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

Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo

Summary of the request

Because of an original content dispute, XIIIfromTokyo has artificially created a discussion on antisemitism, and another one on homophobia, and has blatantly deformed my answers to say I am antisemitic and homophobic, and is repetiting these claims since December 2016 and on different pages in spite of my defense and other contributors' intervention. On top of that, he is doing intimidation, by telling me the press could talk about this and with legal threats to we do not know who. When I try to alert about this, he is changing the subject into a content dispute (talking about the content dispute, the French wikipedia article he wrote, his disputes there, comparison between articles, etc.), even though the content disputes are irrelevant here. When I try to tell him to stop calling me these things and threatening me, he is talking about the articles, and when I try to talk about the articles, he answers with these attacks. And he persists in this attitude in spite of all the warnings.

The content of the articles are off-topic here, but I worked on multiple articles and XIII – who has a tendency to paranoia (sorry for the use of the term) – is focusing on two of them to try to show a imaginary bias (even though I have been discussing with other editors on articles, and we managed to have consensus; these two articles were different and needed different answers, as talk pages and administrators decisions show), is doing every personal attacks to fulfill his imaginary purpose. He has been obviously wrongfully accusing me of antisemitism and homophobia, and attacking and threatening me for 10 months in talk pages. I do not feel safe contributing because these long-going attacks are very hurtful, they have been going on for a long time in spite of every call to stop and they will continue unless the user is banned.

--Launebee (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Detailed request and quotes

Dear administrators,

XIIIfromTOKYO has been accusing me of antisemitism, homophobia a bit everywhere since last year, and I cannot use a talk page without him going back to these outragious accusations. On top of that, he has been threatening me and constantly using an aggressive language.

ACCUSATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

Original context

The first student association of Panthéon-Assas University is – at least on Facebook – a Jewish association, UEJF (Union des Étudiants Juifs de France) Assas. Because of that, someone tagged the door of this association office inside the university with a swastika, and the university and the student association asked the public prosecutor to bring charges.

XIII seems to have something against this university, so he is behaving aggressively to change the article, and another institution (this time in favor of it) because he considers they are rivals.

Among many misuse of sources, he gave many articles which related the swastika incident, and others (policemen had been put in the 1990s to protect the university from violent groups, like other Parisian universities). He was saying that it shows that the university has a tradition of antisemitism and racism and of beating (ratonnade) Jews and foreigners! I kindly explained, and wrote in particular: "What you are quoting (some fights sometimes near the university) is not at all what you are saying, ie foreigners and Jews being commonly beaten up in PA (ratonnades) or PA as an institution having or having the reputation to have an enduring tradition of racism and antisemitism!"[1] He was talking of beating people out of racism and antisemitism, so I said that it is absolutely false that foreigners and Jews are beaten up in one of the top institutions of France.

Accusation 1

He deformed what I said and answered:

Copy/pasted quoting
Why are you refering to jew students as "foreigners" ? World War II is over, and you can still be French and jew. You should start to really carefully care about the words you use. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I did not write that at all, what you are writing is absolutely outrageous! […] --Launebee (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I explained that I obviously did not write that, but he is continuing since then to write on different pages I intervene that I wrote anti-Semitic things, or to imply I am a neo-nazi, so that I continuously have to defend myself, and so that the wrong is already done with other users.

Accusation 2 [2]

Copy/pasted quoting

You have used to word "foreigners" to described thoses students, victims of racism and antisemitism. This kind of speech in France is deeply connected to far-right movements, and is considered as hate-speech. You say that you know a lot of things about France, so that's definitely something that you can't ignore. You are responsible for what you say. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I clearly did not describe Jews as foreigners. Your attack is absolutely despicable. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 3 [3]

Copy/pasted quoting
You are calmly describing victims of antisemitism and racism as "foreigners". […] Did I miss something ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 4 [4]

Copy/pasted quoting

So now there is a strong Jewish community in this college. Do you have a reference to back that claim, or is that from your personnal experience or préjugés ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC) It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 5 [5]

Copy/pasted quoting

I have read with some supprise that, according to Launebee, this university has a strong jewish community . Is that again your point of view about jew students, or do you have serious references about that ? Needless to say that after your previous statement, and your rewritting of the article of a well-know "néo-nazi" association[6], you might need to start to carefully chose the words you use. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I already gave you the reference. It is simply the first student association on Facebook. Please stop these continuing outrageous accusations. --Launebee (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC) It is off-topic anyway, but you can see the Facebook page of Union des Étudiants Juifs de France Assas has a lot more likes and followers than UNEF Assas (twice less)(UNEF being historically the first student union of France) or UNI Assas (10 times less) (UNI being the first right-wing student union). --Launebee (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Accusation 6 [7]

Copy/pasted quoting

So again, you don't a reference to provide, and that's only your opinion that you are voicing about the jewish community. Refrain from that activity, and stick to the references. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC) It is not something written in the article. I was just answering you, since you implied outrageous things. Stop this disruptive activity. --Launebee (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations.

I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.

ACCUSATIONS OF HOMOPHOBIA

The same system: he transformed something, put it everywhere so I constantly have to defend myself of this accusation.

Original context

Richard Descoings died in mysterious circumstances. He was homosexual and married, and it was controversial. Many newspapers, including gay community newspapers, talked about it.[8][9][10][11][12]) I used in the Sciences Po article the wording used in his article at that time [13], ie that he had a "controversial gay lifestyle", and for example anti-homophobic articles say it was, but it should not be. It was the beginning of constant accusations of homophobia by XIIIfromTokyo.

Accusation 1 [14]

Copy/pasted quoting

You made the choice to put homophobic slurs in the article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC) You insisted I said antisemitic things, now you are saying I am writing homophobic things! There is nothink homophobic about saying his gay lifestyle is controvesial, on the contrary. See for example this newspaper article saying that his gay lifestyle was taboo and is denouncing the fact it had to be. Can someone stop these insults toward me? --Launebee (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 2 [15]

Copy/pasted quoting

You are calmly putting homophic slurs in {{Sciences Po]]' article. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Can someone do something about this user continuing to do outrageous statements about me ? […] --Launebee (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Homophobic slurs in the Sciences Po article? XIIIfromTOKYO, Launebee hasn't touched the Sciences Po article since September of this year. You're either referring to the talk page (in which case point me to the discussion/comment) or a very old edit to the article (in which case I'll need a diff please). The only other alternative is that you mean Pantheon-Assas' article or talk (in which case diff again please). Otherwise, the claim of homophobia is a brightline violation of NPA policy and I'm going to ask that you strike it. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

XIII never stroke his comment or answered this.

Bad "jokes" [16][17]

One resistant during WW2 accused Sciences Po to have been a place of Collaboration during WW2.

With no link, an article from the Independant says that the system in which is Sciences Po is a machine to produce a "blinkered, often arrogant and frequently incompetent ruling freemasonry".

XIII mixed these things, as such:

Copy/pasted quoting

So now we have to explain that this school is "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys. And could you remove the smileys? The nazi regime and the collaboration is something serious, not a joke! He obviously changes the meaning of the texts: freemasonery obviously means here a "cast", not actual freemasonery. --Launebee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting

As I have already mentioned, when I saw that this school was targeted because it was the lair "nazi" and linked to "freemasonry", but was also ruled by a "gay" "junky" who used to hire toyboys... well. Time for the arbcom to work ? XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC) The kind of criticism you are talking about is your invention. And If there are so many references, it is because you are denying the serious criticism. --Launebee (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Accusation 3 [18]

Copy/pasted quoting
Let me remind you that you wrote your opinion about Richard Descoing alleged homosexuality and drug usein the Sciences Po article : "an overdose linked to his controversial gay livestyle" [19]. None of what you wrote a few month ago was backed by the reference your provided back then [20]. I'm just trying to prevent and other accident.XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

THREATS

XIII wants me to stop editing, otherwise he is implying he could create a media turmoil with what he accused me in talk pages. Sometimes in French so that other users cannot understand.

Threat 1 [21]

Copy/pasted quoting
All the process is public, so your actions here […] will be available to anyone. Contributors, journalists... XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Threat 2 [22]

Copy/pasted quoting
Tu es bien conscient que tout es public, et que n'importe qui peut poster ça sur Twitter […] (avec tout le basard médiatique à prévoir vu certaines expressions utilisées en PDD ) ?

Translation: You are well aware that everything is public, and that anyone can post in on Twitter […] (with all the media fuss to come due to some expression used in talk page (PDD = page de discussion).

Those "expressions used" are obviously from him.

Threats 3 and 4: legal threats [23][24]

These threats are not necessarily directed to me, but I signal that, as EdJohnston pointed out[25], XIII is doing legal threats now, by calling someone - so potentially anyone who disagrees with him - a "criminal".

Copy/pasted quoting
The article has been protected. Sad to see that a criminal is using such a method to harrass an other contributors. Sad and disgusting. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting

EdJohnston one contributor clearly wants to harrass other contributors, and went so far as using a lot of SPA in the past ; this week's use of no less than 4 IPs to revert templates saying that this article was written like an advert clearly shows that any method, including criminal ones can be used by this individual, on group of indivudials. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Your reference to 'criminal' behavior above sounds to me like making legal threats. You were previously blocked for edit warring in April 2017 which should have made you aware of the sort of behavior we consider problematic. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

CONSTANT ABUSIVE AND AGRESSIVE LANGUAGE

XIII has very often an abusive language toward me. I have been answering his repetitive personal attacks and repetitive arguments for more than a year, but even if I keep civil, he always turns it into personal attacks. I give just two examples among many.

Example 1: abusive language[26]

Copy/pasted quoting
[…] It is off-topic. We are talking about reputation here, and since the source was in French, I just explained. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC) […] You are lying to an other contributor just to try to gain some time. It's relevant because it shows that you know that you are lying when you write this article. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Example 2: repetitive claim I did a legal threat [27][[28]

Because I was discussing the fact saying PA has an racist tradition is libelous, which is not a legal threat according to Wikipedia policy ("A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat."[29] He has been reminded it is not a legal threat by other contributors but he continues to claim everywhere I did legal threat.

Copy/pasted quoting
That's clearly an intimidation attempt. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC) No it's not […]. Discussing or declaring something to be libelous is not in itself a legal threat. Not a legal threat; "This is libelous". […] Mr rnddude (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Copy/pasted quoting
I already had to face legal threat from this contributor, so any administrator has to be aware that it could accur to him or her as well. […] XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are many examples.

GENERAL

This attitude does not seem to be new. XIIIfromTokyo has already been blocked in French Wikipedia three days for "personal attacks and insults" and two weeks for "intimidation attempt or harassment". [30]

There already has been requests here, but discussions were blurred in content discussion over Panthéon-Assas University and Sciences Po. Now, PA article has many sources, and Mr rnddude helped resolve the issues, and there has been a consensus on the lead of Sciences Po, with Robminchin helping. But XIII accusations are continuing, and it is becoming worse and worse.

Whatever the content dispute is, XIII is constant me insulting me by asserting or strongly implying that I am linked to antisemitism or neo-nazism. I repeat what I wrote: I am personally an indirect victim of the Jewish genocide, and I repetitively have to deal with things linked to it in my life, I feel deeply outraged by these constant accusations of antisemitism. I hope the severity of the sanction to XIII will show that Wikipedia is not taking antisemitism lightly, and that you cannot constantly attack the honour of a contributor by playing with this despicable thing.

To show the gravity of such accusations, I hope, on top of public apologies by him, at least a one-year ban will be decided (and a total ban if he does not apologise).

Regards,

--Launebee (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Purely for the administrative purpose of being able to parse out and read this thread (and hopefully to avoid some serious TLDR) I have removed all of the quotes, replacing them either the relevant diffs or links. I have also removed the silly number of subheaders. I took every effort to not actually remove any content added by Launebee. If someone feels this decision was improper they are welcome to replace it with the original content, which can be found here. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I kept the subheaders removed, but put back the quotes, because the sentences are to be found inside long texts, so specific quotes are needed. Your version without the quotes is to found here. Thanks for your help. --Launebee (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I've collapsed the quotes, since that's kind of the point of a collapse template. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to point out the text, you could use the tq template. The tq template highlights quoted text in green, and looks like this: (text being quoted). This might be a better alternative to hatted boxes. Blackmane (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Primefac and Blackmane. Perhaps now is a good compromise, and I hope I will never have again to do this, but if I have to use quotes in the future I will think at the tq templates. I am sorry there are so many examples, but it is because I have been so many times attacked. I added a summary in the beginning, it seems it was needed. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Noting that the reported user has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on the aforementioned article. ansh666 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• When a user has been advised repeatedly that he is making false accusations, and yet persists in repeating the accusations, we have a problem. The subject of this complaint hasn't made many contributions, but he has exacted long-term abuse against a good faith editor. Frankly, I don't see a convincing reason why we need to retain this editor as a member of our community. Lepricavark (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Is there something I can do to get this going somewhere? Otherwise, the harassment and threats will continue. --Launebee (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I suspect people have been put off by the sheer size of your original post, which far exceeds the usual length. I do hope, however, that a couple of admins would be willing to take a look at this and determine what action should be taken. Lepricavark (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Ok, I put more clearly that there is a summary above. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• To attempt to summarize the content: the ancient University of Paris ("The Sorbonne") was dissolved into smaller universities in 1970. Panthéon-Assas University was created as a successor school that included the law faculty. There appear to be multiple content disputes between the two editors discussed on the talk page. The fr:Université_Panthéon-Assas article may be useful as a reference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@power~enwiki: Thanks for your help. Actually, the summary of my message is more that because of a content dispute, XIII created a discussion on antisemitism and then used my answer to claim antisemitism, and has repeated these claims since last December, that he did the same thing with homophobia, that he has been threatening me several times and is constantly aggressive. The content dispute is not relevant here, whatever it is, it has been ten months that I am repetitively wrongfully accused of these things by this user, even though it is obviously absolutely false. (Note also that this user is the principal writer of the French page of that university, so this is not a reference. XIII is precisely blurring the discussion by talking of what happens in the French page that he wrote, or of the content dispute, but all of that is irrelevant. This is a different subject with a talk page, but that talk page is now filled with personal attacks.) I added a summary in the beginning of the request, thanks for the idea. --Launebee (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• C.Fred, Amire80, Ocaasi : could you do something here? Otherwise the abuse will continue. Thanks. --Launebee (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Launebee, I'm not sure why are you asking me, because I rarely handle ANI stuff, and I am more involved in technical things.

In any case, User:XIIIfromTOKYO hasn't edited for the last 10 days, and hasn't written anything in their defense here, so there isn't much that I can do at the moment. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Amire80: Sorry for the delay, but I have a lot of work these days. I can only notice that @Launebee: has failed to provide a single edit where I actually accuse him/her of antisemitism. S/he has clearly been playing with fire on that touchy issue ; What it on purpose ? As anyone can see in this very recent edit, s/he is making a reference to a "strong jewish community" and "racism", but the edit has nothing to do with that : s/he is only removing (again) warning templates. So I think it's only a new strategy to block any serious work on the article.

I have started to collect edits, but the issue is more important than what I have previously thought. Launebee as been asked repeatedly to clarify his/her position toward COI, but has always refused to do so. It's clearly time for him/her to clearly state his/her link with that school. I must insist on that point, because it will be crucial for the remaining of the discussion. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Amire80: You were in the admin list. As you can see, XIII, not only is not seeing anything wrong in all what he wrote to me during the last 11 months, but is saying that I talk about Jews out of nowhere, once again clearly twisting the facts. As he knows very well, the edit he is referring to was removing a banner that he had included in the penultimate edit, with an ever-lasting accusation of antisemitism (to a university where the Jewish student association is the first association of this university on Facebook!). I obviously used the word "strong" in the sense of important, like in the talk page. Afterwards, he right away created a section [31] in the talk page implying I am a neo-nazi, when I quoted myself to answer again to his accusation, he jumped on the accusation of homophobia (last quotes of the relevant sections of my request). --Launebee (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute + SPA + possible COI on journalist Kevin Deutsch

Hello,

I'd really prefer to be taking this to a different noticeboard to chat it out, but my compatriot has both indicated they are no longer interested in discussion and is also aggressively reverting. This relates to the article Kevin Deutsch (my preferred revision), a journalist and author who has been accused of being highly sloppy about sourcing and over-anonymizing events to the point of having no relation with the original event (at best), or of repeat fabrication and fraud (at worst).

User:Ballastpointed is aggressively editing Kevin Deutsch to fit his spin (sample diffs: 1, 2, 3, all within the space of ~24 hours). Ballastpointed is a single purpose account whose sole goal on Wikipedia seems to be to communicate what an awesome guy Deutsch is. He's denied being Deutsch himself or a friend/associate (diff), but he has claimed to be a super-expert on Deutsch (diff). At first, Ballastpointed was productively responding on the talk page to pings and somewhat ratcheting his claims downward - allowing hostile material to stand but rephrasing it, and many of these edits have been left in place (e.g. including this article which discusses the New York Daily News investigation into Deutsch's work). However, he's since gone back to just plain reverting to a version that is, in my opinion, not neutral (doesn't reflect the majority of the sources) and overly relies upon self-published sources (extensively citing Deutsch's website and Deutsch's personal explanations for the accusations against him in-line with other sources; example diff), and has thrown in WP:PEACOCK terms as well ("award-winning" in the lede, etc.).

I have done my part in talking it out on the talk page (see Talk:Kevin Deutsch), and offered to bring in a third opinion or discuss on a noticeboard (diff). Since Ballastpointed has responded to pings before, he saw this. He has not replied. If he isn't going to participate, there's no point in bringing this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. (I have also attempted to offer productive avenues for Ballastpointed to apply his preferred slant - if he could find some source, any source, that is not self-published but supports Deutsch's view of things. He has not really provided one, however; the closest is attempting to interpret the NY Daily News article as an exoneration of Deutsch, which it isn't.)

