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

Disruptive edits from IP

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

IP User_talk:14.192.52.187 is continues to insert unsourced information into Om Prakash Jindal diff, John King, Baron King of Wartnaby diff and Corporate affairs of Singapore Airlines diff. Did not react to multiple challenges on talk page(s), no even edit summaries, just continues to revert user contributions. Related account might be User talk:Drvedjindal but has only made one edit. Further reverting/warning them seems a bit pointless given the lack of any reaction despite continued activity. Averell (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems they switched to using the Drvedjindal account after the IP was anonblocked contributions. Maybe they're also trying their mobile for a different IP diff. I've given warning on their talk page, again, and will revert, again, just to make sure. I'd appreciate if some admin could have another look. Averell (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently they are back to using the above IP after the anonblock expired... Averell (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

IP was anonblocked for two weeks, the drjvindal account is at it again... Averell (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

They are also using a different IP now 43.239.205.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Semi-protected the three pages for a month. Blocked the named account (again). Certainly a WP:DUCK for the use of the IPs. The danger will be that he will resort to making a new named account. Keep 'em peeled... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Writings from blocked range

See User talk:72.64.9.241. The user is writing stuff on their talk page apparently because their range is blocked due to previous attacks on administrator accounts. The block is set to expire in less then a month, and it looks like the blocking administrator is no longer here. Not sure what, if any, attention this should receive, so I figured I'd bring it here. Not notifying the user of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is good reason to think that the problem that prompted the block will return again after three years, it's probably best to let the block expire. Three years is a long time to block a moderately wide IP range for an ISP (FairPoint Communications). I suspect there is quite a bit of collateral damage (and the talk page comment linked above is just a harmless reflection of that). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Elockid's block summary seems to be a fairly compelling rationale for why this range should remain blocked, and for the record it's been blocked continuously for five years as of next week and seems to have been intended to be indefinite. JamesBWatson might have some insight into this as well, and since this was a checkuser block from ages ago, let's dial up Bbb23 too. As for the user on the IP currently, they should be advised to create an account if they wish to edit. It's inconvenient unfortunately, but not compared to having compromised admin accounts running amok. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what Elockid meant by compromising admin accounts. The only thing I can think of is the resetting of passwords, which happens often enough but is completely ineffective. This range used to belong to a well-known sockmaster, but I don't know if they still use it. In any event, the block affects only IPs, not named accounts. All in all, I favor letting the block expire.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Admin accounts with weak passwords, e.g. those used on other sites which have been compromised in one of the many, many, many, many, many successful attacks could easily be compromised. If this happened 5 years ago, I think it may have been before we had 2FA on wikimedia, and did we even have the strong policy requirement? Either way, while the admins may be at fault, this doesn't give a free pass to anyone who compromised those accounts with malicious purposes. (Anyone who compromised them to show that there is a problem, even if they intentionally did harm, is perhaps a legitimate point, or is that WP:POINT) of debate.) Of course, even if the wikipedia password is secure, if the email password is not and someone is able to guess the email address tied to the account, than resetting passwords is more than just an annoyance. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• This relates to a banned editor, whose first account was called Bigshowandkane64, which has been blocked since 2013. He has been evading blocks using at least 60 sockpuppet accounts (maybe many more) and goodness knows how many IP addresses. The block evasion was continuing at least as recently as March of this year, and I doubt that he has suddenly given up in the last couple of months. He was using the IP range involved in this case (72.64.0.0/20) from 2013 until at least as late as June 2016. There is no doubt whatever of that: editing includes various unmistakable hallmarks, such as childish attacks on the same editors that the accounts have attacked. Since June 2016 there have been fewer edits, almost all of them unblock requests, and none of them has shown any clear signs of being made by Bigshowandkane64, though of course they could have been. As for collateral damage, it is clear that for several years all the editing was from one person, so it is likely that the range has not been available to a large number of users, as otherwise we might have had unblock requests from other editors scattered over the years. The range may have more recently switched to someone else, so that there may now be collateral damage. However, being subject to collateral damage from an IP-only block is just a small inconvenience: I once suffered from exactly that, and my way of dealing with it was to create this account, which I have now been using without problems for almost 12 years. A mild inconvenience, but no more. I agree with Bbb23 that the best thing is to just let the block expire.
• On the subject of "compromising admin accounts", the editor tried to reset my password back in 2013, and I guess further attempts to do that are what Elockid referred to. If so, Bbb23 is totally right in saying that such attempts are completely ineffective: all that happens is that the owner of the account gets an email about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• One more thought. Although, as I have said above, I agree with Bbb23 that most probably "compromising admin accounts" means resetting the account passwords, it could be that the person has been trying to hack into accounts by trying to log in with possible passwords. If that is so then it could potentially be more serious, as that has been known to succeed a number of times. I also evidence as to a possible identification of the real life identity of Bigshowandkane64, and if it is correct then he is likely to have sufficient technical knowledge to have a reasonable chance of being able to do it. However, the evidence is weak and far from conclusive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  I had assumed from the block notice that the user was attacking admin accounts in a more sophisticated manner, like a brute-force attack or using a leaked list, and was at least somewhat successful. If they were just spamming reset notices, a method known to be completely ineffective, I doubt the dire block log entries would have been warranted, nor resetting the block every few years when it was close to expiry. But as Elockid seems to have retired since the last block extension, I guess all there is to do is let the block expire. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

[Non-admin]Just an FYI a quick Google search for "Bigshowandkane64" reveals that the user is [1] still active on Wikipediocracy as of April 2018. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging involved admins who may have missed the above comment: Edgar181, JamesBWatson, Ivanvector, Bbb23. Sorry if I missed anyone. Home Lander (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I try very hard never to look at Wikipediocracy, but when someone provides a link, I cave. I do wish they'd get the number of b's in my username right. Maybe they don't like another user? I'm going to go clean up my act now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I too never look at Wikipediocracy unless someone provides a link which looks as though it might be worth checking, but unlike Bbb23 I don't have to try hard not to look: I'm not even tempted to. However, this time I did look, and found that I am a "shitbird" and an "evil patroller" and that I am "cut from ... filthy cloth". What I find more puzzling, though, is that apparently I don't care about Wikipedia. I wonder in that case why I have bothered to dedicate so much of my time to it over these years. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Shoot... first time I've ever looked, and I can't find anyone's ever mentioned me. Bummer. Home Lander (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

My nick gets some hits, but apparently I need to try harder to reach "shitbird" status. Not sure though, their search tool is throttled at one search per "few minutes", and I'm not giving that site that much of my time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Учхљёная

