of baseless and non-neutral edits in an article. More importantly, though, is the pattern of his behavior here in Wikipedia, which is consistently hostile, antagonistic, and far from civil. SPECIFICO seems to have certain ideas that he's extremely keen to promote in Wikipedia, mostly by deleting content of opposing notions, with typically arbitrary assertions. SPECIFICO acts like a person on a mission.

"Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018" SPECIFICO has removed large parts of informative text along with the respective sources, passing personal judgement on the content of the removed text. Here are samples, with diffs and SPECIFICO's self-revelatory summaries inside brackets:

1. "Removed blithering nonsense about Irving Fisher" (removed whole Bloomberg article about the referendum's background)
2. "Remove commentary from primary-sourced staff working paper" (that was an IMF paper that was removed; nothing "primary" about it)
3. "Shorten and remove mixed up note that has some misinformation" (removed part of paper by UMKC economist; removed reference to other PK economists)
4. "Remove opinion cited to non-RS" (removed the source to the paper behind the referendum!)
5. "Remove trivia primary-sourced to crank website" (removed reference to similar initiative in the United States, known as the NEED Act)

And so on, and so forth.

SPECIFICO has some very strongly held viewpoints about Economics, like lots of people have, but seems dead set on imposing those viewpoints on Wikipedia articles without the least concern for balance! All this, served with hostile, when not insulting, language, a standard piece of the repertoire, e.g. "You have nothing constructive to add there", "You belong in a nutshell", etc.

Searching back in time, I found that SPECIFICO is a regular feature in ANI reports (here, May 2013, 31 hr block); (here, when the evidence against SPEC was so overwhelming that the process ground down, June 2013); (here, off with a warning, May 2018); (here, June 2018, again a warning); there's more. The title of one particular complaint more or less sums it up: "SPECIFICO is deleting content without seeking consensus, repeatedly threatening blocks, making false claims, and being quite condescending". Trying to humor SP (e.g. here, where SP ended up accusing me of "defending SPAs") apparently does not work.

Topic ban proposed: I suppose a few months long cooling-down period from any Economics-related topic would be helpful to all concerned. Wikipedia contributors will better use their time; the conditions for a constructive and collaborative environment even (and especially) among persons with opposite viewpoints will improve; stressful interaction will decrease; and SPECIFICO might possibly take it easier coming back. -The Gnome (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• It was honestly hard to take this complaint seriously after seeing that the first diff you present as evidence is SPECIFICO removing an obviously false statement of fact from an article - Irving Fisher never received a Nobel of any kind. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bloomberg report, which SPECIFICO deleted, along with other text, contained this one factual mistake. And the mistake could have been deleted from the Wikipedia article, or simply not been mentioned. (Or, if quoted, tagged with a 'sic'.) Instead, and because that Bloomberg article presented the views of those who initiated and supported the June 2018 referendum, SPECIFICO deleted the whole thing. If the purpose was to remove "blithering nonsense about Fisher", SP would have merely deleted the mention about a Nobel; but no, everything went out the window. SPECIFICO has gone on a rampage of mass deletions in the article, over and beyond the one you mention, all with the same exact intent: so that false prophets do not have a stand in Wikipedia, so some such reasoning. SPECIFICO's work is in gross violation of the balance principle. Whether SPECIFICO's views on Economics are correct or not is irrelevant. We cannot have crusades in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk)

• I've looked at the diffs, the article history and the talk page and I'm concluding that no action is necessary (based on what I've found). Removing material is not, in itself, an offence. Moreover, I don't see most of these removals being contested either in the article history (there's a minor back and forth between BBCLCD and SPECIFICO that hasn't been touched on the talk page, mutual fault at worst) or on the talk page. I did note the nebulous POV claim that The Gnome levied on the talk page, but that doesn't seem to have resulted in anything productive. Moreover, I see a serious assertion of his behavior here in Wikipedia, which is consistently hostile, antagonistic, and far from civil that has not been adequately substantiated (or at all). The five years apart threads at AN/EW (which is for edit-warring) and AN/I (which resulted in warnings only and for AP2, and the AE didn't result in a warning but a reminder) don't come close to that claim. Even if they did, there's none of that at either the article or talk page in question. You want a months long TBAN from economics for this? Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The totality of SPECIFICO's text deletions are one-sided. The edit summaries speak for themselves, and anyone who looks at the history and the diffs can see this. SPECIFICO tried to have the article deleted (the AfD resulted in a Keep decision) on the basis of the subject being "promotional narrative device for a fringe group of deflationist monetary activists." However, Wikipedia does no favors to any particular idea or viewpoint; it's all about balance and verifiability. SPECIFICO disputed the subject's notability (wrote "[these people have] been flogging this stuff for nearly a decade with zero public notability to show for it"), a patently untrue claim, as evidenced by the myriads of sources.