Note that this is a WP:BLP, so Ballastpointed is certainly correct that there should be a very high standard set for negative material. Unfortuantely for Deutsch, there is reams of negative material in reliable sources, and very little supportive material. His "15 year career in journalism" is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article (any more than any other of the many freelance journalists out there), and while Deutsch's own personal explanations and excuses for the sourcing confirmation problems deserve to be mentioned, they do not deserve to be taken as anything more than a denial - certainly in no way as "evidence" that somehow the investigations into him were faulty. Additionally, Ballastpointed has attempted to highlight the many small and noncontroversial articles that Deutsch wrote that weren't challenged, and imply this is somehow an exoneration of Deutsch. But these articles are simply not very notable nor interesting to talk about - as the Washington Post wrote, "Most mainstream news organizations would fire a journalist for a single instance of inventing a source or a quote, let alone dozens and dozens of them."

I ask that Ballastpointed be informed that he needs to comply with Wikipedia policies such as WP:SPS, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, or else have the page protected. If he wants to submit edit requests (a la COI accounts), that would be acceptable. If he doesn't respond at all and keeps edit warring, then he should be blocked. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sir,

You’ve repeatedly deleted my contributions to the page, adding innacuriate/non/factual synopses, ignoring due weight requirements, and inserting language that violates Wiki’s living persons policy. You are a newcomer to the page, and began your work here by reversing my contributions. Since then, I have attempted to correct the erroneous paraphrasing you’ve inserted, and to restore information you removed that was favorable to Mr. Deutsch. Your attempts to construe every line of coverage in the worst possible light deserves to be challenged, and it will continue to be, by myself and others. Perhaps most egregiously, you removed a NY Observer article written by Mr. Deutsch, which contains an extensive, closely reasoned defense/rebuttal. Additionally,

you removed key parts of his response to the Times’ findings and the favorable “no red flags” language in the Daily News finding. In short, you’ve removed everything exculpatory it favorable to Mr. Deutsch, and I submit that you, sir, are in fact the one with a conflict of interest and obvious agenda here.

Wherever there is an allegation, there should be a defense of that allegation if that defense has been published, which it has been. This is how the living person’s policy and due weight work. These are unsubstantiated allegations. The coverage has focused on the same series of allegations. Those allegations take up a majority of this article. I can’t imagine what Moreno you’re hoping to achieve here, short of libel.

Adding quotes about racism from David Simon—who last year used the n-word on Twitter and got a lot of heat for it—is indicative of how far you’re willing to go to libel this writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballastpointed (talk • contribs) 02:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) If you are going to accuse anyone of libel, you should be familier with WP:NLT, I am not saying you are trying to make a legal threat, just reminding you how things can be interpreted. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ballastpointed returned to the prior edit war pretty much immediately upon acknowledging this discussion, as well as having previously been warned and asked to build a consensus first. For that reason, I gave him a week block so as to slow down the edit war. If he expresses that he intends to stay on the talk pages going forward, and avoid editing against consensus, anyone may unblock. --Jayron32 03:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we also have a sock/meatpuppet issue. User:AlexVegaEsquire, who is also a single-purpose account whose only activity on Wikipedia has been to edit the Kevin Deutsch article (and create the original, fawning version of it), has suddenly appeared again after the block and has the exact same opinions as Ballastpointed (diff). Note that I'm not the first person; others, over a months-long period, have been attempting to have the article reflect the slant seen in the news media, but AlexVegaEsquire was the one editing it back earlier (as can be seen from notices on his talk page and his edit history). We may need the same treatment for this account as Ballastpointed: defend your points on the talk page in a style consistent with Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor and think Wikipedia admin should resolve the issue of whether or not SnowFire's removals should be restored, specifically the subject's denial of the allegations in the lead. Third party resolution needed. I am all for keeping this article current and reflective of slant but some moderation is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexVegaEsquire (talk • contribs)

Well, the edit war has resumed. I've made my one revert, but AlexVegaEsquire has put it back twice.

Note that it isn't just a dispute with me; AlexVegaEsquire has quarreled with other Wikipedia editors as well (example diff removing sourced (negative) material on fairly specious grounds), e.g. User:Baltimore free and User:Wikihunter6. (Which, granted, also seem to be newish SPA-ish accounts, but... willing to give some benefit of the doubt).

AlexVegaEsquire, for the content discussion about how relevant the subject's denials & explanations are, please edit Talk:Kevin Deutsch. Let's reserve this space for editor conduct. SnowFire (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• "His "15 year career in journalism" is not actually particularly notable and would likely be deleted as a stand-alone article..." — Well, let's test that theory, shall we? Carrite (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Now nominated for deletion HERE. Feel free to opine, one and all. Carrite (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive edits IPuser:24.190.40.112

Since 17 September 2017, 24.190.40.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Repeated disruptive edits every days (see user contribs log), including ununderstandable create inappropriate short articles from redirects[32][33], section branking, references removed[34], BLP violations, added unsourced content[35][36], adding strange grammar sentences (missing "[" or space, etc.)[37][38][39], and a disregard for Wikipedia guidelines. As warning from many other users [40][41][42][43] and editing blocked for 36 hours on 19 September is not worked, I think that it is necessary for editing block of six months or more. Inception2010 (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• As of 24 September 2017, This IP user still continues to do pointless edits (see user contribs log). I am disapointted that the editing block has not been done yet, dispite this IP user are Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Inception2010 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Inception2010: It should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marbe166: I know, but If I reported this IP user at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, then users says "It should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". I have experienced such a situation, so I reported this page. Inception2010 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

MfortyoneA

MfortyoneA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved Enclosure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Enclosure (legal) without consensus. It's since been moved back and a discussion is underway on the talk page. The problem is that MfortyoneA also changed every internal link to point to the new article title, which is now being CSD'd. Is there a way to get those edits batch reverted? Chris Troutman (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

@Chris troutman:--I am not very certain but as far as my knowledge goes there runs a certain bot to take care of these issues.Nope, it doesn't look like so! As of now,I have temp. removed the CSD for proper working of the links and prevent sudden deletion. Whoever decides to take a total look at here, shall evaluate the merits of the situation and shall revert the edits by MfortyoneA prior to deletion (if any) of the redirect.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

MfortyoneA's creation of redirects continues. Can an admin bring some sense to this situation? I don't think MfortyoneA has any intention of doing anything other than redirects and disambig, which seems problematic when it's pointless. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not just pointless but sometimes non-constructive, like this. A common noun in English, previously un-wikilinked, does not need to be linked to a dab page just because Wikipedia has an article about a specialised concept by the same name - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, after all. And even if it were, how would a link to a dab page help our readers? --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

enclosure ... A common noun in English .. yup, that's precisely my point. it seems crazy to me that this common noun has been used for such a specific meaning enclosure (legal) MfortyoneA (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I did this to illustrate how much enclosure doesn't mean enclosure (legal) to most people. if we get precise links, it's easier to get the right links. talk:enclosure (legal) , going through the previous exercise yielded the fact that enclosure had been mislinked. my mission here is to get enclosure renamed. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

'how do dabs and redirects help', emergence, discovery. does anyone claim to know every context in wikipedia themselves? someone else who knows more on a specific subject could come in later and re-target a redirect more accurately. the redirect can capture context. If those original cases (stonehenge's mention of enclosure for example) were more contextual, they'd be more likely to be caught. Isn't the fact that links can clarify jargon really nice? the hovercard feature??? you move the cursor over a term, and without needing to open it, it can clarify it for you with a popup. Isn't it great to leverage this more?MfortyoneA (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not do this ever again. Adding an emphasis to somebody else's post is a form of changing the meaning of that post - maybe it is what the original poster intended, maybe not, but the only relevant thing is that if the poster didn't choose to add emphasis, nobody else should either (certainly not without clearly stating that they have done so). Anyway, here's how I see it: Wikipedia has an article called Bridge. Does that mean that every time the phrase "bridging the gap" is used in another article, the reader automatically assumes that a physical bridge is meant, because there is a Wikipedia article about that meaning of the word? You just used the word "leverage" (which I have never seen outside extreme marketingspeak, but never mind that). Do you mean for me to assume that you are physically wielding an actual lever (since the top definition at Leverage is Mechanical advantage)? No, of course not, in both cases. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and we often use words in articles without any regard for the fact that there are homographs which have articles about them. A Wikipedia article title is not a definition of what the word in the title "means" for Wikipedia's purposes.

if I wrote leverage , i could indeed clarify it as leverage (marketingspeak) :) MfortyoneA (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

But this is actually not what we need to discuss here. Your post above reads as if you have been making these edits to make a point about the meaning of one particular word. You have also been making these edits rapidly, and restoring them when other people have reverted, even though you are aware that there is no consensus in favour of the changes. That's not how it is supposed to work: when you realise that there are different opinions you discuss the changes you want to make, you make your case on the relevant talk pages, and you do your best to get a consensus in favour of the changes. Making these large-scale changes, with new redirect pages, lots of new dab page entries etc is not collaborative, the way I see it. --bonadea contributions talk 16:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Too many tabs open - that edit did not add a link to a dab page, but it was nonetheless unnecessary and the rest of my comment applies. --bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Chris Troutman was criticising me for 'not knowing the content of an article', and actually going through this excercise of simply linking via the terms (making the terms more precise) yielded that the article was infact confusing. Isn't the point of wikipedia to be read by people who don't already know it, rather than for some clique to pat each other on the back about it. the article used to say enclosure was specific to the 18th century, then he basically calls me stupid for not knowing that it isn't. He's admitted the mistake and changed it to say 'middle ages'. Just Following the word , I discovered other historical uses that weren't. Surely this kind of error would be less likely to occur if the title was more accurate in the first place. The title is too vague. the point is EVEN WITHOUT domain knowledge, just clarifying and linking individual terms CAN increase the value of this resource. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MfortyoneA has, as noted, mostly been creating redirects, and disambiguation pages that are often only necessary because of the redirects. While redirects and disambiguation are an important part of Wikipedia, it appears that Mfortyone is cluttering up the encyclopedia and wasting editors' time. Does anyone else agree that a topic-ban on redirects would be in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Does google pay trolls to stop wikipedia from growing into a search index? .. is that why there's so much resistance to redirects and dabs? stranger things have happened, in recent times.. MfortyoneA (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If I were to answer yes to that question, then, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. As I said, redirects and disambiguation are an important part of Wikipedia, but they are only important when they facilitate use of the encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia is not supposed to be a search index. That was a useful reply in that it shows that the OP appears to be trying to make the encyclopedia into something that it is not. See What Wikipedia is not, but maybe that guideline needs another paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

ok so you don't deny it. a word like enclosure could be a user friendly search index, but then google would get nervous about a rival. That's the only rational explanation I have for the insane policy here. I see 11000 instances of that word. I wonder what proportion of them are *really* 'the legal process (in england) of combining smallholdings'. along the way there are subtle changes in context though. the more precise the links are (for every word), the more wikipedia can help self-correct, or teach us things we didn't know we wanted (like, until yesterday, I didn't even know this use of enclosure existed. I discovered it as tangent from looking into housing. You know our society is in deep trouble when people can get all snotty, preventing others from improving a lovely free resource of hypertext MfortyoneA (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATSOCIETALHYPERTEXTWRONGS. EEng 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Umm... MfortyoneA is currently making about three edits a minute, most of which appear to be changing redirects to enclosure (legal). Doesn't seem exactly like the most constructive thing with an open RM and ANI. Just... FYI. I also seem to be getting some terrible deja vu to this discussion... probably purely coincidentally happening two weeks before MFOA's current account was created. GMG^talk 12:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of that as well but couldn't find the discussion. Thank you for linking to it, GreenMeansGo. If nothing else, I think it is required reading to see what the discussions were before, and why so many people feel that overlinking and the overuse of redirects is a bad idea. --bonadea contributions talk 17:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna leave this here and suggest that we get a checkuser to look into it before this goes on any longer. Those are pretty exceptionally obscure articles to have such an overlap on for a user having exactly the same behavioral issues and nearly the same technobabble-esque responses. GMG^talk 17:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} GMG^talk 21:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Fmadd is  Stale and I see no reason to check for sleepers, so I'm declining CU. Sorry. Katie^talk 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser template deactivated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't frequent SPI, and didn't realize the data was stored for such a short period of time. I'm still personally convinced it's more likely than not, but I guess there's nothing we can do about it. I would note though the user continues to make on the order of several hundred edits per day related to these discussions, for whatever that's worth. GMG^talk 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a private way to submit some behavioral evidence without an account? I've noticed a couple very specific similarities that seem pretty damning to me. -96.2.70.251 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna ping GAB, who seems to be my go-to SPI expert. GMG^talk 00:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Acknowledged. GAB^gab 02:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There are many notable similarities:

• Large page/subject overlap, including some very obscure ones (as per EIA above)
• Similar types of edits per page (lots of linking - pick an article from the EIA)
• Same idiosyncrasies in their writing styles (check their talkpages)
• Non-use of edit summaries (check their X! tools)
• Near-exclusive focus on editing articles (also X! tools)

The behavioral evidence is pretty persuasive. GAB^gab 03:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So... what happens now? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Could the editor please curb further upwellings of going nuts with WP:POINTY mass edits, and discuss this kind of thing before horking out dozens of redirects to a disambiguation page? Fat trout at the least, please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• I suggest that MfortyoneA be advised by the community to not move pages without discussion except in cases where obvious things like capitalization is at stake. This should get across the message to them that anything potentially controversial needs to be discussed. This would not be a formal sanction, as things have not gotten to that level yet. If MfortyoneA can take this advice into consideration and not perform moves that could potentially be considered controversial without discussion, then we should be done here. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  The move was fine - the failure to promptly reverse it was not, although it is understandable given the relative inexperience of the editor. The cleanup of the resulting links is harmless if the move gets reversed, and helpful if it doesn't. There appears to be some overlinking, as well as some overdisambiguating, but unless the sockpuppetry charge is demonstrated (Endorse checkuser request BTW), nothing here merits a dragging to the dramaboards. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

But it is not just about moving pages without consensus, which is of course bad enough. A greater problem is the mass creation of redirect pages and dab pages, and the overlinking of common words in articles, based on personal preference despite a lack of consensus, or (worse) for WP:POINTy reasons. I believe it is beyond "some overlinking", simply because it is so time consuming to clean up these things. Oh, and because MfortyoneA has restored some of the instances of overlinking without any attempt at discussion except for their posts in this thread. --bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This user is now changing working blue links into red links[44]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

if there's a case where that's accidental , i'll fix it, there's one place I can remember where it's erroneous and I wasn't sure where it *should* point. The problem is, the enclosure article is about one specific historical/legal phenomenon, but many articles use the word enclosure where the context is clearly about something else (animal enclosures, walled enclosures, plastic enclosures etc). isn't a redlink better than a silently wrong blue link? MfortyoneA (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just stuck a message on this user's talk page concerning Highland Clearances. The message refers to changes relative to Enclosure which is, if I understand correctly, the subject of a move discussion. My note on the user talk page stands alone - but it seems it should be known within the wider context of this user's activity.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear on the activity on Highland Clearances, prior to the edit, the reader would be linked to Enclosure and Common land, after the edit the link is only to the renamed version of the former. Hence the protest about a hasty edit.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This editor appears to be on a one man campaign to reform Wikipedia. Many (though not all) of his edits are unnecessary, and he rarely explains them. Rwood128 (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Another pointless edit by User:MfortyoneA: [45]

User:Chris troutman, frequent edits like this are surely a problem [46]. However, User:MfortyoneA also is making positive contributions at times. What to do? He has been frequently offered helpful advice but ignores it. Rwood128 (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Disruptive, and mass edits Just looking at their last few edits, this is significant disruption to disambiguation. The computing edits are OK. We need an immediate stop to clear up. I just reverted [47] after the dab project post was clear there's work to cleanup. Widefox; talk 16:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

MfortyoneA please discuss your editing here. You're now engaged in an edit war when I'm trying to cleanup/revert your edits at Enclosure (disambiguation) [48]. Widefox; talk 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I did explain the rationale for that one example addition in the comment. One of the many mis-links to enclosure of common land that I found was from 2 articles about boeing aircraft, mentioning part of the aircraft that happened to be an enclosure. As you explained, 'the links there should be to things the user was reasonably looking for' - I take a mis-link as strong evidence that 'enclosure' can mean enclosure (engineering) (in turn, housing (engineering) which is how I got onto this whole topic in the first place). MfortyoneA (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

enclosure has been that way for 10 years .. given the large number of links to it, without someone championing the cause of a move it's just going to linger on, IMO. as there was no existing page enclosure (legal), and the first line of enclosure said "..is a legal process.." I figured that redirect was a safe intermediary (reasonable probability of being the final article name, and easy enough to redirect again if not). going through each one, linking to something that is definitely *not* ambiguous clarifies that it is no longer a mistake. check the discussion where I listed some of the examples of mis- links that I found. MfortyoneA (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:MfortyoneA you need to stop pushing all your edits and WP:LISTEN. The dab was tagged as a mess after your edits [49] and reported to the dab project. I saw that and started to go through the mess and decided a revert to last good version was best [50]. At this point your edit was contested (e.g. per WP:BRD) you should Discuss on the talk. Instead, you undid the cleanup [51]. This, together with the above doesn't convince me you won't stop trying to push and disrupt. This is WP:IDHT. Widefox; talk 17:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

if I did that it was a mistake. I only consciously returned one line enclosure (engineering) along with an explanation of that in the comment. Perhaps something went wrong in the way I went back through the history to copy that line.. that whole reversion is definitely not what I intended to do there. MfortyoneA (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems',Sanmina Corporation(engineering) are the articles that used to link to enclosure - as per your explanation of what a DAB page should include, I figured enclosure (engineering) was justified to be listed under enclosure (disambiguation). I didn't mean to revert the others. The contexts can be broad or vague, even within 'engineering'. think of a venn diagram, and narrowing it down. (hence the whole thing of enclosure (legal) to at least rule out these other meanings) MfortyoneA (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page has many editors saying all the same thing - slow down, stop disruption, can't understand edit, speedy delete/XfD, reckless page move, reckless primary topic change [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] and others, all in a five months. Your response seems to be you don't know why you did those edits, or they were a mistake, but whatever, you carry on! When will this stop? Widefox; talk 18:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... other's pleading to slow down, long lists of disambiguation link notices, complaints about how links to obvious terms are ambiguous. Don't forget about those. GMG^talk 18:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

