Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Meatpuppetry/tagteaming/POV pushing/filibustering at Singapore

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

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

Possible sock/meatpuppetry/SPA activity

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

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

Socking/Tag Teaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what an established editor said to you:

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

The Template use says: When to remove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, you have plenty of time, I don't. I will certainly look to document the events, wastes time to do such things but if this thread continues... I will set aside time for it. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, you do not have diffs to support your accusations. Precisely because I did no such thing as you have accused. Now would be a good time to admit that you were wrong. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

• 1st RFC about Lead Section closed with a general statement - "..broad though not unanimous consensus that the lead needs to be trimmed". There was no specifics mentioned. --01:06, 25 August 2016
• LG starts POV & undue and places POV Tag - 03:26, 24 September 2016‎
• Last comment in section (only 2 editors responded) on 02:51, 25 September 2016
• Between 25 Sept — 23 Oct - no further response by editors, dormant

Note: At this point, if this was a regular RFC, the POV Tag could have been removed by reason of Template:POV#When_to_remove (see below)

• 16:08, 25 October 2016---[Avery responded on the thread] that "Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove."
• 05:29, 26 October 2016---Warpsider responded to Avery, citing the Template mentioned

"When to remove

- You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:..

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

and proceeded to remove the Tag - (See Talk.)

• (break, to continue...)

- Wrigleygum (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's get this straight. So you are claiming that when Warpslider removed the tag on 26 October, there was no discussion going on and all discussion about any issues related to POV in the lead had become dormant. Am I correct? So when Warpslider removed the tag on 25 October, there was no discussion at all - no one had posted anything on the talk page till that time and hence, Warpslider removed the tag. And yet, if you look at the talk page history, there seems to be quite a few posts starting from 22 October. Are you seriously claiming that when Warpslider removed the tag, there was no discussion on the talk page or that the discussion had become dormant? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Those discussions does not matter. I have yet to finish timeline, tonight maybe. Wrigleygum (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring to remove the POV tag about the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She makes up some personal 'policy' that only 'experienced' editors can have a consensus to overcome her. I note that Shiok ask her to quote a WP principle stating 'experience needed' - The word "Experience" does not occur a single time on WP:Consensus - do paste the relevant quote from policy that describe it here. No answer, yet she continues.. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Seems @Warpslider: is no longer around, did not even attend court. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Continuous POV pushing and adding of WP:UNDUE content

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

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

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

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

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

Adding points to above by wrigleygum:

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

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

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

Well, then it is a combination of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing and general filibustering by SPAs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

No teams here. I see plenty of tag-teaming on her part on the other hand, or like just waiting in the wings to jump in when other 'buddies' are around - then taking the oppotunity to remove/edit other positive ones in the Singapore article. SPA? seems I am "almost" one in recent times, with 90% time spent engaging her nonsense, reverts, ANIs, Notices etc.

Admins, I'm avoiding exchanges with this person because it can be endless, with her regurgitating stuff that makes my eyes roll. Unless very necessary like in here.. otherwise I may end saying things that gets me banned! I think some of us likely had similar occasions. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, another round of accusations. Go and ahead and prove your accusations Wrigleygum. We need diffs. If you spend 90% of your time engaging in my nonsense, it should be clear that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Competence issues, refactoring other's talk page comments and misuse of templates by Shiok

SPA Shiok just left this message saying that I "harassed" (and apparently threatened) them by leaving a template "even when the original tag editor has not done so". Here's what happened. Shiok who is an SPA, was tagged as an SPA by another editor. But Shiok decided to remove it themself - which is not supposed to be done. I warned them on their talk page and the editor reinstated the tag. Oh and Shiok was actually warned by the editor, though they removed the warning as I had already given one. Considering that Shiok has been warned multiple times not to refactor others' comments, I am not sure if this is a competence issue and an action based on WP:CIR may be required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:SPA , it generally implies an editor with a narrow focus. However I'm not editing inappropriately and have been adding knowledge, removing vandalism. Currently, I am interested in more current Asia topics in Asean, Singapore with my background. Changes by others like in the South China Sea though was too much to follow and I rather not be confrontational. For a while I read up on history of Singapore and found some significant facts utterly wrong - i.e. no evidence our prehistory goes back to 2nd century or ancient names changed - likely some fabrication that's been there for years.

"..tagged as an SPA by another editor. But Shiok decided to remove it themself - which is not supposed to be done."

-:There are no guidelines when or who can remove the tags. Please paste the direct section link of the SPA tag removal guidelines here if wrong. Shiok (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Save me the Wikilawering. Tags are not supposed to be removed by yourself. Most people who have been here understand that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed PBAN for the above mentioned accounts at Singapore

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

@Lemongirl942: So, umm ... two weeks and four days after you posted the above, I have to ask who are "the above mentioned accounts"? Can I non-admin close this sub-thread as not having a snowball's chance in hell having only one support after this long? Can you wait for this to get archived and open a new thread with better formatting than five separate sub-threads in non-chronological order? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

She does have a legitimate concern that Singapore SPAs are whitewashing the article. It's not her fault that uninvolved editors have not yet waded through all the wikilawyering by the SPAs. Softlavender (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. But I can also see that as the thread is now the PBAN proposal is not going to pass, and closing the whole thread with procedural "This isn't going anywhere as it stands at the moment. No prejudice against re-opening a better-formatted discussion on the same forum." so it gets archived sooner and a new one can be opened would be in the best interests of whoever has the better case to be made. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:, @Softlavender:, others - I am the editor who maintained the Singapore lead for the past year. I do have wide interests and not an SPA in the sense of narrow focus. It's all time constraint due to work. WP:SPA does say an editor with previous diversified edit history should not be labeled as such, if he focus on single subjects for extended time. When the current storm is over, I will return to other interests.

I am glad to see at least some uninvolved editors coming by to engage. If you have the time, I would in fact be grateful if you can wade through the Singapore Lead and my explanation at [Singapore's lead:Specific issues] which addresses all the major concerns. My focus was to highlight the most representative and widely written data points about Singapore. Some have said is reads better and more informative compared to other major country/city articles like NYC, London, Tokyo. But Lemongirl, the main one who is finding all means to suppress the key achievements of the country, is in denial of it.

As for 'Whitewashing', no one has used that word in Talk:Singapore - because topics like civil liberties, freedom, democracy are all in the body text, and there was no effort to suppress them. I checked that 'Wikilawyering' was used once relating to photos and we can debate that if you wish. Indeed, I hope some can wade through the lead and article with new perspective. After all the time spent here, look forward to read your comments. Wrigleygum (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparent attempts at censorship

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

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

[1] [2] [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

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

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

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

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

The criticism article is about other peoples perspectives on the issue, and has nothing to do with the objective analysis of Prophet Muhammad's teachings about slavery. Xtremedood (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello User:MjolnirPants, I do not believe that I have demonstrated WP:BATTLE as demonstrated by my statements below. I think it is important to get both sides of the picture prior to making a decision. Xtremedood (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on articles relating to religion and India-Pakistan broadly construed. Despite the issues raised by User:David A in his OP, User:Xtremedood continues to edit war on these topic areas, e.g. Example One, Example Two. If this user is topic banned, their very recent history of using sockpuppets to edit war in these topic areas (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtremedood) should be taken into account and monitored. Given these facts, to respond kindly to User:MjolnirPants, it should be "entirely clear to me that they're unable or unwilling to learn to play by the rules" and should be topic banned in order to prevent further damage from being caused to the project. Jobas (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment - In reality, user:Jobas has an extremely pro-Christian bias. He deleted referenced materials [14], [15], [16], [17] which apparently shows a strong pro-Christian bias and which according to a consensus at the time [18], between Jobas, myself, and User:Sturmgewehr88 was considered to be a legitimate entry in the article at the time. Jobas alongside similar pro-Christian editors are far numerous on Wikipedia and their POV should not take precedence, just because they have more people. There is a clear denial of facts by Jobas and his supporters [19]. Mia Khalifa still identifies as a Catholic [20], whereas the current article makes it look as if she might have left Catholicism with ambiguous words such as "although is no longer practicing" [21].

My edits are based on fair, source-centric, and authentic information. Jobas on the other hand has committed himself to censoring sourced materials on the article List of converts to Islam from Christianity, over here [22][23], while on the other hand introducing questionable, or incorrectly sourced materials (including blogspot references) on the List of converts to Christianity from Islam, [24], [25], [26].

• As far as the Early Muslim-Meccan Conflict, I am correct in my edits as it consists of misattributed references, take a look at the references, the sources do not indicate as the author (user:Misconceptions2 states, who has a strong history of sockpuppetry and deception [27]. Also, literally zero sources refer to it by the non-NPOV name he allotted for it "Caravan Raids". I have attempted to engage in the users like David A who opposed my edit in dialogue, here [28], however they refuse to even try and validate the references and have not responded to my inquiries. The entire article is made up of misattributed sources, which do not say as Misconceptions2 states.

• As far as the Al Kudr Invasion, the article was created by the same user (user:Misconceptions2), who has the extreme history of deception and sockpuppetry. He misattributes the source, stating that the Prophet Muhammad kept the one-fifth to himself, whereas the Mubarakpuri reference does not say that. In reality, the one-fifth is in regards to a Quranic commandment, and the money was used for freeing slaves and helping orphans.

• As far as the History of Sufism is concerned. This was a disagreement between user:MezzoMezzo and I. We discussed it over here [29] like civilized people and came to a conclusion. I disagreed with the source being so old (from 1930) and how it contradicted recent studies like those of Carl Ernst and William Chittick. For example, Carl Ernst has gone as far as saying that Orientalist sources during this period (1930) should not be trusted on page 2 of [30]. Titus Burkchardt has also contradicted such data during this period in his book, Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, on page 4 [31].

• As far as the Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi Article is concerned, it was a similar disagreement with user:MezzoMezzo, where we discussed [32] like civilized people the nature of the source and came to the conclusion that the source was not about criticism. Which neither David A or Jobas participated in. The source does not state any criticisms and therefore is a misattributed source and should be deleted. See our discussion for further information on the matter.

User:David_A and user:Jobas have no foot to stand on, as Jobas's biased edits on the Mia Khalifa, List of converts to Islam from Christianity, and List of converts to Christianity from Islam shows a strong bias. Wikipedia should not be a place in which the more numerous Christian editors have say over others. Xtremedood (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

user:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective. Xtremedood (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Topic ban--Yeah, you're not supposed to write about your perspective on Wikipedia. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood:Jobas also never informed me that this discussion was going on. This is clearly an example of unfair editing and trying to censor my perspective.

1. It was David A who opened this discussion.
2. He absolutely did notify you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. There is something wrong with my notifications, I have 21 of them and they are not going away. Xtremedood (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

So, in your defense against my statement that you show indications of a battleground mentality, you accused another user of being "unfair and trying to censor [your] perspective" based on zero evidence and zero effort to find said evidence? That's battleground behavior, right there. Indeed, your defense consists entirely of attacking another editor. If you're trying to convince me to change my weak support to a strong support, you're certainly on the right track. I'm not suggesting that Jobas' behavior is perfect (I haven't looked into their behavior yet), and it is possible that they may need to face sanctions as well, but that is an entirely separate issue from your own behavior.

By the way, there is a link at the top right of the notification drop-down that says "Mark all as read" which you can click on to dismiss your existing notifications. Furthermore (though it is sometimes buggy), clicking on an individual notification should mark it as read. Finally, if you have viewed all of your notifications (by opening the drop down), the icon will be grey, even as it shows the number of notifications, instead of red, which means you have new notifications. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe my record of attempting to engage in and engaging in dialogue for matters pertaining to misattributed sources shows that I am not operating upon such a mentality, but instead I am showing concern for the authenticity of the sources and the content in the sources. I have shown above that for all of the articles referenced by David A that I have a strong justification for the edits. I had invited David A to talk about the matters and for all of the links he has cited he was never a part of the dialogue.Xtremedood (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I Support a ban, for much the same reasons as Jobas and MjolnirPants. The user appears completely unrepentant and relentless in pursuit of an agenda, with several past rule-violation incidents. David A (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have invited you to discuss the issue [33], however, you never (not even once) have engaged in dialogue about the issue. We also had discussions about the other articles you have referenced [34], [35] and you have not even once joined in the conversation. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Note to admins: As any decision-making body or person, whether in courts or in the legal field takes in to consideration the mental health of both the complainant and defendant, it should be noted that David A self-identifies as autistic, OCD and ADD on his profile [36]. Attention to the details is critical to this issue and while I have demonstrated sound rationale for my edits, citing clear misattribution of sources as the primary cause, I have not heard from any of the other editors about actually verifying what the sources say. Xtremedood (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not engaged in dialogue because I am not expertised regarding the subject matters, and am also technically on vacation at the moment. I have however, noticed repeated attempts to remove information, with highly similar patterns in terms of viewpoint-pushing.

As for the issues that you noted, they are not mental illnesses, just minor handicaps, and completely irrelevant to this case. They do not make me unstable or mentally defective. David A (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To claim a user's ASD prevents them from making sound judgements is rather ridiculous. In fact, in most cases, the opposite is true (I too am autistic, and it is for me). Xtremedood is setting up a strawman's argument. Patient Zero^talk 12:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The OP presented 13 very clear instances of blatant censorship and POV-pushing: article blanking, section blanking, and repeated undiscussed removal of cited material. This sort of behavior has been going on ever since he started editing a year and a half ago. I support a topic ban on articles relating to either religion or India-Pakistan, broadly construed. If admins do not wish or see their way to implementing this at present, I suggest a sanction in the form of a warning that if this behavior crops up again in any way, an immediate topic-ban or indefinite block will ensue. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have discussed those edits as being justified in accordance with WP policies, see my above comment. In your most recent edit, of Al Kudr Invasion you have utilized a misappropriation of source. I have set up a conversation here [37] to discuss it. You have readded the following statement: "He also kept a fifth of the spoils." This is not an accurate portrayal of the instance, as the one-fifth that was taken was used in accordance with the Quranic commandment 8:41, [38] which states: "And know that anything you obtain of war booty - then indeed, for Allah is one fifth of it and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and the orphans, the needy, and the [stranded] traveler, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our Servant on the day of criterion - the day when the two armies met. And Allah , over all things, is competent." I find it strange that you want to include reference only to Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller? Any reason for such an edit? The Mubarakpuri source clearly states "he had set aside the usual one-fifth". Why is it that you want to mention only Prophet Muhammad but not Allah (God), relatives, orphans, needy, and a stranded traveller of the one-fifth? Wikipedia should not be the place of such anti-Islamic bias. Xtremedood (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the issue here seems to be that you wish to remove any references that you consider to have a negative bias against Islam, and its prophet, but this is not how Wikipedia is intended to work. Wikipedia is strictly supposed to list accurately referenced facts, or statistics, regardless if these display a particular religion, ideology, opinion, or other concept in a positive or negative light. You cannot start to remove anything that you dislike, in order to deliberately try to slant public perception. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

So with 5 editors in support of a ban or permanent topic ban, will it be carried out? David A (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP consensus is not based on votes. As of now I have not seen any solid policy related arguments for a ban. The ban seems like true censorship. My edits are based on solid rationale and do not violate WP policy. With the extreme sock-puppetry and mass mis-attribution of sources involved by the article's creator (Misconceptions2), admins should not base their decisions on votes. Also, I am the only editor who has actually tried to start and engage in discussions over here for the articles you have referenced, whereas none of the other editors here have so far even engaged in 1 single dialogue about the articles you have referenced. Xtremedood (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardless whether Misconceptions2 has inserted references or not, they should not be removed wholesale as long as they are accurate. And I sincerely doubt that he alone wrote all of the material that you have edited out during your time in Wikipedia. Not to mention, your block history is suspicious in itself, so you are not one in position to cast stones. David A (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that is exactly the point. They are not accurate, and you have made so far zero attempts to try and discuss it with me. The other materials I have removed, I have justified as being either outdated, a misrepresentation of the source(s), or WP:OR. Xtremedood (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Sk8erPrince (talk · contribs) very rarely uses edit summaries, including not using them when nominating articles for AFD. I've asked him to at least use them when nominating articles for deletion [39], but he has not responded to my comment and has continued to not usually use edit summaries, including when nominating articles for deletion [40] [41]. For full context, mandy people, including me, find his behavior hostile and uncooperative in general (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20#Nanaho_Katsuragi for a recent example). My understanding is that using edit summaries when nominating an article for deletion is not optional (WP:AFDHOW says to give edit summaries, and I've seen people blocked before for not using them). I'm hoping an admin can get him to at the very least use edit summaries when nominating articles for AFD, if not be more cooperative in general. Calathan (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to require edit summaries

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

Support

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

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

14. Support: Almost everyday I see no edit summaries in my lifetime mostly by IPs, newbies and some inexperienced editors. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

    I think you may have misunderstood KGirlTrucker81. This restriction is only for this single editor as opposed to all editors. I do agree with you to a degree, in all fairness, but I will point out one flaw in your findings; a lot of experienced users don't use edit summaries all the time, especially when they're deemed unnecessary. I, for one, don't always use an ES when replying on a talk page, or my summaries are vague ("re" for reply, "ec" = edit conflict, "ce" = copyedit and so on and so forth). I don't think grouping IPs and new editors was a wise move on your part, either, as a lot of IP editors are experienced in editing. Patient Zero^talk 12:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    Oh, I did misunderstood this a little hehehe :D KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 12:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    Indeed - thanks for correcting my formatting, as well as responding in a civil and gracious manner. Patient Zero^talk 12:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

15. Support for any AFD, PROD, CSD, or related edit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
16. Support. I use edit summaries for any of my edits unless it involves updating a show airing live. Even for minor typos or corrections, ce is the way for me. Any editing involving deletion or nomination should require the use of edit summaries. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
17. Support, because it makes all of our lives easier...TJH2018talk 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
18. Support. Good idea to impose edit summaries in special cases. Clearly improving cooperation. Polentarion Talk 22:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
19. Support. This statement, Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you, plus the fact that he talks about a "defeat" at AFD says volumes of Sk8rprince's battleground mentality. People have requested nicely that edit summaries be used and there's no real reason not to. The whole digging in of heels in refusing to use them is juvenile. We are not here to cajole you nor coddle you. If you don't like the consensus then you are free to leave. Blackmane (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
20. Support as a perfectly reasonable requirement for Sk8ter at this point. It would be asinine to force newbies to use edit summaries, but Sk8ter has 5 years and 1700 edits under his belt - this shouldn't be hard. And the restriction is appropriately narrowed to where the problem is - deletion proposals. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
21. Support as this is a reasonable request for nominations and there is no reason not to include a summary of what they did with their edits. The user also says they will be "less inclined to comply" if they are required to use edit summaries which seems to be fishing for a block. Competence is required. -- Dane2007 ^talk 04:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
22. Support. Given that highly disturbing "List of articles I have deleted" on his userpage, this user absolutely should have visible accountability for every even-remotely deletionist move that he makes. He's also probably gunning for a t-ban from deletions if deletion is his raison d'etre on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    I second that, particularly since our Deletion policy (emphasis mine) states "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." His AfD stats are not too great, particularly all those "Delete (nom) / Keep" entries. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    With a nomination success rate of under 50% [42] I would support a ban from nominating articles for deletion at all. (excepting the usual like attack pages etc.) Jbh^Talk 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    Jbhunley, that stat really means nothing at all and you could say the same about me; if someone was in line with consensus all the time at AFD I'd assume they were playing the game of jumping on once the result was obvious to try to manipulate the statistics, since by definition if something is at AFD the result isn't a foregone conclusion and there's room for debate. ‑ Iridescent 17:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Iridescent: "Not all the time" is very different from having 42% of your nominations fail. (Note, my link was to nom only not to all !votes) That says to me either the editor has a very poor understanding of WP:DEL/WP:N or that they do not do a WP:BEFORE or both. Every AfD takes considerable editor time to deal with and making consistently poor nominations is disruptive. Jbh^Talk 17:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Added wikilink to Generic you to make my statement excruciatingly clear. Jbh^Talk 14:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    Jbhunley, if you have a problem with me you can fucking well start a stand-alone discussion about it laying out your evidence, not try to hijack a thread on a different topic to attack me for my "very poor understanding of WP:DEL/WP:N". I'll note that over a decade as admin, arb, CU. OS etc, every piece of mud that could be flung at me has been flung at me, and "lack of understanding of deletion" has never been among them, making me strongly suspect that the problem is with you, not me. ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Iridescent: cool your jets. I did not make any accusations against you - except now possibly a lack of reading comprehension. The subject under discussion is Sk8trPrince and unless you have a 42% miss rate on your AfD nominations is takes a massive lack of understanding of the English language to think that the subject switched from him to you. If I ever do have a problem with your editing, and I have never seen any reason to suspect I will, I will make it very clear to you. Jbh^Talk 19:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