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

This user has been making disruptive changes and edit warring for quite some time now. There are several warnings on their user page and for the most part, they have seemed to ignore the warnings. Most recently, the user has been moving pages without consensus against the naming convention. The user has previously been blocked for creating inappropriate pages. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Champion. Can you provide diffs to exemplify the edit warring and conduct that you feel is disruptive? Diffs of the moves and a fuller description of why you feel they violate conventions would also be helpful. Additionally, other than on the user's talk page, have you reached out in any talk space associated with the content in question to attempt to discuss particular matters? Snow ^{let's rap} 04:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I have very little involvement, I must confess, however I decided to bring the matter here because it has not been brought up before and I thought it was reasonable to do. I did not know of this editor until a couple of days ago. Regards. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: FYI, this user is the subject of an SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diabedia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case, this matter may resolve itself without the need for action here. But this thread should be left open in the meantime, until we know for sure. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll just interject a quick CU comment here and leave the SPI open for now. I've looked at this user before and dealt with a fair number of Diabedia socks, however I've been unable to confirm a match. I'm unable to rule it out, but I can't rule it in either. I won't make any firm predictions about the SPI, but I think it's probably going to have to go on behavioural stuff. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Here are a few diffs: [2], [3] [4] (this one to dubious transcription with zero Google results as the original language does not use Latin script) [5] (same issue). The user's edit history abounds with fights over transcription/transliteration of several Central Asian languages and took toll even on the name of the famous 19th century Indian poet Ghalib. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit-warring by Учхљёная is sometimes multiple times in a 36 hour period, at other times "slow" (over several days or weeks). He adds lyrics to anthems in horrifically-coloured tables, with empty columns, and unsourced and possibly copyvio translations – example here. Examples of edit-warring can be found at Khakassia, Anthem of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, Die Wacht am Rhein, Song of the Khmer Republic, State Anthem of Kabardino-Balkaria, State Anthem of the Republic of Dagestan, Oh, Arkansas, etc., etc.. His user talk page at Commons is a morass of copyvio notices. Today, he has re-uploaded several more files there with what appear to be spurious licenses. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this history page, I definitely see move warring and what may become edit warring if things continue. I've applied move protection to this article to stop the disruption. I also took a look at the history of Die Wacht am Rhein - and I see what's clearly an edit war going on. I've applied a 24 hour block to this user as a result and have fully protected the article as well. I'm looking at the other listed articles as well... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I believe I've found and applied the appropriate actions where needed... I hope that Учхљёная learns positively from this and that they commit to engaging in dispute resolution and proper communication and collaboration in order to resolve their future disputes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It looks like you protected State Anthem of the Republic of Khakassia shortly after Учхљёная moved it (again) to "Xakas gįmn". No need to mention that the later has no place as article title on en-wiki (violates WP:COMMONNAME, zero Google results, etc.). Would you mind reverting her rename? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Kashmiri - Ohhhhhhh... let me check the policy on that first. I don't believe I can perform the page move since it's under a dispute / move war (the whole "playing favorites" or picking a favored revision thing)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, Oshwah. Please note that there is also a copyright problem here – the user has been adding the words to some of the anthem articles without any clear consensus that these are copyright-free (e.g., at Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, where I've just removed them), and sometimes against an established consensus that they are not, e.g., at Tiến Quân Ca (already dealt with). Perhaps the outcome of the SPI will make it easier to clean all this up ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers - Hey, good to talk to you again! No problem; always happy to help. Yeah, I did see the reverted edits on these pages citing copyright issues... that's another issue we're gonna have to tackle as well... I felt that the appropriate starting place here was the edit and page move warring that was occurring, which was clearly disruptive and needed the brakes set pronto ;-). Hopefully the SPI comes to a conclusive close either way (whether or not violations of WP:SOCK is determined) and that this report here is what begins the process of putting the disruption and the policy / copyright violations to an end. I'm also going to hold off on performing the page move requested above (sorry, Kashmiri... it's the rules). I agree that the reason for moving it back to the original title is justified, but as I said... I cannot as the protecting admin perform a page move to the article that's in an active move war / dispute. It must be discussed and performed by a different administrator after the proper requests and discussions have been completed. It would be seen as taking a side if I did that, and I'd risk jeopardizing my actions being seen as anything other than neutral and impartial which is something I don't want to do. I hope you understand....... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I understand the policy. That said, I still wonder how Учхљёная was able to move pages over redirect [6][7] without having pagemover right... — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: When moving a page, if the new title is a redirect to the old title with a single line in the page history, then any autoconfirmed editor can perform the move over the redirect without the page mover right – see WP:MOR. Mz7 (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mz7, I wasn't aware of this, I guess this possibility was introduced only in the last few years. MediaWiki keeps evolving and surprising! — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

15 still barely qualifies as "a few", I guess, though it might be older than that too. Earliest documentation I can find for it is from September 2003. Before I started editing, in any case. —Cryptic 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The user uses a name/alias "Elliott Wheeler"[8][9][10]]. I faintly recall seeing an account by a similar name that was later renamed to something else during SPI indeffing. This was when I browsed the Diabedia case and related links/articles a few days ago but can't locate it now. Can an admin check whether User:Elliott Wheeler has any hidden history? — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no "Elliott Wheeler" user account on enwiki. In the links you provided, the hyperlinked text "Elliott Wheeler" is wikilinked to Учхљёная's user page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Update. The result of CU check at the SPI case is "inconclusive". – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• ... because "the sockpuppets seem to exclusively use VPNs". Looks like another thing that they have in common on top of behavioural similarities. Curious to see what the patrolling admin will decide. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• And meanwhile, the disruption continues – see e.g., this re-insertion of lyrics written in 2014, so very unlikely to be out of copyright. Sock or not, it seems to be time to put a stop to this; a topic-ban from national anthems and all lyrics, broadly construed? an indefinite block as WP:NOTHERE? or some other remedy? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Jmills16

Jmills16 (talk · contribs) has received multiple warnings about adding or changing genres to anime and manga related articles without citing reliable sources, over the two years since they created their account. the most recent instance has been at Date A Live which resulted in this personal attack on my talk page and an attempt to cite a website that not only contains user generated content, but also engages in copyright infringement. The editor was previously blocked twice in 2016 for repeatedly adding unsourced genres and other content, but other than the personal attack on my talk page and the unblock request when they were first blocked, they have not participated in any discussion. This is a clear competence case. —Farix (t | c) 22:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Since Jmills16 deleted this section, I have restored it and blocked them for a week. If anyone thinks this was too lenient, feel free to extend it without consulting me. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Based on this recent comment on his talk page, he is simply refusing to get it when it comes to verifiability with reliable sources. And that is ignoring the second personal attack in that comment as well. —Farix (t | c) 02:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thus combining two of my favorite candidates for TNT: Japanese animation and genres. EEng 17:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:LaserLegs at WP:ITN

User:LaserLegs is an editor is very active at WP:ITN, notably WP:ITN/C. Indeed, pretty much every single one of their recent edits have been to the Candidates page, other sub-pages, and related pages - some 250 edits stretching back over a month. In their total editing career, including their previous accounts User:CosmicAdventure and User:IP98, they have made 1,759 edits to ITN/C, but just 237 to articlespace in its entirety (and indeed some of those edits related to issues at ITN). Recently, they have been arguing forcefully that ITN is biased against posting US-related stories, and biased towards posting stories from other countries. Now, that's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but they are now starting to cross the line from "disagreement" to "disruption". Some examples;

• "If you want to amend WP:ITN#Purpose to include fighting bias or diversity or an international world view or whatever other lame fucking excuse you want to use to denigrate the USA go ahead and open an RFC so it can go down in flames. I'm digging out my laptop to close this trash." (I reverted this close).
• "It's a worthless bullshit objection which serves no purpose other than to push an anti American agenda" (edit summary - "STFU")
• Compares a hot-dog eating contest to be as equally newsworthy as the World Cup
• Edit summary - "unless someone didn't die anywhere other than America then omfg post"
• Another "STFU" as edit summary
• Another rant
• "Would you kindly move along, you're adding no value"

All of these are just from the last 50 edits, along with various snark of the "Oh this won't get posted it's in the US / Oh this will get posted because it's not in the USA" type in numerous other comments at ITN. I'm not looking for LL to be blocked, just for someone to come along and tell him to knock it off. It's getting very boring, and I'm sure there are plenty of articles that need improving instead. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone else fairly involved in the situation, and who also believes that the striving to end systemic bias has turned into too much of a shunning of U.S.-centric news at ITN/C, I can chime in to say that I agree that the tone LaserLegs is using is not helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

[Comment from a non-admin]. I looked over their postings and I suggest that the user is prohibited from posting at ITN/C for a short period of time - and that when they return they must engage in civil discourse with civil edit summaries - basing their comments upon the merits of the article only.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm on vacation so you can either ban me till July 9, or hold this over till July 9. Can someone open an AN/I for WaltCip ignoring NOTFORUM and using the talk page for needless America bashing? And maybe investigate the obvious IP sock puppets that came to oppose that Baltimore shooting? Or Walt picking at @The Rambling Man: about Russians at ITN/C? Or any number of Walt's other unhelpful edits? Anyway I'll keep reading articles wether I can comment on them or not, which is more than most of the POV warriors there are doing. Back on the 9th. Take a look at Walt's edit history, also almost entirely itn. Pot - kettle? Also if this is an npa vio let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