• I have blocked the account as a sock of User:Fmadd. I spent the better part of an hour checking their contribs after reading GMG's note on my talk page, and their editing patters and behaviours are almost identical (this time with forks/enclosures instead of computer/physics terms). They were a huge waste of the projects time last time we had this song and dance, and there's no need for us to go through it again (as before, there are 360 new pages to deal with, 321 of which are redirects, most of which seem to be of little use). Primefac (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Rather than trying to tag all of their various page creations, admins can mass-delete them. Since it seems they were also mass-relinking to their new redirects I'm reluctant to do so as it would create a large number of redlinks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Many of their contributions are still current versions, so someone could mass rollback them and provide an appropriate edit summary. I'm willing to do it, but it's probably best for an admin to handle. There are roughly 1200 "current" version mainspace contributions and 101 new pages. – Nihlus (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  I'd also like to see the CU Katie refused to check for any sleeper accounts. MfortyoneA was particularly disruptive and I'd like to prevent a repeat performance in the future. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, "mass delete" allows us to mass-delete a user's new page contributions, but there is no "mass rollback" to automatically undo all of their rollback-able contributions. I was mistaken about this myself in the past, but as far as that goes admins don't have any better tool than repeatedly clicking the rollback button through their entire contrib history, which is a bit reckless. As for CheckUser,  Clerk declined,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. The case history is no less stale now than when Katie declined the check above, and as I understand it, CheckUser isn't much use when there's only one known non-stale account. It is precisely useless against accounts which haven't yet been created. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is indeed a mass rollback script. Thank [insert deity here] for Writ Keeper!.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ponyo, how about Sülde Tngri, for whom WK seems to have a special liking? Drmies (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Personally, I would have chosen with Xochiquetzal (or Lauren Duca), but I suppose we can go with Writ Keeper's equestrian war-man.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support CSD G5 mass cleanup. After a few hours cleanup, there's few good edits, but much disruption. Mass delete, rollback the rest. Editors in several venues are already investing time on borderline dictdef confusion, move request, XfD etc. Widefox; talk 20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

False accusations of incivility & vandalism

On Talk:Malta Convoys, my comments on an edit were called "incivil" by User:Keith-264, with whom (AFAI recall) I've had no previous contact. Following a content dispute, he demanded "discussion" of the contested edit, but refused to actually enter into any discussion, & when I rv'd (following his rv of the contested edit), he described it as vandalism. (I believe that also puts him in violation of 3RR...which, I confess, I may also be.) I don't appreciate abuse. I don't appreciate false accusations. I don't appreciate being held to a standard nobody else is actually being held to. I expect this complaint will produce just another excuse to air my past bad behavior, however, & provide yet another opportunity for people hostile to me to call for an indefinite block. At this point, I might welcome it. It beats harassment by User:Keith-264, & stalking by User:Andy Dingley, all hollow. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Trek has taken umbrage despite a considerable effort by several editors to accommodate his point of view over the last week. He has reverted good work by defining it as not relevant to the article, refused to heed contrary opinion by two editors and arbitrarily reverted it again tonight, yet again according to a personal view of the motives of others. A quick look at the talk page shows that I have made a considerable effort to seek consensus and am not the editor in a minority of one. Calling me a harasser is a bit rich.Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. Trekphiler, I don't know what your childish whining is about today, but either post some diffs or leave me out of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Both User:Trekphiler and User:Keith-264 have violated 3RR. Interactions between these two editors at Talk:Malta convoys have been strained for going on a week now. In this time, I have attempted to moderate discussion and provide a third opinion to try to keep things running smoothly and to find a consensus but this has become increasingly difficult. My most recent offer to continue stands but any prospect of success appears to be increasingly unlikely unless there is a significant change. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Civility war?. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

My error. There have been three reverts by each in less than 24 hrs (if I got the maths right), not "more than 3", so this is not a violation of 3RR. My apologies to all for my error. It is; however, nonetheless, a situation that requires admin intervention. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"considerable effort"? I've seen you whining about my attitude & calling me a vandal, but not a lot of discussion of the substantive issue--& agreeing discussion with me is "a waste of time".

"leave me out of it" Right after you stop inserting yourself into discussions that have nothing to do with you.

It seems to me Keith-264 has been hostile to my edits on the Malta Convoys page from the start & has been trying to provoke me into saying something genuinely incivil. I believe that's called "baiting", & I understood there was a penalty for that. Presumably it only applies if I do it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one making wholesale reverts without consensus, jumping to conclusions about motive or ignoring third party mediation.Keith-264 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you're claiming vandalism, incivility, & ownership, despite edits like this. Who's got a problem with ownership? And who, evidently, wants me to just shut up & go away? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Trekphiler, you brought this to ANI. As is well recognised, ANI isn't a place for content disputes. Now if you have a concrete ANI-relevant reason for a problem with some other editor(s)' behaviour, then say clearly what that is. Otherwise withdraw this ANI filing, because a fatuous ANI filing against others is not an acceptable use of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This has become disruptive at the subject talk page/article. There has (IMO) been a clear case of WP:GAMING, which I have reverted for this reason. Beyond this, I make no comment regarding culpability. However, if all of the allegations being made here are problematic to sort through, then, I believe it would be appropriate to at least take interim action to minimise further disruption. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

On the matter of an allegation of WP:GAMING, I rely on the edit summary for that particular edit in the first instance. On the nature of disruption beyond that, I have been silent - as to both what and by whom (singular or plural). Similarly, on the matter of interim action, I have also been silent on the nature of such action and against whom (singular or plural) such action should be directed. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"take interim action to minimise further disruption" I was right. You do just want to shut me up. Accusing me of vandalism for making an edit one editor disapproves of is okay, but any edit I make, even one that is allegedly acceptable to him, is "gaming the system"? So much for fair treatment. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

One other thing crosses my mind. Isn't an accusation of vandalism, when it's not a fairly clear example (& not just a dispute over content) a violation of AGF? (Oh, wait, I forgot--no, since I didn't do it...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

And after saying on the talk page he wouldn't oppose adding calibers, this, more evidence of WP:OWN issues. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

When you add repeated nonsense like this, "{{convert|15|in|mm|abbr=on}}-gunned battlecruiser" it's no surprise you're getting reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I did think it was reductio ad absurdum. When I reverted Treks second mass delete, I chose [[Help:Reverting|Reverting]] [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] or test edit because it seemed the most accurate description, given all that had passed since his first one. Pity trek didn't ask why instead of jumping to conclusions. It seems to me that Trek is defining the nature and purpose of the article in such narrow terms that he felt justified in cutting the lot rather than questioning it edit by edit. Since I don't agree with his definition of the article we are fundamentally at odds. That's why I've downed tools; I don't want a third day's work going down the Swannee. Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Tonmoypaul.71 pagemoves

Not too sure what's going on here, but Tonmoypaul.71 (talk · contribs) has been moving pages in long chains. It appears he is trying to move Datta High School to Dutt High School, but has created a whole mess in the process. Could someone clean it up? (note - before a few days ago, the article refered to the school as Datta, then some IP's changed it to Dutt - may be the same person) – Train2104 (t • c) 00:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The external links, when run through Google Translate, give "Datta High School" and not "Dutt High School". Google Maps shows a location for "Datta High School" but none for "Dutt High School", although it does show a "Dutta Girls High School". Current, the article is at "Dutt High School", but this appears to be incorrect. Someone who is proficient in the language should look this over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be "Datta" in English, but it would appear that it is known as "Dutt" in English. In languages that use Latin script <u> usually represents "ooh"-like sounds. Due to the fact that English orthography basically preserves the way English was pronounced 700 years ago or so, it also represents "aah"-like sounds, like the <u> in the previous name of Kolkata. It also appears that we may well have a young person writing about their own school, as often happens, so be gentle. Remember What the Thunder Said. (Admittedly I wrote about the main administration block at one of my (four) alma maters, and made it the top google hit for "Sydney's ugliest building" for some time.)--Shirt58 (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Tonmoypaul.71 has moved the page and Talk page yet again - this time to Dutt High School. (please note stop as part of title) - suggest article needs to be move protected to stop even more multiple moves - but after so many moves, by multiple editors, when does the music stop? - Arjayay (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I considered move protection, but it seems like overkill when there's only one person who's being disruptive. Tonmoypaul.71 blocked 31 hours and warned that further disruption won't be tolerated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerns about 8Dodo8's use of rollback

Earlier today I got a notification that my edit to remove deprecated image syntax was reverted by 8Dodo8. Upon looking further into who 8Dodo8 was - I discovered an unfortunate pattern of 8Dodo8 using the tool to give themselves an advantage in a content dispute on FC Steaua București. There seems to be a disagreement on what to use for the name of the football club between User:GrizzlyBear2002 and 8Dodo8 - both editors have been edit warring at the page.

Regardless of who's "right", using rollback on multiple occasions doesn't help settle the content dispute; let alone when coupled with an all-caps edit summary early on in the dispute.

In separate occurences, 8Dodo8 has used rollback to revert constructive edits that they disagree with.

Given the several occasions where the 8Dodo8 has misused the tool, I do not think the user is fit to retain access to rollback. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. User has already been informed of the purpose of it at Special:PermaLink/775775488#User:8Dodo8. I also don't see them using it for anti-vandalism efforts. Misuse of rollback is probably my biggest pet peeve, so I fully support removal for both the lack of need and misuse of the tool. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

1. I reverted your edit because all the big football clubs use the 190px or something like that for their club badges.

2. I used the rollback tool many times on the FC Steaua page because GrizzlyBear and multiple users are constantly vandalasing the page. The name of the club is Fotbal Club FCSB as seen in the source I provided, but Grizzly kept changing it. I also used it because many vandals change the content on the page, as there isa division betwen its supporters. I actually requested for the page to be indefinetely protected so we could avoid this issue.

If you guys animously consider that I used the tool in a right way, I will understand and you can remove it from my account.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is misuse of the rollback tool. Both of these are content disputes. WP:NOT VANDALISM. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  11:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I incorrectly considered the second issue as vandalism and I also thought the tool can be used for other thinkgs other than vandalism. I should have read the policies more carefully.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• 8Dodo8, are you aware of the policy now, and can you tell us if you'll abide by it? If you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you think you can use the tool and use it properly you might could keep it. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

FleetCommand and their harassment

Over the past couple of years, FleetCommand, has made it difficult for me to make contributions to Wikipedia. It has come to a point where he now wishes me dead!

Here is the one that really has gotten to me: 1 In this case they:

• called me "our most stupid editor"
• wrote "every time I read his name, it is bad news"
• said I "pulled stupid stunts"
• and stated "When he dies, I will certainly celebrate"

Other examples:

• 2 3 failed to state what I did wrong, reverted redirect, and did not address the ambiguous issue. Yes, the dab page wasn't perfect, but TV (software could refer to apps on TVs
• In this diff 4 he failed to assume good faith, and stated "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" and "his person doesn't know why we do things when we do them." as if WP:ABF and WP:OWN were rules to live by. All I did 5 was add an image. I did it through the Visual Editor, so I did not know that it caused a mobile issue.
• Next was the issue with Microsoft's branding 6 Initially he attacked me for finding sources for Outlook on the web was the name of two services, in fact MS changed their mind, but he blatantly reverted my edits multiple times without backing up his sources
• Previously this year he stated 7 I was "wrong in every dispute so far"

I was hoping s/he would accept that I make mistakes, but all is in good faith. I've been editing for awhile, but this person seems to think I'm a kindergartener editing Wikipedia for the first time. This has gone way too far. WikIan -(talk) 02:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the content dispute or editing competence, stating that When he dies, I will certainly celebrate is completely unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Agree with Blackmane, with the caveat that that particular part of the comment could be an extremely off-colour joke (that should nevertheless be blanked and possibly rev-delled). @FleetCommand: Did you mean that in sincerity? You should, at the very least, strike it -- almost any admin would readily block you for a remark like that, regardless of whether you were right about WikIan's content edits. As to whether you were right about their edits -- they appear to have a clean block log, so if you have tried to bring their "disruption" to the attention of the community before this point you should probably provide some evidence. If it's just your opinion, then you should shut up about it because accusations like that are not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• The Wikipedia community necessarily requires a collegial operating environment. This means that we should not be calling other editors stupid or hoping for their deaths, whether or not it was said in jest or in a moment of anger. Such comments should not even be made towards confirmed trolls or the truly disruptive. FleetCommand's comment is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia as a matter of policy. It should be removed per WP:NPA, among other policies. I do not believe a block is necessary based solely on that comment, but there may be other misconduct that I have not seen which indicate that a block is necessary to prevent further disruption to the editing environment. At the very least, FleetCommand should consider himself sternly warned that further such comments can and will result in a block. Pure NPA blocks (as opposed to ones for vandalism, NOTHERE, etc.) are rather rare in this day and age, but I can see one being issued in short order. As to whether further sanctions should lie, in my view this should be based on whether there is a pattern of disruption. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I have notified FleetCommand of this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment by the talk page holder, Codename Lisa: Hello, earthlings! I am away for one day, and you start a war on my talk page! Tch, tch! You naughty, naughty people. Has someone here been a baaaaaaaaaad boy? Joke aside, there is a lot of bad blood between FleetCommand and WikIan. Back in 2016, WikIan tried to merge Outlook.com and Outlook on the web articles into a new Outlook Mail article and had a clash with yours truly, Jeh, ViperSnake151, and FleetCommand. Ever since, I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor.

On this certain occasion, WikIan has made 61 edits involving renaming articles whose titles ended with "(software)", a direct violation of ArbCom ruling highlighted in MOS:STABILITY, a deviation from our naming scheme, a violation of WP:DAB on at least three accounts. After being in Wikipedia for 7 years, does he not know that disambiguation pages end with (disambiguaiton), not (software)? JE98 found it suspicious and tried to notify me. In reponse, WikIan said something that looks highly inaccurate to me, perhaps even dishonest. He more or less denied having done anything dramatic. The provocation theme comes to my mind. At worst, he is engaged in deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and harassment. At best, he is engaged in unintentional disruption rising from lack of competence.

Then again, feel free to dismiss all this as conspiracy theory. I think the solution is still the same: WikIan must accept that he has room for improvements (acres of it, actually) and he is late doing it by seven years. He can't just push everyone's button and come here crying that people whose buttons were pushed didn't treat him well. At one point, someone will come to the conclusion that it is him who must stop button-pushing.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Codename Lisa. So, FleetCommand's comment was completely out of line and should be stricken as a personal attack and they should be cautioned about civility and told to read over NPA again, and we should either sanction or sternly warn WikIan for their own misbehaviour? I am sorry, but I have very little patience for people who deliberately goad and provoke other editors, and then immediately play the victim once the other editors are pushed over the brink. @WikIan: is Codename Lisa's outline of the events leading up to the edit you link accurate? Specifically, can you disprove her feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the [other e]ditor? Under normal circumstances, per WP:AGF, I would not place the burden of defending yourself on you (it's FC and CL's responsibility to substantiate their own accusations), but technically in this case you came here asking for sanctions against someone who posted a comment that looks provoked, so you really can't expect the rest of us to simply assume your side of the story is completeky accurate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) By the way: The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports, one on FC which resulted in a two-way warning, and never been reported himself makes me somewhat inclined to believe Codename Lisa that this is a bellicose user trying to trick other users into getting into trouble. Two-way edit-warring that one party chooses to forum-shop to ANEW should send up red flags, and the fact that the edit linked by the OP shows an intent to report them on ANI makes me very much think this thread was opened in an attempt to get FC before FC got them. I'm sorry if I'm misreading something, but the more I look into this the more I think a BOOMERANG should be coming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Hijiri88: It is not just that. Please see this:

"2 3 failed to state what I did wrong". Well, that's outright dishonest. The following sentence seems not only a good-faith attempt to explain but also an accurate and conscise one:

Partial title matches and items without link are not allowed. If you don't want to read WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, at least read WP:DDD.

WikIan is insulted directly; I understand that. But that does not justify lying to us.

"but TV (software) could refer to apps on TVs". No! It could not. Everyone knows that parenthetical suffixes are for disambiguation only. Furthermore... (Sigh!) Oh, my! There is so much to explain. Yes, WikIan, please study WP:DAB and MOS:DAB, or at least WP:DDD.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw those too. I think WikIan wants us to interpret all of the previous, at-worst-slightly-uncivil, remarks in light of the later When he dies, I will certainly celebrate, when in reality WikIan has not seven diffs of FC harassing them but one diff of FC overreacting to WikIan harassing them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Whatever your view of the underlying content, "Oh, great. WikIan contributing more crap" is an extremely uncollegial way to approach editing and the first diff cited above is completely unacceptable. Per NPA, It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. @FleetCommand: I really hope you're going to refactor/strike those comments when you come back online. GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @GoldenRing: Indeed. Unacceptable is the word. I've already removed the whole "unacceptable" thread, so there is nothing for FC to do.