23. Support This really should be a requirement for process-oriented edits such as AfD, etc. And it's just plain collegial and helpful. The user's only justification for refusing to be helpful and collegial in this way amounts to "nyaah, nyaah, nyaah, you can't make me," which makes one think there may be more trouble in his future. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
24. Support. It's too easy for other editors to miss deletion proposals when they are not marked. And it's also important for them to be clearly visible in the article history so that we can avoid prodding things that have already gone through a prod or afd process. But I think everyone should do this, not just Sk8er. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
25. Support Everyone should be doing this. This editor has been specificly asked to and refused even going so far as to say below "That honestly makes me even more inclined to not comply...". That is simply a crappy attitude and regardless of their "Fine, I concede. I'll use edit summaries when I'm noming and adding speedy tags, as well as big edits. Can we please end the discussion already??" above, I think they need an actual, enforceable sanction or else we will see this problem again. (see aforementioned crappy attitude) Jbh^Talk 17:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    @JNH: How would you like it if I called you a piece of crap, huh? WP:PERSONALATTACK right there. Your vote should be dismissed immediately. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Sk8erPrince: I said you have a crappy attitude and your willful misinterpretation and misrepresentation of my statement is, to me, a clear confirmation of my opinion. I make no representations about your quality as a human being because I neither know nor care about your existential value only about the way you have conducted yourself - and that has been, again in my opinion, poorly. Jbh^Talk 14:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    He said you had "a crappy attitude". Next time, don't jump to conclusions. Your behaviour is just getting worse. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

    • Note Sk8rPrince has deleted their statement earlier in this thread wherein they agreed to make use of edit summaries [43]. Their original statement is quoted in green above. Jbh^Talk 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
26. Support to help give others a sense of what is being done within edits. I know this is just focused on one user, but do feel that a lack of edit summaries in general regardless of who doesn't use them can get really irritating. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
27. Support - I have been interacting with him for quite a while now and despite the project's best efforts it appears he cannot seem to shed his mentality that AFD is a battleground where more articles being nominated and deleted is a good thing. It doesn't help that he once nominated an article I created for deletion without even bothering to notify me (moot anyway since the AfD was quickly withdrawn). To be brutally honest, given his behavior at AfDs, I think a more appropriate action at this time is at least a temporary ban on AfD nominations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
28. Support - The request for summaries advising of deletion nominations was reasonable; the response has been antagonistic and battlegroundy. "You're not the boss of me, there is no rule" really doesn't cut it for me. So let's make a specific rule to combat unreasonable, non-cooperative behavior. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
29. Support - if guidelines don't already call for edit summaries when nominating an article, they should (with allowances for the occasional lapse, of course). Jonathunder (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
30. Support - per User:Blackmane and User:Ritchie333 who voiced my thoughts exactly (I added the userbox btw ;) -- œ^™ 08:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Oppose: Everyone should leave meaningful edit summaries. It would be unfortunate if one editor suffers because this is a test case. An edit summary should anticipate the questions that subsequent editors will have. Edit summaries should make plain what you have done. If you have done very little, leave an edit summary that calls attention to the tweaking you have made. If you have made an edit that you can anticipate that others may object to in whole or in part, your edit summary should allude to the change you've made, as well as a brief argument or justification for why you think your edit is called for. It is not uncommon to see useless edit summaries or no edit summaries at all. But this should be addressed project-wide and not on the backs of individual editors who may come under fire. Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
4. I honestly don't see how not using an edit summary here is disruptive. Very few editors (at least the ones nominating manually) actually use edit summaries when adding the AfD template. ansh666 21:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
   • To me, it's mainly that it's hard to look at one's watchlist and tell something has been nominated. Given that AfDs are about all he does, it seems reasonable to ask that he make it easy for others to figure out when things are being nominated for deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose As others have said, there is no requirement on edit summaries for anything. As a result, in my view it is unreasonable to apply this as an edit restriction just on @Sk8erPrince:. If this is to be a requirement it needs to be passed as a requirement on all wikipedia editors. Also he can't be said to have violated anything retrospectively since there is no such rule in place and you can't be said to have violated a proposed future rule that has not yet been enacted.
   
   It sounds as if this may be an omission in the guidelines that needs to be rectified for the most significant edits such as nominated an article for deletion. But at the moment all that can be done is to ask him as a matter of courtesy if he would be so good as to leave edit summaries to help the rest of us. He has said also "Fine, I concede. I'll use edit summaries when I'm noming and adding speedy tags, as well as big edits. Can we please end the discussion already??". [44] What more is needed? If we take this further I think it should not be as an action against any individual editor but rather as an action to change the guidelines themselves. Then after the guidelines are changed, then editors could be required to follow them.
   
   As for other allegations against him, I suggest if anyone thinks there is anything of substance to be discussed they be raised as separate actions. Too many of these ANI cases become long discourses about all percieved flaws of the user concerned, and this is not the way to administer justice. It needs to be focused on some particular issue and on this particular issue "User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion" I think there is definitely no need at all for any sanction or further action according to the guidelines. He has been asked as a courtesy to provide the edit summaries from an article that he nominates for deletion, and has agreed to do so. Case over surely. Robert Walker (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose sets a slippery slope and bad precedent on "it's not a rule but because I think you're breaking an imaginary rule so you'll have to follow my imaginary rule". It cannot be enforced if the "rule" is broken in the future. Plus how do you determine if it's broken? Of all the years I spent here, I learned one thing and it is that you cannot please everyone and there will always be people who have an axe to grind and enforce a really strict rule on what is ok and what is not. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   The proposal is not to enforce a rule, imaginary or otherwise. The OP provides examples of unhelpful behavior (it is unhelpful to nominate an article for deletion with no edit summary), together with polite requests to improve collaboration. The responses from Sk8erPrince above are what has prompted the proposal that the editor must use an edit summary for certain actions related to deletion. Collaboration is very important for the health of the community, and that is why there is strong support for the proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   Exactly. 1RR is not a rule, it's a restriction to encourage collaboration. IBANs are not rules, they are restrictions to stop inherently negative interactions. TBANs/PBANs are not rules, they are restrictions to discourage persistent disruptive editing. Similarly, this proposal is not the enforcement of a rule, but a restriction to end disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPT) and encourage a collegiate/collaborative attitude (WP:EQ). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I had originally closed this thread because edit summaries aren't required, however others felt more discussion was necessary, so I reopened it. Needless to say, I'm kind of disappointed on what this is turning into. Sk8erPrince has definitely demonstrated some attitude and battleground issues in this thread alone, but requiring him to use edit summaries does not address any of those problems. This is an absurd restriction on one user as he could easily skirt it by leaving edit summaries that don't say much of anything and then here we are back again at ANI with a thread about his "poor edit summaries". I don't envy the new closing admin as most of the arguments above seem to be people's wishes towards a project-wide change, not in regards to one user. For the record, I believe that all users should use edit summaries, but requiring them isn't worth anyone's time enforcing. We all have better things to do. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   I agree. The important distinction is not between leaving edit summaries and not leaving edit summaries but rather between leaving useless edit summaries and leaving meaningful edit summaries. Edit summaries are an important part of the project. Through edit summaries we have the potential to address some of the problems that plague the community. Edit summaries should be used properly. I am opposed to requiring Sk8erPrince to use edit summaries for the reasons you mention above. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

   Just noting that this only requires that he mark his edits that initiate a deletion action. He appears to be not doing so to make it harder for others that watch the page to notice that it is up for deletion. This is not a general requirement to use edit summaries in all cases, just where he has been disruptive by not using them. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

8. Very strong oppose - edit summaries are not required. Trying to impose an editing convention on other users because it's convenient for you is especially poor form. If OP wants to see when a page in their watchlist is nominated for deletion, they can enable a script to do so and not badger other users. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
9. Prinicipled oppose- given that the community has previously smiled benevolently on inclusionists repeatedly lying in edit summaries, it boggles the mind that we are now considering punishing someone for merely omitting them. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Say what? Can I ask for a bit of explanation of what this accusation of lying is based on? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

   Prominent Article Rescue Squadron celebrity caught repeatedly using edit summaries that deliberately obscured what he was actually doing, as well as misrepresenting the content of sources Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden- nothing done about it of course. Same guy gets caught at it again Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Colonel_Warden, and not only is it excused again with many smiles and pats on the back, but it's the one guy who tried to stop the misbehaviour that got kicked in the teeth. Since being purposely deceitful in edit summaries is OK, I don't think there's any call to punish someone for leaving no edit summary at all. Reyk _YO! 22:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

10. Strong Oppose, while I agree that not editing with a summary, especially after being asked to do so is not good, there is nothing against policy that was violated. If you feel that editing summaries should be required, or should be required for certain types of actions, then go to Village Pump Policy and request it. To do so here is punishing someone for something that is not wrong. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

Well, WP:AFDHOWTO certainly seems to imply an edit summary is necessary. I've always followed the process to the last detail every time I nominate an article for deletion, and I certainly don't have any problems with it. Of course, this is a very subjective topic. I actually think it's a very interesting subject to raise at WP:VPP, since we're now talking about it. Parsley Man (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion WP:TWINKLE can be turned on in preferences. It makes any XFD nomination extremely simple, all you have to do is type in your reasoning and it internally does everything else, create the page, add it to the log, inform the page creator, and yes, leave an edit summary. Why anyone wouldn't use it for nominations is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that WP:TWINKLE is the simple solution here. To the people opposing the overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS for Sk8erPrince to use edit summaries, in my mind it's either that or a TBan on deletions (or both), because he's become that disruptive, as all of the WikiProject members have attested. Softlavender (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, at this stage, whether you support or oppose, it does not matter anymore. I have already started using edit summaries for all the aforementioned categories, and also for expanding bios. However, I will say this: Any discussion that has nothing to do with edit summaries should be ceased immediately. Seriously, some of you even had the audacity to give me your unneeded comments on what I wrote on my profile. That's like, none of your beeswax. Maybe you should learn to mind your own business? And given that no consensus is needed for my willingness in using edit summaries when necessary, this discussion should also be closed down right now, given that any more comments and votes will prove to be completely substanceless. No, you didn't force me into submission; I myself have now seen the relevance in using edit summaries, and will use them appropriately, and when needed. If I'm willing to do it with my own free will, your so called restriction isn't going to affect me one bit~ --Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again with the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Good God. This message was so unnecessary and mounts to incivility. I second Knowledgekid87 as well that Sk8erPrince is agreeing just to please the community and get over with it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. I'm not doing it to please the community. I'm doing it because I see the necessity in doing so, so that my AFDs could progress faster. But none of you managed to forced me into submission; try to keep that in mind. Check my latest contributions for verification if you don't believe me. And you wanna know what's unnecessary? This entire discussion. Could you remind yourself what the proposal is even about again? OH RIGHT, it's about getting me to use edit summaries. Well, since I'm using them now, your unsizeable comments and borderline aggressions don't mean anything to me. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Takes petulance to a whole new level, doesn't it? However, the point does stand. Does a discussion concerning an editing restriction or sanction stay open if the editor in question has acquiesced, however petulantly or childishly, to abide by the community requirement that is under discussion? Blackmane (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do me a favor and stop bending around the facts. The FACT of the matter is, using edit summaries are not required. So what's this talk about abiding by "community requirements"? It's not even a requirement in the first place. As non-mandatory as it is, given that I now see how using them is speeding up my AFDs, I'm sure as hell gonna use them, of course. Also, I contest to your claim that I was "acquiesced" to the proposal. So you're saying y'all forced me into submmision? Blatant BS. Nobody could force me to do anything - not now, not ever. I'm doing it out of my own free will. Try to get that through your thick skull. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are stating what people have been seeing though that you could care less about the community's opinion regarding your editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If the benefits of using edit summaries more often help meet my own ends, I don't see why I should be opposed to use them on the grounds that it's not mandatory. Is it really so hard for you to understand that I merely failed to see how it could benefit me before? People change, and for someone that's as flexible as me, changing sides and stances isn't hard at all. Again, we don't need this discussion to continue. It's absolutely pointless. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand some things. While Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines which by and large every editor follows. There are also things, such as edit summaries, that are not explicitly laid out as being required. However, all of those can be trumped by a broad discussion by the wider community and whatever gains consensus, in effect, becomes a policy for that one editor. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but that has not prevented the community from banning editors from editing particular articles, just do a search for "Topic ban", "sanctions" or "restrictions" in the AN and ANI archives. All of those can be, and have been, levied on a single or even a group of editors. Failing that, there is the Arbitration Committee who have much broader powers to act on particular areas. The edit summary guideline may state that a summary is not required, but consensus from a wider community discussion does have the power to place a requirement on an editor to use edit summaries. Failure to abide by community imposed sanctions have resulted in sanctions as light as an indefinite topic ban to indefinite blocks and site bans. On Wikipedia, consensus overrules all. Blackmane (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a flying dang whether or not you manage to impose this sanction or requirement or whatever the heck you wanna call it upon me. If the end result dictates that this whachamacallit is placed onto me, then so be it. I don't care. I'm already doing what the proposal states, so your POV on the matter is useless. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I am reaching up to here with your attitude and I have to get it off my chest. If I get warned for civility, so be it. Will you stop with your arrogant comments? "Cool story, bro" is the most insulting thing I have been told and I have been called Nazi names. I have had enough with your condescending comments and I am reaching my limit as you are disrespecting plenty of users besides myself. This discussion is still ongoing. If you don't care, why are you still here? What I see that you're just conceding to please the outcome. You didn't give a flapping duck before and now you're agreeing? Seems far fetched to me. I am done with your insulting comments. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Bite me then, Canadian. If you wanna ignore the facts, then so be it. It's a FACT that recently, I've been expanding on stub articles rather than just AFDing. It's a FACT that I've started using edit summaries. If it benefits me, I'll do it. You're not me; don't go and assume my intentions and motivations for wanting to do the right thing. I'm not doing it to please anyone. Never had, never will. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

This is a pattern, and the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that has dominated some of the AfD discussions that Prince has been involved in. Here are some edits that have raised red flags with me: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. It is not productive, it is not collaborative, and bridges have already been burnt with multiple editors. [50], [51]. Im not saying that all of his AfDs have been unjustified, but seriously he needs to tone it down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I should probably mention that earlier today I removed something from his userpage that I thought could be considered offensive; though I also decided if he reverted and kicked off at me for it, I would just take it on the chin. And while "This user is strictly, unquestionably, undeniably and exclusively heterosexual" isn't directly homophobic, it does leave me with unpleasant overtones of it (after all, if you're comfortable with your sexuality be it gay, straight, bi, asexual, not a clue etc, why would you need to assert it loudly?). And a section of "Pages I've deleted myself" (which is factually wrong as he has to ask an admin to do that) isn't really what Wikipedia is about (not to mention the polar opposite of User:Ritchie333/saves) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC) So my sexual orientation matters to the so called overall problem since when? This discussion should honestly be closed down. It's just WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Basically a closed discussion that is perpetuated. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Again throwing WP articles at people when you don't know what it actually means... Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC) Starting to reach levels of IDHT, more than 20 editors disagree with the close. That should tell you something. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC) It matters not to me, but it clearly matters to you as you have put it at the top of your userpage. I'll clarify that I find it offensive that you trivialise homosexuality into a bit of dodgy porn you like watching, and recommend reading Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing (both good articles, incidentally), from top to bottom to understand why I might feel that way. (I'd say "why don't we just discuss it over a pint?" but you don't appear to like those either). Anyway, bottom line is if you put right-wing views on your userpage, expect blowback. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC) if you put right-wing views on your userpage, expect blowback. - That is both dumb and bigoted. Right-wing does not equate to isms and phobes. Economic conservatism is a right-wing position, yet has nothing to do with intolerance. How absurd to clump in the economic right in to such a category. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC) "This user opposes smoking", "This user opposes gambling", "This user opposes alcoholism" "This user opposes drug abuse or recreational drug consumption", "This user dates for the very purpose of resulting in marriage" .... all that's missing is "This user believes the Daily Mail is the best newspaper in the world" - jeez. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC) What does that have to do with what is being discussed? Sounds like you're trying to antagonize a user who is already pretty riled up. Primergrey (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Given the diffs and so forth, I agree there is a definite problem here with belligerence, hostility, failure to do WP:BEFORE, and general disruptiveness. I'd like to re-iterate my stance that a topic-ban on deletions may be in order here. Let's see if the user can edit productively and collaboratively outside of deletion issues. If he cannot, there may be an inherent attitude problem that is a CIR issue. Softlavender (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps too soon for a TBAN, but, I think this statement exemplifies the failure to comply with AfD procedures; The quality of the article DOES matter; how else would I know whether or not the subject is actually notable? - By doing your due diligence (in terms of a sort of Wiki-law) and researching the topic before nominating an article for deletion. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, if you look at his history, that's virtually all he's doing, and he's very belligerent and disruptive about it, and as Jbhunley notes far above, he has a very low success rate. At this point he does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia, and a topic ban would allow him to demonstrate that he is, and would allow him to demonstrate that he can collaborate with other editors. Softlavender (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you - in fact I agree with you. What I think is that given the above proposal and the fact that it barely managed to budge the editor from their position, dropping a TBAN on them would just drive them away and confirm to them their prejudice that we're a bunch of witch hunters. Seriously, their comments already describe is in basically synonymous terms. If the above proposal were to pass then it might slowly drive the point home that their approach is not the right one - if not, TBAN away. Although, philosophically, being a deletionist by definition would make you "not here to build...", but rather, "here to demolish". Not necessarily a bad thing, given that bad articles on non-notable topics are like a fungus around here, just seemingly antithetical to the stated premise - i.e. "build". Mr rnddude (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"Low success rate"

Did I just hear you right? So being able to get rid of 30 articles myself is equivalent to low success rate? Are you kidding me? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You're proving everyone's point there -- bragging that you've "been able to get rid of" articles. That's the problem. You are fixated on destruction, belligerence, and hostility instead of collaboration, cooperation, and building an encyclopedia. That mindset has caused a lot of problems. (And by the way, in terms of "success rate": When at least half of your nominations don't end up getting deleted, that means you are nominating far far too many articles, far too easily and far too quickly.) Softlavender (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes it is. As comparison I have nominated nearly 200 articles and have a miss rate (either a keep outcome or withdrawing a nomination because people found sources I could not) of about 10% [52]. That, in my opinion, is right on the cusp of acceptability for a regular nominator and a 15% miss rate would indicate a need to reevaluate how one assesses an article for nomination. You have a miss rate of over 42% and a success rate of under 50% [53]. To me that says you do not have an adequate understanding of WP:DEL and WP:N, that you do not do a WP:BEFORE or both. An AfD takes considerable time to process and regularly making bad nominations is disruptive because of that. Before you nominate an article for AfD you should spend some effort to see if it can be saved or at least whether there are sources out there that would allow someone else to save it. Hell, just taking the time to run it through {{find sources}} will screen out many articles that are poor but should not be nominated.

Even if you are a hard core deletionist the goal is not to see how many articles you can delete but rather to identify articles which, be they non-notable, spam or whatever, do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and nominate them while not nominating articles which do. Jbh^Talk 14:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not helpful to make a brag list of AFD's that ended up being deleted. Also it would be more helpful to learn how to use the delsort tools so that AFD's are properly categorized and Wikiprojects properly informed, as well as how to properly close a withdraw from nomination, as not following that process has caused a lot of extra work on us other editors. Also, give articles some notability tags first so people can react to that and work on them. Same with no/poor sources and cleanup-biography tags. Place those first. Let them sit for a while, and those that haven't been addressed in any timely manner (like over a year with no efforts) are more likely to get better consideration at AFD time. You can still AFD the egregious non-notables. I also agree find sources should be used a lot more as part of WP:BEFORE as well as looking at the JA wikipedia articles to see if it can be potentially transferred over if those are sourced better. Also add find sources and search under the Japanese names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What bothers me Angus is that Prince does not appear to be a new user [54]. While he only became confirmed in 2016 I see edits going back to 2012. [55] It is just hard to believe in all that time that he hasn't learned basic wiki etiquette. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible topic ban from nominating articles for deletion?

I absolutely hate saying this but after months of communicating with the user and despite threads of discussion over at WT:ANIME involving virtually every active member of the project, and despite occassional promises of reform, Sk8erPrince's behavior has not changed at all. The fact that he considers AfD as some kind of battleground or war where having more articles deleted is seen as a victory is contrary to Wikipedia culture. Despite our best efforts, he has simply not changed this mentality and has even reacted strongly against even good-faith attempts at reform. Having been a Wikipedia editor for more than eight years, most of which have (in addition to working on anime and manga-related articles) mostly involved new page patrolling and vandalism reversion, I understand that the deletion process is a complicated one that can take months or even years to fully comprehend, but his mentality is not appropriate at this time.

I hate that it has come to this, but I am proposing at least a temporary topic ban or restriction of some kind for Sk8erPrince for nominating articles for deletion. Reading the above discussion and having been involved in the previous discussions, I am aware that such a restriction has risks and that rather than discouraging him it might only make him feel that he is being discriminated against by the larger Wikipedia community. However, my feeling (which I have held for several months) is that such an action is ultimately necessary for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD - I want to see if Prince can work with others to build an encyclopedia. There are hard core deletion editors out there on Wikipedia, but this case crosses the line into vindictiveness. Prince's attitude during this ANI discussion has also been of issue with the "I could really care less" attitude. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @Narutolovehinata5: A "topic ban or restriction of some kind for Sk8erPrince for nominating articles for deletion" is not an enforceable sanction. If there is to be a sanction it should be either something like a) a ban on nominating any articles for deletion excepting attack pages and blatant vandalism. Appealable after 6 months or b) a ban on nominating articles for WP:AFD. Appealable after 6 months. Jbh^Talk 15:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 16:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I was vague about the possible kind of restriction because I was thinking exactly what kind of ban/restriction to be enforced would be discussed in this discussion. But your proposal seems reasonable, although what I had in mind is quite similar to yours (a temporary ban on nominating articles for deletion except for blatant cases). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Before people get too far into the support/oppose process I would suggest that you amend your proposal to include wording like in a or b above or something else specific which you think is appropriate. Based on the discussion and their nomination stats I would probably propose b if I were proposing something but you may have more experience with the editor which would lead you believe a broader restriction is needed.