How is this [11] US bashing? As Waltcip posted later [12] the comment wasn't meant to be taken that way, and was meant to be praise. There's far too many editors at ITN that are not assuming good faith in how people !vote or discuss the situation. --Masem (t) 01:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the guidelines: It sounds to me like the issue is WP:UNCIVIL, which includes WP:ESDOS, and can result in Blocking for incivility, depending upon the extent of the issue. Can you see yourself, LaserLegs, responding on ITN/C based only on the merits of each article? And, follow WP:ESDOS, so that the edit summaries are civil?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen ITN/C? Most of BlackKites "evidence" above is from a discussion where people were congratulating themselves for suppressing US-centric stories and ignoring the merits. Come on. I support posting articles which are "in the news" and have advocated for removing the silly "notability" guidelines. PS: Whats disruptive about comparing Klausses goals with Chestnuts hotdogs? At least Nathans isn't objectively corrupt. Hold this over till the 9th please so I can properly defend myself against these accusations. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course I did. I went and searched for your comments myself. I am sensing from your response that 1) you don't see anything wrong with your comments or edit summaries and 2) you don't think you need to make a change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

See below, I concede that swearing at WaltCip was too far, inflamed by an unnecessary WP:NOTFORUM at WT:ITN congratulating themselves for suppressing US-centric stories. I won't concede that it's wrong to compare hotdog eating to soccer ... because it isn't. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone feeling a bit put-off by LaserLegs' abusive language right now, I think the sentence in that comment saying "Whats disruptive about comparing Klausses goals with Chestnuts hotdogs?" is very telling. I for one do not want hot dog eating contests on the front page of Wikipedia. If LaserLegs really does, we have a perspective problem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok then wander on over to WT:ITN and propose a change to WP:ITN#Purpose because right now it doesn't say anything about a soccer ticker or banning hotdogs. It has some pretty clear guidelines. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That response is just as telling. It is aggressive. And still shows a very different perspective from what I see as reasonable for a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Whats aggressive about it? You consider my comparison of Klausses arbitrary soccer goal record to a hot dog eating contest "very telling" (whatever that means) and went on to insist "I for one do not want hot dog eating contests on the front page of Wikipedia.". The thing is, that doesn't at all align with the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN, so I suggested you head over to WT:ITN and propose a change, like I successfully did to fix the dumpster fire that was WP:ITN/DC. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, if you want to T-ban me for swearing at WaltCip and comparing arbitrary goal records at a corrupt FIFA event to hotdog eating, without even a warning, that's your prerogative as an admin. I'll even concede that swearing is not acceptable and apologize. If you want to tell me that noms at ITN/C can ONLY be considered on their "merits" and not consider the fake !rules of ITN, then I'll need to drag the bulk of the regulars through AN/I so you can T-ban every one of them. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I really wish LaserLegs would convey his views in a collegial manner. He has some valid points about the exclusion of US-centric stories, and he's not the only who is tired of the America bashing at ITN, but he's only hurting his own cause with his abrasive attitude. Lepricavark (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your wish. I am concerned about this claim of America bashing. Can condemning the hot dog proposal really be described as America bashing? If that's the kind of American nomination we get, it is going to be bashed, but that's not the same as bashing America. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm speaking of other instances when I've seen editors thumb their noses at the US in one way or another. In the case of the hot dog contest, that was not an item that should have been posted. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was ok with the hotdog contest but the articles weren't up to scratch. The vitriol poured on the Miami Bridge Collapse, the SCOTUS noms, and that Baltimore shooting are whats "telling" here. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think the term 'vitriol' is too strong. In fact, your use of words that are too strong is part of the problem. You've been trying to fight fire with fire and that's not going to work. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the key issue is civility... and diving back into a specific issue could take this conversation sideways. I agree with the points above about perspective, attitude, abrasiveness... and I'd add a failure to "get it", but I am afraid that getting into specific issues gives little chance of resolving this well. Just my two cents, for what little it may be worth.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok well what actions do you want from me? I've already offered to refrain from swearing and apologize to WaltCip for it. I've also pointed on that only considering nominations on their "merits" is something I largely do, and MANY other contributors at ITN just ignore (including the ITN discussion that kicked this off) so I won't be held to a standard that others aren't held to. Let me know what I need to do to make this go away. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What actions? Please stop telling me where to go....

"...wander on over to WT:ITN and propose a change..."

"...head over to WT:ITN and propose a change"

Neither of those seems likely to make things more collegial. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, I'm just pointing out where the policies around ITN are, and how to amend them. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, look at the Scott Pruitt nomination down in flames in hours because of "systemic bias" (whatever that means). Quite a few people there failed to consider the "merits" of that article, maybe they need to get dragged in to AN/I too? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Only one editor out of seven who opposed it mentioned systemic bias. Others gave a wide range of other reasons. You are misrepresenting the situation. That is never helpful. And it certainly wasn't America bashing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Your comments obviously are seen as inflammatory and a bit overwhelming. I saw your comments and I agree that you "largely" evaluate the nominations based upon their merits. You can only control your behavior, so perhaps instead of "largely" it could be "only" discuss the merits of the case without editorial comments and follow WP:ESDOS for edit summaries. Dialing it back a bit could help a LOT.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, but am I facing a T-ban because I compare nominations which were/were not posted at ITN like the majority of the other contributors there, am I facing a T-ban for pointing out the obvious double standard when us-centric noms are closed in hours and EU-centric noms for legislation that wasn't passed are STILL open, or am I facing a t-ban for swearing at WaltCip? If it's the last one, I'll gladly apologize and even endeavor to dial it back. If it's the other two, I don't know what to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was going by Black Kite's comment: "I'm not looking for LL to be blocked, just for someone to come along and tell him to knock it off..." and that related to the manner of communication, which included the comments in edit summaries, including swearing. Black Kite didn't even recommend a topic ban for a short period of time, that was my suggestion. I don't think I really have anything new to add or say at this point. This conversation is getting long.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