As for my view of the matter, we have two unacceptable things, neither of which justify the other. Both should be addressed for the good of Wikipedia. We must make it a point that we tolerate neither. I think it would be best for both editors to shake hands, one promising no future insults and the other promising a sincere attempt to improve self and learn from our veterans. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well said. GoldenRing (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. I think FC should apologize, but there's no tradition of forcing people to apologize for off-colour remarks that have already been blanked, unless they actively try to restore them. There is the problem, though, of WikIan's behaviour; I think if this thread gets closed as Offending comment has been blanked. Nothing more to be done. (read: implying the disruption was one-sided) that will just embolden them and encourage more disruption. That said, unless more evidence is forthcoming I'd say a strong warning, specifically a promise of a block next time they make another of the offending edits, might be enough. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am thinking a little beyond that. My role in this is what I must not neglect. (There was a reason all this happened in my talk page.) For now, I have disengaged from all Apple-related software articles and have removed them from my watchlist, except for two cases where my involvement was a matter of the elephant in the room. (I participated in one before noticing this dicussion. I also granted a template edit request; monitoring the aftermath in Apple Wallet is simply my responsibility.) Still, 14 less items in my watchlist should help WikIan see less of me and de-escalate matter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• First, I don't edit Wikipedia for a living. Yes, I make mistakes, but I do think my positive contributions have outweighed those. @FleetCommand: is the only user to specifically target my edits and either revert them or challenge them on a regular basis. CL and others have reverted edits (this is natural due to WP:BRD cycle), but not in a way that personally insults me or aggressively challenges all edits because they may do drastic changes. There is no guideline against drastic changes if they improve Wikipedia.

• Furthermore, I am not super involved as CL or FC are in Wikipedia's guideline or ArbCom rulings. Furthermore, I have taken CL's advice on many of my edits. I checked the backlinks to make sure the page moves didn't break anything. This is when I ran into a problem with the double redirects, which logically seemed to be solved with dab pages.
• I have had a feeling that WikiIan has been deliberately trying to do edits that provoke the auditor Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong (though not at the time) for the Outlook.com/OOTW debacle. I'll admit that was due to Microsoft not knowing themselves. And who, might I add, have the time to specifically target a single person unless they edit a lot? If I was targeting FC, I'd be all up in his watchlist and ONLY editing whatever he edits with vandalism.
• If you want to know my thought process this time around, I (as usual) was looking for Article Title Consistency according to WP:CRITERIA and also don't you guys realize we are violating WP:NPOV by favoring Apple with the "software" redirect?
• The fact that the OP has opened three ANEW reports I'm sorry... but now I'm a fault for reporting people? I'm pretty sure others have opened up reports for me too. Check the logs. For both WikIan and my old username. Whatever I bring to the Administrators attention is within Wikipedia guidelines. There is no fault in doing so. Also, isn't this an admin noticeboard? I'd like an admin to handle this actively as well.

• @Codename Lisa:, why do you think I haven't read WP:DDD? Shall we read it together?

1. Target link at start? Check. All of my links were at the start (except one, TV (software)). Whoops, but that doesn't that aside, TV (software) is obviously what someone would look for if they are researching apps for their TV. (read: ambiguous)
2. Keep descriptions short. Check.
3. Sections. Don't need.
4. Primary topic: well, TV (software) is incredibly ambiguous. Talk:TV_(Apple), see that discussion. I mean come on, seriously, this is just ambiguous. Yes, it was a change, but many of the other Apple articles used (Apple) parenthetical disambiguation. that user had to ruin it according to the talk page. Yeah? So what? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you WP:OWN Wikipedia. As also stated "Too many apps/services" is subjective Emir of Wikipedia, not me. CL and FC, your prejudice against me also opposes other editors.
5. Wiktionary and incoming links weren't needed, and I didn't think it needed cleanup. There were not multiple blue links, (there was one piped link), I didn't add an entry w/o a blue link or w/ a red link. I didn't include EVERY article containing the title.
6. I also didn't include any dictionary definition or external links.

• No! It could not. How so?
• implying the disruption was one-sided If you wish me off of Wikipedia I will leave. I don't want to go, but if you are turning this against me, I will. I haven't caused disruption, except to those editors who are just used to the way things haven't changed, even though they directly violate WP:NPOV, and then turn around and yell I'm violating WP:DDD

Good day to you all, WikIan -(talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @WikIan: You wrote: "Yea, why would I do this? I was wrong" Very well. Let's say I believe you, as Hanlon's razor says. But understand this:

1. It does not matter how you assess your level of activity; given your level of participation in Wikipedia, length of service, and the troubles in which you have been (mentioned above by yourself, I and Hijiri88), your knowledge and understanding of our rules, guidelines and practices is insufficient. Improve it. Pretexts save you once, not twice.
2. Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong. Make it you mission to find out why.

Feel free to ignore all I said or protest. Time is a cruel mistress. She will see to it that you will learn the hard way in due course.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Again, I'm not trying to "play dumb" here. If I were, I'd say that I didn't know WP:DDD existed. My interpretation of what I did (for the reasons above), though not perfect, is that it contributed in a positive way to those articles. Tell me, is Health (Apple) more ambiguous than Health (software)? If not, I'd like to know if that's what you are referring to in the case of Your recent changes in the Apple software area was wrong.

Again, looking at WP:DDD, which I did in the above list, I don't see what I did wrong, except not put a blue link at the start of the entry. JE98 said (paraphrasing here) "there were too many entries to list in the DAB page", which led me to believe I made a mistake. However, according to the guideline, you don't have to list every entry with that title. WikIan -(talk) 06:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Lesson one: Stay on topic. The topic of this thread is "harassment", you, and "FleetCommand". To begin your learning, drop me a note on my talk page. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the underlying (article title) content dispute, there are open move discussions at TV (Apple) and Wallet (software). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• I just had to remove an attack on FC by WI in this thread. FC's previous comment was completely unacceptable as well. Both of you cut out the personal attacks or you'll be blocked for a month (this is my go-to solution to feuds, and it has had some minor success in the past). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wait ... I agree with Floq that blanking that was a good idea, but ... well, look at it. The image has apparently been taken down, but did WikIan just admit to "recruiting" people (his real-world friends?) to harass FleetCommand off-wiki? That's way more serious than saying on-wiki "I wish he were dead". WikIan claimed on his talk page that he did not support or condone the posting of that stuff that he linked (whatever it was), but the fact that it disappeared at apparently the same time as Floq told him off indicates that either he was the one who posted it or he was in contact with them. It might be my own history with off-wiki harassment (which literally included posting images of me on a website similar to tinypics and linking them on-wiki) biasing me, but this certainly feels like the worst thing that has come up in this discussion so far. WikIan, Floq let you off very easy by not blocking you; most admins would not be as kind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Off-wiki harassment is a serious matter, because it can easily misfire at the wrong person. During the time that FA was pressuring me to bring FleetCommand out of retirement, I discovered that the user accounts of "FleetCommand" registered on @hotmail.com, @gmail.com, Wikia (it is "Fleet Command" with a space), SourceForge, GamesFAQ, GameSpot and a couple of other place (I've forgotten) do not belong to our FleetCommand. These people even have the same avatar because that certain avatar is originally distributed by Relic Entertainment. If the harasser is lucky, the person harassed is a high-ranking official of the United States Fleet Forces Command and he just laughs – unlike in the films, where he calls CIA black ops.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow. Okay. I think FleetCommand's statements make a bit more sense, even if they're still contrary to policy. I don't quite understand what WikIan posted, but the pivot away from the properly objectionable matter (the comment) to more grey policy questions gives me the impression of someone who grabbed hold of something in order to bring a tangentially related dispute to this forum. I'm not to the point where I think a boomerang is appropriate, but I'm definitely becoming less impressed with WikIan's participation in this thread as it drags on. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:, you seriously need to stop implying things. You're almost becoming like FC, assuming I did things for bad intentions. The image was a screenshot (privately linked) to a screenshot of what could be considered vandalism, so I removed it because it was in bad taste. As for what he assumed I did wrong, may I remind you all WP:BURO. If I believe my content contributes to Wikipedia, then I have the right to do so. What happens next is up to consensus, not one user targeting another. And to quote the topic of this thread is "harassment", specifically my case against FC's rude comments and request for multiple administrators consensus. Not Hijiri88's. Floq let you off very easy by not blocking you, if I posted vandalism or doxxing content to a publically accessible, non-removable website, this comment would make sense. But again... I did not do that. I simply screenshotted what I saw here on Wikipedia.

someone who grabbed hold of something in order to bring a tangentially related dispute to this forum Perhaps, I provided evidence of FC's aggressiveness to other users. It was in bad taste (screenshot of resulting vandalism), that's why its gone.WikIan -(talk) 22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

So... you admit that it was you who posted the image (whatever it was)? Have you engaged in any other off-wiki discussion of FleetCommand? Because you should know that, if this is a recurring problem as User:Codename Lisa implies, while it doesn't excuse "When he dies, I will certainly celebrate", it does mean that if FleetCommand gets a block or any other editing restriction out of this, your own will likely be harsher. I agree with User:Mendaliv that it still is not necessarily at that point. You could strike everything you've written here, apologize to FleetCommand, request that this thread be closed, and get back to building an encyclopedia. Or you could let the discussion drag out and see what happens. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: There you go again, implying I had contact outside of Wikipedia... I have not, that was a screenshot of something HERE on Wikipedia, and I don't even know who FC is. What you're saying is that I was doxxing him, and as I already said I didn't. Stop implying bad faith again. The recurring problem is that FC is targeting my edits and insulting me directly. If this community chooses to ban people who report offensive language to the people who can handle it, why should I want to be a part of this community? If this community chooses to follow its own guidelines, and punish inappropriate behavior, and disregard any prior bias, I will proudly remain an editor here. I'm not sure why your own will likely be harsher would ever become a reality. I have never EVER posted anything that is outside the scope of Wikipedia anywhere else. WikIan -(talk) 22:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You posted an image of some kind on an off-wiki forum, then linked it on-wiki, explicitly claiming that it had been posted by someone else (And, no, I did not create those entries/accounts. A bunch of people know about the borderline hounding) and that you condemned them for it (I support absolutely no harassment or vandalism of any kind. You were then forced to admit that you were the one who uploaded the image (whatever it was) onto tinypics when I pointed out that the image had disappeared as soon as Floq called you out for it. Forgive me if I am missing some key component of this that makes posting an image to tinypic.com -- with the apparent intention of attacking, demeaning, intimidating or otherwise harassing a member of the Wikipedia community -- not exactly what happened here, but you don't appear to be able or willing to deny that. You are instead focusing on attacking me with strawman arguments: I don't know what the content of the image was, nor have I "implied" that I do know, and I don't even know what "doxxing" is, so how I could have accused you of it is beyond me. If something about what I actually said (rather than what you think I "implied") was in some way inaccurate, please explain. Remember, I was entirely on your side here until Codename Lisa told her side of the story, so I'm definitely willing to change my mind if some aspect of my assessment of the situation is wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see Floquenbeam's comments below. If you are inclined to believe CL, I want you to know all that facts. While I respect s/he as a dutiful editor, as stated they br[ought] FleetCommand out of retirement and have interactions in an IM chat off-wiki not to mention CL and FC come in paris. CL is not in question here, as I have never been directly insulted multiple times by this person. WikIan -(talk) 04:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am so tired of people at ANI assuming they know what they hell they are talking about when they don't. I actually dealt with it yesterday, so don't need people suggesting things that should be done to address their imagined problems, but to prevent the inevitable question on my talk page: WikIan took a screenshot of on-wiki personal attacks on FleetCommand by other people over the course of several years, posted the screenshot to an image hosting service, and said he thought it was funny and evidence of how FleetCommand angers people. No off-wiki harassment, no recruiting others. Now, that was a real dick move. But not, IMHO, as bad as saying you'd be happy to see another editor dead (and, to be fair, it was done in partial retaliation for saying that). The image was removed by WikIan from the hosting service, I issued a warning, and we're done. As I said before, if this doesn't stop I suggest 1 month blocks for either editor at the next hint of personal attacks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I never assumed anything. I asked a question and WikIan's repeated dodging of said question and hurling nonsense accusations back at me was beginning to incline me to believe the worst. And collecting screenshots of people attacking him from over a multi-year period and posting them to an image-hosting site is still harassment, and it is technically off-site. The only real difference between that and what happened to me is that there was apparently no on-wiki outing involved (and I never said or even implied that there was). Everything I said still stands even now that I am no longer "assuming [I] know what the hell [I am] talking about when [I] don't", and WikIan's evasiveness (or, rather, deflectiveness) is just as disruptive whether the assumption I wasn't acutally making was right or wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, screw it. I have better things to do with my editing privileges than get blocked for expressing an opinion in a dispute I'm not even party to, and I've seen such things happen too much lately. Put more poetically, that's not the hill I want to die on. I guess I'm in for another month-long self-imposed ANI PBAN. If this dispute does continue any longer than it already has (and I agree with Floq that this should have already ended), the closer can feel free to either ignore everything I have said or read it and take it for what it's worth, but I would appreciate not being pinged anymore. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• More evidence back in 2015 FC called my edits "hostile", when in fact through consensus, the infobox stands closer to what originally was there, than the changes that FC made and reverted my "hostile" revert. WikIan -(talk) 05:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Diffs from two years ago are not generally actionable, and if you want to convince us that he was wrong to call your edits hostile, behaving in the very hostile fashion you have in this thread is not going to help. Calling a fish a fish is not a personal attack, and it's not harassment (unlike going back over someone's edits from years ago desperately looking for "dirt" on them). And even though this is not about your content disputes from two years ago -- yes, you were wrong to blankly revert an edit to reinsert bad changes as well as good, and claiming that consensus later decided that some or even most of your revert was good completely misses the point. You should learn the law of holes: if every piece of "evidence" you post makes your own actions look worse (in this case, you apparently don't understand that consensus retroactively deciding to reinstate a lot of your edit doesn't conflict with FC's saying that while a lot of your edit may be good, it reinstated bad material as well), then you should stop posting said evidence. And only about half of your edit related to the infobox anyway. On top of that, you reverted FC's edits with an edit summary that solely cited BRD, as though BRD was a blanket rationale for reverting any edit you don't like without explaining what you thought was so "bold" about the edits, when ironically you have been freely making large unilateral edits to that page consistently. And the talk page discussion has been pretty inactive ever since November 2015 when this "incident" occurred, so it seems very much like "consensus" means you waiting for FC to get tired of reverting you, then coming back and unilaterally reinstating your edits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

See above. The "not being pinged anymore" is in reference to WikIan's repeated/uninvited pinging of me further up the thread, in case it isn't clear. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Participation here is not compulsory. Please consider whether engaging further has any benefit before clicking save. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Communication problems with IkbenFrank

IkbenFrank (talk · contribs) seems to be one of those editors who doesn't seem to talk much. His talk page is full of unanswered complaints and he never uses edit summaries. I've had a go at getting through but it's fallen on deaf ears. I wonder if anyone else can succeed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope, have tried before, even left a final warning before I went into semi retirement but he just never listens or learns. Think it’s time we blocked him to be honest, most of his edits are non constructive as it is. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 - He has no interest in communicating or discussing and no amount of warnings will change that, Personally I'd support a 2 week block and if it carries on then the block would get longer and even indef if need be. –Davey2010^Talk 13:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This isn't just a communication problem but also WP:COMPETENCE, apparently. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Could Ritchie333 please explain what Ikbenfrank is meant to have done wrong? The guy's quiet but is he actually disruptive? I should mention I was canvassed by Ritchie because I reverted one of IkbenFrank's edits three years ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer as well. Yes he's not using edit summaries, but I'm not noticing anything in his edits that's disruptive. And there's nothing recent on his talk page to indicate there's a problem. If there is then no one has engaged with him. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can see complaints about unconstructive editing on Gloucestershire and Cheltenham, original research Rail Safety and Standards Board and Southern Railway strike (2016-2017), alleged hoaxes on Glastonbury, plus this earlier ANI thread. Individually, there's not a lot, but put it together and it all seems to boil down to him not discussing things during content disputes. Anyway, at least here provides him the ability to tell his side of the story. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'd not be neutral on this. And I'm not perfect and have made several errors dealing with user, including raising the aforementioned ANI thread. A typical problem issue might be revision 801553383 on Paddington (This is Paddington the area of London - the station has its own article) for example. Now within the context of the Paddington area article it may be (just) relevant to mention Paddington is the London railway terminus for Fishguard the and ferry to Rosslare (though there are no longer direct trains). However the actual edit made is over the top with regards to detail in my opinion; and the article will likely need to cleaned up sometime. Some edits by user are useful but the over-emphasis on e.g. railways can mean articles are in my opinion disproportionality railway orientated. Newtownforbes would be an example of a useful contribution. It feels like the user pops up every 2 to 4 weeks, does some minor edits that will be passable and does others that seem how far his pet interests can be pushed into articles; then lies low (I may be unfair in saying this). As a number of people revert his edits without warnings or have given up putting stuff on his talk page it tends to not have many current issues, or perhaps just one. There is a real risk he is relying on wikipedians assuming good faith and doing monthly edits to avoid recent warnings. As some may/should have noticed he has communicated with me on my talk page with regard to a previous issue following my reversion of a number of edits ... I don't really have an answer. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC). Please be aware that after becoming aware of Newtownforbes and mentioning it above I decided to work a little on the article .. initially because of tweaking some of IkbenFrank's content and restoring/reworking content deleted by Ritchie333 and subsequently to work on the Castleforbes demesne section. While somewhat serving as an example of how article improvement works I was not expecting to work on the Newtownforbes when I first mentioned it here and would not have given it as an example if I was expecting that, this being a slight distraction in this ANI section.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Extremely unfair you creep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs)