In any case the proposed restriction needs to be spelled out clearly enough that people know what they are !voting for and so the closing admin knows what to implement. Jbh^Talk 22:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- I have to agree with JbH here. A "restriction of some kind" is far too vague to be enforcable. What makes this even more irksome is that the user in question has been savagely attacked for following the rules as they're written (see recent business about NPASR) and now we're going to impose an extremely hand-wavey one? Nope. Reyk _YO! 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Reyk: The nominator has changed the scope of the proposal, and JbH has !voted "Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD" lower down in this same section. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support until he's shown competence in the steps I've outlined above: tag notability/sources/cleanup-biography and assume good faith on editors, doing WP:BEFORE, and filing AFDs properly with a delsort, he should only AFD the egregious ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support: I was involved with a highly similar situation a few years back where we were dealing with a user who was simply ignoring policies and would not reply or even comment on their user talk page when approached by others to get them to comply. They weren't being disruptive, by the technical definition, they were simply operating by their own rules and then ignoring anyone who asked them to obey the rules, or least the etiquette, of this site. Such users can be extremely frustrating to deal with and usually need a bucket of cold water to knock them into seeing that their behavior needs to change. -O.R.^Comms 21:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD. The editor just doesn't get it, and as is very clear on this ANI, still doesn't get it. Let's see if he can edit productively and collaboratively outside of those parameters. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, keep lying yourself and deny the facts all ya want, then. We can do this all day. I have been doing other sorts of editing besides AFDing, and that's a fact. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD Though I'm now at the point I think a long-term block is a better choice, this is a good first step. The CIVIL violations found above (the struck text) combined with the text that he's just removed rather than struck make me believe this editor is a net negative. Hobit (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from PROD, SPEEDY, and AFD I also agree with Hobit that a long term block may be more appropriate. Based on the belligerence expressed by the editor throughout this ANI and the continuing "you can't make me do nothin'" attitude I expect we may very well be back here shortly discussing a long or indefinite block. I hope Sk8erPrince proves me wrong on this but right now they are following the common path to indef as if they were on rails. Jbh^Talk 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC) On further consideration, I have not noticed any claims that they are being disruptive with PROD or CSD. If I missed it please let me know and I will reinstate. I do personally think Sk8erPrince should stay away from article deletion altogether for a bit but, as far as I know, they have only been disruptive because of bad AfD noms. Last edited: 14:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

After Jbhunley's comments

Update: Per Jbhunley's comments above, I am proposing specifically: 1. that Sk8erPrince is topic-banned from nominating any article for speedy deletion, PROD, or AfD for a period of one year, except for articles which constitute patent nonsense, vandalism, attack pages, and copyright infringing material. This ban cannot be appealed until after the sixth month; 2. that Sk8erPrince is to be mentored by one or more users regarding Wikipedia policies, guidelines and ettiqute, with the understanding that any unconstructive behavior could result in a block; while I understand that mentorship with these cases has a poor track record, it may be worth trying in this case.

The two proposals are to be voted on separately.

• Support for 1; weak support for 2 as proposer. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not just combine this with the section above? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to close

There are, I think, enough support/oppose opinions on the edit summary proposal for an uninvolved admin to determine consensus. If this continues much longer Sk8erPrince is, in my opinion, likely to talk themself into a self-inflicted indef with the battleground attitude so many editors have commented on. Maybe we will end up here again but we do a disservice to this editor by not closing this one way or the other, giving them time to take onboard the comments given here and hopefully allowing them to adjust their attitude without an open ended ANI hanging over them. Jbh^Talk 17:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this particular matter is essentially closed. For whatever reason they have now decided to use edit summaries and indeed this can be seen through recent edits. I still think Twinkle would make things easier but that is for them to decide to use or not. Any other issues not related to this matter should be handled separately, clearly it is not productive to deal with them together.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem I have is that it appears he isn't taking any of this seriously and it is all some kind of a game. With things like "No, you didn't force me into submission", and "your so called restriction isn't going to affect me one bit". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I tend to agree but really, what will continuing this accomplish? I think there is a consensus to require he make use of edit summaries when nominating for deletion. Personally I do not think he should be doing deletion noms, at least AfDs, but that has not really gotten, and is not likely to get this late in the thread, much input from uninvolved editors. The attitude will either resolve itself once the pressure is off from this long ANI or it will not. If it does not then an ANI, with evidence of how his attitude is a continuous issue, can be opened and sanctions examined. Right now I do not think there is really enough to call for a NOTHERE some such block but if this continues I can see them truely loosing their composure and getting blocked for it to no real purpose since the issue this ANI was opened for can be addressed now. Jbh^Talk 17:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add this diff here: [56] one editor had asked him to use edit summaries. This wasn't enough, it took 20 something editors here before the message finally went through. I want this closed as well but not if nothing is learned from it or else this was a huge waste of all our time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I just figured that I start using edit summaries by seeing the benefits in using them before y'all can force me into doing something I don't wanna do. I have this ability that many of you don't have - switching perspectives and stances to suit whichever situation or environment I'm thrown in. I don't suppose you have a problem with that? For doing the right thing? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're asking if he's learned how to properly AFD, no he hasn't: [57] [58] and [[59] which he did this morning, still required a second editor to delsort it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Delsorting is not required when you AfD. It is good to do but failing to do it is not disruptive. I have no opinion on the noms themselves since I do not know the standards for the topic. From what I see in the articles they do not seem to have enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG and I do not know if the roles pass WP:NACTOR so based on a very superficial look and no web searches, that these are not inappropriate nominations. Jbh^Talk 17:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

But the AFD nomination itself isn't even put in the most basic of categories like people or actors/filmmakers, causing a second editor or a bot to have to guess. I agree he's picking more egregious ones now, but a lot of the previous ones in the past month that generated this complaint in the first place were not well thought out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC).

I join in asking that this thread be closed. All the points to be made have been made. The editor has started to use edit summaries for deletion noms, albeit minimally and grudgingly. Either he will take onboard the various other suggestions that have been made, or he won't—I hope he will—but repeating them any further isn't going to help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nah, you have the wrong idea. I'm not using edit summaries grudgingly. I'm doing them out of my own free will to benefit myself and my AFDs. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There also seems to be an emerging consensus for a topic ban but will leave that up to the closing admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Brad, the editor's continued belligerence, battleground mentality, and obsession with deletion are still major problems. There are proposals now running to address those issues, so it would be premature to close this ANI at this time. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC).

• Support closing of this AN/I. At this point we're traversing across the line of punitives. The last three AfDs have demonstrated competence in that they are appropriate nominations. I dont think there is now a valid reason to continue pushing for sanctions. If there are new or further problems than I could support a TBAN. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, I submit that an editor who makes the following comments on this thread (in chronological order) is a highly uncooperative editor, and that that is a valid reason to continue to discuss possible further sanctions:

• I see, so this how it is... basically, you want me to start using edit summaries just to make it easier for you, for your own personal convenience. ... Yeah, no. Overturned. I have no obligation to make life easy for you.
• Well, we're not gonna continue this discussion. The end. Stop bothering me about it. It's my choice whether or not I want to use edit summaries, and honestly, if I see one more person nag me about it again, I'm reporting y'all as harassment.
• You could try and encourage me to use them, but I could refuse on the grounds that it's compulsory. So what I'm seeing here is y'all ganging up on me to force me to comply on something that isn't compulsory? That's WP:THREAT right there. That honestly makes me even more inclined to not comply, more so than before, wherein I simply thought adding an edit summary is such a hassle.
• No, you didn't force me into submission; I myself have now seen the relevance in using edit summaries, and will use them appropriately, and when needed. If I'm willing to do it with my own free will, your so called restriction isn't going to affect me one bit
• I'm not doing it to please the community. I'm doing it because I see the necessity in doing so, so that my AFDs could progress faster. But none of you managed to forced me into submission; try to keep that in mind.
• I contest to your claim that I was "acquiesced" to the proposal. So you're saying y'all forced to submit? Blatant BS. Nobody could force me to do anything - not now, not ever. I'm doing it out of my own free will. Try to get that through your thick skull.
• Is it really so hard for you to understand that I merely failed to see how it could benefit me?
• repeated here: [60]
• Bite me then, Canadian. .... I'm not doing it to please anyone. Never had, never will.
• y'all can['t] force me into doing something I don't wanna do.
• Ok, keep lying yourself and deny the facts all ya want, then. We can do this all day.

-- Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I myself am extending my good faith "to within a whisker of absurdity". I think that Sk8ers most recent edit to this page - striking all of their comments and backing off from the discussion - and their respectful response to my comment on their talk page are encouraging signs that they want to just let this go and move on. As I've said before, if disruption continues from here on out - act accordingly, but, let's give them a chance. They want to do AfD, fine no problem. They're finally willing to use edit summaries, good. They appear to be vetting their noms more thoroughly, excellent. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You missed where they're canvassing another admin to close this thread, here. Personally, I wouldn't be averse to this discussion being closed with no action taken. As Newyorkbrad has said above, the point of this thread was to get them to use edit summaries and the threat of a restriction seems to have done the trick. Placing that restriction on them now would be punitive. They have an attitude problem, that much is clear, but any number of editors have varying degrees of abrasiveness in their day to day interactions but their productivity and contributions generally outweigh their character traits. Blackmane (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose close. There is clearly an issue. They have a battleground mentality and they have an attitude problem as pointed by Blackmane. "Bite me then Canadian."??!!! How is this in any way appropriate? I'm nearing 18 years in age, and I don't act this way. Their constant arrogant and snarky comments have gotten me up here. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Callmemirela: It is clear he is trying to get under your skin, I would go with WP:DENY for those types of comments. Stay above the fray =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Knowledgekid87: I should have done that earlier, but oh well. Since my last reply to them, I have had no interest in communicating with them anymore. Thanks for the advice. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-support close - I don't know what keeping this open much longer will do so at this point it might be for the best to wait and see. I saw that Prince struck his edits here but he has to know that he has angered a lot of editors. This is not good for the encyclopedia, and it goes against our collaborative goals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Hobit below, keep the T-ban discussion open. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• I am not seeing any new activity with this thread, could an admin make the consensus call and close this? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support I'd prefer the TBAN thing go a bit longer, but frankly it's a bit of a mess and so I'm fine with the whole thing closing if need be. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• support close This user clearly conceded to the community's concerns. --Adam in MO Talk 18:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• As an observational comment, the two proposals seem to have acquired a consensus, so this should be closed as well as factoring in the proposals.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 20:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:JohnWilkinson

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

AIV got me nowhere with this a few weeks ago, so I'll try here now that it's come up again today. User:JohnWilkinson is a bizarre SPA who keeps parroting some nonsense about how the International Boxing Organization (IBO) does not belong in the lead sections of certain articles (mainly Gennady Golovkin, plus other articles involving the IBO), and keeps removing it after a series of ranting edit summaries. He also seems to have a presence outside of WP, promoting his agenda at forums and comment sections. Examples: 1, 2.

Several such edits have been made in the past few months; multiple warnings given; a previous account for the same thing earlier in the year; and his occasional rambling at my talk page (3, 4) is annoying as hell. Example quote from the latter:

"I am writing to you as your superior in this ONE FIELD."

I mean, seriously? Discussing the matter with him won't work, as I can't make heads nor tails of what he's going on about! What's clear is that he won't stop removing the IBO from articles, which is disruptive and basically vandalism by this point. Tempted to say NOTHERE, even though others might view his edits as "misguided but good faith". Regardless, he's an absolute nutjob. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything in either account's contribution history that is particularly out of bounds, like edit warring. There may be a WP:COI, since the user seems to have strong personal opinions about IBO. It seem like WP:DR is the best course of action. AIV is not the right venue because there's no indication that the edits were done with the intent to damage the encyclopedia.- MrX 19:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

He is edit warring, though, and disruptively so. Besides the continual rambling and nonsensical edit summaries, he has given no justifiable—or even decipherable—reasons to remove the IBO from those articles. More like WP:PN should apply here, as most of what he writes is the very definition of "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." WP:DR seems like a waste of time, since he only makes the edits every few weeks and is not a regular user. Perhaps WP:EWN instead? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

So that people trying to help you don't have to trudge exhaustively through two accounts' contributions, please provide diffs showing edit warring.- MrX 23:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of slow-edit warring at Gennady Golovkin:

• Current edition with stable lead, and IBO included: 1
• Lead with content (IBO) persistently removed by User:JohnWilkinson – 19 Oct, 29 Oct, 18 Nov.

Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

These edits, while repeated, aren't occurring at a high enough rate for me to justify this as active "edit warring" or that any administrative action is needed at this time. I think the best course of action is to inform the user that he needs to discuss his thoughts and rationale on the article's talk page and explain (with references and sources that support his argument) why he believes that his contributions are valid and the content modifications/removal he's been making are accurate improvements that are verifiable. He just needs to get affiliated with dispute resolution and understand the need to properly discuss disagreements like this on the article's talk page, that's all :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Heh, so I'm on my own with this one. Fine, but I'll say this outright—I dread being obligated to interact with him in any way. Any non-admin user who calls themselves my "superior" on WP, whilst touting a fictional organisation set out to "fix" boxing, and saying things like "I can assure you..I myself am one of the "greats" in understanding modern boxing at admin levels", or leaving their damn phone number at my talk page, is not worth my time.

Let alone the walls of text I would expect to receive, like these posts from him (under the same name) on boxing forums: 1, 2. Quote from the first one: "I am AT WAR against the IBO which is the FIRST &FOREMOST MAJOR DECEIVER!" That's what I'd be opening myself up to. Just sayin'. I don't believe this paragraph violates WP:OUTING, since he himself has repeatedly posted his own name and number on WP, which seems to be covered by this RfC: "Noting undeniably obvious cross-site identity". In fact, it looks to me like WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BADPOV are at hand here—by admission he is not posting as an individual, but as an "organization" with an agenda to push.

The only reason I brought it up here is because his agenda has been persistent enough and presented in such a bizarre manner throughout the year to warrant at least a mention to someone who would notice, and because a huge amount of boxing topics are on my watchlist. If the unlucky souls at WP:DR or WP:COI think they handle him, good luck to 'em. Advice appreciated nonetheless.. Close away. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Someone who posts under what looks like a real name, and even if not their real name then a screen-name they have used on other websites, is making themselves a target for outing. However, Googling other users' names and then posting the results on-wiki is never OK, even in such cases. It is not clear how Mac Dreamstate came across the above-linked forum posts, but if a search engine was involved then they should refrain from doing so again.

Mac Dreamstate, the wording of WP:OUT is interpreted as narrowly or as broadly as is seen appropriate on a case-by-case basis, and attempting to interpret anything on Wikipedia talk:Harassment as justifying posting links to off-wiki posts that do not appear to be directly related to Wikipedia (there is no canvassing involved) is not going to end well. Apparently, that policy page is extremely controversial and has gone through more than ten archive pages in the past two years, so it seems extremely unlikely that a "consensus" on the talk page that is not explicitly enshrined in the wording of the policy itself will either cause you to be blocked or prevent you from being blocked.

However, JohnWilkinson's on-wiki behaviour certainly seems disruptive, and (even if there was unprovoked Googling involved) I can definitely see this working out like scenario (1) in the diff I linked above, and I honestly have no problem with that. The outing, if that is what it is, is borderline and the lesser of two evils in this case. But (assuming the above links were discovered by Googling JohnWilkinson's username) Mac Dreamstate should also be issued with a stern warning against further behaviour of this kind.

Just my two cents.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion that I Googled his name for the purpose of outing—in my staunchest defence, I only Googled the "organisation" he touted in a WP edit summary, namely the "UWBCAFO-I". From there, I arrived at the aforementioned forum posts; note that I refrained from linking to any social media accounts. Therefore if I get a warning, it will absolutely be under assumption and without proof. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That edit summary is indeed weird, and I too would have likely Googled it just to try to figure out what it meant. But posting a link to a forum thread you happened across in such a search, especially in a context like the above (clearly meant to create a negative impression of a user based on something they posted off-wiki that didn't mention their Wikipedia activity), is definitely textbook WP:OUT. Whether or not you are blocked or otherwise sanctioned for it will likely depend entirely on whether your assertion that the user is a disruptive SPA is determined to be accurate. I already pointed this out above, though. I know it's not how it's supposed to work, but WP:OUT is one of those policies where the users who violate it usually only get sanctioned if they committed it against a user who was contributing to the project or if they themselves were already on the way to a site-ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's clearer to me now. If an WP:OUT violation has occurred due to my having posted the forum links, and I get a warning or sanction for it, then I will accept that as an honest mistake I made. However, if a block ensues, then I'll definitely try challenging that through the right channels (requesting unblock via talk page, I think). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88 Mac has apologized and explained how he came about the linkage. In light of JW's own statements, I would be inclined to leave it just as a warning and caution Mac to approach an administrator privately about future precieved linkages to determine if they are valid for building context of an editor's PoV or if it should be kept quiet. Hasteur (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave it just as a warning and caution Mac to approach an administrator privately about future precieved linkages Did I imply I disagreed? :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Weird activity from Kacperf

Kacperf (talk · contribs)

This user's behaviour has me stumped. Most of it seems to be pretty benign, but some of them are pretty weird, especially interpreted in light of each other.[61][62][63][64] He also curiously thanked me for this edit.

Additionally, the first edit looks like they are also these IPs[65][66] which makes it difficult to interpret as a good-faith mistake the same user made three times, and if there aren't multiple IP trolls on WAM that makes it even worse.

Thoughts? I honestly have no idea.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The account is new, so I believe that trolling is a strong possibility. All of the users current contributions seem a bit strange, save for the sandbox edits. I also wouldn't rule this out as a new user simply edit testing, though it's odd that they thanked you for the warning. I don't think that there are enough contributions to determine if it's a compromised account or if multiple people are using it. DarkKnight2149 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Admin comment still needed DarkKnight2149 19:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Range block for disruptive IP editor who changes sourced content

I've reported this IP to AIV, where I suggested a range block, but it was declined without comment. The range 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64 has repeatedly changed sourced content, added unsourced content, and made other disruptive edits. Examples:

• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff

If you click on the citations, you'll see the changes fail verification. In 2015, Sergecross73 left this message on the talk page of an IP editor on this range. It seems to indicate that this is a well-known editor who is engaging in block evasion, but he didn't include the username, so I don't know who it is. The edits seem to be the same, including the obsession with Sony's name: diff from 2015, diff from 2016. This seems to be the same editor as 2A02:C7D:564B:D300::/64, though that range hasn't been used since earlier this month. There's another range, 2a02:c7d:75d7:9300::/64, which was range blocked by Zzuuzz for a year on 11 September 2016 for block evasion by Callump90. The ISP is the same, but the edits don't quite match up perfectly. The 9300 IP's edits show an obsession with the BBC that doesn't seem to exist on the other ranges I've listed here. Maybe someone knows more than I do, though. Sorry for the pings, but I'd really like to get this resolved. Reporting it to AIV doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything, and I don't have enough confidence that it's Callump90 to bring it to SPI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The AIV report was not declined, it was simply wholesale removed, by Widr [67], along with three reports that had actually been responded to by admins. Widr, can you please explain your action (I'm guessing it was an oversight)? NinjaRobotPirate's report had even been endorsed by a third party [68]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been an oversight, yes. On the other hand, at the time the report had been sitting there for several hours without any admin touching it, making it more or less stale. ANI is usually a better venue for reports that can't be or aren't actioned withing minutes. Widr (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• In regards to the part I was pinged about - yes, throughout 2015/early 2016, I blocked a large number of IPs by someone who also used a few user names containing the words "Zachary" and "Atlus" in them, so that's what we'd usually usually refer to him as, though he more frequently edited anonymously. He would make tons of minor changes to article that upon spot checking, had a high percentage of being wrong. (Fundamental stuff, like saying Nintendo published Disney video games and the like - undeniably not true.) Any attempts to talk to him about this usually lead to silence, with the occasional outburst of saying "Screw you, Serge!" as the dif above shows - never actually addressing any concerns or defending any actions. So we moved to blocking and reverting on-sight. Eventually, I had someone do some range blocks on him (I'm still struggle with them personally) and he seemed to go away for a bit, but if this is indeed him, then I fully encourage further blocks/range blocks. Huge WP:COMPETENCE issue. There was literally no getting through to him, and he refused to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just recalled one of his original user names - AtlusZachary, where he (inexplicably) lists a ton of his interests on his talk page after I blocked him. They were in fact a lot of places where he'd cause trouble too, and as you can see, he did obsess over tweaking television related articles like BBC and NBC. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• The more I look into it, the more it seems to be Zachary. I saw the IP reported above making the same edits as the IP 31.52.4.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was more blatantly acting like Zachary, including getting blocked for bad edits and page moves, and having outbursts on his talk page. I'm blocking the IP for now, as he's still making edits today, but please consider implementing a range block too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It is AtlusZachary. He's largely kept away from video game articles as of late so I've ignored him, but he's still adding unsourced garbage and incorrect information to articles after nearly 2 years. He was already range blocked once (or maybe twice) before, and he should be range blocked again. He's very persistent, I've reported well over 100 of his IP addresses in the past for blocks. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I trust 1337gamer's opinion on this too. He has reported Zachary to me an endless number of times, and he's been right about 100% of the time. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on AtlusZachary. 86.131.221.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be the latest IP used. Notice the same obsession with Sony's name ([69], [70]) and addition of unsourced film studios ([71], [72]). I think 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00::/64 still needs to be range blocked, but we'll probably be playing Whac-A-Mole on other ranges for a while, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I too hope someone does a range block, but feel free to report any IPs you expect to be him on my talk page, and I'll take care of it. I've been doing it off and on for months so I don't mind. Sergecross73 msg me 03:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing premature edits without reliable sources

User:Aaron's The Best is a user actively engaged in editing articles concerning Australian television channels. However, on multiple occasions, he has come into conflict with WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:RELIABLE over premature edits that he bases on unreliable sources and/or personal speculation. Such examples include the following:

1. October 2016: The renaming of the article Food Network (Australia) to SBS Food Network because, and I quote, "It's all because of SBS Viceland's name. SBS are probably doing an mistake by referring the channel (Food) without SBS in its name, but they are referring the Viceland channel WITH SBS in its name. So it looks like that's what the channel should be called", speculating a change that even now has no backing whatsoever. I questioned him on his talk page concerning this and explained the policy behind the reversion of his edits.
2. November 2016: Premature edits to the article SBS Viceland by changing the name of the channel from its then-current name (SBS 2) to the rebranded "SBS Viceland" before the rebrand occured.
3. November 2016: Premature edits to the article ABC HD (Australian TV channel) based on then-speculation concerning the network's launch of high definition simulcasting with no reliable sources to support his editing. I cautioned him on his talk page concerning this and again cited policy.
4. December 2016: The renaming of the article Prime HD to Prime7HD based on speculation concerning the network's possible future launch of high definition simulcasting with no reliable sources to support his editing.. I have cautioned him on his talk page concerning this, citing different policy in addition to that cited in previous instances.