But, I am very interested in your response... and that of others that may weigh in.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was quite a simple request, really. Simply knock off the incivility and "STFU"s, knock off the snark, and stop making ridiculous comparisons between things (you know that a hot-dog eating contest and the biggest sporting event in the world aren't comparable, so that's just WP:POINT). Quite apart from anything else, you make your own arguments look weaker, and you get to the point where people start to thing "Oh, it's only LaserLegs with his usual stuff" and start to ignore you. At other times you often make good points - can we just stick to doing that? Black Kite (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you could have left a comment on my talk page about that, AN/I is a heavy handed tool. Edit summaries? Sure, no problem. Snark? I'm not sure but ok. Lots of "snark" at ITN/C. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There was absolutely no difference, none whatsoever, between a record number of hot dogs eaten and a record number of goals kicked in a silly FIFA soccer pageant. None. Absolutely none. Know why? They were both "in the news" which happens to be he topic of that main page feature. The only difference there is you've convinced yourself on the significance of FIFAs corrupt officiating, arbitrary extra time and fake injuries, AND have convinced yourself of the triviality of that hot dog contest. Is that why I'm here? Is that the last straw? That I compared the sacred cow of ITN sports "association soccer" to hot dogs? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't stand soccer, but I know it's more important than hot dogs. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All I care about, HiLo, is if a story is "In The News" and if the article has a quality update. That's it. "Importance", "global coverage", "most popular sport", whatever, all of those fake requirements are simply used by ITN regulars to push a POV agenda, which culminates occasionally in a discussion at WT:ITN where people actually congratulate themselves on suppressing US-centric stories. I was curious, so I looked, way back in 2012 I was comparing walking across Niagara Falls on a tightrope to soccer -- you opposed that nom too, actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine. If you're deliberately going to go down the road of not seeing what you're doing wrong, feel free to choose it. I wouldn't advise it, but it's your choice. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed above that LaserLegs is naming me as a party to this ANI, saying one should be opened up about me for my edits, and has neither notified me nor posted anything on my talk page about this. I would have appreciated the heads-up.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry @WaltCip:, you're right. I was on mobile when this came up and didn't loop back around to tag your talk page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, regarding a comment you made above - "Can someone open an AN/I for WaltCip ignoring NOTFORUM and using the talk page for needless America bashing? And maybe investigate the obvious IP sock puppets that came to oppose that Baltimore shooting?" Are you suggesting that I use sockpuppets? Please clarify.--WaltCip (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, separate incidents, the IP socks, I'm not suggesting they are you. I stand by the NOTFORUM comment, there was no reason for you to head over to WT:ITN and celebrate suppressing US-centric stories without a clear call to action. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's this inverted logic which is why you're here LaserLegs. I saw the thread as a celebration of the fact that in spite of systemic bias, the ITN section was as diverse as it's ever been. It felt to me that you and a few other pro-US users leapt all over it and utterly derailed its original meaning to suit your position. And once complete, everyone screamed about it being more heat than light. And now you're here. Personally, I find all the pointy bollocks to be mildly amusing, sometimes interwoven with some reasonable notes, but that's just because I have that sort of a sense of humour and you've usually been pointy but fair to me. I think others struggle with these kinds of communication to be honest. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with TRM) Your assertion that I am attempting to suppress US-centric stories from ITN is troubling. As you probably know, the highest plurality of editors on the English Wikipedia comes from the United States. Inevitably as a result of this, there will be a systemic bias. My post on the ITN talk page was not intended for, as you say, "America bashing" or celebrating American items not being posted on ITN. It was intended to celebrate the internationally diverse selection of stories that we have on there despite the systemic bias that exists. I have not been in favor of deliberately suppressing US items from ITN in order to achieve this, but I am in favor of posting items that are of significance and newsworthiness. That a large number of items that get turned down that do not meet that newsworthiness standard happen to be from the US is just an artifact of the process, I think. Anyway, I apologize if you construed my comment as being "anti-American" in any way; I assure you that was not its intent.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the arguments which correctly refuted your thesis in that now closed WP:NOTFORUM WP:SOAP discussion, I'll just remind you that WP:ITN#Purpose doesn't say anything about fighting bias, or "international coverage" or any such thing, and if you want to propose a change, that is the correct use of WT:ITN and I'd evaluate the merits of such a proposal and comment accordingly. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. This has nothing to do with discrimination merely for the sake of international coverage, or "America-bashing" as you call it. This has everything to do with applying significance standards consistently so that we don't have an over-representation of stories from a single country. What about this do you not understand?--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a made up requirement Walt, there is nothing in WP:ITN or in any main page feature about "an over-representation of stories from a single country". That's the whole point here, and that's what you do not understand. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

LaserLegs After all of this discussion, I hope it's clear that when you make comparisons, talk about the ratio of US stories, and are uncivil to others — you are being disruptive. So, I'll ask my question again, can you operate on the ITN/C in such a way that you:

• just talk about the merits of the candidates
• don't make snarky comments about whether or not it's a US story
• don't make comparisons
• be civil in your comments to others and in your edit summaries?

If not, I go back to my original suggestion for a short-term ban of the ITN, with the comment that when you return you must be more civil and not disruptive.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely will not be held to a different standard at ITN/C where many contributors compare noms to previous noms, including the perennial objection to us-centric stories "we'd not post this from another country". If you want to impose a fundamental change to the discourse at ITN/C, I'm all for it, but it needs to be universal, not as a punitive tool against me. Regarding civility, I'll refrain from "snarky" edit summaries like "hate" and "hateful" and anything else objectionable, and if I fall off the wagon, I'd appreciate a note on my talk page that isn't an AN/I notice. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My personal guidelines are simple: support stories which are in the news and have quality updates. There is a whole culture there of editorializing and content filtering based upon policies which do not exist. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't (think I) comment on other editors comments unless there is some inaccuracy that needs to be corrected, and I certainly don't accuse other editors of "hating" "evil Russians". I just READ the articles first and support as many as I can. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this so "chronic, intractable" that it needed to come to AN/I? Reading the comments at IT/C, I'll concede that I have crossed the WP:CIVIL line, but I'm certainly not alone there. It seems I'm here because because I compared association fake injuries to hotdog eating, a point dragged up over and over in this long running thread. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The others aren't here, you are. You downplay your behavior. Did you read your comments above from Black Kite's original post?

The others ARE here, comically enough. HiLo48 literally reopened a closed discussion just to comment on me. Can I refer that to AN/I without it being considered pointy? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Black Kite reopened the conversation before HiLo48 made that comment. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This could be an opportunity for you to be an example for others of how to move conversations forward and not get bogged down in comparisons and finger-pointing. You can either recognize that you are part of the problem and try to fix it, or move on. That's my personal opinion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Strike out sentence, we posted about the same time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never once, since I retired IP98, opposed an article because of comparisons. I oppose for quality or because it simply isn't in the news. Sometimes I point out the discrepancy in !votes between soccer and any other sport, or Europe and any other region of the world. I'm not going to pretend the pro-Europe pro-soccer pro-disaster bias at ITN doesn't exist. If that's a problem, maybe an RFC at WT:ITN about the discourse and support/oppose rationales is needed. Yes, I realize I was being snarky in my edit summaries and I can see how some (who are themselves snarky in their edit summaries) would be offended, and since it adds no value, I'll work harder to not do it. The heat has finally broken here in Niagara, I'm missing vacation time. I was keeping an eye on ITN, and if T-banning someone who actually READS articles, checks the refs and adheres to the actual published guidelines at WP:ITN is what's best for the project, so be it. I'm out. Thanks CaroleHenson for a cool head. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I truly believe what you say about your intention and the approach you take when evaluating candidates.

The problem is that you let what seems to be long-standing anger cloud your communication. And you are not getting it. That is clear by the diff you posted above, which in my opinion doesn't shine a lovely light on you. You are saying you're out. I go back to a suggestion for a short time-out. Get through your vacation, have a lovely breather. Come back in a week or so with a fresh mind-set. You may see things differently and choose to be a model of civil and constructive discourse. In other words, I vote for a one week ITN ban to hit the reset button.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit heavy handed, when I get back I'll be sure to refer others who behave the same way to AN/I, but you're an admin, just do it. I won't go screaming to ARBCOM or anything because you're involved. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I posted my first comment saying [non-admin comment]. But, I am someone who has been around for awhile and have a sense of how to be productive and effective (but like everyone I have had my moments where I haven't been the proudest of myself, too).–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call sending people you disagree with to ANI/N right off the bat as a model of constructive discourse. Others tried to talk to you about the issue before coming here, and others would deserve the same courtesy from you. For instance, you blind-sided WaltCip (and yes, I know you apologized for that, just saying not the best approach to ready, shoot, aim).