Not helpful IkbenFrank. Do you have anything constructive to add to this conversation instead of calling people names? Wikipedia is a community and if people raise questions about some of your edits you need to respond to them otherwise admins etc will only get one side of the story. Canterbury Tail talk 11:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for responding IkbenFrank (talk · contribs). I assume you are referring to my possible explanation of your pattern of timelines of contributions. I accept it is perfectly possible that you may simply allocate say one or two days a month to Wikipedia contributions. I think what people are finding is that you are making large proportion of (non-trivial) edits that are needing to be reverted or reworked. I think other contributors to this section would wish you to make more positive comments. For example I suggest a good start is to ensure you sign your talk page contributions with 4 tildes and as Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) has suggested ensure you use edit summaries - You can set an auto-reminder for those by : Perferences, Editting tab, Then checking: Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Responding positively in this way this will likely stand you in better stead with others. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

First day registered user Chrag Lay Fong removing content from 200 pages

• Chrag Lay Fong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Chrag Lay Fong user contributions show that they have removed Arabic/Xiao'erjing script from approximately 200 articles pertaining to Islam in China, mainly articles about Hui people who use this script. They have never provided a rational for doing so, and they never provided any edit summaries. Could an administrator mass-revert these edits or should there be a lengthy discussion first? - Takeaway (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not qualified to judge whether the edits in question were helpful or not, but because it was mass editing, without an apparent consensus, without explanation (not even an edit summary) and from a brand new editor, I have rolledback the edits that were accessible to rollback, and advised the editor to come to this discussion and explain why they made the edits, as wellas to ask where is the best place to go to get a consensus to make mass edits of that type. Any established editor who feels the edits were legitimate and should not have been rolled back may reinstate them without the need to check with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

While it would have been preferred to use a mass rollback tool that allows you to provide an edit summary, I agree that this should have been done. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I provided a rationale on the user's talk page. I don't generally use many automated or semi-automated tools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

These notices were given on 25 September. Since User:Chrag Lay Fong continued to remove Arabic script from more articles on 26 September, I have blocked them for 48 hours. They have never left a talk comment or an edit summary. The affected articles that I've checked all have some connection to Islamic people or culture so the presence of Arabic script has some logic. I have no objection if anyone wants to do a further rollback. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User:CCC24243 talking to themselves and creating disruption

Could someone please block this user indef per WP:NOTTHERE? It was created to participate at Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation to support an IP and create an illusion of consensus. They talk to each other and say that I must "chill out" and that the "discussion is settled", ignoting policy-based arguments. The only edit of this user outside of the talk page is in the article where the IP also edited. This is really becoming annoying, especially since I can not directly block them for disruption. The text of the article, which is in a highly contentious area, reflects a long-standing consensus which the IP is apparently unhappy with. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Alex Shih^Talk 12:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Glamping

There appears to be some edit warring, spamming, and COI concerns at Glamping. I think an admin should get involved because there is an WP:OUTING attempt in an edit summary that should probably be hidden. Deli nk (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary deleted, both SPA blocked for adding spam links. Alex Shih^Talk 13:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

What spam link did Outdoorsy (talk · contribs) add? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter: I may have blocked in haste, and I would gladly correct my mistake if this was an error. The concern was the insistence on having this link included 3 times while protesting here in edit summary that removing this link means removing those of competitors. This is not taking the posting of personal information (which is being continued at the current unblock request) into consideration. Alex Shih^Talk 13:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Outdoorsy did not add that link, it was added on 30 September 2016 by Mewasevasr (talk · contribs) [60] diff]. Are you claiming Mewasevasr is Outdoorsy? If OUTING is an issue, can you please show me the specific diff where Outdoorsy was advised of this policy? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Outdoorsy may not have been the original editor to add the link, but the behavior in restoring the link and otherwise strike me as pretty questionable. Also, I don't get why it's relevant to know whether Outdoorsy was notified of the outing policy. Ignorance of such a core policy doesn't excuse its violation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but it is in the Terms of Use: wmf:Terms of Use/en#4. Refraining from Certain_Activities under "Violating the Privacy of Others", which is presumably read before creating an account. Alex Shih^Talk 14:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And that's something you could certainly point to when warning him to desist. But we don't block every new user who breaks our interpretation of those rules, immediately and without warning or explaination, the very first time they break them. That's why we have warning messages. But right now Outdoorsy is blocked for "adding spam links" he didn't add, and for breaking the outing rule in a way that a perfectly reasonable and good faith person might well do. Right now no-one has advised him of that rule, of this discussion, or has addressed his unblock request. He erred, certainly, in identifying a user's affiliation publicly; you erred in reading a (complex, sure) diff list; and Deli nk erred in not informing him of this discussion. I don't see any evidence, after some time of asking, that this is in any way someone other than a good-faith user reverting spam, and on that basis I think he's been treated rather shabbily. With a warning about WP:OUTING, he should be unblocked. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

They certainly added the spam link - they may not have been the first user to add it to that article, but they restored a commercial link that had zero informational value, repeatedly, while proclaiming that it was "unfair" that it had been removed. (It is worth mentioning that links to that domain were added by a couple of different accounts to several different articles last September, in what was apparently an undetected spamming effort.) If the account is unblocked, the user needs to be given a strict warning against adding inappropriate links, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was just refspam of a business. Outdoorsy added a ref to an already referenced statement which merely linked the landing page of a glamping business. Generally speaking, it's rare that it's appropriate for a business landing page to be used as a reference, particularly where that landing page would violate the external link guidelines, as it would in this case (specifically WP:ELNO#EL14). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Mad about Indiegogo funding perks – misleading username

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

---

We have a single-purpose account, IngaSmith, who is apparently angry at the Indiegogo funding effort for Hardcore Henry, and angry at a certain Inga Smith who has managed the film's Indiegogo campaign. The Indiegogo campaign updates posted by the real Inga Smith say that she "sent out the bulk of signed BluRays" along with hats and posters. Our Wikipedia user named IngaSmith contradicts this by writing "In May 2017 Hardcore Henry producer's Inga Smith announced the shipment of some of the perks to the backers around the World, however after several months from that announcement, and years from the crowdfunding campaign, no backer yet has publicly confirmed to have received any of the awaited merchandise, not even the digital copy of the movie." The contradictory text is based on the unreliable reader comments section of the webpage.

To me, it appears that our registered IngaSmith is attacking the real Inga Smith. The username seems to have been chosen to falsely represent the real person. The real Inga Smith would not likely post a self-contradiction in this manner.

The SPA IngaSmith is joined in the edit warring by a sock or meatpuppet friend Panda1001. I think both accounts must be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Both blocked as attack account, impersonation, abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Fast work. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Presenttruth777

Presenttruth777 has been causing problems at the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist page despite warnings and explanations. She or he almost never edits anywhere else (see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account).

When other people have removed inappropriate things from this page, such as Special:Diff/792709793, she or he restores them, Special:Diff/798562646. This user added a section of unsourced text to this article a few days ago ([61]), which I removed, Special:Diff/801573336. That part was restored, Special:Diff/801581912, and I deleted it again, Special:Diff/801584847 and left a sourcing notice at the editor's talk page, Special:Diff/801584875. The editor then put it back with references to [62] and [63], but I removed them on WP:CIRC grounds, Special:Diff/801742471, because [64] is not reliable (it's just a memorial that was read at someone's funeral) and [65] is a doctrinal statement that depends on a Wikipedia article (or actually, two of them). After removing this text, I explained to Presenttruth777 why I had removed it, Special:Diff/801742774, but Presenttruth777 just put it back with more unreliable sources. I made one last revert and was once again undone, Special:Diff/801860080 and Special:Diff/801979677, and since Presenttruth777 keeps reverting me, I won't hit the undo button again and again and again. And Presenttruth777 responded to my removal explanation, Special:Diff/801841514, by saying "The sources are verified and well known within the Davidian community. Your arbitration judgment is unacceptable--STOP controlling our original article." It doesn't matter if these are well known within the Davidian community if they aren't WP:IRS, and WP:OWN it's not Presenttruth777's original article.

I don't know much about the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. I don't know if this text is accurate or not, and if it's referenced to a reliable source, I wouldn't touch it. I just know that it's not right to base Wikipedia articles on other Wikipedia articles or on unreliable sources like eulogies, so someone needs to stop this editor who just keeps adding unsourced or badly sourced information and thinks that I'm trying to control her or his own article. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I noted they were just reverted again at the page for adding materials from a primary and not secondary source. Of concern however is the comment on their talk page "STOP controlling our original article". Is this a joint account from the church itself? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Just want to note the continuing validity of the observation that editors with "truth" in their names almost invariably turn out to be a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I was actually just about to post a comment along a similar vein @Beyond My Ken:. Blackmane (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Great minds, and all that. Beyond "Truthy" Ken (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I do know a bit about this group and have some idea of what may be accurate and not accurate. I'll help sort it out. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS

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

---

has been repeatedly and inappropriately adding {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} to File:G'sPB expl2.jpg (see here and here) in an attempt to remedy my concern raised here (no license tag or statement of license → WP:CSD#F4 applies) all while making nonsense claims that are not based on existing copyright law. I'm referring this case to the community because this isn't something I want to battle over; I would just like to see it resolved amicably. Thanks, FASTILY 23:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like this is not an isolated incident. See also: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 September 26#File:G'sPB3.jpg -FASTILY 23:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• "I'm referring this case to the community because this isn't something I want to battle over; I would just like to see it resolved amicably." -- So you thought you'd come to ANI in an attempt not to battle over it and resolve it amicably? Cassianto^Talk 00:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Hopefully you won't prove me wrong :) -FASTILY 00:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fastily: You're pretty quick to jump to ANI, considering you've made no attempt to discuss this with me, and your labelling of my edit as "bogus" in your edit summary to your removal of a valid tag – rm bogus license, needs to be applied by the uploader to be legally binding - is not only rude but untrue. The tag in question:

{{cc-by-sa-3.0}}

does nothing more than note the status of the work, which I believe to be true. There is nothing in policy that requires that note to be added by the uploader, nor could there possibly be. That tag is not a licence. Contrast that with the commons licence {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} as can be seen on c:File:Birmingham New Main Line Canal 11.jpg where I specifically create a licence with the words "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:". Or with the licence at the top of my user page where I license all of my contributions. For someone who wants to see the issue resolved amicably, I have to say you've got off to a very poor start. This discussion belongs at Template talk:cc-by-sa-3.0 or at Village pump. It's disgraceful that an experienced editor like yourself takes an issue that you want to refer to the community to a noticeboard asking for administrator's action. Were you simply hoping one of your fellow admin chums was going to take your side against a mere peon like me? --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I see no issue here. The user uploaded the image, say it was their creation in an image information tags, and forgot to include a license tag. The image is a rendering, and its use seems consistent with a self-made image. Taking the uploader's statement that it is their own work at face value, then RexxS applying a reasonable free image tag is completely in line. The upload probably should confirm that was the license, but that's it. Far from an adminstrator issue, and more a lack of good faith on the OP here to assume RexxS was being disruptive. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masem. The uploader of File:G'sPB expl2.jpg is Giano. Giano did not specify a license tag at upload. RexxS added the Cc-by-sa-3.0 tag, claiming that was what Giano wanted. The problem I'm seeing is that RexxS cannot legally release a file on behalf of Giano without violating Giano's copyright. Of course, if Giano acknowledges that this is acceptable, then we can close this thread. -FASTILY 00:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Giano does not edit as often as he used to. And who can blame him when his work is treated like that. But what's the rush? Give him a few days to get back to Wikipedia, rather than setting a week's deadline for his work to be deleted. That's no way to treat content contributors. Seriously, what do you think he's going to say when you ask him if he licenses the files as CC-BY-SA? My position is that he also created a page, User:Giano/Exploding palazzo, with just the (unlicensed) images that he also created on it. When he clicked save, he licensed the content of that page as CC-BY-SA. OK, so I'm being inventive here, but my logic is sound, unless images are no longer content. --RexxS (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Who's rushing? It looks as if you are the only person who's rushing. If it's likely that Giano needs some time to fix this, then I don't see a big issue with leaving the discussions open for a month or two. That's regularly done if the involved editors think that an issue can be solved but that more time is needed to solve it. Giano's comment suggests that he is confused about what the problem is but that he can solve it if the problem simply is explained for him. However, your comments to the discussions create a wall of text and risk causing extra confusion. Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Stefan2: You tell me who's rushing. See for example, this version of File:G'sPB6.jpg (that you edited) with a great big box plastered across the top saying "Unless the copyright and licensing status is provided, the file will be deleted after Tuesday, 3 October 2017." I simply provided the status as I understood it to prevent the inappropriate deletion. I see no effort by anyone to open discussions, let alone keep them going for a month or two. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. --RexxS (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That "great big box" was added by User:Jon Kolbert, not by me.

I see no effort by anyone to open discussions If you check my contribution to that file, you will see that I added a box which links to a discussion about the file. In other words, a discussion about the file has been opened. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Would people please resist the must-be-fixed-now bureaucratic approach. Yes, copyright is important but it is obvious that Giano focuses on developing content rather than filling in forms, and a polite discussion when he has some time will see any problems fixed. Also, it would be desirable to find a procedure more likely to benefit the encyclopedia than adding sixteen proposed deletions to User talk:Giano in the last eight days. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• What John said. Fastily, my point above was that ANI is not the place to be thrashing this out. As RexxS mentions, you've made zero attempt to discuss this first and zero attempt to discuss this with the person at the heart of all this, Giano. Giano is not the type of person to go about and flirt with iffy copyright tags in order to see his images up in lights and I would ask you to AGF until you've investigated this fully. How about the numerous tags some idiot has plastered over his page, Banksy style, without a thought for WP:DTTR? Now, for heavens sake, can we please close this and get back to improving the encyclopaedia? Cassianto^Talk 06:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What Fastily did was to start a discussion about the file. You seem to claim that Fastily shouldn't have started a discussion about the file but instead discussed the file. That's just a different way of saying the same thing. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. RexxS should not add copyright notices to files created and uploaded by other editors. It should have been discussed on his talk page first though, even though (judging from the FfD discussions and the reply here) this would have been fruitless.
2. Giano was well aware of this issue before it was brought here, since he replied here on the 19th. He has been editing on the 21st and the 22nd as well. Fram (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Fram You don't get to tell me what edits I can or can't make. There is no policy or even guidance preventing an editor making a note of the copyright status of of a file anywhere. If you think otherwise, then let's see the policy you're relying on. As I demonstrated clearly above, the cc-by-sa-3.0 template does not constitute a licence, merely a notification. Clarifying the status of a file is improving the encyclopedia, and I intend to get back to doing that as soon as this charade is over.
2. Giano last edited on the 22 September, which is 5 days ago. The issue here was not raised until 26 September. Please see his talk page and retract your inaccurate characterisation of Giano. No doubt he was upset by the volume of unjustified deletion notifications bombing his talk page over the preceding week. Since he regularly takes breaks of 1, 2, or 3 weeks, there is every chance that he hasn't even seen the current crop of discourteous notifications - especially as the most recent three taken to FFD weren't even notified to his talk page. If I hadn't intervened, he would quite probably returned only to find that his hard work had been carelessly thrown away by folks who are not interested in improving the encyclopedia, but only in following bureaucratic procedures to the exclusion of all else. Anybody who cared about the work done by one of our finest content contributors would have left a note on his talk page, gently asking him to provide a licence for those images. When dealing with adults, it is generally understood that persuasion is far more productive than threats. --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Let's see Wikipedia:Copyrights, a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations": "Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf." You are not the copyright holder, so please indicate what prior permission you had to "license on their behalf", legally speaking. Giano had not released these, he released a page he created which had links to these files.
2. What "inaccurate characterisation". I indicated that he responded at the file deletion discussion on the 19th, and made further unrelated edits in the next few days. Fram (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. My position remains that I believe in good faith that when Giano saved a page consisting solely of those images, he agreed at that point that his contributions in that edit becomes licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, and I made it clear when I added the tag to the description page that was the basis of my edit.
2. You stated Giano was well aware of this issue before it was brought here ... and yet "this issue" concerns the files displayed on User:Giano/Exploding palazzo, all but one of which were nominated for deletion on 26 September, which led me to note the CC-BY-SA status on the same day. Given that he confused the sourcing and licensing in his comment on 19 September, Giano clearly is not aware of the issue here. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1. I don't think I have claimed or even implied that you acted in bad faith, and if I did I apologize. Acting in good faith doesn't mean that you can't unknowingly violate a policy. Fram (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that RexxS's argument that when an editor uploads a file and uses it on any page, then he licenses it, is very sound. There may be some twist of copyright law, at which I do not pretend to be an expert, that makes it not so, but it resonates with me. To me that says that RexxS had a good faith basis for what he was doing and this should be closed and there be further discussion as necessary on appropriate talk pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• For whatever it's worth, User:Fastily is absolutely correct here regarding the license. CCBYSA 3.0 is a legal document, and is not just the way to license free images. Even if the image was explicitly intended to be uploaded for unrestricted free use, there are many ways to do that, of which 3.0 is only one, and you can't agree to this on behalf of someone else unless you had something like power of attorney. If the image is deleted, it can always be restored, and all it would literally take is a comment from the uploader to the effect of "unless otherwise stated, I freely license all my image creations under license". But the CCBYSA 3.0 agreement under an edit summary refers to the contributions in that edit, and not to an image upload done as a separate material contribution. GMG^talk 13:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The thing is, if you look at Giano's past file contributions, they have uploaded works they created with CC-BY-3.0 [66] for example. RexxS seeing the missing tags, but all other factors being similar (self-claimed work, etc.) it is reasonably fair extrapolation to apply the missing CC-BY-3.0 tag here. Yes, Giano should be notified and asked to clarify and make sure it is correct, but there is zero need to chew RexxS's head off for taking a completely fair step to make sure contributions are kept under our tight image policy (requiring licenses to be listed). --MASEM (t) 13:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You mean "past file contributions" like File:Man in wig.jpg, uploaded as PD-Self and deleted as a Copyright violation in July 2017 amidst protests from Giano? Fram (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Technically a copyright violation, yes. But if that example (a joke image that the copyright holder was aware of) is a problem, we really need all editors to sign that they do not have a sense of humour before creating an account. We should not rip each other's heads off for not dotting every i in the licensing of our own files. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
        • As far as I can see, the reason for the claimed copyvio was not only that the part of the image taken from LHvU was not attributed, but that the other part of the image (it as some kind of mashup) was not attributed and of unknown origin, even after the FfD discussion. Fram (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
          • As far as I can see, the "protest from Giano" was a joke, and that FFD was (just like this discussion) a complete waste of precious bandwidth. —Kusma (t·c) 14:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean. If it seems stupid and nit picky... that's because copyright is stupid and nit picky. AGF applies to editors, but not to licenses, as much as life would be easier if it did. It really either is or it ain't, and this ain't. There's not much room there for reasonably fair extrapolations. That CC license means that the images are as likely as anything to end up in a book for sale, or someone's professional website. So the legal stuff needs to be right from the start. It's not often things boil down to right and wrong, but only one side here is on the correct side of copyright. But, like I said, have the uploader put some sort of blanket but explicit statement on their talk when they get back, and that should be enough for other's to apply it on their behalf, and to undelete anything that's been deleted. It isn't a crisis. It's just something broken that needs fixed.GMG^talk 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, copyright is important, we shouldn't guess, particularly when there is legitimate doubt that the "self-made" claim doesn't apply. I just think that given the situation before RexxS tagged the images, that putting the images in context of where they were, Giano's past contributions (clearly on classic architecture), and Giano's self-made claim (which we need to AGF for sure on), and that we do not allow users to upload non-free they have self-made (we expect you to contribute any work you make freely), this had to qualify for a free license, so tagging CC-BY-3.0 does zero harm. At worst, Giano may have wanted to put it as PD, but switching from CC-BY-3.0 to PD is not harmful at all (it relaxes the license that much more). It would be a problem if we were "under"-tagging the copyright, and that the uploaded wanted something more restrictive. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this is just something I'm used to from being on commons too much, but these types of discussions are not a matter of consensus. There is only one right answer, and every other answer is wrong, regardless of how many caveats it has. You can't enter into legal agreements on behalf of someone else. Whatever "but", "and", or "also" follows that is irrelevant. I'm not trying to be curt; it just really is that simple. (BTW I'm not really commenting on the interpersonal stuff, just the licensing issue.) GMG^talk 14:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You need to add "... on Wikipedia". There are all kinds of mechanisms for entering into legal agreements on behalf of someone else, but Wiki (rightly) does not allow their use. Anmccaff (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Anywhere, in the absence of something like power of attorney, articles of incorporation, etc., i.e. the explicit consent to allow others to consent on your behalf, or having that decision made legally in a court and legally given over to someone else as a guardian, or having little or no right to consent legally to begin with, such as small children. GMG^talk 14:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, those are several examples of common exceptions, yup, so why start it with "no?" You left out the two commonest, spousal action in common-property areas and a pattern of ratified consent. None of which, except for open, well known agency, mean anything to Wiki. Anmccaff (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