Again, with patience: This is not about the subject's merit. This is not about the referendum's proposal being correct (or not). This is about SPECIFICO, using language that is peristently confrontational, aggressive, and non-constructive, engaging in crusades against "false news", "phoney ideas", and whatnot. Being an economist, I have my personal opinion on all such subjects (and I happen to agree with SP's views on some of them). But I do not treat Wikipedia as a battleground for ideas. I'm here to offer a balanced viewpoint to the user; not assert and promote. -The Gnome (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is about SPECIFICO's 'language' and behavior then some solid evidence for that would be useful i.e. behavior which violates policy like WP:NPA etc. Right now this complaint reads to me like a content dispute being wrapped up as a notional behavior issue. So far you have presented the removal of a sentence falsely stating Fisher won a 'Nobel Prize' and a source used only for that; What looks like a throw away bill from the U.S Congress which was likely UNDUE; Something from the CFA Institute, whose website is filled with a bunch of buzz-words but, on brief examination, does not seem to be much of a monetary policy commentator, etc - Which contain pithy edit summaries.

All in all, I believe this complaint needs some actual evidence of sanctionable behavior. If you see a 'ballance issue' take it to WP:NPOVN, if you disagree on sources take it to WP:RSN. I will note that Wikipedia seeks neutrality not ballance and we do not give equal time to fringe or 'crack-pot' viewpoints. Whether the material under discussion is such is a content issue. Jbh ^Talk 12:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Who exactly is the arbiter for a viewpoint being "crackpot," Jbhunley? We have articles about the Earth being flat and chemtrails in the sky that are more balanced than this article. And that's because their text, rightly, presents both sides' views per sources, including the case made by the believers. As it happens, and as expected, the sources are overwhelmingly labeling such theories as invalid; and, well, that is what is presented. Here, we have serial biased deleting of one side's arguments, even when presented by established reliable sources, e.g. Bloomberg. This is strongly biased editing and I'm sorry if you accept that biased editing can be the norm here. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

By definition, the sources are the arbiters of what is fringe and what is not. We do not give flat Earth theory or chemtrails any weight in articles which are not about those topics. Any time they are discussed we make it very clear they are fringe so I really do not get why you bring them up here? Is the information SPECIFICO has been removing as … shall we say … eccentric as flat Earth? If it is even close then it has no business in that article without clear caveats that it is not accepted by main stream, or even a significant minority, of those who are qualified to have an opinion. Jbh ^Talk 13:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, Wikipedia seeks neutrality and balance. Just for the record. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE simply discusses the weight given to each POV. If the view under discussion is mostly held by the fringe then we do not give it undue prominence. That would mislead our readers. Jbh ^Talk 13:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• In lieu of a boomerang, it might be worth giving a friendly warning to OP here, not to use article talk pages to disparage other editors and to bone up on Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines so that he might channel his energy more constructively in the future. SPECIFICO talk 12:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please keep your "friendly warnings" to yourself. This ANI report, my first after more than ten years onboard, has been made only after your behavior and manners have gone totally overboard. I'm simply trying to rid Wikipedia of bias, from any side. Your series of removals is completely out of line. If reporting blatantly abusive behavior and arbitrary, baseless, and biased editing will get me boomeranged, then so be it - it'll be another step in my education in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you should explain yourself. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comments re: the "behavior" piece of this report: I'm not sure the person filing the report formed it in the best manner, but their explanation follow-ups in this thread ring true and are reminiscent of similar previous complaints, not just recently but also in the past, regarding SPECIFICO's reverting and edit summary habits. For the most recent issues, I'll leave these diffs that include an AN3 where the party in question received a strong and final warning from NeilN both at the noticeboard [40] and at SPECIFICO's talk page.[41] Neil stated there: "This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus. [42], [43] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed." The biggest point raised beyond the edit warring behavior is the blatant dishonesty in SPECIFICO's revert, edit summary, and answers given to why they felt the revert was something it actually wasn't. There's also this similar concern just a few days later from JFG.[44] [45] And now, less than a week after the AN3, this report. It's not the first time SPECIFICO's behavior toward other editors and tendentious editing practices have been seen as a serious issue with strong warnings issued. The following ANI stated in the close, "User:SPECIFICO is warned that any such anti-community behaviour may lead to a site ban...User:SPECIFICO is also warned that although an IBAN is usually controlled by escalating blocks, the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion".[46] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• It wouldn't be ANI without a stalker showing up, cherrypicking this and that, and canvassing, would it? 😎 SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