We'll have to see how an admin chooses to close this out. My guess is that it wouldn't be for a week.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've occasionally popped into ITN but not regularly, if you want an admin experienced in that area I would recommend 331dot (though I see you've crossed swords with him already). Anyway, LaserLegs, I think the point is you are starting to sound like a broken record; everyone is fully aware you think ITN is biased, but as Black Kite says above, the more you keep saying it (with sarcastic and snarky comments), the more people are going to look at what you say, think "aww jeez here goes LaserLegs again with his systemic bias rehtoric" and ignore you. (I personally find some of your comments amusing, but my sense of humour is not shared by too many people around here). That means you aren't going to get the results you want. I'm not looking at bans or blocks, but yeah, just, you know dial it back a bit and work on something else. If you want to try something different, put WP:ERRORS on your watchlist and go and help take care of ITN problems that are on the main page right now instead of just whining about bias on the nomination pages. Or, to not too fine a point on it, you've made one mainspace edit in the past month. The more you contribute to actual articles, the more respect you will get. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to close this as we have had extensive conversations with each other, but I would encourage LaserLegs to take at least some of the advice in this discussion, especially that of Ritchie above. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

ITN is about to post a crappy article about a draft EU directive that was delayed two months. There is consensus to do so. I'm not going to pretend there is not a pro-Europe, anti-US bias at itn, but I'll try not to be such a dick about it (even in the face of such aggressive anti-US dickishness). That'll have to be good enough I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As for mainspace, I check refs and tag them if they're garbage, and remove content that can't be saved. If there is some WP:MINIMUMPARTICIPATION I'm missing please let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You know how The Rambling Man can get away with posting screeds about "crap" on ITN/C and ERRORS and call you "Mr Pointy Bollocks" and you can't? It's because he does a lot of mainspace writing. You're not obliged to do any, I'm simply saying the more you do, the more people will see you around, remember the good work you do, and if you get dragged up to the WP:Slough of Despond, there ought to be sufficient people who will recognise this and cut you some slack. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Great! Pointy bollocks – how am I going to get THAT image out of my head? EEng 19:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL

The user Iñaki LL filed a complaint against me in the ANI, asking me to be blocked, which was rejected and he was warned: "Inaki, please keep it on the talk page, quit making personal attacks, address specific points of contention or do not revert at all, and employ dispute resolution measures if and when they are needed. Getting your opponent blocked is not an option.",

Despite this, he has continued with his behavior, questioning my edits and commenting on me in the articles talk pages [13] [14] [15] [16] [17].

EDITED Notice how the first thing he did after after the closing of the incident in the ANI on 22:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC) by Swarm and the rejection of his blocking request on me was to question the decision of the administrators, returning to accuse me on my talk page on 11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC) of clear "POV overtones" and saying "Where is going the EN WP? Who knows. WP:BUREAUCRACY Very sad really" .BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

He accused me several times without proof of "You removed verified information 'in your information re-arrangement", "removing 'unpleasant' information" in a talk page [18], [19], in his talk page [20] and in my talk page [21]. I replied in his talk page [22], asking him to provide evidence of his accusations, or if not, that he apologizes or strikes his accusations [23]. He has not done it, he has circumvent the answer and he has erased my messages from his talk page [24] [25], claiming that I have not right to answer there [26], even though I explained that the policies do allow it [27] [28]. See the full discussions here [29] [30].

I think if Iñaki LL did not want me to respond, he should have thought before writing me (notice the tone and content of his message, with which he started the discussion [31]). I am posting this here because he has erased my messages and I'm still waiting for him to provide specific evidence to corroborate his accusations.

IMHO this seems Wikipedia:WikiBullying. I feel harassed, despite my attempts to dialogue with him showing my good faith [32] [33].

I want him to stop once and for all his attitude towards me and just discuss how to improve the content of the pages from a neutral point of view, calmly, politely and respecting the Wikipedia policies. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This dispute originated in Catalan independence referendum, 2017, where Iñaki LL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) attempted to clarify some of the details of the events but was reverted in a series of edits by BallenaBlanca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), for example BB removed "A man was hit in the eye by a rubber ball during a police charge, severely injuring him." (properly cited to the The Independent) and glossed over it by re-writing an earlier sentence to "four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those, two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the eye in the protests". This is typical of the grip that BB has on the article, as a glance at the page history and the article talk page, where he has wikilawyered away many edits from multiple other editors, will show. This particular complaint from BB is nothing more than an attempt to remove a dissenting editor from the article. BB's conduct is classic: Inaki complains on BB's talk page about BB's behaviour, so BB immediately takes that post over to Inaki's talk page and makes an entire wall of text blaming Inaki for his response to BB's behaviour. When Inaki objected to BB moving the thread to Inaki's talk page and removed it, BB re-added the wall of text twice more, [34], [35] in complete contravention of WP:TPG, and tantamount to harassment. This only ceased when another editor MPS1992 reminded BB of WP:OWNTALK. That is enough to attract sanctions on BB.

What adds to this however, is that BB then went back to a previous dispute with Inaki from May, on around 10 articles about people who are or were well known as Basques where BB had added a "Spanish" qualifier, for example, BB changed "a ska punk band from the Basque Country" to "a Spanish ska punk band from the Basque Autonomous Community". Inaki had restored the original wording in each case, which had remained stable since then, until BB reverted again in retaliation for this dispute. He has since edit warred the same information back twice more, and against another editor, Theklan who agreed with the original wording.

BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda and comes here with unclean hands. i strongly suggest that there is a case to apply WP:BOOMERANG. --RexxS (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: You are not providing diffs from the page nor from the discussion on it in the talk page for your claimings on the injured in the eye, nor the rest of the information about that edit of mine, so you are only giving a partial view of the situation, distorting it. This is explained here in detail [36] "Iñaki, with this new edit you repeated information already present, causing confusion in the information. There was only one injured by a rubber ball and with what you wrote, it seems that there were two. Notice: ... (I do not quote everything, so as not to overload this discussion). And the page already contained detailed information about the injured in the eye just below for months. Let's see for example this version of 11 January 2018: "Of those injured, most were minor, but four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the protests, the other for unrelated causes.[193] The man injured by a rubber ball lost the vision of an eye and he sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police.[215]". And a picture and a footage.

Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles on Spaniards from the autonomous communities of Catalonia and the Basque Country to eliminate the Spanish nationality, ignoring the policies Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, but have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator, as for example here: [37] "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles.". The administrator himself had to make several reversions for this reason [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] ...

RexxS, you said "BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda" You are violating WP:AGF. I do not have any political positioning, I just want to improve the encyclopedia and I look for neutrality. On the other hand, both Iñaki and Theklan openly declare their POV. See:

• Theklan Wikilari honek Euskal Herriaren independentzia aldarrikatzen du (This wikipedian proclaims the independence of the Basque Country)
• Iñaki LL This user opposes the policies and views of Mariano Rajoy.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 16:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All three are Spanish users with strong views on a subject many Spaniards have strong views on. RexxS mischaracterises the dispute by asserting only Ballena Blanca has strong politiical opinions on the matter, as Iñaki LL and Theklan have equally strong views that oppose those of Ballena Blanca. Is this general Spanish political issue a case for arbcom? Which would of course require dispute mediation first. There are no simple ANI solutions, IMO. I don't think there are any excuses for edit-warring across multiple articles but it is clearly coming from both camps. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Spanish. -Theklan (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So how come you have Spanish and Basque as your native languages? Basque isn't a nationality. You can self-identify as you want of course but your statement anyway indicates you aren't neutral in this topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Only the first of TWO threads on the board RIGHT NOW related to Catalan separatism. Jesus. EEng 17:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Because they are my native languages. If you claim I can't say I'm Basque but not Spanish (something quite usual, even on your narrow minded system) then I understand why you have a problem with calling Basque people Basque. -Theklan (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not see this as a matter of strong view from my part but to comply with Wikipedia policies and neutrality.

What worries me is that Wikipedia's policies are violated by writing freely without adjusting to the sources and distorting the information.

For example, claiming that "rubber ball" does not exist in English [52] [53], insisting on using a news title “A reasonable title in a reliable source is good enough” when the actual content of the news and several other sources contradict it and so I had explained it [54], etc.

I would like you to read this complete thread [55], motivated by numerous edits that a user has made in the last month and that included various irregularities. I would like you to see the discussion, how I have been arguing in detail, listening to other users, trying to dialogue with Iñaki and reach consensus, thanking his signs of goodwill [56], accepting his proposals [57], proposing solutions and seeking consensus [58] [59], recognizing my mistakes [60] ... But I feel that as much as I try, it seems that he does not see my good faith.

A suggestive fact: Iñaki LL expanded the information about the injured in the eye and added statements of four witnesses about the pacifism of the demonstrators, but when I included the other version, with sources that include footages that contradict those statements and that pacifism of at least part of them (including the man injured himself), Iñaki LL was outraged and protested [61]. Is this a matter of a view opposed to Iñaki's? I do not think so, I think it's a matter of WP:NPOV, which I complied with.