It appears that despite my continual contact to advise him of policy and offer assistance in future, he has not taken this on board and continues to erratically edit articles in this manner. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 08:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this user has a WP:COMPETENCE problem. Despite being very new, he has carried out a large number of ill-considered page moves, as shown by the messages on his talk page. This would not be so bad if he would communicate and we could be sure he was taking the comments on board. However, he never replies, so it is hard to gauge what is going on with him. He just carries on with more of the same. A block would at least force him to engage and speak to other editors. SpinningSpark 14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, it's Aaron and I have listened to you. I'm pretty sorry about adding info on articles of Aussie TV channels that are actually rumours from the MediaSpy forums. Lucky that ABC HD one was confirmed a few days later by the ABC themselves. Also, I'm sorry about the Food Network move, since SBS don't refer Food Network with SBS in it's name, but they do refer Viceland with SBS in it's name! I won't add any rumours from the MediaSpy forums anymore. Thanks. Aaron's The Best (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that Aaron. It would be helpful in future if you tried to reply to people when they contact you on your talk page. SpinningSpark 22:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Aaron, we are here to help. If we leave a message on your talk page concerning your edits and you do not understand, please respond so that we can help you. I think that it would be best for you to step back from moving pages for the moment so that you can learn more about the process to prevent incidents like this in future. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aaron's The Best: Just because you are occasionally vindicated in your premature edits doesn't entitle you to make so many errors. Until it's reported by the subject in a press release or covered in generally accepted reliable sources you shouldn't edit wikipedia to include information. This especially includes rumors on forums. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Niele~enwiki reported by User:Beshogur (Result:)

Page

Qabasin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Kurdish tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ezidkhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Niele~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user called me three times "racist" and "vandal". I think this user should get sanctions. This user must read: Wikipedia:No personal attacks article.

1. [73] "with the by anti-Kurdish racist laws in Turkey banned letter Q"
2. [74] "Undid racism-motivated vandalism of currently blocked kurdophobic and armenophobic user"
3. [75] "Undoing a rasism-inspired edit"

Beshogur (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Could also be using an IP to edit (same type of language used in edit summaries), breaking WP:3RR: [76], [77], & [78] --Darth Mike^(talk) 13:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Those edit summaries are pretty bad, and content-wise I'm not a fan of (for example) overly-long section titles that are clearly only included to appease nationalist readers and make reading more of a slog for the rest of us, or replacing legit variant names with what is clearly the same name spelled slightly differently. Or, for that matter, claiming that a user who has received a short block for edit-warring should therefore have their edits to other articles reverted with impunity. That said, the user has a clean block log -- would a warning be enough? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed my mind. "Ctrl+F"ing "block" in their contribs brought this up. No one who thinks "This user was only edit-warring with Beshogur, who has also been blocked for edit-warring in the past -- is that really all that bad?" is a valid reason to unblock someone should be allowed to continue thinking in that way and contributing to Wikipedia. Maybe if Niele had a block in their own log they would stop haranguing Beshogur about the block the latter received two weeks ago. I say block for 24 hours since it's the first time they are getting blocked (although probably not their first offense). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Beshogur, you are obligated to notify the user of this thread, using the red template at the top of this page. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done this for Beshogur. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Technically, there is no obligation to use any particular template to notify someone that they are being discussed on ANI. I think what was meant was per the red/orange template at the top of the page. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have left a warning on Niele~enwiki's talk page, as the edit summaries presented here are personal attacks and are not positive nor collaborative in regards to proper dispute resolution and interaction behavior. If this continues, this user can be blocked for disruption and repeated violations of Wikipedia's civility policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The article was in a perfectly stable condition as this [79] for three years, until this edit on 22 August 2016 [80] by an IP changing "is a Kurdish town" to "is an Arabic town", which precipitated an edit war that has lasted up to the present moment. The edit-summaries quoted aren't great, but every single one of you is edit-warring and ethnicity- and nationality-warring, and you are all going to end up blocked if you don't collaborate and discuss and provide sources instead of edit-warring. The only editor who has even bothered posting on the article's talk page is Ferakp. You all should take a lesson from him. In essence this is a content dispute and should be settled on the talk page, with formal dispute resolution if needed. I recommend that an admin return the article to its previous stable state [81], full-protecting it, and having the editors discuss on article-talk until sourcing and WP:CONSENSUS is reached. Softlavender (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and the OP mistook ANI for ANEW (look at the formatting). No one's hands are clean. If the OP had actually posted this on ANEW, I would agree that page protection and warnings all around was the solution. But the OP presented diffs of a bunch of edits to different articles whose edits summaries included unacceptable personal attacks and a clear misunderstanding of the nature of our blocking policy. Throwing other users' block logs in their faces is uncivil and despicable. Using other users' block logs as an excuse to revert their edits is worse still. Using other users' having been blocked for edit-warring as an excuse for edit-warring with them is just plain ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Softlavender: I may not have been clear enough with the above. I think you have misunderstood the OP's post (through no fault of your own, mind you -- it was not formatted well). When you say "the article", it is not at first clear which of the three separate articles you are referring to. It is also clear you have not looked at the other diff I dug up of Niele saying that only users on the other "side" should be blocked for edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way: "I am reverting your edit because you have been blocked for edit-warring" seems to be this month's "theme" on ANI. Over the course of December 1, I commented in four threads, basically at random, and of those two of them involved someone doing just this.[82][83] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he mistook ANI for ANEW. He simply used the format used at ANEW to report a behavioral issue (edit summaries he didn't like) at ANI. The problem is, he's going to run into a WP:BOOMERANG here because he is the one engaging in nationality-warring, ethnicity-warring, and disruptive-editing against longterm status quo without talk-page discussion, consensus, or citations. In my view, the edit-summaries are pretty accurate except for the word "vandalism"; none of them actually specifically call the other editor racist (although one says "racism motivated" and one says "racism inspired", neither of which should occur in edit-summaries), and the first one only calls the Turkish laws that banned the letter "Q" racist. Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I just am not seeing it. Yeah, he comes across as a nationalist, but so do his opponents. Turkish nationalism is not, in my view, as reprehensible and automatically ban-worthy as some of the other overt racism we've seen on this noticeboard over the last few months. Don't get me wrong: it's not a good ideology. But it is only as much out-of-line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy as Kurdish nationalism, Armenian nationalism and Arab nationalism. And as far as I am concerned, when it comes to edit-warring the edit-warring itself (for which he has already been blocked) is less of a concern than his opponents' constantly trying to paint the block as his edits being condemned by the admin corps on content and using it as an excuse to revert his edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW (missed this): regarding none of them actually specifically call the other editor racist, the edit summaries you refer to in the following parentheses are pretty difficult to interpret as not calling the OP racist, and the other diff I dug up describes the OP as being known for vandalism based on hate toward other ethnicity in a bogus unblock request on behalf of someone who was blocked for violating his own unblock conditions, because apparently an exception should be applied for when one is edit-warring with someone who is known for vandalism based on hate toward other ethnicity. That sqid, I would not be opposed to a block or other sanction of Beshogur for any actual edit-warring or POV-pushing he has been doing in addition to a short block of Niele so he stops trying to game the system by undoing others' edits and arguing in favour of edit-warring with those editors solely based on their block logs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ferakp, it has nothing to do with me. "Qabasin is a Kurdish town" was just based on self reports. I just changed it to "a Syrian town" because it has not any reliable sources. Even the sources you added were based on Twitter reports. Beshogur (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"with the by anti-Kurdish racist laws in Turkey banned letter Q"

-> I called a law racist, not a person = No personal attack

"Undid racism-motivated vandalism of currently blocked kurdophobic and armenophobic user"

--> I'm calling 'actions' racism-motivated, not a person = no personal attack. Offcourse I'm morally implied to detect racism motivated edits against minorities. This should not have a place on wikipedia.

"Undoing a rasism-inspired edit".

-->I'm calling 'actions' racism-motivated, not a person = no personal attack. Offcourse I'm morally implied to detect racism motivated edits against minorities. This should not have a place on wikipedia.

Please take look at the edit-history of user Beshogur https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Beshogur&offset=&limit=5000&target=Beshogur

Everyone can look at User:Beshogur edit history and see this user is dedicating the last year of his live to target info over the minorities that are standing in the way of his pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals. You can spare a huge amount of decent Wikipedia users valuable time by blocking him indefinitely. Because after multiple blocks and dozens of warnings he will not learn to stop edit warring and he is damaging Wikipedia with his behavior. I'm distressed by so much hate from this user toward other etnicities and minorities and action should be taken ban in from wikipedia because this kind of 'hate-accounts', targeting of other etnicities should not be tolerated. It is important to detect this 'hate-phenomenon' and report it. He seems not learning out it and just keeps going on, trying to attack/block all decent wikipedia-users that stands in his way. (He already managed to block 2 wikipedia-users in the past 2 days because they where carefully when reverting someone making problematic edits)--Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No one here wants to help either you or Beshogur with your content dispute. Please refrain from making personal attacks in edit summaries, and please read over WP:BLOCK before mentioning other users' block logs in the future. If you cannot do this, you should not be editing Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

He didn't mention anyone's "block log" (he called the editor "currently blocked"), nor is there any restriction on mentioning other editors' block logs (it's fairly common to do so when there are major infractions requiring administrative intervention) or the fact that they are blocked, although mentioning it about an otherwise longterm editor who is merely on a 24-hour block for edit-warring (as opposed to a blocked vandal or site-banned editor) is not advisable. Softlavender (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: He didn't mention anyone's "block log" Please read others' comments before responding. This is my third time posting this diff. this [Arbitration Enforcement block] is an immense mistake and highly disproportionate [...] Pbfreespace just reverted edits of user Beshogur, that was just last week blocked for edit warring is unacceptable IDHT, KETTLE and UNCIVIL. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

He didn't use the term "block log", and that's only the second time you've posted that diff, and you didn't previously post it in conjunction with the term "block log" when you first posted it: [84]. There's also no restriction on mentioning other editor's blocks when discussing their problematic behavior. Softlavender (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

He didn't use the term "block log" I didn't say he used the term. I said he was repeatedly bringing up the OP's block log. You don't need to say "block log" to talk about someone's block log, as is evidenced by the fact that he did. that's only the second time you've posted that diff You are right, and that was apparently only the second time I posted that diff. I don't remember what exactly happened, but it's possible that I abandoned a draft comment that included it, or that this comment originally included the diff, or that I had misremembered it thus. Either way, I apologize for the mistake. you didn't previously post it in conjunction with the term "block log" when you first posted it Again, you are nitpicking the words I used. I was talking about throwing someone's block log in their face as an excuse to be allowed edit war and violate editing restrictions. My not having used the words "block log" is irrelevant. There's also no restriction on mentioning other editor's blocks when discussing their problematic behavior Yes, and? Edit summaries are not the place to discuss someone's problematic behaviour. In the context of the diff in question, he was not even supposed to be discussing the OP's problematic behaviour -- he was requesting that an exception be made to someone else's 1RR restriction/final-warning in the case of edit-warring with this one user because that user happens to have also been blocked for edit-warring. And, again, reverting someone's edits because they are currently blocked, or were at one point in the past blocked, for edit-warring shows a hilarious lack of self-awareness on Niele's part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Calling a law racist? Hahaha so much fun. Since when became laws "racist", as far I know, Turkey is a secular, democratic country. Beshogur (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Everyone can look at User:Beshogur edit history and see this user is dedicating the last year of his live to target info over the minorities that are standing in the way of his pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals." Niele~enwiki, I do agree that Beshogur's edits on Kurdish tribes and Qabasin (articles which have already been mentioned here) amount to that, but in terms of the rest of his edits, no one on ANI wants to sift through a year's worth of a user's edits to find other examples. If you would like to submit more examples, in the form of WP:DIFFs, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Another recent example: [85]. User Beshogur deleted the Armenian name of the town claiming that a simiar issue had been discussed on Talk:Erzurum as if on this page some solution or consensus had been reached to delete Armenian names in similar cases. In reality on Talk:Erzurum several users said that the Armenian name should be kept because of the towns Armenian history before the Armenian genocide. If this were some isolated incident I wouldn't care but in the case of user Beshogur this is part of a systematic campaign to delete information about Armenian, Kurdish, ... people on wikipedia. This is just one more example of why user Beshogur is under discussion on "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Niele~enwiki, it does appear (as Darth Mike mentioned above) that you my have edited logged out to perpetuate an edit-war, using the same edit summaries, on the two articles already mentioned here: Special:Contributions/2003:77:4F1B:5796:81B5:DA58:A387:AECC, and probably also here: Special:Contributions/2003:77:4F5E:9768:A5E8:6AAD:EC76:3314. Oshwah, could you give the user a formal warning on their talk page against doing that in the future, if it seems like this was the registered account evading detection? Softlavender (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC); edited 15:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Also this one. Beshogur (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

1) I did the edits mentioned above with IP 2003:77:.... To clarify: I'm not Niele, I do not know Niele and I'm not in contact with Niele. I've been doing minor edits here and there as an IP user without having an account. By chance I ran into some anti-Kurdish vandalism by the user Beshogur and found that he is doing it systematically. I have now observed his destructive and malicious behaviour for a while by following his activity. Wikipedia should have the technical tools to separate my activities from Niele's activities. (I prefer to remain anonymous in order not to come under attack by Turkish nationalists.)

2) Though Beshogur is sometimes doing some constructive work in articles concerning Turkish history he systematically erases and distorts information about Kurdish, Armenian and Yazidi people. While I agree that comments like "racism-motivated vandalism" should be avoided, I have to say that that often exactly describes what Beshogur is doing.

3) On the discussion page "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )" there is a list of some 20 examples (as Beshogur pointed out there, in maybe 5 cases he is right, but the other cases are examples of a behaviour exactly as Niele described). If one would go deeper into his edit history I'm sure one could collect 100s of such examples.

4) I find it strange that a user who calls other users "Bunch of idi...s. Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)" on User_talk:Niele~enwiki#Stop_calling_me_racist complains about users who call some of his actions "racism-motivated" if they clearly seem to be racism-motivated.

I think the behaviour of User:Beshogur should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Since I was tagged to this conversation, I would like to add some things. I have to admit that some edits of Beshogur have been nationalistic and he has practiced cherry picking. It's usually difficult to make him understand that there is a talk page and reliable sources are needed to confirm his edits. That's all what I can say.Ferakp (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Niele:

1. [86] Sockpuppet 1
2. [87] Sockpuppet 2
3. [88] Sockpuppet 3
4. [89] Sockpuppet 4

Beshogur (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As explained above I did the edits with IP 2003:77:.... and I'm not Niele. Beshogur should stop making false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear IP-hopper: Even though you geolocate to a country that is contiguous to where Niele~enwiki purportedly lives according to his userpage (last edited in 2010), you are engaging in the exact same behaviors as Niele~enwiki, with even the exact same edit summaries. Therefore, you give every appearance of being him. I therefore suggest that you either register an account, or stop targeting Beshogur's edits. Otherwise, I personally believe that you may face sanctions, per our WP:DUCK and WP:TAGTEAM guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

New day - new IP (but similar, again starting with 2003:77...). There is no contact or coordination with Niele whatsoever. I just saw a comment "racism-motivated vandalism" and used it as well because to me it seemed that this exactly describes what Beshogur is doing. Recently I haven't been using this term, instead writing "anti-Kurdish vandalism" or "anti-Armenian vandalism" which is more neutral but still raises awareness of what Beshogur is doing. I'm not an experienced user - please let me know which other methods are available to stop a user like Beshogur from systematically deleting content about certain groups of people. With an account there is still the problem that one user could operate several accounts, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:D49E:9A3B:219F:FF9C (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Again new day - again new IP (but again similar 2003:77...). Let me add that I am still learning how to use wikipedia. In the last few days and weeks I learned a lot thanks to Niele and Beshogur: I learned from Niele how to confront problematic users like Beshogur and from Beshogur I quickly learned all the essentials (and some dirty tricks) of the art of edit warfare. So it's natural that my way to deal with the user Beshogur sometimes resembles Niele whereas my way to conduct edit wars probably resembles Beshogur.

Let me rephrase my question from yesterday: what methods are available on wikipedia to stop a user like Beshogur from making his problematic edits without going to edit war everytime? What is the recommended way of proceeding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F50:9375:D183:6754:142:AF02 (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not have sock-puppets and I never used a other account than User:Niele~enwiki and User:Niele (originating from automated multi-languages transfer). Niele is my frontname, and I'm highly valualing always using always my own real name in wikipedia. Can someone please investigate these IP-accounts and prove that this isn't me; so these baseless claims can be burried. I'm working only from a normal home-cable-account from Belgium's Telenet internet provider from the village of Alken, Belgium. Not from other locations and I don't even have a cellphone or laptop to surf from other locations.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also sorry if you're not the IP users but I'm tired about that. Beshogur (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Range block needed - LTA IP editor who reverts Eik Corell

The LTA IP editor who goes around reverting Eik Corell has been active this week on multiple IPs. They seem to be able to change it and come back within 12 hours of each block.

IPs used this week so far: 86.187.162.39 86.187.166.1 86.187.165.193 86.187.169.241

Three of the recent past discussions: here, here and here.

Thanks. -- ferret (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Which LTA is this, if you do not mind me asking? I cannot think who it is; I cannot see them at WP:LTA. Patient Zero^talk 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I've used LTA as a general term, as this has been going on for two years or longer to my knowledge. It is not a listed LTA case. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, easily done Ferret. Do not worry! I can see why one would class the IP as an LTA in the same way one might class the UK referendum user (long name; remember him?) as an LTA. Perhaps "troll" would be more appropriate, I guess. Patient Zero^talk 13:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User now editing as 86.187.175.73. They changed their IP within an hour of last block. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI: An edit-filter was implemented to counter these edits. More recent activity of theirs here. AccountForANI (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The IP may be partially aware of this, as I noted variation of the "rv v" edit note being used. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

New IP, 86.187.170.193 -- ferret (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought we had an edit filter for this. I'll ping our resident edit filter experts that I think were handling this edit filter. @Samtar:, @MusikAnimal: --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

MA was the brains behind the filter, but I can see they are evading it - I'll have a look at the IPs contribs and try to update the filter -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The filter was off. I've turned it back on — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Does it appear to be working? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Haven't seen any activity from these IPs since the last one, at least via my watchlist. Sounds like the edit filter was off, and is now turned back on, so I think we can close this until they pop up again. -- ferret (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

there is someone doing "pranks" - his word

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

---

at Richard Hunt (sculptor) right now. Could someone check it out? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Just request page protection at WP:RFPP. And if the user continues vandalism at other articles, consider reporting all of the IPs at WP:SPI. DarkKnight2149 22:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I did. Since Richard Hunt (sculptor) is a living person it seemed that something needs to be done. Carptrash (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Because this is a BLP, I've left an only warning on their talk page. The IP is registered the City College of New York, if they vandalise again, a complaint could be made to the college. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for them track down the party responsible. Blackmane (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Help with creation of page

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

---

Hello,

I am trying to create a new page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Access_to_Affordable_Medicine and I received a message to say that this was blocked/blacklisted and that I should contact an administrator.

Many thanks Reece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reece.urcher.001 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Reece.urcher.001: Only reports regarding incidents, such as disruptive editing, go here. Try visiting the Teahouse or WP:AN for help. DarkKnight2149 00:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, the OP has a legitimate complaint. Yes it might have been better for them to go to WP:AN instead of here, but a question regarding a blacklist which limits the creation of an article to admins only is certainly a reasonable topic for an administrators' noticeboard, and not everyone knows that there are two of them. How about instead of blowing off the inquiring editor, one of our admins explain to him or her why the article title is blacklisted (which it is), and what the editor can do about it, if anything.