With this unrestrained attitude of name calling and ad hominems you are indeed the best witness for the case against you. Is it that difficult to own up and change your ways? -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be best if everyone could remember that not all editors share the same view point or values. This is why civility is impossible to enforce outside of egregious transgressions. Trying to enforce one's own view of proper interaction on anyone other than one's self leads to nothing but frustration, disappointment and, if it becomes disruptive, sanction. The community at ANI and elsewhere has not formed any consensus that, in general, incivility beyond repeated or egregious violations of WP:NPA should be subject to sanction at ANI.

It would also be best, but beyond realistic expectation, if editors with prior unresolved grievances did not show up at ANI threads to continue those conflicts. It almost never helps resolve anything and, more often than not, lends more heat than light to the discussion. Jbh ^Talk 14:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• A case was presented which doesn’t appear to be actionable. But, if the participants continue, the may all get sanctioned. I suggest they all take a step back. O3000 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Paul Frampton

Diff. I would say that I suppose, but it isn't just me threatened, and it appears to be blackmail as well!. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• To be more accurate, I would say that while the latest comment by an (alleged) professor at Oxford stops short of making a legal threat, its certainly chilling. And in light of what appears to be an outright threat/intimidation to User:Jonathan_A_Jones that resulted in this, something needs to be done (blocking an IP address that is used very sporadically isnt going to do anything). If anyone wants a quick brush up on the dispute: Paul Frampton was convicted in Argentina of drugs smuggling. Paul Frampton would rather his biography did not say he was convicted of drugs smuggling and has spent a lot of time and effort attempting to prove to the world he was involved in a honey-trap scam, to the point of releasing his own book on the situation, commissioning experts to refute the evidence in the Argentine trial etc (none of this will actually change the conviction as as far as I am aware he is not appealing the conviction in the Argentine courts). As a result of his imprisonment and conviction, he was fired by his employer in the US and subsequently won a court case over back pay which was significantly covered in the media beyond the original conviction as it impacted on how employers could treat tenured staff - there was widespread support in academia for his lawsuit. The entire conviction, subsequent employment court case in the US can be well sourced and is still being mentioned in news stories as late as last year. Its just not possible to write a comprehensive biography on the subject without covering it. Previously there was excessive detail but at the moment it is a bare minimum description of the facts, Paul Frampton's version of events and thats it. Any expansion is going to swiftly hit UNDUE. It has been to AFD (where I voted to delete) which was rejected. I have left as clear a message as is possible to either contact the WMF and try to persuade them to take an OFFICE action, or contact google and have his biography removed from search results via right to be forgotton, but ultimately what Paul Frampton wants is a biography that is sanitised and has no mention of his conviction, which just really is not going to happen. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• The message that you left for the IP (which is a computer in the Physics Department at the University of Oxford but seems not to be used exclusively by the person posting the message complained of here) has been removed by User:Bbb23, who has also blocked the IP for a week. The block is unlikely to do much harm, as although constructive edits from that IP are numerous, they are -- as you rightly point out -- not frequent. MPS1992 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• I also would not have called it a legal threat per se, but I'm not going to argue with the block. All of the statements in the article regarding the incident are (at a glance) well-sourced, except for one which was not which I have removed. Overall I agree with Only in death: a balanced biography on this subject requires balanced coverage of the incident, and the article has treated it fairly. But don't overlook legal threats. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Alssa1's harrassment of Garageland66 and lack of competent editing

Alssa1 appears to be continuously WP:WIKIHOUNDING Garageland66 on British political pages. Alssa1 also appears to be adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS.