In that same message [62] we see how he tries to impose rules on me on where I can edit and how the length of the discussions on the talk page should be, violating WP:No-edit orders.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I have some advice for you, but it may not help you very much. First, if you feel that someone who is not an administrator, is trying to impose rules on you, then feel free to ignore them. They cannot force you to do anything. But, you might like to think about their advice anyway. And one thing they can insist on, is that you do not keep repeatedly posting the same thing on their talk page. Especially if what you are adding is a dissertation. And also, I am guessing that both you and the person you are reporting both write English as a second language -- this if fine, but, in English we do not say that a police officer shot someone in the eye "with a rubber ball". That's not English. MPS1992 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thank you very much for your advice, off course is a help! Thanks for taking the effort to post here, you're very kind.

I especially appreciate your intervention on the Iñaki LL's talk page, to prevent me from continuing to be wrong. I thought that in this case we had to apply WP:TPO, especially due to the fact that he deleted, moved and copied my messages directly in another place, without quoted them (as for example using the Template:Talk quote inline#Usage) and therefore, he also misrepresented my signature, which is personal and non-transferable. The problem is not with reporting words, but that with copying another editors signature unfortunately it gives the impression that the editor posted in a place where they did not. There is a behavioral guideline for this WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE. I do not think for a moment that Iñaki LL intended to impersonate me, but the consequence of copying an editor's entire post from one place to another inadvertently creates a false impression of what was posted where. Anyway, I apologize if I made a mistake.

Regarding the term "rubber ball", it is used in numerous verifiable sources in English "A rubber ball police fired at protesters", "A guy received a rubber ball impact on the eye", including Amnesty International "the use of rubber balls" and the manufacturers / providers themselves, such as this one from the UK (South Wales) Site Search: rubber ball (see for example one of the several images of the search result Bolt Action Rifle Rubber Ball Grip --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with strongly Spanish nationalists like BallenaBlanca is that they don't see they are trying to impose their POV. They think they are trying to work with neutrality when impossing their world view. I WP:AGF, but they do the same thing again and again and again. And I don't have as much time as he has to follow on with the discussion. If having time is the way to imposse a narrow spanish-ultranationalist POV, then he will win and Wikipedia will lose. You can follow on with the discussion, I will try to give 5 minutes a day to see where it goes.-Theklan (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, please, do not make personal attacks. Do not label me as "strongly Spanish nationalists", you do not know anything about me, speak only in your name, you do have a expressly declared POV [63] "Theklan Wikilari honek Euskal Herriaren independentzia aldarrikatzen du (This wikipedian proclaims the independence of the Basque Country)"

In addition, your opinion here has a clear COI, since you were blocked by edit warring and I was the one who reported you [64], and then as revenge you pushed for me to be blocked, such as here [65] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm also Darwinist. Please, look after all my articles in every language about evolution, maybe I have a POV than can't be tolerated by the police of rectitude. -Theklan (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, the same can and must be said of those with an anti-Spanish bias, typically supporters of Basque and Catalan independence. You haven't been assuming good faith, eg accusations of gaming and labelling those you disagree with as the enemies of wikipedia and accusing other users of being unable to read. You justify your own edit warring and here, attacking me, attacks trans people (particularly vile, IMO), and attacks editors while blocked. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What I see above is a lot of noise. Basics, I am not taking accusatory walls in my talk page, repeatedly posted after I removed them, clear harassment.

The editor in question has shown a clear tendency to compulsive editing and litigation during the whole article Catalan independence referendum, 2017.

BB is in virtually all the discussions and reverts in the article from the very beginning. Is he the guardian of it? I attempted advise to him on behavioural issues, to improve editing towards smooth, fluent cooperation in this article. Instead he has adopted a reactive attitude, e.g. just after repeatedly posting a wall in my talkpage he went on to do serial, controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters I had edited roughly a month ago (see diffs provided above by Rexxs), adding "Spanish", removing Basque, with a clear purpose of eliciting a response from me, and Basque editors. At the same time, he ignited this Incident, at a moment when he knew I would be less available for Wikipedia purposes (see my comment here at the bottom [66].

His ad hominem approach aimed at discrediting does not surprise me, despite knowing; there are no NPOV editors, but POV edits. BB's ideology is clear to all the editors contributing to the above articles, but that is not my concern, his attitude in the article is. Check this edit full of self-entitlement [67]("you do have your own POV, as you declare on your user page. Not me, I'm editing for neutrality"), clear WP:TEND. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I remind you again that it was you who initiated the discussion, not me 13:47, 1 July 2018. I answered asking you to prove your accusations 23:03, 3 July 2018 and I am still waiting.

You are again replying with accusations violating WP: AGF (and without providing any diff): "a clear tendency to compulsive editing", "a lot of noise", "a reactive attitude", "controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters", "a clear purpose of eliciting a response from me, and Basque editors", "ad hominem approach aimed at discrediting", "BB's ideology is clear to all the editors", "clear WP:TEND" ...

Regarding this: “controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters”, I will not repeat the whole explanation, you can read it again here: “Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles… have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator …”

You have a problem when you speak without verifying what you are saying and without providing evidence to prove it, which unjustifiably discredits other editors, me in this case. You say “BB is in virtually all the discussions and reverts in the article from the very beginning. Is he the guardian of it?” Is 11% "all"? Also, there is not much difference between you and me. Let's see:

Found 131 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (11.2% of the total edits made to the page)	Found 215 edits by BallenaBlanca on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (11.23% of the total edits made to the page)
Found 114 edits by Iñaki LL on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (9.74% of the total edits made to the page)	Found 67 edits by Iñaki LL on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (3.5% of the total edits made to the page)

And finally, you said that you did not have time to answer the specific information I was asking you to prove your accusations, but you did have time to delete my messages, copy them in another place and leave a message, and to delete them again. As I said on your TP "I would not have opened this incident if you had not deleted my messages from your talk page"

You are also violating WP:AGF by saying "he ignited this Incident, at a moment when he knew I would be less available for Wikipedia purposes", especially if we consider that your complaint about time is permanent "Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations", "I am not going to dwell on this because I do not have time for noise", "no time now", "I do not have time for your long, never-ending investigations", "I have not got time now to waste", "I do not have more time" ... even reproaching me that I do have time "I do not have as much time as you do", "You seem to have a lot of time, right?", "First of all, the editor seems to have a lot of time, which I do not.", "he does have a lot of time", "The editor in question, (...) besides having plenty of time" ... So, how can we know what is the right moment for you? Wikipedia can not be stopped because you do not have time. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Very funny RichardWeiss. Specially the part when you say I attack trans people, when I defending them in front of BallenaBlanca, who says that Wikipedia can't reflect what people think about THEIR OWN IDENTITY. So if you want to expose someone, start looking at the spanish ultranationalist you are defending here and there.-Theklan (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan I've removed the trans example. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you removing content, RichardWeiss?

Theklan, I am asking you to stop labeling me and attacking me, you have done it again, now labeling me as an “ultranationalist” and also without any proof.

"trans people, when I defending them in front of BallenaBlanca" (???!!!!!!) Oh, my God, Theklan, what a way to distort the words, misrepresent the facts and take things out of context!!!

Why do not you provide diffs? You were referring here to these messages of mine, based on the policies Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is_not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context:

• [68] If we allow Wikipedia to take into account the wishes of the person and how they want to be described at their whim, and not the realities, it would be a wreck for Wikipedia that would shake all its foundations. This violates all the Wikipedia policies and all common sense. (…) We can not allow people to use Wikipedia as a platform for their own objectives, in the case of this RfC of a political nature. (…) No one is denying that he is Catalan, the real situation is put in the right context: he is a Spanish from Catalonia.
• [69] His country is Spain, his nationality is Spanish. We have to establish the correct context per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context, and in the body of the article, he can be called Catalan as many times as needed. It is explained and re-explained in this thread ... The nationality and not the ethnicities, is what has to appear in the first place. Ethnicity is added, in addition to nationality, if is relevant for the person in question, and for that reason we support adding "from Catalonia".