I would suspect that one thing they could do is create their prospective article in Draft space (by going to Draft:Access to affordable medicine), write the article there, and then approach an admin about the possibility of moving it into Main space. I don't know why the title was salted -- I assume for a good reason -- but if the new draft doesn't have those problems, then an admin can do the move, thereby creating the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Tried that, and the title is salted in Draft space as well, but the same principle should hold by creating it in Reece.urcher.001's User space. Try User:Reece.urcher.001/Access to affordable medicine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that's blacklisted as well - shows you how little I know about salting titles. Can an admin explain the situation to Reece.urcher.001? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Reece.urcher.001: I've created a blank page for you to edit at User:Reece.urcher.001/Access to affordable medicine. Please start the article and get in touch again when it has enough content to require moving. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Thank you very much for your help. I will let you know once the article is ready. -- Reece.urcher.001 ^(talk) 15:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Juanda International Airport

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

---

Hello. An anonymous user added some destinations in the article which I have proven to be untrue or fake. I reverted the article but yet the user added the destinations again. What concerned me is that he stated this:" Kt siapa Fake information anak pelacur kayak yg paling tau aja ente Wisanto ?". That sentence is something very vulgar in Indonesian and I am really offended. I need the administrators to help me in this issue. Please check the revision history of the article for the evidence:[90]. Cheers. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The IP that Wisanto is referring to is 180.244.141.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I just put the message into Google Translate, and it certainly appears to be vulgar indeed. The IP seems to be talking about (ahem) child prostitution. As someone who doesn't speak Indonesian, I can't determine if it's a full on personal attack, but the user certainly aims to offend. DarkKnight2149 04:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

And the user just tried to remove this report twice ([91]). DarkKnight2149 04:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Peeta Singh

Peeta Singh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Peeta Singh and Filpro: Instead of at a project, I'm bringing the discussion here as my previous attempts to reply to the user by referring to policy has been of no avail. It's the same topic and it has been over a month of disruptive editing, for which the user has received ample warnings on their talk page.

The user's edits seem to be advocating for a Sikh Punjabi nationality (POV pushing) on an array of Punjab and Sikhism-related articles based on blatant WP:OR and WP:FRINGE while actively trying to omit any mentions of India, effectively trying to depict the Punjab as their own idea of a Sikh country on Wikipedia. Amongst others : [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

The user has been notified several times that they cannot use Wikipedia to expressly state that there is a "Sikh nation" or "Sikh nationality" (on their talk page and Talk:Sikh) but they continuously proceed to make such insertions, especially in categories and BLPs. They persist to intentionally omit any mentions of the word "India/Indian" (terminology that was used in the first sentence of such articles for years) while replacing it with "Punjabi" (after an admin stating that they may not use "Sikh"), claiming it to be an ethnicity but then creating categories that declare it a nationality.

Please see Khanda (Sikh symbol), Portal:Punjab and WP:PANJ where the user is blatantly modelling a Sikh Punjabi nation and declaring the religious symbol of Sikhism to be the "emblem of Panjab". Examples of the Punjab-related templates that they have used religious symbolism on : [97] [98]

The user as also removed mentions of India from Saraiki dialect, expressly declared Gurmukhi to be a "Sikh script" in the first sentence and is now attempting to differentiate the Punjabi language from other Indo-Aryan languages by using the same classification as Persian language and removing sourced content regarding Indian culture's relation to the Punjabi language - calling it a hoax/debatable point - something they are inserting in all of the Punjab-related articles.

Their refusal to follow WP:BRD is also frustrating as they resort to an edit war instead of substantiating their additions and removals on discussion pages at first.[99] [100]

--Salma Mahmoud (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Salma Mahmoud, from day one I have sincerely tried to improve Wikipedia but some people have had a problem. I don't know why, but users associated with a particular country want to hide some information. It maybe because it challenged this new sense of nationhood they're trying to create and promote on Wikipedia.

Where the term "India/Indian" is relevant I have added it myself [101] but the term is not relevant in every Punjabi and Sikh related article. Regarding Salma's accusation of "effectively trying to depict the Punjab as their own idea of a Sikh country on Wikipedia", i'm aware of 4 Punjabs on Wikipedia: Punjab, India, Punjab, Pakistan, Punjab, Pakistan, Panjab, Afghanistan and the Punjab (region). The following Portal:Punjab is for the Punjab region, a non-political region of the Punjabi people or as some assert the Punjabi nation. Reliable sources suggest that the greater Punjab region is the historic homeland of the Sikhs. If the "greater Punjab region" is the historic homeland of the Sikhs, then how does their symbol the Khanda not represent their region? It's like saying the Lion Capital of Ashoka does not represent India because it was originally placed atop the Aśoka pillar at a "religious" Buddhist site in Sarnath.

In one video, Jugraj Singh from Basics of Sikhi, a educational Sikh YouTube channel [102] briefly mentioned that the Khanda is a recent invention created to represent the Punjabi and Sikh people. I was going to email him regarding the source of this fact but didn't when I came across the news that he's been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. I'll add that source in the Khanda article when I come across it.

I don't just go removing everything with the term "India/Indian". I only remove content: if the souce is not reliable, doesn't mention the topic or the link doesn't work. For example, in the Saraiki article [103], I even wrote edit summaries with reasons for my edits. Further, reliable sources clearly suggest that the Gurmukhi alphabet is a Sikh script, then whats the problem? The article was like this with three references [104], now it's got a list of reliable references [105]. Have I done something wrong?

User:Salma Mahmoud, check the sources of the "sourced content regarding Indian culture's relation". [106] There is a reason why I've removed it. You accuse me of advocating and POV pushing (even though i'm adding information from RS) but what are you doing? [107]

Here listen to Gurpreet Ghuggi, this is the person your trying to label an Indian. [108], [109] These are people that have dedicated their lives promoting Punjab, Punjabi and Punjabism.

I'm only trying to improve Wikipedia, and if Salma or anyone else would like to watch me do so, then be my guest. [110]

Peeta Singh (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Peeta Singh has been indefinitely topic banned from Sikh and Punjabi related articles, broadly construed, so I guess this can be closed. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC).

Tendentious editing and WP:NOTHERE behavior by User:Cassandrathesceptic

Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) has been wasting other users' time with tendentious discussion on Scots language-related pages for years now, and I think it's time for a resolution. Cassandra takes the point of view that Scots is a variety of English, as opposed to a language. However, she never seems to be able to come up with sources that support this point of view. Nevertheless, she has been pushing it since at least this discussion in 2013, before she registered an account. After registration, it has been much the same. Generally her comments are without citation. When she does use sources, she either doesn't explain how they relate to the discussion or just changes them so they support her point. When challenged to explain how sources support her point of view, Cassandra directs users to a 7,000 word essay on her userpage (which I have not read and frankly have no interest in reading). I don't know why Cassandra is here, but it isn't to build an encyclopedia. I think a topic ban would be appropriate. agtx 15:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to anywhere that she's added outright problematic content, whether talk pages comments that are offensive or otherwise driving away people, or unsourced/badly sourced/inaccurate text into articles? Depending on what's being said, a talk page comment may not need sources, and if you find her writeups (of the sort that you linked) problematic, you can just ignore them. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

She makes very few edits in article space, as far as I can tell, unless they're being made while logged out (which, frankly, also raises questions as to what she's doing here). The problem is her tendentious style on talk pages, creating extended, time-wasting discussions that go around in circles. It's problematic because talk is how we resolve issues on Wikipedia. I think editors feel like if they don't engage with her, then it will appear as though her proposals are acceptable. agtx 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. But I'm afraid the exact reverse of Mutt Lunker's claims is the sad truth. Mutt is a serious obstacle to improvement to the Wiki articles about the Scots language and has for some years been guilty of repeated sabotage of my suggested improvements. I have spent a lot of time investigating this subject and have indeed posted those findings on my own Wikipage - and they are very well referenced. The problem is that M Lunker will not allow any unwelcome facts to appear on his beloved Scots language pages. I am staggered to read M Lunker's confession that he has not even bothered to read the evidence I have collected - but not too surprised. But if you would care to cast an eye over the material I've put together I'm confident that you or anyone else will readily accept that it is well researched and highly relevent. If you then flip over to my discussion page you will also be able to form a view about M Lunker's peculiar style. Thanks Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I should explain that I mention Mutt Lunker here rather than user AGTX since I'm assuming that this note has either been actively promoted by him by him or is an alternative identity. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

They're definitely not the same user, I can tell you that much. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Cassandrathesceptic kinda foolish to accuse those two users of being the same person with no evidence whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The accusation that I'm a sock of Mutt is false and outrageous. Mutt and I have each been on Wikipedia for more than a decade, and I don't believe we've interacted before now. I'm sure that Cassandrathesceptic will withdraw this accusation immediately. agtx 01:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

In which case I apologise unreservedly. I do however urge you to read the information you've not read - you will find it more interesting than you imagine - I promise. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt you are sorry Cassandrathesceptic you insulted Mutt Lunker here and accused him of orchestrating some sort of attack against you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Sciences Po / Sciences Po talk

Hi there. After a violent controversy on the Sciences Po talk page and an edit war, the Sciences Po article has been fully protected. Several editors (including myself) have tried to step-in to restore a positive work dynamics, but it now becomes clear that user Launebee has a personal agenda. After 2 months (!) and a lot of energy spent trying to build consensus, we arrive at a stage in which we really need admin attention. Anybody to help? Thanks! SalimJah (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have asked two admins to look into this after seeing that the user in question can be reasonably assumed to be the same user who was blocked on French wikipedia for similar agenda pushing. It is quite clearly impossible to make even the simplest of improvements on that page (like adding a reflist:30em to the references section, which was not done despite a protected edit request). Perhaps Launebee is writing a thesis on media studies and is actively experimenting? I don't know exactly what the motivation is, but the result is clearly disruption. (I have been marginally "involved" in the last few days because of 2 edits: 1) responding to an RfC and 2) testing the waters with a protected edit request.) SashiRolls (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems the personal attacks against me are continuing.

“Violent controversy" perhaps, but not from my part. I do not have a "personal agenda" or test "media disruption", I was just helping the SP page among others but they were against obvious changes which needed to be done (Jytdog looked into my intervention in the last ANI :

Copy/pasted quoting

I looked at this article as it stands now and as it stood before Launebee started working on it back in July (see this version. Like too many of our articles about universities, the former article was a cesspool of promotion - not a WP article at all, but a brochure for Sciences Po; as it stands now the article is still full of unsourced promotional content that belongs on the Sciences Po website (i.e. the unsourced content about the campuses and the entirely unsourced section about notable people). Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The previous ANI request is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#Agressive_comments_over_Sciences_Po_page

As you can see, the Talk:Sciences_Po and Talk:Panthéon-Assas_University talk pages have become a place a place for not discussing content anymore but only me, with special section about me! They are discussing there my link with a French Wikipedia account, but my personal knowledge of the French user is totally irrelevant. Even if it is true that I know the French user, and? How is it relevant for us to know is SP is a university or not?

They is also, on both article, a special subsection comparing the fact that MSGJ and I put templates in front of the SP page, and they think they should therefore be entitled to put the same templates in the Panthéon-Assas page, without any explanation in talk of for example how there would be close paraphrasing because somehow all of this would be a fight between the two, and then if there is a template in one, there is to be one on the second!? Because XIIIfromTOKYO made a disruptive editing on Panthéon-Assas, I made this request for protection accepted for one week :

Copy/pasted quoting

There is a disruptive editing on the Panthéon-Assas page. One user is not happy with the reputation of this university of "top law school of France" that all the sources state (he’s deleting in the lead, but there are more sources in the "reputation" section, so he’s deleting things with sources, and is doing only personal attacks on me in talk page (like I would be clearly protecting paid contribution!?) Note that it’s part of a broader POV pushing on the Sorbonne in general. There is currently a push on Pantheon-Sorbonne_University and there has been vandalism through false edit summaries also on Sorbonne University (alliance) and Sorbonne Law School pages, or with no edit summary of Paris-Sorbonne University page. But for example my work on University of Lorraine or the good ranking that I add in Aix-Marseille University page is not vandalized because there is no link with the name Sorbonne. There was also Science Po but it has already been fully protected. I took care of the latter Sorbonne University and Sorbonne Law School, others are taking care of Pantheon-Sorbonne and Paris-Sorbonne, but the user is insisting on Panthéon-Assas (Sorbonne Law School) and is now attacking me personally on talk page. --Launebee (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

But now I am subject to even more personal attacks, for example:

• According to MePhisto, I have "claimed that Pantheon-Sorbonne "has no campus" and deleted vast amounts of information on degrees and admissions at HEC Paris (These are just a few examples)", for Pantheon-Sorbonne with no campus, it was a mistake I clearly acknowledged right away long time ago [111], and for HEC, see for yourself what I did
• I just wanted to let people know that one of the users was at least formerly part of a SP project using Wikipedia, and they started to take on me.
• I was kindly informing XIIIfromTOKYO that he was misreading the French edit summary, he answered "You are clearly trying to cover paid contributions." ?!
• SashiRolls was saying that "university" should be used for SP as an "approximation", so I asked in the TeaHouse what was the Wikipedia policy on approximations and I got a useful answer from ColinFine. But XIIIfromTOKYO says I am "trying to attack contributors on their "Approximations"".
• On SP talk page, there was a section on Panthéon-Assas, so off-topic, so I said I moved it the the right talk page, and answered. XIIIfromTOKYO answered back in PA page, so he was aware of the move, but then he acted as if I simply deleted the message and attacked me by writing in a summary edit by writing "how dare you ? Erasing my message, and not even telling me so... and wrote in SP talk page "to make it clear Launebee has just tryed to remove my message. And of course, he/she didn't even bother to tell me about it. The same method has been used on the French Wikipedia.", even though he just answered the message in PA talk page ?!

Now the two talk page are pages to do "comparative study" on me etc. It’s becoming harassment. Can someone do someone do something to stop this?

The problem is now even more serious because XIIIfromTOKYO, to somehow compensate the SP page, is defaming PA. He links to articles dealing with far-right groups in the 1970s with students from PA, and some students that have been trying to have a group with the same name in PA, but with no success (they just existed a few years with only a few students), and he’s transforming it to completely defamatory statements I won’t even copy or link (with the title in the link) here, because it would mean that the history of this page would have to be worked on too. But you can easily find it in PA talk page.

All of this is becoming really wrong. I was just discussing the fact SP is not a university, and now look what the pages look like.

I would like, once again, these personal attacks to stop.

--Launebee (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, from the point of view of someone outside of this squabble / différend, could you answer the following question clearly: Are you saying 1) that you know the French user Droas82 (talk page) but 2) are not that user? The similarity in tone and style is striking.

For information here is a birds-eye picture of that user in action (being reverted by 3 different users: XIII from Tokyo, Jules78120, Olivier Tanguy) [112]. I've read Droas82's first warning (at the equivalent of ANI) at French Wikipedia (23 juin) and decided to stop there (since research indicates that there were problems every week: [113])

Regarding the claims of promo: yes, of course, there is promo everywhere. That does not strike me as a reason to prevent collaborative efforts to minimize such promotion and work towards NPOV. The page history is quite clear. You are not making progress on improving that page, since nothing can currently be done on that page. My two cents worth on the subject as a passerby who decided to look into the quarrel on the page, first because the RfC seemed absurd and second because I wanted to understand why Launebee was being accused of deleting talk page comments. SashiRolls (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: I am not claiming anything, I am saying it is off‑topic and you have to stop attacking me.

@NeilN:You told me long time ago to tell you if the attacks continue, and now it is gone to the point that XIIIfromTOKYO is accusing me of antisemitism in PA talk page, with a obvious misquoting of me! What is the next stage? He has to be strongly sanctionned for this absoulutely outrageous personal attack. He is now defaming me!

@Mr rnddude:I also ask for these defaming statements against me to be deleted in the current version and in the history.

Please do something.

--Launebee (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

To make such a claim, you would need to provide a diff of @XIIIfromTOKYO: accusing you of anti-semitism. I read that page, s/he did nothing of the sort. S/He reminded you to be careful of what you write, calling you out for what you, yourself wrote in the heat of the moment, and nothing more. (While that "calling out" was not really necessary, it certainly wasn't defamation.) p.s. the verb is "defame", not "defamate", I've read this word (too) often in your prose. SashiRolls (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Stopping by here quickly to make a relatively small comment. XIIIfromTokyo's comments were unnecessary and probably skirting the line of civility. There is a difference between calling you an antisemite and suggesting that you've said something antisemitic. However, I don't think you've said anything antisemitic either, so even implying/hinting at it can understandably cause offense. That said, I cannot delete or revdel the comments as I am not an administrator. I also left a comment at Talk:Panthéon-Assas University about some of the disputed content. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

He did not call me antisemitic but said I said the Jews are foreigners, and is linking me to fascist regimes from the WW2. That is clearly libelous because I clearly did not say such a thing, which would be a crime (hate speech). This attack is absolutely outrageous! --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I would like all the current sections with only personal attacks on me to be erased. But the most important is the libelous statements of XIIIfromTokyo: I did not call Jews foreigners, not at all! --Launebee (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You are accusing me of "libelous statements" (among other things).

You have accused 75.156.54.227 of sexism.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but you have also listed MePhisto and SashiRolls as contributors guilty of personnal attacks [114].

You have also tryed to discredit Salim Jah and MePhisto, and you have described them as "single-purpose account".

That's a lot of accusions, don't you think ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Launebee That is clearly libelous But the most important is the libelous statements of XIIIfromTokyo Friendly advice... Those words that you have used could be constituted as a Legal threat. Per WP:No Legal Threats Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. Users who do so are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. I strongly suggest that you either retract those statements or indicate that you are not seeking to bring legal proceedings against an editor. Hasteur (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

On that page, it is written: "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." --Launebee (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct and substantiated information was reverted without review.

Dear admins, please check the recent revisions of Ilias Psinakis. On my side I had provided only confirmed sources and no personal point of view. Just facts. Please, review the issue in terms of WP:COMPETENCE. Another editor, having no idea about subject of the article being threatening me all the time, even when I totally respect previous version and just make corrections to clarify the facts and add links. LanaSimba (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Without getting into your content dispute, I'd like to point out that 1) You need to notify people when you take them to ANI. You did not do this, as far as I can tell. 2) The editor you reverted is a long-term, experienced editor, so citing WP:COMPETENCE probably isn't the right thing. I'm not saying that person is innocent, I'm saying you're going to need to cite something else (harrassment? Point of view pushing? Something else?) and probably directly links to direct instances of breaking policy. You're not going to get anywhere with this as your starting off point. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

[ec] The other editor was Winkelvi, by the way. I looked over the changes and have the impression that some changes were good and some not. I don't understand why he removed the birthdate from the intro (it's sourced and present elsewhere in the article, after all), but a bunch of what he removed was unhelpful. Looks like a simple content dispute that doesn't need admin intervention. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

A review of the complaining user's edits will show several net negatives: repeated edit warring, tendentious editing, POV pushing, WP:SPA, WP:OWN, WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE, likely WP:COI and possible personal involvement with the article subject. A look at the article talk page and the user's talk page shows they have been asked if they are involved on a personal level with the article subject, they declined to answer. Brought to AN3 more than once for the obvious. They even opened an AN on me last month and were told, essentially, that they needed to back off from editing the article as well as editing disruptively. They've been warned by admins more than once. WP:BOOMERANG has also been suggested with this individual everytime they've come to a noticeboard because of their refusal to get it in combination with their tendency toward WP:IDHT. The article they are stuck on has been edited and re-edited numerous times by several editors over several months to remove the poorly sourced or unsourced content, fluff, peacocking, undue weight and resume-like additions they insist on adding over and over again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, Sergecross73 I just say that proper sourced information was deleted (as you mentioned about the date of birth) and proper sourced correction of the place of birth was reverted. What kind of policy is it? When an article after all contains wrong data... ? LanaSimba (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you're asking, but to recap the main ideas here:

1. WP:COMPENTENCE is the wrong thing to cite here. Its a rationale where you're basically saying someone is incapable of understanding or learning the very basics on how to edit Wikipedia. As such, it wouldn't make sense to accuse this an editor who has edited for years in multiple content areas. It's the type of things you'd say about a ten year old child who doesn't understand how to write in paragraph form yet, for example.
2. This sounds like you both just have a disagreement in whether or not content or sources are appropriate for an article. That's what we call a "content dispute". Content disputes don't belong here at ANI. When you have a disagreement over content, you start a discussion on the article talk page about solving the disagreement, and if you're still in a deadlock, you ask Wikiprojects for help, or start up a Request for Comment. In short, you need to try to "work out a compromise", not "report them for disagreeing with you". Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73 Thank you for your attention. I supposed that understanding of basics of Wiki editing includes first of all knowledge and understanding of subject of the article someone is editing. Or at least possibility to read information, provided in sources. Well You are right, this is the "content dispute" in the end. But how to dispute content when any revision I made is being reverted without reading? I wrote the article from the very beginning providing all sources, never wrote a single fact from my own point of view and just feel responsible for correctness of data. May the article be summarized, but not contain wrong data, absent in any sources. And why should be deleted sourced data about the personality parents if it is a Biography? Why shouldn't be present sourced information on current projects? LanaSimba (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Start up a discussion on the article talk page, and make sure Winkelvi is aware of it. (He looks active there, so he'll probably see it automatically.)
2. Make a list of every idea you wanted to add/change from that edit, and then discuss them each one, one by one. Mention what the old version was, your proposed new version, and the source that supports it.
3. Wait for a response from Winkelvi or any other participants for each idea, and give further input as needed.
4. If there is a consensus in your favor, or a compromise most agree with, make the change.
5. If there is not a consensus in your favor, you cannot make your change until if/when there is a consensus of people supporting your change. That's when you consider forming a neutral question about it at a WikiProject or a Request for Comment.
6. If there is a consensus supporting your change at this new discussion, make the change. If not, then you've probably run out of options, and should drop it for now.
7. Repeat for every individual idea there is disagreement over. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sergecross73 Thanks! I did as you wrote here. Except for that I have no desire to talk to Winklvi or argue on anything due to their dictatorial manner. Let other people argue with this person. I referred to other editors, who previously commented on the article and did contributions. I specified all data and sources. I may give more sources if needed. If any other editors may come and attentively read the versions, and give their ideas, it would be great. LanaSimba (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Users Dkendel and Ilham muhammad

Dkendel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ilham muhammad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I posted to the edit warring noticeboard about this User Dkendel about 24 hours ago but no action has been taken yet. In the meantime their behavior and has escalated/had other concerns arise. So I am bringing it here.