All of the above could be valid on-wiki, but would require an email to OTRS in order to document. I made a caveat for "something like power of attorney" far above, but obviously none of these really relevant to the current situation. GMG^talk 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect we are mostly ferociously agreeing here, but I think the point has to be made that TPTB on Wiki appear to want to keep away from the edge of what is straightforwardly legal. They'd rather lose a picture or two than waste money establishing the exact boundaries of usage rights, and they are rightly aware that their pockets are deep enough to make them a target. Kosher isn't enough; gotta be glatt kosher. Anyway, this is peripheral, your central point, that we have to be more careful with usage rights than we have been above, is absolutely correct. Anmccaff (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

In a case as with these images, losing them would not be a huge loss, but let's consider a hypothetical: a user comes along and provides us with a free photo of Kim Jong-un (a living figure we've been striving for one for a long time), stating it as their own work uploaded under their name and stating they are putting up as a free license image, and there's no question of the validity of being their own work or legitimacy of the image, but they forget to include the license tag, and for some personal reason, they do not edit for several months following that. Losing that image because of a missing license tag when all indicators show that we know they wanted a free license seems really really silly. Someone else tagging it with CC-BY-SA-3.0 is perhaps the best solution in this type of case as it assures the most rights retained with the image uploader (under their statement for a free license), and if they come back and really wanted, say, CC-BY-3.0 or even PD (giving away more rights), that license can be changed without harm. It's trying to recapture rights that is a problem, so tagging PD initially would be a problem. There needs to be some common sense here. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The correct course of action is to delete the image, and leave the user a note so that when they come back, they can indicate how they would like to license it. When they do, we can restore it, and use it accordingly. In the meantime, we aren't giving literally everyone in the world permission to reuse, modify, and even sell this image under a license we presumed the uploader had the intention of using. It's the off-wiki use that runs into problems, because these people are legally using the image based on a license that you or I weren't permitted to apply. Copyright isn't an on-wiki rule, and so it's not something we can IAR. GMG^talk 17:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

We can't make any assumptions of the uploader's intentions. {{GFDL-presumed}} on Commons is a speedy deletion template for a reason. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed.

Licensing statements are only valid if stated by the copyright holder (or by someone else who holds a valid power of attorney). We don't know what licence the uploader meant to choose or if the uploader even intended to violate WP:IUP#User-created images by uploading a user-created non-free file (which would then be deleted for violating WP:NFCC#6). I assume that the uploader meant to license the files, but we can't add any undisclosed licences to the file information pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Usually I would agree under no circumstances should editors add licences on that editors behalf ... however .... the source does clearly state and I quote "I (Giano (talk)) created this work entirely by myself." so all's one needs to do is go through Giano's uploads and then use the licence on the last own-uploaded image which is exactly what RexxS did - In all honestly RexxS used some initiative and as such should be thanked not dragged here , FWIW I would prefer Giano to use the licences because it avoids this really. –Davey2010^Talk 14:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I can see your point, even if I believe that Giano's saving of the page affirmed the copyright of its contents. I mean, if I created a page using the visual editor consisting of just an image that I had created and uploaded without a licence, why wouldn't my agreement to the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence when I saved apply to the image I had created? There's no "wikicode" in that scenario to act as a red herring, and the VE even offers to do an upload for you as you add an image. Nevertheless, I accept you may have a different opinion. For what it's worth, I now have a template at the top of my user page explicitly licensing all my contributions, and I hope I could persuade Giano to adopt something similar to avoid future unpleasantness. --RexxS (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(Which brings up a good point that if the Visual Editor is not prompting editors that upload images through it to add a license, free or not, that is a serious problem for any WMF project and the resolution on image use. License info must be added to any uploaded image and VE doesn't seem to be asking for this). --MASEM (t) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

RexxS It's... just different. The copyright of the image doesn't have anything to do with wiki. It is created when the image is created. You license the "creative contribution" (however small), of putting an image where there was none previously (on the page, not uploading on the wiki) when you click save. But that doesn't address the original copyright assumed to exist when the image began to exist.

So, for example, when I add a non-free image to a page, my creative contribution of "putting that image in that spot in particular" is licensed under CCBYSA 3, but that doesn't in any way transfer to the image, obviously, because it's a copyrighted image added under a claim of fair use. GMG^talk 14:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, so the issue seems to be that Giano is not correctly licencing images he uploads. The solution would seem to be a community imposed editing restriction on Giano, prohibiting him from uploading any images unless they are suitably licenced at the time of uploading. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's different when you put in a nonfree image, or quote text from a nonfree source. In that instance, you lack the authority to release that text under any license besides what the copyright holder wants. But when you upload your own images, or contribute text you wrote, you do have the authority to agree to the TOU, including that whatever you contribute is released under CC-BY-SA-3.0. If you have the right to do that, and you click save, you're agreeing to that. Nothing in that agreement says that only text contributed that way is affected. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No. You are exactly wrong. GMG^talk 18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong that editors do not have the authority to release material they don't hold the copyright to, or that they do have the right to release material they do hold the copyright to? And why? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I... really don't want to explain everything again. The licensing of the image requires an explicit license on the image, which is put there by the uploader because they are the ones who own the copyright to it. Explicitly non-free doesn't matter, because every image is presumed to be non-free unless it is appropriately licensed otherwise. Neither the TOU nor the edit summary disclaimer override that. Every piece of media is a separate creation that comes with its own implicit copyright applied in the moment of its creation. The creative contribution made by adding an image to a page, which is covered under the disclaimer, does not actually cover the image itself. Otherwise fair use would make no sense, because every fair use image is added in a contribution covered under the disclaimer. You cannot armchair license something by playing fast and loose with unrelated policies or assumed intentions. The uploader either did or did not explicitly give up their intellectual property rights to this piece of intellectual property in particular, full stop. GMG^talk 20:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of dragging this out, I simply disagree with some of your assumptions and assertions. The licensing of an image requires nothing more than the owner of the copyright agreeing a licence. Nothing needs to be on the image at all. Of course the image is a separate piece of creative work, in that it can be isolated from other elements such as text or other images and may be licensed differently. You say that a creator who makes an image and makes a page can't license both at the same time. I say they can. You bring in the "fair use" red-herring. The creator of a page can't license an image they don't own the copyright to, so fair use is not a consideration here. Just because an editor can't license someone else's copyrighted work, doesn't mean they can't license their own copyrighted work. Our disagreement is merely about the manner in which they may do that. An uploader who agrees to a CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence never gave up their intellectual property rights by that act; they simply allow others certain freedoms with their copyrighted work, and the copyright remains with them. I say Giano agreed the licence when he saved the page; you say he didn't. Fine - we disagree. But you've adduced no more policy or law to your argument than I have to mine. I don't believe either of us can be authoritative on the matter. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(When all you have is a hammer...) Whenever they get back, have them do something like this, and we're fine. If they don't then we delete the images. The only thing this needs is a close. They've uploaded a few hundred images, and a lot of them seem to be fine, unless I'm missing something. Everyone misses a step sometimes. I've done it plenty of times. Plus... that's not an editing restriction... everyone is required to properly license their uploads. GMG^talk 18:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mjroots: The issue is not really that Giano isn't licensing his uploads correctly. That looks like an honest mistake which probably can be fixed (provided that Giano responds), and we don't impose editing restrictions because someone makes an occasional mistake. The issue is that RexxS's contributions to the file information pages resulted in a long discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is completely ridiculous. I haven't a clue what I am supposed to do with all these stupid time-wasting forms. If I spend hours and hours making a 3D plan, and then say I am releasing it into the public domain, that should be good enough for anyone. Rather than mounting a barrage of criticism by mindless bureaucrats, simply rectifying an obvious shortcoming is the answer. Anyone who has ever glanced at the horrible plan (also my work) currently on one of Wikipedia's most viewed pages, Buckingham Palace would realize the importance of what I am trying to do here. When one has limited free time, a plan this size takes years to complete, and it is essential I can see on-screen what the finished produce will look like. However, I am frequently reminded why I have almost turned my back on this rule-bound project. Giano (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• We can probably button this up now. Giano has given the nod to using the 3.0 license on their talk page, which is all this really needed to begin with. We can all probably stop arguing over the details and maybe... go figure out exactly which barnstars to give them for uploading many higher quality images than probably most of us have managed to do ourselves. GMG^talk 10:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• There now, you can all relax, reduce your blood pressures and cease hyperventilating, I have plastered this: {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} all over as many images as I could find. Let's hope that suffices and none of you ever experience a really serious problem in your lives. Giano (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Giano: Thank you. As long as you have one license on all your images in the future (either {{PD-self}}, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, or any number of other appropriate licenses), you're good to go; the images that already had PD-self had no issues). This is a legal requirement, so there's little getting around it. We can't accept images that haven't been formally licensed without it constituting a copyright violation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Possible indef'd user editing anonymously

204.126.11.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be indef-blocked user Jack Gaines (talk · contribs) editing anonymously, as the IP is constantly changing genres on country music song articles, usually to "bro country", often with no source at all, dubious sourcing that is either patently unreliable or synthesis, or an edit summary of "look at the lyrics".

Sample edits by IP here: [67] [68] [69] can easily be compared to similar edits by Jack Gaines [70] [71]

Can I please get some eyes on this IP address, if not a block? Likewise, if you see "Bro country" in any infoboxes, nuke it on sight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. Blocked for 3 days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Presently 43 instances of "Bro country" in articles - put insource:"Bro+country" into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=0&ns0=1 - most look genuine, but easy enough to keep an eye on. --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: So far, the only inbounds are from the {{Country music}} template, and from linking valid instances of the term being used in context (e.g., quoting the phrase when a reviewer uses it). So long as it stays out of the genre field in the infobox. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

TIL that Bro country is actually a thing. Wow. Anyway, if there's usable sourcing that a song is in that genre, it sounds fine to say so in the article and (depending) in the infobox. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Constant vandalism on the page "Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017"

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

---

212.112.150.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please check this guy activity, he's been constantly vandalizing the page, I'm just reverting it but he never stops, please check the situation.

The page: Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 (check the edits) His IP address: 212.112.150.123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phospor (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

They seem to have stop editing for now, about two and half hours ago, but they really do need to be warned if they make unconstructive edits - they have had no warnings. I've left a first general caution as they have been edit warring. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking further back, I see RickinBaltimore blocked a very similar IP address on 16 August for block evasion by User:Carsten11.  Looks like a duck to me to me so I've blocked for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Think one slipped through the cracks

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

---

I believe a sysop should probably rev-del this revision, it appears to contain BLP violations and the "source" is completely unrelated. Home Lander (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Quite correct, and done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by User:Smitty Smitty

I am involved in a dispute at 2017 Presidents Cup. I started a thread on Talk:2017 Presidents Cup to discuss it with the other user (User:Smitty Smitty), and with this edit informed him of the discussion. Another user (User:Nigej) commented on the talk page, agreeing with me. Smitty Smitty reverted my edit. Nigej then reverted his edit, pointing to the talk page; Smitty Smitty reverted again. He has not once provided any reasoning for his edits. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I made the edits because the schedule is set. They just don't like the fact the golfers have yet to be decided for that day. They have provided no reason the edits shouldn't be made, they just don't like the fact I made the edits first.

We have provided what we feel is sufficient reasoning, and you have continued to be disruptive. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Smitty Smitty blocked 24 hours for edit warring, but, Phinumu, you're edit warring, too. It's good that you're trying to discuss this on the talk page, but you can't just indefinitely revert someone simply because they won't discuss their edits. Some people would say that you should be blocked for fairness, too, but I think your attempts to discuss the matter mitigate your edit warring enough for a warning. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of that possibility. I should've started the talk page discussion sooner, but I knew that I'd have backing from other users that are heavily involved in that article and similar articles. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked user using a doppelganger account

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

---

Blocked user AmyWeatherspoon63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be using her account at AmyWeatherspoon63 (doppelganger) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to create draft articles. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's because I love creating articles about fictional amusement parks and attractions. That's why I created Draft:Yellowstone Sky Seeker. Not to mention I'm Mothra's biggest fan. ----AmyWeatherspoon63's doppelganger (Talk to my main account) 01:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, good. You might have thought she was violating policy but no, she loves creating articles about fictional amusement parks and attractions. That's why she created Draft:Yellowstone Sky Seeker. Not to mention she's Mothra's biggest fan. And she's also obviously not a grody old man roleplaying as a braindead teenage girl. Nothing to see here, move along. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's give her a fictional Wikipedia to play with. Count Iblis (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• We don't allow the creation of alt accounts to evade a block. Sock blocked.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Danish Shakeel creation and recreation of articles

I can seem to look objectively at this issue, so I'm posting this here to essentially wash my hands of it. (Essentially, having put it up for two separate speedy deletions, I am assuming the topic isn't notable. With sources in other languages and a topic well outside of anything I know anything about, I'm wimping out and passing the buck.)

The user in question is a SPA apparently creating the same article multiple times under several variations of the title: [[Samad mir}}, Samad Mir, Kulyaat-e-Samad Mir and, for all I know, others. The articles seem to have been deleted for a variety of reasons: copyright violations, no assertion of notability, inadequate sources, etc. The version up for speedy right now is/was a copypaste from a blog.[72] While it has been somewhat rewritten (better English, some reduction of peacockery), at least some of the sources are clearly blogs. (I haven't checked the others.) I'm thinking a block is in order for the editor.

The other article, Danish Shakeel is clearly the user name. As it is gone, I don't know if it's autobiographical or somehow related to the other article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There's also some socking here: User talk:Danishshakeel17051999, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamdanishshakeel/Archive, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Add User:Shakeel513, another SPA, to that list. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming there is a connection to Moti Lal Saqi, the only article linking to Samad Mir, and the SPA who created it, User:Naveenraina. That article is also a copyvio, up for speedy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The deleted article at Danish Shakeel certainly appears to be an autobiographical vanity page, and was deleted twice by the same admin. The URL from which it was taken is currently offline, and that's a common pattern when vanity pages are deleted as copyvios, as a Wikipedia article is more prized by many than a personal website. Andrewa (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

IBM PC DOS, etc.

Involved articles: IBM PC DOS, TRS-80 character set, VGA connector, VGA-compatible text mode

Relevant diffs: [73], [74] (reversion of removal of redundant link and reversion of italicization of computer/video game title, respectively)

It seems as though I've fallen into a case of rules lawyering and "policy" enforcement from User:Deacon Vorbis. He has decided that he must (at all costs) revert my edits to articles that he personally dislikes (per WP:NOTBROKE)), even if it fixes punctuation or redundant linking. This really is quite passive-aggressive on his part; I've tried discussing the matter politely with him but he seems to think that whatever his thoughts on policy are are the final word and no other action by other editors are valid. As a long-time editor and administrator, this doesn't really sit well with me having my proper (not merely good faith) edits reverted by an editor with less than two years of editing experience. I'm not going to play games here and get sucked into WP:3RR and other childish editing games.