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Another wall of text from BallenaBlanca. ANI isn't the place to make content arguments, but as you've introduced it, you're completely wrong about how Wikipedia treats a person's self-identification. The principle here is that we do indeed give considerable weight to how a person describes themselves. It is essential in matters of gender, religion and ethnicity that we defer to an individual's wishes. In the case of regional identity, an individual from the Basque Country may choose to identify as Spanish or as Basque, just as I may choose to identify as English, or British, or as European. You have no right to contradict both reliable sources or an individual's self-identification to impose your view that they are uniformly "Spanish". What is more relevant to this discussion is that you have no right to edit-war your preferred nationalistic view that people from Spain can only be identified as Spanish into an article such as Kortatu who clearly identify as Basque ("{in their last record all the songs were sung in Basque)". Nor may you repeatedly re-post the same screed onto a user's talk page as you did at User talk:Iñaki LL. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: No, this is not the place to talk about this, in this you are right. I just replyed a specific message from Theklan, nothing more. But in the rest you are not right, what applies is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, except in exceptional cases and after RfC. This is being discussed at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC, I invite you to give your opinion there. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet you continue to make content arguments. As you wish. You are completely wrong about MOS:LEAD. Or at least lack understanding of the full guidance: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." A band that comes from the Basque region and sings in Basque – and is known for that – like Kortatu will quite sensibly be described as "a Basque band", not "a Spanish band from the Basque Autonomous Community", which is blatantly a nationalist formulation. The same goes for Jorge_Oteiza, a famous Basque artist, where you changed a Basque Spanish sculptor to a Spanish sculptor more than once. I could give the diffs of a dozen more examples of you removing "Basque" or changing it to "Spanish". So don't try and tell me you're not pushing an anti-Basque/anti-Catalan agenda, because the evidence is there for everybody to see from your edits. It's about time admins dealt with this. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that you have not read the full disucussions, otherwise you would not be saying this and you would not be reaching those erroneous conclusions by saying I am "POV pushing", discrediting me without reason when I am fulfilling what has been talked there. Is the administrator Yunshui also pushing their POV [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] ... ? In fact, you have not participated in the talk page until a few minutes ago [84], your first and only post till the date [85]. There is where you should continue discussing this topic, not here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You're unable to justify your edit-warring and poor behaviour at the user's talk page, so you try to discredit me. Pathetic. You have no idea what I've read and your assertion that I "would not be saying this" is completely without any substance or foundation. When you come to this notice board with unclean hands asking for admin action, you're going to have to justify your own actions in the dispute. You've edit-warred against multiple other editors and violated WP:TPG, and now you've made a complaint here in an attempt to remove one of your opponents from a dispute. You want to imply that everybody has a POV except you, but uninvolved editors need only examine the history of an article such as Catalan independence referendum to see the tactics you use to keep your preferred POV in place. This discussion here is about your behaviour, not the tangent you started about content. Now address the issues of your conduct and see if you can justify the edits of yours that I'm complaining about. It's pretty clear to any neutral observer that you can't. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Please, stop your accusations, I am feeling harasssed by you, you are not fulfilling WP:AGF “with unclean hands”, “an attempt to remove one of your opponents from a dispute” “to see the tactics you use to keep your preferred POV in place”, “see if you can justify the edits of yours that I'm complaining about. It's pretty clear to any neutral observer that you can't” and I do not understand your reactions, especially considering that you had never edited in that page nor in its talk page.

“You're unable to justify your edit-warring and poor behaviour at the user's talk page,” Sorry, but I have explained it in detail here, with links to the policies that I thought should be applied, although I apologized nonetheless if I made a mistake.

“the tangent you started about content” Excuse me, it was not me, it was Theklan who started that. How can I defend myself against the accusations if I can not answer? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: If you don't want to have your actions examined and criticised, don't start ANI threads with unclean hands. AGF is not a suicide pact. You're in no position to try to play the "victim card", as you've been pushing your own POV no less than the other editors involved, and you've continually failed to answer the complaints I've made about your behaviour. It is not harassment to point out at ANI: (1) your poor conduct in edit-warring; or (2) your repeatedly making the same argumentative posts on another editor's talk page; or (3) your returning to an old dispute and making 10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent. All of those are sanctionable, and you need to start revising your position, apologising here for your poor behaviour, and trying to convince uninvolved administrators that you won't do the same in the future. Otherwise I'll start compiling the diffs of your editing to make the case for you to be topic-banned from Spain-Basque-Catalan topics. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not care if my actions are examined and criticized. The problem is the tone and the attitude, that I feel as aggressive and assuming bad faith, and the misinterpretations.

For example, you are now saying that I did "10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent." Those reversions (btw not 10 but 9) had no relationship with Iñaki LL, they were motivated by 8 disruptive edits by Theklan and 1 by an ip. I just explained this here in detail, in response to your other message where you asked me for explanations about them. I think it's a very serious accusation and you should apologize.

I also do not understand why do you continue insisting on the edits on Iñaki LL's talk page, since I have already explained it here and apologized for my mistake on two occasions [86] and [87]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I just saw that an administrator had already warned you that you were harassing me and attacking me, but you are insisting on the same behavior, with the aggravating circumstance that you are making mistakes that are harming me even more, as explained above. Details here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: on the contrary, you do care very much if you are criticised, and reply to it with walls of text, all of which fail to address the issues raised. Smoke and mirrors and I've seen it a hundred times before from POV-pushers. You don't mind dishing out the complaints but think that you should be immune to criticism. Well, you're not. This is ANI and you come here asking for administrative action, but don't like it when your actions are exposed as being even worse than those you are complaining about. WP:BOOMERANG would be a good page to read.

I object very strongly to your tone and attitude as well. You treat your opponents in debate with a patronising air, and refuse to accept that your own behaviour (edit-warring, violation of TPG, retaliatory reverts) is something that can be criticised. You constantly misrepresent my examination of your conduct as "harassment", and you should be aware that false charges of harassment leave an editor open to sanction as well.

Stop writing in boldface - other editors can read your walls of text without any need to shove it down our throats.

Learn what it means to apologise - there's a good essay at WP:APOLOGY. A qualified apology is no apology at all. "I apologise if I made a mistake" is insincere and avoids making a genuine apology. Do you take us all for idiots? --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rexxs for your contribution to this discussion, also to MPS1992 for the removal of repeated unhelpful, overbearing walls in my talkpage by BallenaBlanca.

For what is worth, the last time BallenaBlanca intervened in my talkpage reverting my removal of his walls (which he attempted to justify with WP guidelines and policies, I should remind [88]), I saw 20 notifications at a time in my alerts, at least 17 of them directly serial reverts made by BB in Basque articles that were quiet at the moment of erupting this dispute. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, Iñaki, why do not you give all the information and once again you are limiting yourself to expose only one part, distorting the facts, and also again without providing any diff? (By the way, what does this have to do with what we are talking about?). As it is happening to me many times with you in the articles and their talk pages, when I deepen in your edits / claimings and contrast the data, the real facts and adjusted vision of the reality come to light. And then you take refuge in arguments such as "I do not have time for your long, never-ending investigations", "Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations", "I am not going to dwell on this because I do not have time for noise", "I have not got time now to waste in another discussion on WP policies", "I do not have as much time as you do", etc.

Let's see in this case:

I made edits in those pages about a month and a half ago, which you reverted with edit summaries that are considered personal attacks, misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil per WP: SUMMARYNO:

1. (Undid revision 842927897 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
2. (Undid revision 842923344 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv POV editor)
3. (Undid revision 842918300 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
4. (Undid revision 843078112 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv systematic controversial editing)
5. (Undid revision 842925973 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
6. (Undid revision 842918401 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
7. (Undid revision 842926502 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
8. (Undid revision 842927233 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv verified info by campaignerr)
9. (Undid revision 842931726 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose editing)
10. (Undid revision 842931555 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
11. (Undid revision 842930922 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose, contentious editing)
12. (Undid revision 842926603 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious POV editor)
13. (Undid revision 842931881 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)

I had patience despite these multiple attacks. I respected your reversions so far because I was waiting calmly to see how the open discussion in Talk Puigdemont was resolved, as I explained to you in detail here. I did not want to do any edit until I knew exactly what the correct attitude was.