First of all, Dkendel has been edit warring at List of Mayday episodes. He has reverted multiple times

1. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752503032&oldid=752447155
2. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752435497&oldid=752319185
3. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752238584&oldid=752162761
4. 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752265688&oldid=752263872 Which was a modified version of a post that had been reverted here[115]

He has done further reverts today. This is just one example.[116]

Note- Dkendel reverted not just me, but at least three other editors. This User's only other edits, all to [[ Norwegian Long Haul]], have been reverted. Dkendel edit warred there also.

That covers the edit warring.

Today, after I updated my post to the edit warring noticeboard[117], he reverted it.[118] That makes it a case of WP:DISRUPT.

Another issue raised here[119], is that this User might be a sock of another account User Ilham muhammad. IM's last edit[120] was to List of Mayday episodes and was very similar in content to those done by Dkendel that I list up above.

The issue with Dkendel is more than edit warring. Socking may be taking place plus a violation of WP:DISRUPT, so I bring it here to ANI....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

OWN, editing while logged out, edit warring, and more

Could anyone take a look at Wim Naudé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? There's quite a lot of controversy and edit warring that is occurring. There 2 IPs in the mix are obviously either meatpuppets or the users editing while logged out. Personally, the material could be viewed as contentious, however there are references regarding it. How reliable the sources really are are debatable. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an economist nor do I play one on TV, but other than numerous tense errors throughout the article, I don't see the problem. So two things: First, if your main concern is reliability of sources, might this be better placed at WP:RSN, and second, if your complaint is about editor behavior, you're going to need to provide specific diffs and editor names (and notify said editors) so your complaint can be dealt with. John from Idegon (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats by Dollyparton7

Legal threats submitted by Dollyparton7 (talk · contribs), same threat at multiple pages:

See:

• [121] - at User talk:BOTFIGHTER
• [122] - at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

The threat mentions "If Wikipedia does not honor this simple request to insert the show title card photo to the article within 72 hours, as the sole copyright and trademark claimant and owner, I will be submitting a demand and takedown injunction to Wikipedia Legal for the article to be completely redacted under our United States Legal rights and governing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act".

See also the user's talk page at User talk:Dollyparton7#December 2016.

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Why is the CEO of a "church" using a pseudonym of a country music singer? —Farix (t | c) 22:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just about to ask that myself. I'm considering issuing a {{uw-ublock-famous}}, but I'm concerned it may be counterproductive in this situation. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The user's previous account was blocked. This one's apparently named after his dog. clpo13_(talk) 22:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Since God talks to these people you'd think they could get Him to tell them how to upload and license an image properly. Honestly, I'm sick and tired of this bunch thinking the world cares about their stupid title card. How many years has this been going on, anyway? EEng 22:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no question that the latest posts are legal threats: [123] [124] Meters (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering [125] I have sent an email to WMF legal to clarify whether they are threatening legal action or merely a DMCA takedown notice (which wouldn't require a NLT block). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I've blocked indef while this is all going on. "Do what I want or there will be legal action" is exactly what the legal threat policy was meant to prevent, whether or not it's an actual lawsuit. All of this over a stupid image - sheesh. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was mostly taking from Wikipedia:No legal threats#Copyright (though calling their requests polite is a bit of a stretch), but this works too. Still would be nice for legal to chime in. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what they think their complaint is, since the DMCA aspect seems backwards. They're mad at us for not including a copyrighted image. I suspect the DMCA request would be a demand to take down the entire article if they don't get their way, but I'm just speculating. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just your usual legalistic word salad by people demanding their "United States Legal rights" and thinking they're issuing "injunctions". You have to wonder anyway about a televangelist who names his dog after a singer known for her gigantic tits breasts. EEng 23:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng, they are called "breasts" and I'd appreciate a little bit of decorum here--decorum of the non-sexist kind, since she is actually quite well known as a decent singer, a business woman, a philanthropist in her community, and a contributor to a reading program in Tennessee that distributes free books to every single newborn child. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to take away from the lady's good works, of which I was aware. Nonetheless our man of the cloth cannot have been unaware of the association most people would make. Alice Cooper has a charity promoting teen well-being but that would still be an odd choice for the name of a preacher-man's dog, much less his Wikipedia handle. EEng 00:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

What's a baby going to do with a book? They can't read. Preposterous. clpo13_(talk) 01:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No more preposterous than a singing dog issuing a legal threat. EEng 05:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for completeness, adding links here to related active discussions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted and Wikipedia:Files for upload#The World Tomorrow (radio and television).jpg. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:R3tr0 - NOTHERE

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

---

Can another admin please take a look at User:R3tr0 and his edits? I'm thinking this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE but since I am involved in the pages at issue I thought it best to bring it here.

• 22:17, May 17, 2011 in response to speedy deletion of a page (deleted 7 years ago!), user deletes warning tag and incoherently rants: "fascist pigs that are controlled and on their knees, decided that revealing the truth about a now fictitiously estimated billion dollar company couldn't be provided here - so they have 'deleted with so much haste' that 4 mods wanted to shove their nose so far up whales ass they made a new logo for it."
• 11:48, December 2, 2016 - disruptive tag bombing
• 17:44, December 2, 2016 - incoherent, all-caps edit summary, edit summary "CHANGE ABSOLUTE INFORMATION WARFARE"
• 18:30, December 2, 2016 - incoherent, all-caps ranting on talk page
• 18:37, December 2, 2016 - continued tag-bombing, disregarding talk-page discussion; " history will see not all were brainwashed peons"

--Neutrality^talk 00:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Done. I agree, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Neutrality^talk 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Question about closed discussion

This is 2002 U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Evans. There's a closed discussion above under the header "Disruptive editing and BLP accusations with United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016"... Is that discussion going to be removed from this page? If so, is it going to be reposted somewhere else? If so, where? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.253.21 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Three days after the last post to the thread, it will be automatically removed from this page and moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939. Sometimes people manually move old discussions to the archive before three days, so it might not take that long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.255.182 (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

3 days? I remember when it took 24h for a discussion to be archived. Rah rah rah rabble rabble rabble rhubarb rhubarb... —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans. In view of the fact that the regular Wikipedia users involved in this dispute had all been refusing to comment since Tuesday evening, may I ask for the discussion to be immediately archived in its final resting place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_and_BLP_accusations_with_United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota.2C_2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.246.37 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeh sure, I'll oblige. Archiving in a sec.  Done - I had it on my radar anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.244.16 (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This is Kurt Evans again. When the discussion was closed, "Ks0stm" suggested holding an RfC on the article's "Talk" page, and "Dane2007" apparently tried to set one up about 48 hours ago, but so far there are only two comments besides mine. Is this normal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Dakota,_2016#Request_for_Comment:_Should_Kurt_Evans_be_listed_as_.22Failed_to_Qualify.22.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.231.110 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. RfC's are run for 30 days - usually - during which period interested editors can come in and put their !vote for or against the proposal. At the end of this period an uninvolved administrator will come in and read through the !votes and decide whose arguments are weightier. The tally is of no import, or at least should be treated as such. The decision should (and generally will) always be made with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Not the number for or against the motion. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That's both informative and encouraging. Thank you very much. —KE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.231.110 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please block Baseball Bugs and Someguy1221

Dealt with. (NAC) -- The Voidwalker Whispers 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. They're both spamming me with abusive emails, showing a picture of my face glued to a pig wearing a Nazi uniform and being dragged to a guillotine by Stalin. Underneath the picture it says "You're an enemy of the people, and a dirty Nazi pig. I hope you die soon." It also states my address and full legal name. Can they both be blocked?Johnny the kid (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Recommend we don't revert this report, but, instead BOOMERANG block, then delete, then rev-del. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Just WP:RBI this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Umm... should we request CU on the OP? It's clearly a sock of someone. If that someone still has an active account it needs to be blocked, and even if they are already blocked then stuff like the above could be cause for a CBAN. The only reason to just block the OP and forget about it would be if they are already banned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC) They've been doing this sort of thing every couple of weeks for months, there might be enough IPs to assemble some kind of rangeblock(s) by now. Acroterion (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I agree with Hijiri88. I remember seeing this exact same post maybe one-two weeks ago, but instead putting the blame on MarnetteD and other users. I'll fetch the post. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I found the most recent ones: The grandmaster of the internet (talk · contribs) and 73.162.64.116 (talk · contribs). I hope this helps. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)  Checkuser note: Johnny the kid and The grandmaster of the internet are  Likely. Unfortunately, a range block is not possible here. Mike V • Talk 18:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC) It's a troll who's been active for a number of years and has produced probably many hundreds of socks, occasionally via creating an account, but most of them by IP-hopping. He makes this same bogus accusation every few weeks or months. The most recent occurrence was the 28th. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor appears to be not here - possible hoax article, calling some religions evil

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

---

I'm having problems convincing myself that TaxedEnoughAlready (talk · contribs) is here to build the encyclopedia rather than to put forward a particular viewpoint. Ok, maybe there is a Scott Bryson, Jr. (already speedy deleted once) although I doubt it, and virtually all of their edits are unsourced and these are mainly to BLPs. This one was simply vandalism. This one is more than simple vandalism given the added text " Different from evil Catholic,LDS and islam established by him never lead to death of innocent people." Doug Weller talk 12:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The two you link are enough for me to not care whether it's WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE that applies. Further investigation leaves me unable to tell which one applies, but in either case it's not good. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the rest of their edits other than Scott Bryson. That was an obvious hoax. There is no way someone can accumulate $8.52B and not be noticed by Forbes. That along with the other edits is enough to support the block by Ian. - GB fan 13:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Frivolous speedy tagging by User:Mission Kashmir III

Mission Kashmir III (talk · contribs) is dropping bad-faith speedy tags that amount to vandalism. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted many of this user's recent edits involving adding CSD tags to articles. They all seem to be using inappropriate criteria. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 14:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have told the user not to make any more speedy nominations until they have read and understood WP:CSD, and warned that they may be blocked if they do. I will keep an eye on them. JohnCD (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• This user has been permanently blocked in Commons. I think that he should also be permanently blocked here. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Rrburke: have you notified Mission Kashmir III of this ANI report according to procedure? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have in fact. The user has been blanking his talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted their blanking of their talk page. Talk page warnings should not be removed without acknowledging them. Pokéfan95 (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You can take blanking as a sign of acknowledgement, see WP:BLANKING. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, this user is just a vandal (and this is why has been blocked in Commons). I can't believe how can be too permisive in the English Wikipedia. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Alteration of subsection-via-redirect links to less maintainable piped ones

I've been reverting and altering some edits by the (relatively inexperienced) user ILikeCycling. To be fair, this user has finally responded to some of my questions, and I'm still assuming good faith, but I'd like some things clarified for both our sakes!

Clarification

ILikeCycling has been converting links via redirects- including {{R to section}}s- into direct links like so. As far as I'm aware, our policy for subsection cases is that linking via the original redirect is preferable.

In one case, they say:-

But surely Driving Home for Christmas (Stacey Solomon version) is never going to have its own page and so it's just preferable to not have a redirect like that otherwise people who are not editors might get confused.

Can I confirm that my response and understanding is correct? If not, it sounds like this would still be horribly counter-productive from a maintenance point of view, even if within the rules. Ubcule (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Broken {{R to section}} redirects - Should users be required to make fixes there rather converting to individual links?

Again, with respect to the "Action This Day (song)" edit; it's noticeable in that case that the subsection link was broken (probably because the section name had changed).

So, from a user point of view- and only in the case of that specific link- ILikeCycling's de-redirected and subsection-piped version is still an improvement because it links correctly. Unfortunately, it's not productive on the large scale and reduces maintainability for the reasons given at WP:NOTBROKEN.

Now obviously, the best solution would be to fix (the subsection link in) the redirect itself- something I encouraged ILikeCycling to do.

But... what I want to know is whether the edit above can actually be treated as actively counter-productive (despite being a short-term/local improvement) since it reduces maintainability, and whether we should be able to ask people to *not* do things this way and say that- if you want to fix such broken links, please do so by fixing the redirect, rather than removing references to it?

Ubcule (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Renewed attacks by IP socks of Igaalbania

After Igaalbania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got blocked for a year, his IP socks are attacking exactly the same articles as the master, shuffling images around and adding a bevy of unsourced, copyvio, GFDL-violating material. Please see my archived ANI report from 19 November 2016, the SPI report and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Igaalbania. Since this is a prolific and multi-sock farming account, I request you assistance in, if possible, range-blocking the German IPs. By the way, the master is German-speaking. I also request indeffing the master due to socking. Thanks. Dr. K. 16:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any rangeblocks that would be practical. Consider making a list of up to six articles that you think are suffering from his edits and reporting them for semiprotection at WP:RFPP. In the meantime you could continue to tag the IPs you see with Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Igaalbania. The Igaalbania account on the German Wikipedia is still not blocked but it has not edited since his English account was blocked on October 9. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

GXXF

I'm not sure if GXXF is a bad faith editor or just clueless. They made a false report at UAA (already ignored) and normally I'd just issue a terse warning but this is after they've already received a warning for trying to CSD an ongoing RfA. There hasn't been any apology from the user in question indicating they realize a mistake was made. I think more than a warning needs to be administered, here. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

His talk page contains mostly horrifying warnings, and his extremely few, often worthless article contributions suggest he's WP:NOTHERE. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The attempt to CSD the RfA may have been a response to being denied an administrative role himself here. It's no excuse whatsoever I'm just providing some background. He has been told before that his edits have regularly been reverted and he needs to familarize himself with what is proper editing. Clearly has not done anything to make significant improvements. May need a block to make the point it is not tolerated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor is NOTHERE

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

---

User:JordanBaumann1211 is not here to build an encyclopedia. Ninety percent of his nearly 400 edits are decorative edits to his own User and Talk pages and subpages. The few substantive edits that he has made to articles have been unsound or contrary to consensus, and quickly reverted – see for example this history. By and large he stays within his own user space, and in that way is not that disruptive, but from time to time he strays beyond it to (for example) create User pages for non-existent users under variations of his own name (speedily deleted); a redirect from User:Jordan Baumann (perhaps an earlier account?) to his current User page; and direct edits to User:APersonBot/defcon. I’ve raised some of these issues on his Talk page but he is unresponsive.

I’m posting with two requests – first, I don’t want to raise things at ANI if it's not necessary and so, were there intermediate steps that I could have taken? And second, now that the matter is here, would someone please take appropriate action, whatever that may be. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: This editor may be WP:NOTHERE, but they are not being disruptive, and so should probably be left alone. RedPanda25 18:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet the 2nd example given in NOTHERE is "A primary focus on Wikipedia as a social networking space (resumes, social media type pages, etc.). See WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK for more information." And that's the lion's share of this user's activity: creating a hub of links to their off-site online presence. Keri (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the linkfarm from his userpage, which was a fairly obvious breach of WP:UP#PROMO. If he still wants to stick around and do some work related to Wikipedia, he's welcome to, but we're not going to be his personal advertising portal. (While we sometimes allow people who've made significant contributions to Wikipedia to bend the rules regarding userspace, he certainly doesn't yet fall into that category.) ‑ Iridescent 20:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense to me and seems like a reasonable place to start. I'll return if he becomes disruptive. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked him as NOTHERE. First, he is disruptive, even if much of the time he's not classically disruptive. Second, he doesn't have to be disruptive to be blocked as NOTHERE. He's using resources and making edits that have no benefit to the project. Finally, he's probably a kid and is WP:CIR (some of the things he says are downright weird).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Having just spent a sizeable chunk of my life I'll never get back deleting enough copyright violations from him to keep CAT:CSD in business for a week (and trying to do something about this mess he's left at Commons), I agree. I can't see a single legitimate edit in his history (and I can see some outright vandalism). ‑ Iridescent 23:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As the user's own posted linkfarm pointed to off-site profiles where they claim to be aged just 11 years old, erring on the side of caution would suggest blocking and revoking talk-page access as sensible actions. Children are not deemed capable of legally releasing content under license (or so I seem to recall; the case I'm minded of took place on ANI, and eventually involved no less than J. Wales himself). And Wikipedia is WP:NOTBABYSITTER to follow around and clean up to ensure that children don't leave online footprints they may regret later. Of course, their claims about their age elsewhere are not necessarily true and not necessarily pertinent to Wikipedia, but then you have to consider the implications of claiming to be someone that you are not. Keri (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Dr. Ronald Cutburth

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

---

Dr. Ronald Cutburth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (who in the real world is somewhat well known for pushing the theory that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed through controlled demolition by pre-positioned devices and for falsely implying that Lawrence Livermore National Lab supports his conspiracy theories) has been disrupting the Electromagnetic pulse and Nuclear electromagnetic pulse articles with unsourced claims and quite a bit of self promotion. Several editors have tried to reason with him, but he will not listen. Could someone please look into this situation and determine if admin action is appropriate? It may be that a warning will be enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The main noise this time round has been at Talk:Electromagnetic pulse#Electromagnetic pulse page errors, where some lengthy posts of his - in exactly the same vein - have been deleted. He is unqualified in electromagnetics (his PhD was on a different topic) and, as I do have some qualification, I can state categorically that his thesis is utter nonsense. In the past he caused trouble on his own user page and it had to be deleted. He is clearly "not here", not listening to a word we say or taking any notice of warnings and is trying only to push his PoV through the system any way he can. I'd suggest a block of say 48 hours to see if that gets the message across. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• A moderate amount of WP:NOTHERE and, to be blunt, a generous helping of WP:CIR. Everything you need to know is here [126] and here [127]. Extra points for talking about robotons and siudoscience, plus dragging Kant into the fray. EEng 01:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand now he is making legal threats.[128] A fine example of the law of holes. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a clear threat of legal action there, but I have blocked the account pending OTRS verification of their identity, since the account is associated with a specific named academic. No prejudice against further action if other administrators believe it necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

The Cause of death vandal ...

... is active right now on Special:Contributions/86.174.161.173, and has been active also on Special:Contributions/80.2.63.236 today, so would someone please block? The first IP listed is a regular one, with lots of signature edits (among other things adding unsourced cause of death on multiple articles) and a couple of shorter blocks over the past couple of weeks. For more information see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cause of death vandal. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The BDSM vandal returns?

185.25.48.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made this edit to the BDSM article; I promptly blocked them, semiprotected the article. Since then, the attack account The Enema (talk · contribs) was created, and 79.152.217.6 (talk · contribs) made an edit "requesting an investigation". All of these edits remind me of the games-playing behavior of the BDSM vandal from a couple of months ago. Could these possibly be related? -- The Anome (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Professor Hewitt again

It seems that a few things were missed in the previous discussion here: See [129] 50.247.81.99 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Confused what was missed and why any of it relates to ANI anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Actually are you saying that there are some sockseditors there that need to be blocked? Because that looks to be the only thing in that discussion that would concern ANI. You could of course simply stop editing rather than coming here to ask us to block you because you're violating a block or banediting inappropriately. It would seem to be the "professional" thing to do, especially suitable if you're trying to show of what you learnt. Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC) edits at 01:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is Hewitt; it's one of his students which IP should have a long-term block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies then. I've modified my response to avoid any unfair aspersions. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Repeat led vandalism at WWE related articles. Range block likely needed.

Been like playing whack-a-mole at numerous WWE-related articles the couple of weeks or so. An editor in the 117.103.88.xx range keeps making the same edits removing referenced material at multiple articles. AIV has been somewhat helpful in that a single IP gets blocked, but since the vandal (who has been warned repeatedly at various IP talk pages) seems to be editing from a school, he just jumps to another computer there and repeats the same edits while the previous IP is still blocked. Seems that a range block, even if it's just for a couple of days, is needed to break the vandal of his jollies. oknazevad (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful to the admins if you named a few articles so that we can get started looking, oknazevad. Also please tell us what single IP was blocked at AIV. Bishonen | talk 08:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) for one. List of WWE World Champions, currently Semi'd because of this, for another. 117.103.88.102 (talk · contribs · block user) is one of the IPs that was blocked, but there have been a few others all in the 117.103.88.XX range. oknazevad (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

SuperCarnivore591 and trolling in RfA

SuperCarnivore591 (talk · contribs), despite a block for trolling in a RfA last year ([130]), takes a 3-month break, and returns to Wikipedia just to post a blatantly trolling oppose in the RfA of Godsy right here. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and all temporary blocks will do is to prolong the trolling, so I request an indefinite block for this troll. Esquivalience (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

1. It wasn't trolling. I gave a specific, policy-based reasons to oppose Godsy for adminship: questions with his temperament, a lack of any substantive content creation, as well as his combativeness, particularly during the Legacypac fiasco that other editors brought up (I was more concerned with his conduct in the Jenner article, though). I did give a long paragraph explaining why I did, yes. The reason I did that is because I didn't want to seem like some asshole by giving a small, one sentence oppose as other people do, which could drop his enthusiasm and make him reluctant to apply for adminship ever again, which isn't what I want. I have no problem with him applying for adminship again when he is ready. Yes, I used some wordy phrasing, it's what people do when trying to get their point across.