He also seems incapable of any non-"black-and-white" thinking on objective matters (such as Wikipedia guidelines (which are not rules or laws) governing this project. I suspect I stumbled into editing articles in his "pet" area (math and technology) and that he feels the need to invoke "Protecting the valor of Wikipedia at all costs", which is a wreckless sort of mindset; we're all supposed to be working together toward the common goal of making information avaiable to people on the internet worldwide, not working against each other.

Involved party (Deacon Vorbis) needs to re-evaluate his view of Wikipedia policy and not act rashly before reverting experienced non-vandal editors. Bumm13 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's a dispute, and a guideline says to do things one way, why not just follow the guideline? I don't understand why you're making a big deal of this. Instead of escalating this to ANI, you should have said, "Oh, so I don't have to waste my time changing links that aren't broken? That's good news. Thank you for pointing that out. Cheers." In fact, it's not too late for you to say that now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand: it's not okay to revert edits involving removing redundant links and italicization of video game titles (per the diffs posted above). Also, this has effectively prevented me from editing any articles until this issue is resolved. That isn't acceptable and is borderline harassment. Bumm13 (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, I was a bit overzealous on a couple of those reverts; I should only have reverted the parts I was objecting to. Let's gloss over whether my actions were "passive-aggressive" or whether or not I've actually "decided that I must (at all costs) revert your edits". I'll try to be brief here; I can go into more detail if anyone wants. I said it might be actually be helpful to escalate, but that first you should explain why your edits were okay. My view is that the gist of WP:NOTBROKEN is pretty much just, "If a link works, then don't screw with it without a good reason". But you didn't explain; you just tried to throw around the fact that you've been here longer (I guess?) and then went ahead and escalated here.

Guidelines make it helpful so that us poor, misguided, inexperienced editors can actually have some frame of reference when we see someone making changes like this. If you find it necessary to go against the guidelines on such a regular basis, then you can always modify the guidelines so it's clear for those without the vast accrued wisdom to see why it's okay.

Seeing as how this was barely discussed, I think it would be best for this matter to just be closed and let it try to sort itself out. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The matter can't be closed if you don't at least undo the part of your reversions to IBM PC DOS and TRS-80 character set involving my removal of redundant links and italicization of a video game title link, as those are legitimate edits regardless of our views on WP:NOTBROKEN and avoiding redirects. Bumm13 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's goodness sake. If you really want to make me do it, then fine; it's done. But if you're going to continue editing in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN, then you should really update the guideline. The rest of us aren't psychic, especially when you won't explain why you're doing it. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the merits of the edits for a moment, let's look at: "As a long-time editor and administrator, this doesn't really sit well with me having my proper (not merely good faith) edits reverted by an editor with less than two years of editing experience." Hmmm. That "doesn't really sit well" with me at all. Some folks could view that kind of statement as an attempt to "throw your weight around". I'm sure that's not the intention, but you might bear it in mind, nevertheless. I agree with NRP that there was no need to escalate this to this noticeboard. -- Begoon 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing in the OP's approach to this whole issue sits at all well. I know standards for granting adminship were pretty lax in 2005, but I didn't realise that they were that lax. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Talk:IBM PC DOS has not been edited since February 2017, and the last substantive comment made at that page was in July 2012. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• In the light of the behaviour shown in this whole dispute, including the ongoing failure to explain why the WP:NOTBROKE guideline shouldn't be followed in these cases, should Bumm13 continue to be an administrator? That editor has obviously displayed an inappropriate temperament for that role per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:CIR. This behaviour is akin to that of a D-list celebrity who says "do you know who I am?" when refused a table at a fully booked restaurant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Avaya1 disruptive editing

Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a subject of Arbitration Enforcement in the past with result: "Avaya1 now subject to 0RR on articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.", so initially I posted my complaint at WP:AE#Avaya1. Admin decided that the edits at issue are not in the WP:ARBPIA topic area and took no action, so I'm moving it here, with updates.

On 14 September 2017, a consensus was reached on Talk:Israel to remove an image from Israel article, with three in support, one neutral and no oppose.

1. 15 September 2017, I removed the image, citing talk page.
2. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
3. 18 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.
4. 26 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
5. 26 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.

First, Avaya1 cited a year-old consensus regarding the issue ignoring the new consensus. Then, on the talk page he stated that I am forcing the change and no one else supporting it, although clearly it's another user who initiated the request. Now he's telling lies there, that I implemented the change before the new consensus was reached.

Also, I added photo of IDF soldiers instead of photo of a beach, that Avaya1 added earlier this year to the military section of Israel:

1. 14 September 2017, I added appropriate photo with explanation.
2. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 removed it with summary "rmv aggressive img" (although this is perfectly non-controversial photo showing soldiers in the military section of the article) ...
3. 18 September 2017, ... and added back photo of a beach.
4. 18 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.
5. 26 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me citing "No consensus to include this img", although there's no consensus to include his image, either.
6. 26 September 2017, and then he added another photo without explaining.
7. 26 September 2017, which I reverted.

Overall, for a user, who's on Wikipedia for over 10 years with 20,000+ edits, Avaya1's behavior is very unprofessional and disruptive. He's often ignoring other editors, leaving no edit summaries, and making technically clumsy edits like a newbie. I went through some of his latest contributions:

In Kurds, he blatantly ignores other editor, like he did in Israel:

1. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 made series of edits
2. 20 September 2017, other user partly revert him, with summary: "restoring more recent cited figures to box"
3. 20 September 2017, Avaya1 perform full revert, with summary: "removed for some reason"

In Valerie Plame, he made 75 (!) edits in one day, most are without summaries. Look how insignificant the result is, and keep in mind that there's almost no changes by other users in-between:

1. 22 September 2017

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Triggerhippie4 has copy and pasted his arbitration request which yesterday was closed down as not actionable. I will copy and paste my comment on the matter from yesterday's arbitration request.

“ Triggerhippie4 ignored the only kind of consensus in the talkpage about the image, and removed the image. He has deleted the image and without yet gaining a new consensus at the time of his edits. The image was re-inserted according to and after we had got explicit consensus that is on the talkpage, which is within the 0RR restriction. The 0RR restriction states that there needs to be consensus for the revert- and there was. I'm not sure how Triggerhippie4's write-up about unrelated articles and edits on Valerie Plame or Kurds is relevant to the dispute, it appears more like border-line wikistalking. I used edit summaries for any notable edits on the Plame article, and likewise for the Kurds article. The image of Oz is included in the Israel article - again, only because it was according to the only consensus in the discussion page we yet have about it and because there is no new consensus yet. Also I am not sure how Oz (or the Kurds or Plame) is directly relevant to Israel-Palestine conflict. Avaya1 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC) ”

The full discussion was viewable here. Avaya1 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

IP disruption

The IP 2602:304:415C:4669:3C2A:160B:C0AD:17DA is being disruptive and reverting silly edits on my talk page when I delete them. He is also using 174.193.3.212 and 174.198.16.216. He is insulting my contributions because I warned and revered him. He saying he makes good edits on articles like Kiwifruit and Cousin when most of his contribs are reverted by other users. He keeps accusing for nothing, restoring removed comments and he has been warned by other users as well. I want to ask you admins to see what you can do to unearth this situation. Thanks and please ping when replying. Redgro (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Redgro, it would be good to have specific diffs as to where you think the IP is insulting my (your) contributions, and accusing of nothing.

But I see you have attempted discussion on the IP's talk page, and that this was the second warning they had received, the first being from a third party. I take it that you regard this sequence of edits as disruptive, and see that you reverted them in the next edit to that page.

I don't see any attempt to notify the IP of this discussion, and suggest you do that urgently, as it's a strict requirement when raising matters on this page. You might also note that this is not the place to bring any sort of content dispute. Andrewa (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I am the Apparently disruptive IP. The above party threatened reporting me so I took a look to see where the report was in case I needed to use the system myself someday. I have been editing and Wikipedia for a while (around 8 years) and choose to do so without creating a login mostly because I created a login a long time ago that I really liked and only used a few times before I lost the password.

My major contribution is to reorganize articles for readability and comprehension not necessarily to change the content. Sometimes it is very difficult for people trying to look for vandalism to go through my entire change as sometimes I forget to save it in multiple steps, make small grammatical mistakes that people revert the entire change for, do not annotate the change sufficiently on The Talk page, in the change notes.

Every once in awhile (when I start working on articles that are new for me) it occurs that people assume that because I am nameless and because of the scale that changes I am performing vandalism. Eventually it always works out as all parties see the value in my changes and are appreciative of them.

The party above seems to be insulted that I wrote on their talk page. Sometimes I can be a bit terse but I am never mean or cruel. Therefore, I conclude that the above party thinks that they have more rights than I do because they chose a screen name and the idea of a unnamed user correcting them on their talk page is what is offensive not what I said.

I do understand that it is preferred policy that people create logins, but assuming that they are lesser than you because they do not use one does not help produce better articles and I really liked that old username. :)

I only wrote in response to the above parties accusations to help clarify things and to educate them. As I feel the situation is already resolved favorably on my side. I will refrain from any further communication with the above party until another issue arises. Hopefully this causes you no more trouble.

I would recommend that the above party should gain some maturity. I have been offended many times by what people have done in Wikipedia sometimes it even made my gut wrench, but I realize that these opinions are my own and do not create better content by pursuing them. If someone removes 20 hours of work I just go back to the drawing board and find another alternative that appeals to more people. Wikipedia in this way has taught me humility. I believe the above party should learn the same.

As a note to you. Although the articles are more mature than when I started working with Wikipedia, it does seem that there are less and less people volunteering their hours to make changes occur and less and less people using the talk pages of the articles appropriately to make group decisions. As you know we desperately need more help and users like the one complaining above do a great disservice by discouraging people from helping.67.162.25.59 (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Single purpose account for mass adding articles by a number of PhD students for paid experiment on Wikipedia

Had already been warned.[75]. Continued. This is what they call science... (I know it does not belong here, but read the article, one author is at MIT, and the quality is laughable, just as the encyclopedic quality of many articles added here - which is why so many were deleted.) User_talk:Carolineneil#Single purpose account for experiment on Wikipedia: should be banned. Antimanipulator (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Antimanipulator: Carolineneil hasn't edited in three months, blocking here would be punitive - I'm interested how a new editor came across this though -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would assume they came across it by way of this paper which they linked on the user's talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"Blocks should encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". An account used by a group of PhD students with a poor understanding of encyclopedias (hence bad citations, lemmas) and no respect for rules on disclosure of paid contributions, single purpose accounts, and conflicts of interest should be banned. Antimanipulator (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The paper suggests that the project had the WMF's blessing (it credits Dario Taraborelli), so presumably the implications of what they were doing were considered... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Paper may suggest whatever it does, the project blatantly violates Wikipedia rules, and contributions were poor, hence many articles not even created: Draft:Conjugation in ultraviolet–visible spectrometry, Draft:Tethered Intramolecular (2+2) Reactions, Draft:Generation of Carbocationic Synthons, Draft:Use of pi,pi, CH-pi and pi-cation interactions in supramolecular assembly, Draft:Substrate Control: Asymmetric Induction By Molecular Framework in Cyclic Systems, Draft:Glucose Chain Shortening and Lengthening, Draft:Stock Sampling (Stock of Data), Draft:Reagent Control: Addition of Chiral Allylmetals to Achiral Aldehydes, Draft:Reagent control: chiral electrophiles, Draft:Heteroskedasticity and nonnormality in the binary response model with latent variable... - sorry, but who could even think that some of these are suitable lemmas for an encyclopedia? - and many nominated for deletion. One commenter could not have guessed better: "*Ultra specialized with little effort to contextualize. Reads like a essay from an student who is being forced to contribute to Wikipedia but the supposedly supervising faculty member has not bothered to read or understand policy and standards."[76] This account drew hundreds of administrator actions, reminders to choose adequate lemmas, discussions about deletion, reminders to improve poor referencing - to no avail, and they are academics!

I think a formal reprimand to the poor supervisors Neil Thompson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Sloan School of Management; MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), and Douglas Hanley, University of Pittsburgh, is in place.Antimanipulator (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide some additional context about WMF's involvement in this research. This is an independent study conducted by academic researchers, and is not endorsed or sponsored by the WMF. It is also not a formal collaboration with WMF or with Wikimedia Research, subject to WMF's collaboration policy. As a general rule, the Foundation is not in a position to "approve" or "decline" individual research proposals, unless there are security or legal reasons to escalate them. Editorial decisions about content, in particular, are not an area the Foundation has any say about. The authors reached out at the time of the proposal to ask about best practices to follow in setting up the proposal and two WMF staffers ([[User:Halfak (WMF)|Aaron Halfaker and I) advised them on discussing and documenting it in the appropriate spaces. We have been offering this support on a volunteer basis for a few years, and on an ad hoc basis, to help researchers follow best practices around participant recruitment and understanding community norms and expectations. As for outreach initiatives involving students and professors creating or expanding Wikipedia articles, which some comments in this thread brought up, you can read more about Wikipedia:Education program if you're not already familiar with the program. --Dario (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the account as that of an undisclosed paid editor. As all edits from the account were paid, this is preventative in the sense that it prevents future paid edits before such a disclosure is made. (And as a side note, the quality of research here is downright awful.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

And as a side note, the quality of research here is downright awful Honestly, I think that's an insult to the word "awful". According to their introduction, they checked scientific papers from 1995-2001 (in addition to later papers, but still) to see if those articles stole text from Wikipedia... AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY DID!!! My guess is that you won't see this work showing up in Nature anytime soon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they have time travel. It's MIT, after all. EEng 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Time travel, robotics and artificial intelligence? We may have to take them out before they cause the singularity, though I'd be wary of any bikers with Austrian accents we encounter on the way to do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Is a mass delete of the articles in order? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just getting my head around this, but who is alleged to have paid the editor to create the articles? - Bilby (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The authors of this paper. Who shall forever be known as the creators of possibly the worst experimental structure I have ever encountered in my entire life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, these are in no way promotional, right? The editor was simply paid to contribute a number of science articles? I'm seeing some sort of need for disclosure, but I'm having a hard time seeing justification for a mass deletion of non-promotional and supposedly accurate articles on scientific topics. And yes, it looks like an oddly formed methodology to me as well. - Bilby (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• 2 cents: I see junk like this all the time from students. I can see the temptation for teachers and professors to have students do a Wikipedia article(s) as an assignment (got to admit it's good practice), but all the results I have ever seen have been uniformly bad, and I've never seen anything good come from a homework assignment. I am strongly opposed to homework assignments getting anywhere near being posted on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• This was raised in the past, but ignored: Concerns about the user were raised twice at ANI- here and here- so before blaming any potential WMF involvement, we should probably look at why the case of this editor was raised here, and just ignored. This line from Robert McClenon was particularly prescient: "either she is a human, but isn't trying to pretend to be either a human or a bot, or it is a bot, and isn't trying to act like a human. At this point, I recommend a block, in order to get the author to make an unblock request". jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Bizarre. As is noted, I thought that there was something peculiar about the account in June. Am I to understand that the conclusion is that the account was conducting an experiment involving Wikipedia? We don't have a policy that explicitly prohibits conducting experiments with Wikipedia; maybe we should, because such accounts are not here to improve the encyclopedia as a collection of knowledge even if they do improve overall human knowledge about encyclopedias. I will add that, when I understood the articles, which I usually did, they appeared to be good science, but they needed improvement, in particular in the addition of links to other articles, and I repeatedly tried to request that the drafts be improved. If my understanding is correct, the account should be blocked (as it is), but for the subtle reason that they aren't here to improve the encyclopedia but to experiment on the authors of the encyclopedia. So I think that I was right in expressing puzzlement about behavior that didn't seem exactly either human or robotic, but something in between. Am I understanding correctly? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As to why the concerns were raised and not acted on further, I think that is clear, that it is because the behavior didn't fall into any of the known types of bad behavior. For instance, even if the author (if there was a single human author) was being paid, it wasn't paid editing in the usual sense, which means paid editing for promotional purposes. (One type of "paid editing", which is editing by a professor about their field of knowledge, is good. It is promotional paid editing that is bad, and this wasn't promotional paid editing.) This really was a sufficiently strange type of misconduct that there is no way we could have expected to recognize it immediately. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not directly promoting their supervisors but indirectly through producing results that they use to promote their career. Paid editing is always bad because it makes the editors edit for reasons other than providing knowledge. In this case, the students just wanted to get a job done and did so by chosing ridiculous lemmas and not caring for proper citations or relating theirs to existing articles. Antimanipulator (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• The single purpose account here is Antimanipulator – an account created just today to complain about this and which doesn't seem to have created any articles at all. Why are we punishing the content creator in this case? Do we really prefer having complaints at ANI rather than articles about advanced chemistry? Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is criticizing User:Antimanipulator. At least, they shouldn't be. They should be thanked for reporting this again. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I just clean up the mess left over by the misguided PhD students. Have you looked at those articles? It caused a lot of work to many administrators and other users, and they never even bothered to properly cite. I can only write again, their supervisors and their institutions' ethics comittees should be informed about this. (Also about the fact that they only report the positive results in their summary and that they suppress information on how most of their articles were not even accepted here for poor quality). Antimanipulator (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree that their supervisors and their institutions' ethics committees should be informed about this. If it is thought that students need to become familiar with how to edit a wiki, MIT can install one on one of its own servers – rather than allow and invite its students to cause disruption on WP. MIT would probably blow-its- top if another educational institution was found to be experimented on MIT servers. The MIT governors should be able to quickly acknowledge that this behavior has brought MIT into disrepute in the cyberworld. Especially as it was by young hopeful PhD's guided buy a MIT employee. Aspro (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro:, @Robert McClenon:, @BU Rob13:: this was led by two young professors who write they use articles of the publisher Elsevier. The article Mesembrine that was largely written by the PhD students has nearly only Elsevier citations. I am trying to check if this is a pattern. If so, this is a much more disturbing case than I already thought initially. Antimanipulator (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hell, I think their frikkan parents should be informed of this. My 4 year old could structure a better experiment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Think we ought to have a 48 hour hold on this before going further. It will allow other editors to get up to speed. Something is amiss alright but this needs more eyes because there maybe a third and unseen party at play and trying to pull our strings. Aspro (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments

User:Legacypac was warned multiple times about altering other editors' talk page comments. Some recent examples: altering a discussion after it's been closed; silently removing another editor's comment; altering another editor's comment under the guise of fixing an incorrect link; removing their own username from a complaint against them; "accidentally" removing (and then restoring) another editor's complaint of altering records; these are just from the last two weeks that I've been able to easily find in Legacypac's contribution history. When someone pointed out Legacypac has a very long history of altering and deleting other people's comments, Legacypac deleted their comment... Since Legacypac was sufficiently warned by admins (and non-admins) about this behavior, I think it's time to block them. Bright☀ 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• No comment on the rest of it, but ""accidentally" removing (and then restoring) another editor's complaint of altering records" is pretty obviously a fuck-up given that the next diff, no more than a minute later, is to undo himself literally with the comment "wrong button". If he was actually trying to remove Taku's comment I feel like he would have, you know, not done that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• What a dismal collection of links! September 14, 16, 15, 12, 16, 24 and March 13. The last (the warning by an admin) was for striking out a comment by a now-indeffed sock and is of a totally different nature to the others. The first link shows Legacypac tweaking a comment they had written 20 minutes earlier—I'm not sure what that is showing. Is anyone suggesting the second diff was not highly desirable (it removes a link to an article added by an inexperienced editor)? The third shows Legacypac removing Legacypac's name from an ANI section heading, two weeks ago. Perhaps not the wisest, but defensible and not a big deal. The Sep 12 edit was to remove a pointy and pointless remark (very close to a personal attack) directed at Legacypac. See immediate revert "wrong button". Now we're up to the Sep 24 edit, and that shows what this is about. BrightR does not like the fact that Legacypac removed a pointy and pointless comment from, gasp, BrightR's talk. Would people asking for sanctions at ANI please not hide the underlying issue. There was no edit warring, and asking for a block is ridiculous. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• I believe that such a deceitful posting by the OP, at ANI no less, deserves some response from the community to indicate how we feel about such behaviour? -Roxy the dog. bark 11:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not only that, perhaps it is also time to take a look at User:DocumentError, who posted that comment to BrightR's page. In 2016, DocumentError edited for one day: in 2017, they edited one day (four edits to Trump), and then suddenly they reappeared on the Arthur Rubin Arbcom case to where they have now edited 28 times (give or take a few), starting with "evidence" defending Arthur Rubin about actions against... Legacypac[77]. This seems all to be retaliation for an ANI discussion in early 2015[78] started by legacyPac, about DocumentError, whih resulted in a block for DocumentError (first 36 hours, soon after an indefinite block). It seems that since then, he has avoided enwiki until now, when he has the chance to take revenge upon Legacypac.
  • I now notice that his unblock (five months after he was indef blocked) was with restrictions, including an interaction ban with Legacypac[79]. If this interaction ban is still valid, then the Arbcom edits and the edit we are discussing here are rather exteme breaches of this and it may be best if we simply re-indef this user. @PBS: as the admin who blocked and unblocked. Fram (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Fram this edit and the links that branch out from it explain the situation. The indefinite block was only to force DocumentError to say if he would keep to a voluntary agreement or not. By the time DocumentError had finished procrastinating and playing the "unfairly done by", so much time had passed that there was no need to renew the restriction that were meant to be voluntary. What stayed in place was the ban I placed on DocumentError Legacypac from mentioning each others behaviour before 13 January 2015 (see ANI § Harassment). This was put in place to stop ANIs degenerating into an historical blame game instead of concentrating on current behaviour. If there is continuing trouble over their interaction then I would support an interaction ban. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Legacypac's behaviour the edit by DocumentError linked at the top of this section, given Legacypac and DocumentError interaction less than helpful.-- PBS (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks. So they have a voluntary interaction ban, installed on 13 January 2015; they never accepted the interaction ban, have been unblocked by User:PhilKnight in June 2015 anyway, and DocumentError asked for a reblock on themselves in August 2015[80]. The current situation of the editing restriction was never made clear apparently. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
        • One other section on the original previous proposed voluntary iban conversation that I did not include above (because the link was broken due to archiving) is: § In ref to the ANI, it took place on my talk page on 13 January 2015. I gave DocumentError a further 24 hours to say yea or nay to the voluntary ban. When DocumentError error did not respond I blocked the account initially indefinitely (then adjusted until the end of the proposed six month voluntary iban period). -- PBS (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not think this ANI post is deceitful, and Legacypac was indeed completely in the wrong removing someone's criticism of him from the OP's talkpage. He also needs to completely stop removing usernames from ANI threads, regardless of what some users think about that; it's a practice that is not going to go away because of a single poll, and it increases the utility of the board. The "silently removing another editor's comment" seems to be a standard ANI edit conflict that happens often. This removal of another user's comment should be regarded as accidental since he reverted less than one minute later, and said it was accidental. My recommendation would be a final warning to Legacypac about altering others' posts or talkpage headers, with a block to ensue if it happens again. The warning 1.5 years ago was arguably too distant. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see this report as timely or actionable, mostly per Johnuniq. I also agree with Fram that DocumentError needs some looking at to determine if their edits have violated their restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Few weeks ago it was Beyond My Ken on the chopping block and this week it's now LegacyPac .... Wonder who'll be dragged here next week!, Anyway the only thing I see troubling is this diff (That comment shouldn't of been removed) and this diff (Why would you remove your name I don't get that? ... ) but other than those 2 I don't see any troubling behaviour - The nominator should've discussed this all with LP first!, Anyway as per Johnuniq this should be closed as non-actionable ... boomerang's pushing it isn't it? ... –Davey2010^Talk 13:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Davey2010 thanks for your comments. Diff #1 is an obvious accident I was unaware off until now. Maybe I saved a page again that User:TonyBallioni had both just edited? Anyway, purely accidental and I've restored it, though the discussion is over. Diff #2 is removing my name from an ANi thread header against me that failed [81] per [82] Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I noticed it at the time but it didn't bother me enough to restore it or even mention it to Legacypac. I just assumed he accidentally removed it during an edit conflict. In the lead up to the ACTRIAL rollout there was a lot of activity going on in a bunch of places, and I think this happened a few times with multiple editors. I have no reason to think Legacypac was trying to remove anything I said, and if that diff is being discussed here, as the other "party" I'd urge it be disregarded. I hadn't even remembered it until I was pinged. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah sorry I obviously didn't realise it was accidental - There may of well been a valid reason and you could've just forgot to include in the edit summary (I've done this multiple times as wasn't trying to assume bad faith), As for Diff 2 although it failed I still personally don't think it should've been removed - My name's been dragged here more than once but I've never thought about removing my name but we're all different and although I perhaps object I don't think it's worth bringing you (or anyone) here over it,

• Well as LP has kindly explained their reasoning here I now find nothing troubling (Diff 2 I somewhat object with but this can be discussed), Bright should be topic banned from making any sort of ANI complaint because so far they've all seemingly failed. –Davey2010^Talk 17:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• A formal warning seems appropriate. Specifically, a warning that Legacypac may not remove or alter comments made by other editors in any way on a page other than their own user talk. Fixing typos/wikilinks made by other editors is not desirable, per WP:TPO. The real problem is the removal of comments criticizing them or that they don't like, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the real problem is an editor who has an interaction ban with Legacypac (as a condition to get an indef block lifted) who stalks Legacypac and violates his interaction ban with impunity. The only reason I haven't indef blocked them yet is because I first want to hear from PBS whether the sanction is still in place (I haven't found an indication otherwise though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• As one who has previously been in @Legacypac:'s camp, I'll make the statement abundantly clear: Because of previous questionable actions, do not under any circumstances edit or modify another editor's talk page efforts. An exception is given for properly archiving stale threads, but no others. If you don't make mistakes and people still chase infractions, then they're vexatious litigants, and we know exactly what to do with them. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment User:BrightR I really really do not want to have to start to look back the interaction between yourself and Legacypac to see why good Wikipedian that you are you would need to make a citizens arrest like this. So can you briefly explain the history of your interaction that has motivated you to bring this ANI? -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: noted above; I asked Legacypac not to edit other editors' comments (after he edited mine); he responded he doesn't know what I'm talking about. Another editor (who I now found out has an interaction ban with Legacypac) commented on my talk page about it, and Legacypac deleted their comment. I asked the admin who gave Legacypac the warning to act on it, but they couldn't since they're in a content dispute with Legacypac, and they suggested coming to AN/I. Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: The nominator should've discussed this all with LP first! You mean like this and this? Since AN/I is the place for long-standing behavior issues I find that the suggestion to take it to WP:AN was correct. Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment User:BrightR As I do not know the circumstances of most of the edits above I will not comment on them. But there is one I will is altering a discussion after it's been closed. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines although not strictly applicable to ANIs most of the guidance is still useful. See the bullet points in the section WP:TPO "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate,...". See also the section WP:TALKNEW "Keep headings neutral" and the phrase in that "Don't address other users in a heading:" Just as the heading that Legacypac edited failed that guidance, so does the current text of this section "User:Legacypac altering, striking out, and deleting other editors' talk page comments". The major reason for this is explained in the sentence "As edit summaries and edit histories..." -- PBS (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal... Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators... Bright☀ 20:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because others do it does not make it good practice. Why not make you section headers for ANI reports neutral? Why object when someone else who change a header to be less biased? -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see anything presently actionable here. Replacing one's name in an ANI subheader with an acceptably specific pointer isn't sanctionable conduct IMO unless it's deliberately disruptive, or someone is under an explicit ban from doing so; do we want to enact such a ban for Legacypac? Further, removing comments from one's own talkpage is explicitly allowed per WP:OWNTALK. As for DocumentError, as PBS explained above they never accepted the "voluntary" ban on interactions with Legacypac. They explicitly rejected that condition, and insisted that they should be re-blocked until a subsequent discussion could determine their fate. It seems when no admins took them up on that, they simply left the project. The only ban that is in place AFAICT is that LP and DE may not refer to instances involving each other prior to 15 January 2015 in any subsequent ANI discussion (my interpretation). (edit conflict with below) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Background on BrightR's post:

1. On Sept 24 BrightR templates me with no explanation of why and
2. I revert template with "Take to their talkpage. No idea what this is about" (same diff)
3. I request details at BrightR talk [83]
4. BrightR ironically edits my comments by moving them from BrightR talk to my talk, where they make less sense [84]
5. I revert his post with "This belongs on your talk page. Still no diff."
6. BrightR never supplied a diff but I notice this post to BrightR's talk (which I'm now watching since I was looking for that missing diff) by DocumentError who sees another opening to get me sanctioned [85]. Rightly or wrongly I removed this post as harassment by an editor butting into a situation with a laundry list of perceived wrongs.
7. On Sept 26 BrightR uses DocumentError's list of perceived wrongs to post to User_talk:Cryptic#Legacypac_deleting.2C_altering.2C_and_striking_out_other_editors.27_comments Claiming he never had time to supply a diff, but linking this diff from Sept 21 where I removed User:Beyond My Ken's name from a live ANi header (with comment: no need to name editor in header of failed proposal) where BrightR's attempt to sanction BMK for edit warring failed spectacularly. This is not editing his comment as he claims, but editing an ANi header.
8. BrightR restores User:Beyond My Ken's name to the header, after it is archived [86]
9. Note at Cryptic's talk User:DocumentError showed up suggesting I take this to ANi.

Summary: On Sept 21 I did not edit anyone's comments, I changed an ANi header that referenced User:Beyond My Ken. I get templated on Sept 24 for this by BrightR who refuses to supply a diff. Then on Sept 26 BrightR uses info supplied by DocumentError to seek sanctions against me, revealing for the first time that they are upset about the BMK header. When Cryptic declines to sanction me, BrightR starts this Sept 28 ANi thread. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "refuse" anything; as soon as I got on Wikipedia after you asked for a diff, I gave you the diff... I templated your talk page, you asked what's it about, I said it's about editing other editor's comments, you asked for a diff, as soon as I got back on Wikipedia I supplied the diff... Bright☀ 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's worth pointing out (I don't think anyone has yet noticed) that the "final warning" that Cryptic posted on Legacypac's talk page, which BrightR has diffed here and elsewhere, is a post from eighteen months ago (March 2016). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

People on AN/I keep dismissing long-standing behavior issues because they're so old; well, AN/I is for long-standing behavior issues, and things that are long-standing are old by definition, aren't they? Since this behavior is ongoing (see the one that sparked my involvement, editing another editor's comment in a discussion after it was closed) then it seems appropriate to have AN/I address it. And get told that it's old and so it doesn't matter... Bright☀ 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe, MAYBE, you shouldn't run to ANI for every slight you see. Perhaps talking to an administrator you trust first? Maybe? Realm of possibility? Common sense? --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I did... they told me to take it to AN... You know, like it says in Wikipedia policy. Maybe if AN/I doesn't want to discuss conduct issues it shouldn't be stated in policy that this is the place for conduct issues? Bright☀ 19:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Which ones? Because if this is the case, they need to be brought here to explain themselves... --Tarage (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose indefinite interaction ban between DocumentError and Legacypac

This whole kerfuffle was basically caused by DocumentError, who since his 5-month block in 2015 (regarding dealings with Legacypac) hsa largely left enwiki (one day of editing in 2016, one day and article in 2017 before this all began) and has now returned in full force to harass Legacypac (at the Arthur Rubin Arbcom cae and at other users talk pages). In January 2015, a voluntary interaction ban with Legacypac was set as the condition for an unblock, but the situarion at the eventual unblock in June 2015 is rather muddled, making a current block based on that interaction ban perhaps dubious. However, there is no reason at all not to reinstate (though this time not voluntary) the interaction ban to avoid more of this in the future. Fram (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. you proposal and your summation to my comment above, as it seems "Age shall not weary them". -- PBS (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac - I see nothing to suggest a restriction needs to be placed on Legacypac. – Nihlus (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac, per Nihlus, but if the consensus is otherwise for a two-way ban, this can be counted as a support for that, as a second choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not BMK's kid of camp

-EEng

• I like to think that the only "camp" I'm in is the "improve Wikipedia" camp, and that all my decisions are based on an objective evaluation of the circumstances and evidence, but I'm as human as the next person, and as likely to give a break to someone I know has been in the "improve Wikipedia" camp as well, versus someone who appears to be editing for reasons of a personal grudge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support one way IBAN--Per Nihlus.BMK has put the situation beautifully. Winged Blades ^Godric 15:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN on DocumentError towards Legacypac, per Nihlus. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I understand the concerns expressed here about DocumentError's behavior. However, DocumentError has not yet commented in this thread and in fact has not edited in the last 24 hours. I am not a fan of procedure for its own sake, but it really would make more sense to allow DocumentError to respond before this discussion goes much further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not seeing behaviour here that clearly rises to the level of harassment. DocumentError notes in their userspace that they are a student, which suggests an availability to edit which follows their recent pattern of absences, and as I noted above they appeared to go on a self-imposed exile after having their block log spoiled (deservedly) back in 2015. While it's unusual that their first edits back after having edited only sporadically since that time, and only most recently in May, were to comment on an open arbitration case where their supposed opponent had already commented, their edits to the Arthur Rubin arbitration case were relevant and on-topic. It's true that their comments there were directly refuting claims made by Legacypac, but they were under no restriction from doing so, they did so politely and with backing evidence, and their comments were accepted as case evidence by the committee clerks. And as far as I can tell their recent editing on user talk pages with respect to Legacypac have been reasonable criticism of another editor's behaviour, neither trolling, harassment, nor personal attacks. (ec with NewYorkBrad above)Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Involved Comment on Situation I researched the DocError situation last night and posted my findings at User_talk:Mkdw: [87] I don't believe that DocError is currently under a mandatory IBAN with me. I've been on self imposed avoidance of Doc Error since early 2015 (diffs available) and have not in any way sought interaction with them or until last night even looked at what they were up to since 2015. My findings are consistent with Johnuniq and User:PBS's analysis above. DocError has been operating as a nearly WP:SPA focused on conflict with me since January 2015. I have little else to say on the matter except sanctioning me over his activity is inconsistent with the facts. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN, if only because this formalizes the unblock condition and makes it clear what the community expects. While I appreciate NYB's suggestion that we might wish to wait for DocumentError's input, I think the situation is sufficiently clear (in that there arguably was a voluntary IBAN already) that there's really no need. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN. per above. Harassment is harassment, plain and simple. -FASTILY 20:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

DIsruptive account

PLease the talk page (User talk:Biplabbala33498) and edit history [88] of Biplabbala33498. Disruptive account. Has just created an article Dion Siluch with '...' as the only content. Tagged it for speedy deletion, and see it's been speedied three times in recent days already, and jsut re-created. Hasn't WP:COMMUNICATED or heeded previous warnings. Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked for 31 hours, thanks RickinBaltimore. Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I gave them an explanation as to why they were blocked as well. They seem to be eager to edit here, but creating multiple throwaway articles isn't the way to go about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)