Harrasment

• It all seemed to start unprovoked on the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party talk page 19 May here:

"*No As above, WP:COMMONNAME. @Garageland66:It's only a controversial claim amongst self-identified "Communist(s), trade unionist(s) and anti-austerity campaigner(s)." Its existence in the Labour Party is not denied."

• Then continued a couple of days later on 21 May here:

"You don't get to ascribe your interpretations to a WP page like that..."

• Then continous highlighting of Garageland66's editing history to discredit him started here:

"@Garageland66: furthermore I feel I have to make an accusation of WP:NOT HERE because of this edit your political opinions as to what makes a "Israeli advocacy...organisation" is totally irrelevant to any discussion."

• The editor goes onto other talk pages (the Eton College talk page) against other editors where they've had no previous involvement here:

"Familiarise yourself with WP:NOT HERE."

• Back to Garageland66 on Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party talk page here:

"It's concerning that Garageland66 thinks it's acceptable to label an organisation as a "Israeli advocacy" group simply because it uses a definition of anti-semitism he doesn't like. I note from his block log that this not the first time he has engaged in edits that could be described as going against WP:NOT HERE; he clearly is not learning..."

• And again here:

"I really wouldn't make accusations of edit warring given your history and your recent WP:NOT HERE edit."

• After adding this category didn't go down well on the Labour Party (UK) page adding here. The editor reverted Garageland66's edit with the edit summary here:

"Reverting edit by repeated WP:NOT HERE editor Garageland66.]"

• Then going onto the talk page to make the same statement here:

"Again, you are not in a position to have 'suspicions' of anyone given your history and your repeated WP:NOT HERE edits."

• Then reverting G-13114 here:

"Take it to talk, it's already been discussed there. It's removal was done by a someone who has made a series of WP:NOT HERE edits."

• Now back to the talk page again the following day on 22 May here:

"You've actually been banned for a series of WP:NOT HERE edits."

• Then moving back to the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party talk page here

"... Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think they are not WP:FRINGE? We don't include fringe groups simply to provide a 'neutrality' that fits in with your previous WP:NOT HERE edits."

• Further comments here:

"What you seem to fail to grasp (among other things) is that your "analysis" is totally irrelevant to wikipedia."

• I made a general warning without appearing to single anyone out here

"I also would urge editors to be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and not use talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND. Ad hominem comments about editing history and repeated accusations of WP:NOT HERE is unhelpful. If you've got any personal issues, take it to ANI not here." The editor acknowledged receipt of this here.

• However, this didn't deter the editor reverting back to old ways on 11 June here and here.

"To be honest, I don't think Garageland66 will ever accept a page that criticises his espoused political viewpoint as neutral. As a cursory glance of his talk page history will show, he's quite adept at engaging in numerous edit wars when his views are not implemented." "I love how every time you come up against a definition for anti-semitism you don't like you instantly assert that the source is a "well known advocate for Israel". You did this for the ADL in this edit. Please remember that WP is not here for you to forward your political viewpoint."

• Today, Garageland66 even kindly asked here:

"Alssa1 please note WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF".

• To which Alssa1's response was here:

"...Rather than telling others to note "WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF" why don't you note WP: DGF?"

Incompetent editing

• Alssa1 has also added primary sourced content here and here to make a WP:POINT. Despite claiming to be aware of "WP:IRS and WP:NPOV requirements" here.

• Adding a YouTube video as a source to push a POV on the George Galloway page here.

With the edit summary "Previous edit was not original research. In fact, it constituted WP:V which therefore makes it legitimate to include." Edit warring it back into the article when RolandR removed it here. At the same time removing sourced content from Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi's article here and the Conservative Party (UK) here.

• Despite a talk page discussing being started about content on Momentum (organisation) page here.

The editor ignored WP:BRD and continued to WP:EDITWAR with Nonsenseferret here and here. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Summary

Considering Alssa1 has been an active editor for at least nine years I think this behaviour is very unbecoming and inappropriate for the encyclopedia. The repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, lack of WP:AGF and use of talk pages as WP:BATTLEGROUND, particularly against Garageland66 which I can only deem to constitute WP:Harassment and shouldn't be tolerated.

I'm sure the editor is more than aware of Wikipedia guidelines and policies so I can only assumed they've either adopted a WP:IDHT approach and edit from a WP:POV by adding content which isn't sourced from WP:RS and removing content which is supported by WP:RS or they aren't WP:INCOMPETENT. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)