2. Your absurd accusation that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia is undermined by the thousand of edits I've racked up since joining roughly a year and a half ago, as well as the good number of articles that I have created; you can take a look if you want to. If you go to the talk page on Godsy's RFA, a good number of respectable editors did not consider my oppose to be trolling, and one of them rebuked the editor for striking my oppose. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I utterly fail to see the usefulness of the linked comment above, it looks like straight-up trolling to me. If I hadn't specifically set out tonight to recreate a George Thorogood song (it is Saturday night after all!) I'd block myself, but I'd like at least another admin to take a look at this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, why in the world would you block yourself? EEng 07:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I suppose I should have written out "carry out the block myself" (Twinkle gives you a really hilarious snarky message if you actually set it to block yourself, as does the blocking interface; I tested both a long time ago and successfully avoided actually blocking myself). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please do try it again and tell us what the snarky message is. EEng 07:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

From which moment forward The Blade of the Northern Lights was never heard from again...

• SuperCarnivore591's RfA vote consists of several sentences selected from various places. From George Washington Quotes:
  • There is a Destiny which has the control of our actions, not to be resisted by the strongest efforts of Human Nature.
  • Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
  • Labour to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire, called conscience.

  There is more, but that is enough to show that SuperCarnivore591 should be topic banned from RfA (if anyone can confirm their edits are useful), or indeffed (otherwise). The RfA vote, and the comments at RfA talk, are indistinguishable from trolling. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition from quoting historical figures and others of importance to make an analogy or metaphor to drive your point home and get it across. RFAs are of very significant importance to so many in our community, and there's nothing wrong with showing that you're serious, rather than giving a dickish one sentence oppose without significant explanation, as too many editors nowadays do. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That strikes me as remarkably disingenuous. As tempting as it is to engage in sarcastic quoting of someone to get my point across, I'll refrain and allow someone else to take care of this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Just like you to leave the sarcastic quoting to someone else. How about this: "A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought"? EEng 07:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I will not suggest a course of action because I've !voted in the RfA, but I will point out this section of the editor's user talk page, which clearly shows that he's trolling. There is no other way to take his comment there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Another diff is here, where after trolling my and 78.26's RfAs he admits he was just having fun (his words) i.e. trolling RfA (my words). BethNaught (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

BethNaught's link is very interesting, especially in relation to the disingenuous defense the user has made above. I considered blocking for 72 hours or so, but on the other hand I also want to propose a community ban from RFA, and the user ought to be able to take part in that discussion. Reluctantly refraining from blocking at this time, and please record your opinion of a ban below. Pinging @Floquenbeam:, who placed the original 12-hour (!) block for RFA trolling. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

I have a mixed reaction. Regarding the RFA comment that earned a block, it's an evocative statement; perhaps a picky English major will object to the awkward transition of metaphors, but in other circumstances, it might be viewed as well-crafted. Unfortunately, it purports to be an opposition vote, and for that purpose it fails miserably. I watched The Loobenfeld Decay last evening in which Sheldon Cooper responds to the question of how an actor should play genetic predisposition with a retort "subtextually of course!". There's a time and a place for delivering information subtextually, and an RFA is not the place. The process is difficult enough without having to interpret emanations of penumbras. We give wide latitude to contributors to oppose just about any grounds but "just about any grounds" ought to include "grounds". I don't think the casual reader knows what shortcomings were alleged to have occurred. (And I'm not asking for explanation now, the time has passed). That leads me to the conclusion that the opposition vote was a wastage of time but I didn't view it as rising to a blockable offense.

The present opposition vote evinces the contributors preference for a clever turn of phrase over transmission of information. The opening point is actually a step up from the prior opposition contribution as it actually includes rationales for opposition, and the rationales (if accurate) are not nonsense. That said, an opposition statement that includes strong language such as "gross intemperance", and "apparent left-wing views" is begging for diffs, which are wanting. The second point is, as before, a wastage of time, but I don't see this as blockable. Perhaps we should require that strong negative statements be supported by diffs, but that sounds like a can of worms and this isn't the place to make such a proposal. However, I don't see this as remotely block a ball and if anything the editor should be encouraged to add some light to the heat.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I was asked to review this since I blocked SC last year. I'm busy in real life, so forgive the lack of diffs, but just look at his contribs from December 2015 and you'll find them, he hasn't been that active lately. Or, if you're a true "diffs or it didn't happen" person, ignore me.
  • His comments last year were clearly trolling. Especially when his subsequent responses to people who asked him about it are taken into account. I assumed this was due to ingestion of something and blocked for 12 hours for it to wear off, but he assured me later on my talk page (after the block expired) that he had been sober but was just screwing around with people because he wanted to have a little bit of fun. At the time he claimed he wouldn't do it again.
  • His comment in paragraph 1 this year was mainstream. His comment in paragraph 2 was, taken in isolation, just garden variety sound-of-his-own-voice stupidity.
  • His comment in paragraph 2, knowing what we know after last year, was him having fun at another's expense (again), knowing in advance that it would stress people out (again), and doing it anyway so he could enjoy the reaction of Wikipedians who, as a rule, are completely incapable of ignoring stuff like this (again). Which, I think, is the Merriam Webster definition of trolling.
  • I do not care whether he is blocked, topic banned, or complimented on his trolling skills, because trolling (and our inability to recognize and deal with it) are fundamental characteristics of this site. I mean, obviously he should be blocked or topic banned, but I don't care that it won't happen.
  • We've moved on to Votes for Banning now, so probably no one will look up here to see this comment anyway.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ban from RFA proposed

Per the discussion above, I propose SuperCarnivore591 be indefinitely banned from taking part in any requests for adminship or related pages. Bishonen | talk 09:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

Support

• Support As I noted above, SuperCarnivore591's RfA comments are indistinguishable from trolling. The "I wasn't aware..." reply above confirms that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support- yeah, this is blatant trolling and needs to stop. But I'm uneasy about singling out one editor who writes trollish opposes when there are other RfA regulars who also write unfair opposes just to wind others up. Reyk _YO! 10:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. There's a difference between holding an opinion which most people consider obnoxious and being permitted to state it—which should generally be allowed, regardless of whether other people consider it 'trolling'—and intentionally setting out to be an asshole and see how long it takes for people to react, which is what we clearly have here. ‑ Iridescent 11:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC) sorry, thought I'd already struck this—moved to oppose, see below. ‑ Iridescent 18:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - go and find a new hobby and stop wasting our time. Patient Zero^talk 11:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support RFAs decide a new admin, which will give him/her access to tools that can destroy the encyclopedia if used maliciously. "Just having some fun" is possibly the most ridiculous excuse I've heard for a troll RFA vote. This is serious, please stop wasting people's time. Period. WikiPancake 🥞 11:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support There are generally good faithed, but poor !votes at FRA. This is another level entirely and should be stopped. AIRcorn (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Defo agree with Patient Zero. Stop wasting our time! Class455 (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support RfA is a most inappropriate place for such obvious trolling and fun and games. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, though Ivanvector's idea above would also work. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, there's no room for this silly behaviour at RfA. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 15:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. There needs to be a crackdown of RfA trolls, and this would be an important first step to send a message that trolls are not welcome at RFA. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per above - Ivanvector's proposal could work however I don't see why we should waste our time with this editor any longer, They're clealy trolling so therefore should be topic-banned from RFA. –Davey2010^Talk 16:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent's support rationale above, rather than his oppose rationale below. The fact that other strange votes exist shouldn't deter us from banning assholery from RfA. A page ban may have the effect of "pour encourager les autres" --RexxS (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Evaluating RfAs is difficult enough without trolling. Miniapolis 00:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Note: I'm not uninvolved here, as opposed to most of the ANIs I comment on. In my opinion, this is a case of blatant trolling. I don't cast judgment on the user's character, but this behavior needs to stop, and a topic ban seems like the only way to do it. Just like the last time he was ANI'd and then blocked for his comments on RfAs, he doesn't appear to want to admit that this behavior is unacceptable and is sticking to the story that he has been unfairly singled out for his "mature" comments. What else can we do? AlexEng^(TALK) 01:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose My previous indiscretions were over a year ago, and I have already served time for that, and I wasn't trolling this RFA, I had genuine concerns about this users suitability to be an admin, as do dozens of other editors, which has lead to a large number of people opposing his nomination. Explaining your oppose in depth as well as giving legitimate reasons for it that have to do with temperament and maturity, which is what I did, is not trolling. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle: all users should be entitled to vote in admin elections, and we have never come to consensus on what constitutes a "valid" vote. However SuperCarnivore591's votes are clearly in bad faith. I propose instead that they be restricted to one bolded "support" "oppose" or "neutral" vote in an RfA, and banned from any follow-up commentary, similar to Eric Corbett's RfA tban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ivanvector, also support his solution. The original ban proposal is heavy-handed and overkill. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I find the editor's !vote silly, but nothing much more than that. There's no personal attack involved. Per Ivanvector, we can either limit the number of words the editor uses in his !votes or allow him to simply write support or oppose. The ban is actually heavy handed, especially for an editor who is creating articles like Paul Gentile, Mario Merola (lawyer), Robert T. Johnson (lawyer) and more. Give him a good warning and some restrictions; not a ban but. Lourdes 16:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

especially for an editor who is creating articles like Paul Gentile, Mario Merola (lawyer), Robert T. Johnson (lawyer) and more – whether an editor creates articles of similar quality to Marilyn Monroe or LinguistRats, RfA is a no-go for messing around. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, while I agree with you on the fact that Rfa is a no-go for messing around, I don't agree with your comparison. I would prefer treating editors, who have shown evidence of positive article creation contributions to Wikipedia, with a better perspective than I would editors who have nothing to show positive. Lourdes 16:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

True, users who have made constructive contributions do deserve credit. Messing around in an oppose section at RfA isn't acceptable. I wouldn't support a site block or ban for Carnivore, but they've added "votes" to RfA three or more times, and continued even after being told to stop. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose My opposition is largely explained above. I considered signing on to Ivanvector proposal but I think that's a bit much. My opposition should not be construed as support for SuperCarnivore591's contribution, it was largely a wastage of time. To the extent it actually contained useful information at ought to be supported by diffs. This proposal appears to be headed toward support but if it fails I hope they will take this as a serious warning to change their approach to RFA contributions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - To be blunt; there is a plethora of vacuity at that RfA. Either weed the whole damned thing - meaning reform the process -, or accept it for what it is. Editor by editor restrictions will get us nowhere quickly. As I stated below, this isn't even the worst or most trolling oppose on the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. If I were compiling a list from that RFA for "most egregious examples of votes which constitute either severe incompetence or obvious trolling", I doubt SuperCarnivore591 would even make the top ten. If we blocked people on the grounds of acting like self-important assholes at RFA, Wikipedia would have about three editors left. ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• ... ? Is it a block you're opposing, Iridescent, or the proposed ban from RFA? Bishonen | talk 16:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

• Either, to be honest. By coincidence I've just been researching RFA topic bans in the last couple of days, and as best I can tell the only time anyone has ever been banned from commenting at RFA (as opposed to being banned from discussing at RFA) was this incident two years ago. Because something hasn't been done before isn't reason on its own not to do it, but it will be a very unusual step, not something at all routine, and I don't particularly like the idea of disenfranchising people unless there's really no alternative. Per my comment above, I wouldn't consider the comment in question anywhere near the most inappropriate in that particular debate, so it seems peculiar to single one person out for a punishment beating while allowing outright idiotic oppose rationales like five years is not enough for a new admin, candidate still has room for improvement, displays their user rights too prominently and of course I find the lack of image uploads weird to stand. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Then you should probably strike your support vote, Iri, made 5.5 hours before your oppose.... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oops, thought I had—the striking got lost in the edit conflicts. Fixed. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll bite, who is the third? :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Iridecent above - even if he strikes it! Leaky Caldron 18:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - moved from support after reading Ivanvector's proposal, with which I concur. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's be clear that I disaprove of SuperCarnivore591's obvious trolling last year, dislike their way to contribute in the current RfA, and can't share their opinions either. I am also certain that their past trollings were disruptive and energy-sapping for all of us. However, I believe that even this type of individuals should be allowed to vote. Ivanvector's proposal is one that I may support. Besides, the editor showed what could be construed as a convincing contrition for past mistakes. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a full topic ban but support Ivanvector's approach. I think it should be expanded to the RFA talk page too. Preventing troll votes on the RFA itself is one thing but it does leave a bit of a loop hole as it does not explicitly prevent trolling on the talk page. Blackmane (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Blackmane, my original proposal is already for a ban from "from taking part in any requests for adminship or related pages". Bishonen | talk 22:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

• Apologies, this is what happens when one reads ANI before morning coffee. Striking the latter part, but my preference for Ivanvector's proposal still stands. Blackmane (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban at this stage but support a straight Support or Oppose vote only (no commentary) per Ivanvector. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose fail to see how the comment was trolling - he's been hassled by admins who haven't created articles, so that's his main criteria. OK, let's AGF. Could trim out the noise, certainly, and it's possibly disruptive to add too much irrelevant commentary, but he needs more warning on that. II | (t - c)

Neutral

• Per Iridescent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - The first point of the oppose vote is quite obviously not trolling, if it was left at that originally we would not be having this discussion right now; I've been harangued by a few overzealous admins, but the ones who have been most understanding are the ones with sufficient article creation under their belts. The second point is where this contentiousness lies, the weird quoting of Washington. I've looked at the "troll" votes at BethNaught and 78.26 and they aren't the same as here. Even if point 2. is overt trolling, point 1. is legitimate or at the very least, meant to look legitimate. Personally, it's not even the worst vote registered on the page, that (dis)honour goes elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks, incivility Crovata

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

---

The users mentioned, persisiting continous incivility and personal attacks. There is an other discussion about his recurring and continous edit warring in the WP:ANEW, and despite the incidents he is still continouing reverting and edit warring, and on the talk pages the uncivil manifestations, and explaining out everything and reflectinghis behavior to other's, now he spot me but he also did it with other users including the discussion, because more users do not share or support his point of view.

Some warning of mine (other warnings to be found in the relevant talk pages by other users):

DIFF1: [131]

DIFF2: [132]

DIFF3: [133]

DIFF4: [134] (in front of the other noticeboard!)

The recurring incivilities and false accusations about "lying":

DIFF1: [135]

DIFF2: [136]

DIFF3: [137]

Immediate action is needed, such acts in front of the noticeborads and continous ignorance of Wiki rules went by far.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

As you can see there was no personal attack. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit warring, continous breaking of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus on the page Blacorum and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crovata and User:123Steller reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: ), as well Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Blacorum and related discussion pages.--Crovata (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry they will check everything, there is already much on your shoulders, and you still continuing.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

That's why I don't worry.--Crovata (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You have to since you again harmed civility: DIFF4: [138] as moreover you are defamating and ignore information and aswers - also to this -. Moreover, I inform the Administrators that Crovata again reverted the notification, litarally regarding the ANI Incidents, such behavior is again a serious issue: ([139]), urgent action needed.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

I did not, he is twisting the facts to defame me, and although noted KIENGIR still shows that he is not familiar with Wikipedia policy and never read WP:USER and WP:BLANKING.--Crovata (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are "innocent" as always, referring on several Wiki policies althugh you harmed continously a bunch of rules is not an option, this does not change the fact that you again committed uncivility ([140]), you just can't stop.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

I dealt with the AN3 report by blocking Crovata for two months – he has a long block log for edit warring, and he reverted more than three times just after the AN3 report was filed. I don't like to block people while an ANI discussion is ongoing but Crovata clearly stated his intent to continue. Note that if another administrator wants to extend the block for these incivility issues, I have no objection. Katie^talk 15:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

BLP violations at AE

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

---

Hidden Tempo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single purpose account who has been focused on writing and advocating for positive content about Donald Trump and negative content about Hillary Clinton. That in itself is not an offence, as other editors hold diametrically opposed views; however, the area of US politics is subject to discretionary sanctions. The problem has been Hidden Tempo's interaction with other editors and his refusal or inability to comply with the standards of editing Wikipedia which our policies demand. He has received notice of DS and been further warned on his talk page by multiple editors. He is now subject to a topic ban from US Politics, the last straw being his edit summary describing another editor's post as "more filth".

In the process of appealing his topic ban, he has taken the opportunity to repeatedly attack Clinton, describing her trustworthiness poll results as "feeble" on the AE appeal page [141][142]. Despite being given the text of WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.", and having it explained that BLP policy applies to any page on Wikipedia, he defends his action by citing NBC News - which never once mentions the word "feeble", but neutrally states "Trump does better than Clinton in the honesty category, but she still does not score particularly high marks. Just 16 percent of voters say that Trump is honest and trustworthy, but only 11 percent believe the same about Clinton." The choice of the word "feeble" is Hidden Tempo's and his alone. He argues that it is "allegedly" contentious and seems to either not understand our policies or thinks he can wikilawyer his way out of any BLP violation.

To prevent further BLP violations, I'm requesting administrative action to block Hidden Tempo until he can convincingly demonstrate that he understands WP:BLP and undertakes not to repeat his violations. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it highly peculiar that RexxS has opened this ANI report while there is an active/ongoing AE report about Hidden Tempo (HT) going on which has not yet been closed. The AE report is because of exactly the same reason that Rex gives for opening the ANI report with the additional reason given that a BLP violation(s) has taken place at AE by HT. Surely if any BLP violation has taken place in the AE report by HT then the Admins in AE will take care of the problem. As for whether any BLP violation by HT has taken place at AE, see this: diff. Soham321 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 31 hours with this additional warning. Having an AE appeal open does not excuse an editor from having to adhere to BLP policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I should add that I most definitely do consider the use of derogatory adjectives (which are not used by the provided sources) to describe living people, and the repetition of that same personal editorializing in an AE appeal, to be a breach of BLP policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• After discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page, the problem of introducing personal interpretation seems to be understood, and I have unblocked. I suggest this section can be closed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Now that Hidden Tempo has posted an unblock request indicating a better understanding of the issue and Boing! said Zebedee has accepted that, I'm happy to ask for this thread to be closed as resolved. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Editing while intoxicated

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

---

• Cheetoburrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Call me a prude, but User talk:Cheetoburrito was unable to explain an edit to another editor because he was intoxicated by psilocybin mushrooms at the time he made the edit. Perhaps an admin could caution this editor. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Here is the diff of the comment. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    • You can't put a blanket ban on editors editing while drunk or on drugs in the same way as you can't ban people from editing without their glasses. It's going to happen sometimes. Heck, one admin blocked themselves whilst under the influence. I do wonder if Cheetoburrito's account may have been compromised but if not, I don't think there's much that can be done here. Patient Zero^talk 18:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
      • No, but it may help to remind an editor (while sober) that one is responsible for all edits made on their account, regardless of their state of mind at the time of the edit. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As if a) the editor does not already know that and b) it'll make a blind bit of difference should the editor become intoxicated and c) the possibility is that the editor was not in fact under the influence, but merely supplying a disingenuous reply to a question. By all means start the warning process w.r.t. edits have to be policy-compliant, since eventually a series of non-compliant edits should lead to action and there needs to be a history of warnings before such action can take place. Focussing on supposed drug-use is less helpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

True, especially when the editor in question leaves edit summaries like this. There are definitely other behaviour issues to be considered. —C.Fred (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If the argument you're trying to make is that using the word "fuck" or "scumbag" in a hypothetical sense is a "behavior issue" you are sadly mistaken. Let me remind you there is no such thing as bad words, only bad intentions, you should already know this if you're editing an ENCYCLOPEDIA of all things. Cheetoburrito (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting that at no point do I say that the edits made while intoxicated (which is my own business, none of yours) should be kept up simply because I don't remember making said edits. Each case brought to my attention I individually reviewed while sober and made an assessment unique to the situation at hand which were 100% verifiable. So yes, User:Magnolia677, I will call you a prude (your words not mine). Cheetoburrito (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

My concern is that another editor scrutinized one of your edits but you were unable to offer a response because you "just came down from a pretty intense shroom trip" and "do not remember making such edits". Whether the edits were made while on drugs, or you weren't able to answer questions because you recently took drugs, we're all here to improve the project, so you may wish to consider the consequences of performing activities requiring intense concentration after ingesting hallucinogens. Thanks for your consideration. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cheetoburrito:, you must not edit while you're unable to be responsible for your edits, and no, you may not refer to other editors as "fucking scumbags" in edit summaries. If you violate either of these precepts again it's unlikely you'll be able to continue editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the above. You should not be editing anyway when you are under the influence of any drug! Editors should be responsible for their own actions. Class455 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Re: The comment "(which is my own business, none of yours)" is absolutely wrong! Edits you make while intoxicated and which are damaging to the encyclopedia and/or the community are most definitely the business of the rest of us, in exactly the same way that similar edits made by people when not intoxicated would be. Whatever the cause, if the effect is continued I promise you will be blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah all of this is inaccurate. I never said the edits were none of your business, I said the drugs I choose to put in my body is none of your business (because they are none of your business), I've never called a fellow editor a "fucking scumbag" (I literally pointed out directly after it was HYPOTHETICAL and the comment itself wasn't even a reply to another user). ALSO I never once said that my coming down with a trip had anything to do with me being able to verify these edits. I merely pointed out I couldn't verify the claims afterwards and it was possible this is why the inaccurate edit was made in the first place. ALSO most mushrooms aren't hallucinogens/psychedelics, it's become increasingly obvious that this discussion is no longer about WP policy and has simply become a personal attack on myself and to shame someone who has a hobby none of you seem to be familiar with. If you did you might realize how easy it is to function while on this substance, as long as you take a safe amount, which I always do (these were abnormal circumstances where I had a strain much stronger than I've ever taken). Are we done here? Cheetoburrito (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor removing links to a website claiming DMCA violations

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

Gtaeaicg (talk · contribs) is going through [Armstrongism] related articles removing links to [143] with the edit summary "removed: links to DMCA, Digital Millennium Copyright violations". I don't know if this is legitimate or something else, but this edit changing "Other nonstream teachings" to "Other teachings Christ Himself taught" alerted me to a possible problem. And [144] changed source text. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No opinion at this time (apart from noting that changing dots to commas in URLs borders on plain vandalism) but editors might want to look at MarkS7982 (talk · contribs) at the same time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not legitimate. This is not how the DCMA works. Someone doing this should be blocked on sight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's not how DCMA works. But how are the links? Spammy? Free of copyright problems? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the removals, which seem to point to http://www.hwalibrary.com/ ... if they're to be removed it should be for valid, not invalid reasons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've still no real opinion, but just to quote Gtaeaicg, "site contains .. Copyright .. violations". Whether to restore this link, which was removed for a stated policy-compliant reason, and was undeniably spammed in the first place, is something to consider carefully. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The edit summaries are in the form: "removed: link to site contains DMCA, Digital Millennium Copyright Act violations" ... which is bogus, and "removed: DMCA violations", which is bogus. The bogus assertion is that the site violates the act, not that there are copyvios on the site. To be clear, the removals were not for a "stated policy-compliant reason", and your very selective quoting of the edit summaries does not help, zzuuzz. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I interpret the comments as suggesting it's a link to copyios. I also suggest that the site contains copyrighted material, and that the registered website owner, who spammed the links himself, is not the copyright holder. According to our article, these copyrights have a value and the website has no affiliation. Personally, I would not be happy restoring these links. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In exactly what way is your post immediately above not WP:OUTING, zzuuzz? Outing is normally an immediate block offence, in my experience. Here you are asserting that a person easily identifiable is the identity of a wikipedia user; besides making an assertion/inference, which whether true or not, is wholly unsubstantiated, that the site hosts copyvio material. Might I request admins who take an interest in WP:OUTING to review zzuuzz's post and to handle zzuuzz as they would any other outer? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have informed user:MarkS7982 of this discussion. Since Doug opened this topic, MarkS7982 has reverted one of the removals, showing that they're aware of the issue. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - given the timing of when this began, I'm suspecting that this activity is potentialy related to the above thread #Legal threats by Dollyparton7 - specifically that user's statement " I will be submitting a demand and takedown injunction to Wikipedia Legal for the article to be completely redacted under our United States Legal rights and governing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."([145]). If related; then this may also call for additional updates to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garnerted - pending further input. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It very much looks like another sock. I would suggest adding it to the report. —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

MarkS7982 replied - I do not know what specific issue is being discussed, but HWALibrary.com has over 10,200 different titles, the person should be more specific. I have been having trouble with “Earl Timmons, The World Tomorrow Evangelistic Association claiming a copyright and Trademark to “The World Tomorrow”. They registered the Trademark “The World Tomorrow” US Patent and Trademark Number 3209903, it has a first use date of 20050122 and a first use in commerce date of 20050312. The media in question and given in the URL’s on HWALibrary.com was created under different Owners and Registration Numbers prior to 2005. One being under registration number 1382752 with a first use date 19550700 and a first use in commerce date of 19550700, the other registration number 0791994 with a first use date 19420601 and a first use in commerce date of 19420601. I do not believe the current owner of registration number 3209903 can claim ownership back any further than the first use date 2005 of their registration number 3209903. I believe the First Use Priority applies to the material in question on HWALibrary.com. For some reason they believe just because they registered a Trademark it is retroactive, but it is not, they have rights to material they produce under the copyright as of 2005 and forward only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkS7982 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Now there is another issue, @MarkS7982, the rights of copyright date back to May 30, 1942. And @MarkS7982, is also in violation of both dad and granddad's materials. Copyright for all of Garner Ted Armstrong's materials dates back to 1953. Copyright owner, Mark Armstrong. The edits are legit. All linked content of the page is copyright protected, and while sourced still disputed as user Armstrongism noted:

 19:07, 4 December 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Armstrongism ‎ (Undid revision 753014441 by Gtaeaicg (talk) the text is sourced, although perhaps disputed looking at https://www.ucg.org/world-news-and-prophecy/he-set-ephraim-before-manasseh)Gtaeaicg (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Gtaeaicg

I did some spot-checking, and if anything, most (but not all) of the links fail our inclusion standards per WP:EL. No analysis on the copyright violations, but if that is claimed, then these links should stay removed per WP:COPYVIO until they have been cleared (and merit inclusion in the first place). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The site and user in violation, user @MarkS7982; http://www.hwalibrary.com, did indeed spam these links to his personal site where he has uploaded, and made hundreds of changes to copyrighted and trademarked materials he obtained from non-profit unaffiliated church sites and which he is now soliciting personal donations for at his site: https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=donate. Clearly this user is violating the trademark name The World Tomorrow, and the HW Amstrong and GT Armstrong audio and video sources. Gtaeaicg (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Gtaeaicg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.80.243 (talk)

User:Joe Ramsdale fan

Not quite sure which board this should go to, so bringing it here. User:Joe Ramsdale fan is not a violation of the username policy. It's not an attack name or a impersonation in inself, but the first edit (to the userpage [146] and immediately blanked by the user} claims that the user is indeed Joe Ramsdale and makes a questionable personal comment. If the user is not Joe Ramsdale the edit is an attempt at impersonation and the personal comment is a BLP violation. The account should probably be blocked. If the user is Joe Ramsdale (it seems doubtful) the edit is fine (he's allowed to say whatever he likes about himself) but the account should be given a preventative block until the user proves his identity. Meters (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: I am guessing that the user is not in fact Joe Ramsdale, and I've revdelled the revision in question and left a warning on User talk:Joe Ramsdale fan. If they are in fact Joe Ramsdale then they are welcome to put the record straight themselves. I don't think we need to block yet, although if the attacks continue then we should. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm... am I missing something? Is Joe Ramsdale some noteworthy individual whom others have heard of? It looks like this is some teenager and Joe Ramsdale is their classmate, which means without context it's not really a BLP-violation since there are presumably many Joe Ramsdales. If I'm right, though, the account is WP:NOTHERE and is unlikely to contribute anything beyond that strange attack on someone. (By the way, I saw the edit before it was rev-delled and didn't respond. I'm posting this now because my theory that December's ANI theme was edit-warring with people because of an incorrect assumption that their being blocked for edit-warring qualifies as a condemnation of the content of their edits by the community or the admin corps appears to have been wrong; the actual theme, at least for December 5, is overly broad application of BLP to non-notable, practically anonymous off-wiki individuals and other Wikipedians being discussed on talk pages and noticeboards.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ch.au that one dot

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

---

Someone should probably revoke talk page access for Ch.au that one dot (talk · contribs) unless admins want to deal with repeated unblock requests. APK whisper in my ear 05:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone/Archive#15 September 2016

When this SPI was done, I didn't scrutinize the evidence given by Vanamonde93 to the fullest extent.

Now, I will explain why the evidences presented by Vanamone93 were false. I always clicked his link number 79 in the evidence, which never opened. Vanamonde93's comment, Overlap with Bladesmulti is large: [79]. This is admittedly inflated by MSM's use of automated tools, but Blades used zero automation, so the overlap still strikes me as significant. Blades and MSM have a markedly similar, and unusual, history of timestamps: Blades, MSM; a fairly uniform distribution of edits through about 20 hours of the day, with the 20-24h (GMT) period being the only slack period.

As far as I can see, with Intersect Contribs tool, today I intersect in 51 pages. I was reverting whatever disruptive edit was shown automatically through Huggle and Stiki window. If today I intersect in 51 pages, then two months ago, when this SPi case was filed, the intersect was obviously much lower than 51. This less than 51 pages is large overlap for him.

Next day he states Folks, my apologies: I had intended to add more evidence earlier this evening, but was kept off wiki by some RL stuff that had popped up. The stuff I was going to add has mostly been mentioned: the undeletion request, the high level of automated editing from MSM, the accusations of POV at my RFA that sounded a lot like similar accusations that have been leveled by OZ socks. I didn't accuse his POV. I voted oppose (changed to support) after reading the comments made by other editors as Rsrikanth05, Arun Kumar SINGH and ƬheStrikeΣagle. My other comments in that RFA was not connected to Vanamonde93.

I don't care for Ekvastra, however as Vanamonde93 gave more false evidence in this SPI (and he can do it again against me), I need to mention that the pages which he proclaim as obscure Ekvastra has a remarkable overlap with the edits of Bladesmulti and AmritasyaPutra, both initially blocked as OZ socks. The overlap includes pages as obscure as All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen and Lakshmanananda Saraswati., are not obscure articles. People outside India might find them obscure.

Lakshmanananda Saraswati was a nobody before his murder in 2008, but Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda and the largescale riots that followed doesn't make this page an obscure page. The murder is still in the news in 2016

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen is nowhere close to being an obscure page. Indian media calls it as AIMIM or MIM in short form. NDTV, Hindustan times. Their leader Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi always takes part in debates about Indian Muslims on national news channels. In Aaj Tak google video results. On Times Now, Google video results.

I can give more evidence, but this is sufficient to prove that those two pages were not obscure as mentioned by Vanamonde93. As Dharmadhyaksha said in Vanamonde's RFA "Despite the nominee claiming in their reply to Q15 above that they would not intervene as admin where they are INVOLVED; like " South Asian political parties, ideological movements related to Islam in South Asia and Hinduism in general, communal violence in South Asia, post-World War II Guatemalan, Chilean, Nicaraguan, Cuban, and Salvadoran history, the Iraq war,...." and so on; it is a fact that admin's views/comments/votes do get more weightage in discussions than someone who is new/previously-blocked-for-whatever-reason and such. Admin tools come with this un-denied privilege and user's with claimed-bias towards such a large chunk of article should not be crowned as admins. (Using "crown" intentionally even if nominee doesn't consider it such as yes it is a crown in many respects.) In addition, allegations of stalking along with these allegations of biased editing do not add up to much a good candidature. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)"

They were aware that Bbb23, Mike V, DeltaQuad don't edit WP:INDIA articles. Vanamonde admittedly had email discussion about this with Joshua Jonathan and both planned to misinform check users with false evidence. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: what do you even want here? The SPI was closed: you were found innocent of socking. I accepted this finding, and moved on. Are you asking for sanctions against me for filing an SPI with not-quite-strong-enough evidence? Evaluating the evidence is a job for the clerks, and they found it convincing enough to perform a CU. I really don't see the point of this post. Vanamonde (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - That SPI case is almost three months old. What is the point of this post? Vanamonde93 did not have any malicious intent during or after the case so this just seems too pointless to be here. I suggest you retract this as soon as possible.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - "Vanamonde admittedly had email discussion about this with Joshua Jonathan and both planned to misinform check users with false evidence" - yes, we had mail-contact, about a series of suspicious editors, including MSM. I've seen this before, a newbie who edits like an experienced editor, and his name coincidentally was Bladesmulti. See [147]: " I've also been wondering if Bladesmulti is a sock, given his sudden appearance and his high speed of editing at so many pages." Ironically, isn't it? yet, to suggest that "both planned to misinform check users with false evidence" is blatantly wrong, but may be due to a feeling of being attacked or so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen, Me and egregious violations of policy

Rjensen (talk · contribs) and I are in agreement that one of us are egregiously violating policy. We just don't agree whom of us it is. The context of this disagreement is this discussion Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rjensen_and_BLP and the original disagreement here: in which Jensen invokes BLP to justify his removal of a talkpage comment by me that he finds to be unpleasant (I agree that it was). So the questions are: Is an editor who has a biographical article allowed to remove other people's talkpage comments about them if they find them to be false or otherwise in violatoin of BLP. I would say that RJensen is in fact violating both WP:TPO and WP:COI by personally removing comments of other editors with whom he is in a discussion. I have had this discussion before woth Rjsensen who has a habit of editing his own biography to remove material he doesnt like. If it is indeed the case that he is allowed to remove other people's comments under BLP if he dislikes them then I think it would be very nice to clarify this, in which case I can avoid ever interacting with him in the future.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me repeat two points I made at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: A) Maunus refuses to provide his required RS and instead misquotes Wikipedia. 1) his false statement = Jensen's claim there was never any significant anti-Irish sentiment in the US. 2) He cites the Wikipedia article on me that states Jensen argues that "No Irish Need Apply" signs were mostly a myth and that there was "no significant discrimination against the Irish" in the job market. 3) Actually what I did write was As for the question of anti-Irish prejudice: it existed but it was basically anti-Catholic or anti-anti-republican. There have been no documented instances of job discrimination against Irish men.(FN13) Was there any systematic job discrimination against the Catholic Irish in the US: possibly, but direct evidence is very hard to come by. [Journal of Social History 2002 p 407] Maunus is in deliberate defiance of the BLP rule about verifiability. Rjensen @ 17:30, 30 November 2016. and B) every editor has the right to remove another editor's posts if they fail the BLP rules. Maunus is in deliberate defiance of these BLP rules: 1) " any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source" 2) "Dealing with articles about yourself...Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself." 3) "Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable." 4) "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." 5) "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" 6) "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." = Rjensen 10:53, 3 December 2016. C now I'll add some new comments: Maunus never tries to explain why his comments comply with WP:BLP As for WP:TPO he violates it too--it states " Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles" As for WP:COI it states: "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly." My conclusion is that Maunus thinks the BLP rules do not apply to him and he can say any false or nasty thing he wants. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

They compky with BLP because the are true and verifiable and not defamatory in any sense. As I have stated. You are known only for your mistaken claim about anti-Irish sentiment - if it werent for that particular controversy and the media attention it got you you would not merit a biography article. And you claim that WASP is a slur. Both are verifiable facts whether you wish they werent or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Let's be clear -- the quotes you give refer to the article space. Almost no one gives inline citations for talk page comments about other Wikipedians, and if we applied your standard then you and I would have been violating BLP when we referred to this guy as a sockpuppet. The only source that says that is the Wikipedia SPI, which is a self-published source and therefore unacceptable for BLP purposes. You need to drop this game right now. It's been almost two months since I explained this policy to you,[148] and I can't help but imagine that others have explained the same thing to you in the past. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Leaving aside the BLP concern, your comments could be seen as "personal attack", which could justify the other editor in removing it. Essentially you are accusing another editor of having a double standard: according to you he says there was no anti-Irish sentiment in the U.S. but infers there is anti-English sentiment. But whether or not "WASP" is a slur has nothing to do with what RJensen has argued about anti-Irish sentiment, and the discussion will proceed better without that comment. TFD (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't leave aside the BLP concern, Jensen's failure to undestand BLP and COI is the core of this issue. I readily admit that my comment was not friendly, but rather sarcastic. I don't think an editor is allowed to remove comments that they believe are personal attacks, but I may be mistaken. And yes I am accusing him of having a double standard. I think he clearly has one. IN any case the point still is if an editor may under BLP remove comments from other editors in spite of WP:TPO and COI - or if they should rather have someone else make that call. And the same goes for the biography itself - Rjensen has several times removed material from his article that he disliked instead of flagging it on the talkpage and having someone else made the decision. This is why I do not trust the judgment of Jensen one little bit when it comes to judging what is a BLP violation and what it a COI. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, clear and unambiguous personal attacks can be removed, but not comments that are simply uncivil. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I have also noticed Rjensen's curious habit of quoting BLP as though it applied to Wikipedians in out-of-mainspace discussion between said Wikipedians. I found this extremely unusual and potentially problematic since reliable sources are almost never going to be found for any of the statements one would want to make about other Wikipedians and their behaviour. For context, I noticed this problem two months back when he removed a discussion on my talk page between a now-block sockpuppet. I wound up re-removing the offending material anyway, but it was still weird. Just to show how absurd this is: if we applied the "we can't say things about other Wikipedia editors unless reliable sources have said the same" to Wikipedians other than Rjensen, I would have committed a BLP-violation by saying that Imboredsenseless was a sockpuppet just now, since no reliable sources can be found to back up this claim.

I don't think it's a serious problem that merits a block or anything like that, but he should definitely be told to stop invoking BLP when other Wikipedia editors say things about him as a Wikipedian that he doesn't like, and if he keeps it up he should receive a short block. I actually set him straight back in October, but maybe if an admin did the same he would take it more seriously.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I did not know that Rjensen was a Conservapedia admin working to conservatize wikipedia explicitly - that explains a lot.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Watch it, snunɐɯ·. The account that posted that was almost immediately blocked as a sock and was clearly trolling, and the Conservapedia account they claimed was Rjensen hadn't edited Wikipedia in like six years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(A) Hijari88 says " other Wikipedia editors say things about him as a Wikipedian that he doesn't like," -- that did not happen. the Maunus statement about me and the Irish is NOT about me "as a Wikipedian" -- he referred to writings OUTSIDE Wikipedia by a BLP (an article I published in 2002 in a scholarly journal.) Maunus got it wrong and his false statement about a real person is unsourced =a statement about a BLP & Irish that in no way refers to an internal Wikipedia discussion. (B) What is very rare or unique here is that a Wiki editor (me) is using his real name AND has a Wiki article about him. Maunus made the Irish-allegation based on off-wiki misinformation about a BLP. That is, BLP is a central feature of this discussion. (C) I think that an attack on an anonymous pseudonym is not an attack on a BLP because the username masks the "personhood" and the real person under attack is unknown. it is only an attack on a Wiki editor. (D) Of course we have rules about attacking any editor falsely = wp:civility = quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them. I allege that Maunus did that re me & the Irish. (E) Another point: "unsourced" is a key factor. If editor X falsely states on a talk page that editor Y is ZZZ regarding the Irish, then that statement has to be sourced to something Y said on Wikipedia about the Irish or else it is a deliberate falsified personal attack by X and violates wp:civility; it is not protected speech. (F) And by the way, Maunus won't stop: he just now made another false statement about outside-Wiki statements that Rjensen is "working to conservatize wikipedia explicitly" That is false. I never said anything like that anywhere and you can look at my 124,000 edits here (and my speech at Wikimania 2012 and my Journal of Military History 2012 article about Wikipedia) here to verify that my goal is to bring in standard scholarly sources to support Wiki history articles. Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Odd edits

Someone please look at recent very similar edits to Cecilia of Sweden (my comment is on the talk page there), Catherine Vasa, Princess Sophia of Sweden and Catherine Stenbock. It's hard to find good faith in that kind of editing, even though the 2 editors (one an IP) are experienced and have done good work for years. They often work on the same historical articles. Besides that long repetitious list now added to the end of each of he articles, what I find the most disturbing is the second IP edit, in all 4 cases, which looks like it's merely intended to prevent reversal. I could have rolled them all back, but I thought maybe an admin should have a closer look. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

PS I chose not to mention names here yet, in case I've overreacted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a puzzling pattern. Aciram adding dozens of instances of the same reference, and then an IP doing a minor edit. I hope Aciram will visit us here and tell us what it's all about. If the refs are legit, then there are better ways of adding them - specifically by using named references. Certainly what we see right now has all the makings of a very odd edit which someone is trying deliberately to hide from watchlists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have alerted both editors to this discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

In any case, that needs to be collapsed to a single call to the same named ref at the end of each paragraph, at the most. My eyes set in their sockets looking at the current state of these articles.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

JasonCarswell

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

Overview: JasonCarswell is a self-admitted 9/11 Truther who has previously plotted to organize some sort of resistance among Truthers. He has edit warred to promote the works of conspiracy theorist James Corbett, leaving that alone to go cause go cause trouble in 9/11 related articles, giving up on that and continuing his conspiracy-theory-laden hagiography of James Corbett. He's also got this bloggy mess, this Truther spam, promotion of Truther conferences, as well as the more good-faith (though still messy) Draft:Lists of Truthers.

Highlighted edits:

• At 9/11 Truth movement, he tried to misrepresent a variety of unrelated sources as if they were evidence of the 9/11 Truther claims and spam links to Truther website. Not to mention forum like original research on the talk page.
• At Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, he tries to downplay reality in favor of conspiracy theories
• At Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, he says "Nothing last forever, including crime scenes. Some just seem to go faster than others, especially when suspicious (WTC, Sandy Hook, etc)."
• At Talk:Alex Jones (radio host), admitting "I like Alex Jones with a grain of salt."
• At Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory, speculating on the motives as if the conspiracy theory is a given.
• Adding bizarre "See also" additions that only make sense if one is a conspiracy theorist at 9/11 conspiracy theories and Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories

Overall: JasonCarswell is an unrepentant conspiracy theorist with no apparent understanding of what constitutes a reliable source, nor how to avoid original research. He has been warned about discretionary sanctions regarding 9/11, so we can go ahead and apply those now before resolving other matters. At a minimum, he needs to be topic banned from any page relating to conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)