It has been now when it has been clear and that's why I have recovered the previous versions, following the advice of the administrator Yunshui Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2018 Yunshui "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles." and his own reversions (I will not go back to paste all the links here, you have them a little above [89]), which seems you are ignoring despite the numerous explanations here, in other talk pages and edit summaries. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You are now claiming that your excuse for the retaliatory reverts is that you were waiting for the outcome of the RfC before making your reversions? The Talk:Carles Puigdemont #RFC on nationality concluded that "There is a clear consensus amongst the participating editors that Carles Puigdemont should be described as a Catalan politician" on 15 June. So, please explain how that justified you consecutively removing "Basque" and "Catalan" descriptions from 10 articles on 6 July. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you really intepreting as something negative the fact that I have waited more time, until I have a certainty? This is very unfair, since it is the opposite: I have been very cautious and I have waited until I had clear ideas, that is, until I knew with certainty if the RfC about Carles Puigdemont was applicable to more articles or not. This has not been clearly discussed until July 4, motivated by the edits in which a user "sistematically changed the supposed nationality on the bio articles of a number of political personalities from the independentists spectrum" (see Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC). The administrator Yunshui pronounced about it: Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2018 Yunshui (→‎Controversial use of above RfC) "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles. It covers the one case of how Wikipedia should describe Carles Puigdemont. Nowhere in the RFC is it stated that this decision should affect all articles dealing with nationality - for that, you would need a site-wide RFC debated in a central location. Using the above RFC to justify sweeping changes to other articles is verging on disruptive."

These edits from 6 July that you are naming have no relationship with Iñaki LL. There are not 10 articles, but 9 (8 Basque, 1 Catalan). The 8 Basque are reversions of edits that the user Theklan made unilaterally, contrary to what was discussed and is being discussed in Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC, in which he is participating. As you can see above, as explained by Yunshui, it is a disruptive behavior and therefore, my reversions are adjusted to policies.

In addition, I have not "removed" Basque and Catalan, it is a misinterpretation of my edits. What I did was apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, which specifies that the country and not the ethnicity is what should appear in the first place of the lead. I have already explained in this same thread here and here.

I will explain the reversions one by one, so that you have no doubt. I collapse it, so as not to overload the reading. Please, then do not protest and tell me they are "walls of text", you are asking me for details and I give them to you. I give the links to the diffs of my reversions, with the edit summaries and a small excerpts from the lead, so that you can see how I have not "removed" the allusions to Basque or Catalonia (and there are many more in the rest of the articles), but I have adjusted the nationality following the MOS. NOTE: the Basque country, despite its name, is not a country, it is an autonomous community of Spain, and Catalonia too.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, BallenaBlanca, stop citing me, stop the harassment against me. Note to Swarm: I have been cited three more times here today... what should I do? -Theklan (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Theklan, I was just defending myself against an accusation and I had to give specific information. I thought it's more honest to ping someone to let them know that someone is talking about them. I will not ping you again. I apologize.

By the way, I just read your talk page, in which you've been talking about me and I would have liked if you pinged me, but you did not. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I pinged you twice, in two different messages, not three times. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that there is anyone uninvolved still commenting in this thread. The wise thing for those who are involved, would be to back away from this noticeboard and back away -- as far as you are able -- on the battleground articles. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I just see that you have been talking about me in another place (without pinging me) and that the administrator Swarm warned you that you are committing "harassment" and "personal attacks" and that "Your own behavior in the thread was poor and counterproductive and I would ask you to refrain from escalating drama at AN / I like that in the future." "What you did in the AN/I thread was harassment. I'm sorry if you were pinged by someone there, but you made the choice to involve yourself, as well as the choice to use that as an opportunity to harass BellenaBlanca, for no other reason than that your personal beliefs differ and you have a personal issue about it."

These message are from 21:06, 7 July 2018 and 21:27, 7 July 2018 and your recent messages accusing me of "unclean hands", "pushing your own POV", " 10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent", "retaliatory reverts" have been after that warning (on 15:59, 8 July 2018 and on 16:14, 8 July 2018). --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I am under no obligation whatsoever to ping you when I mention your behaviour elsewhere. period. As for Swarm's request to me, I've taken it up with him directly. If you think that I'm wrong to characterise you as coming to ANi with unclean hands, then you'd better start explaining how I was able to quote chapter and verse of your own poor behaviour in the very disputes you came to complain about. That is the very definition of wikt:unclean hands. If you're claiming that multiple reverts which changed "Basque" or "Catalan" to "Spanish" was not pushing your POV, then please justify how you can claim that the reciprocal edits were pushing the opposite POV. Is it a case of one of those irregular verbs: "I have a legitimate position; You are pushing a POV"? And are you seriously asking a neutral observer to believe that your 9 reverts on 6 July were simply the result of waiting for an RfC that closed on 15 June? --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Yes, I do really hope that the neutral observers can interpret my explanations. Actually, I would like everyone to interpret them correctly.

On the subject of nationality, you have begun to comment on the talk page for the first time on July 7. You are repeating the same thing that has already been said and explained many times, as @Crystallizedcarbon: has told you "RexxS: You can review the RfC as many of these issues have been covered above". You are in your right, of course, and I do not question it, but IMHO you still have to go a long way to understand the whole situation and assimilate everything that has been talking about the issue for about two months [90] [91] [92]. Then you will understand why you are wrong when you interpret that I am "removing Basque and Catalan".

As you can see in the discussion, I am in favor of having a wide RfC [93] [94] to be able to definitely set a pattern for all the articles or the exceptions that should be made, to avoid more disputes. And as I have accepted the result of the previous one, I will accept this one. Meanwhile, what applies is the MOS. You can not reproach me for fulfilling it. It is very unfair. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: One of the problems that you are facing is that you don't recognise a neutral observer when one appears. I have no interest in arguing about nationality or citizenship, and I have no "dog in the fight" between Spanish and Basque/Catalan proponents. I am English and don't edit on the topics you are so heavily invested in. That does not, however, give you the right to dismiss my opinion simply because it disagrees with yours. You are attempting - just as on talk pages - to swamp a discussion until you wear out those who disagree with you. You have now made 19 posts to this thread, while I have made 8. Iñaki LL has made just 2. You have added well over four times the amount of text that I have posted. I have made no posts to this thread other than as a response to yours, and those were made because I do not believe that you are the innocent party and Iñaki is the villain. If administrative action should be the outcome here, I intend to make sure that neutral admins understand that Iñaki LL ought not to be singled out because he cannot find the time to respond to your constant walls of text. That is a tactic I can see you use regularly - a typical example would be Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 where you have added more text in your 21 posts than all the other editors to that talk page combined. I am not wrong when I tell everyone that you are removing "Basque" and "Catalan" from articles, and I find it astonishing that would blatantly claim not to be doing so when anyone can look at these diffs from the last few days and see that you are not speaking the truth:

• Nestor Basterretxea] - you changed "Basque artist" to "Spanish artist"
• Arnaldo Otegi - you changed "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• Joseba Sarrionandia - you changed "Basque writer" to "Spanish writer"
• Negu Gorriak - you changed "Basque group" to "Spanish group"
• Jorge Oteiza - you changed "Basque sculptor" to "Spanish sculptor"

There are multiple other edits of yours where you changed |nationality=Basque to |nationality=Spanish and Catalan gets similar treatment. I'm not interested in debating with you whether you think you can justify those edits or not. That's a content debate and this board is for dealing with behaviour. Your behaviour is to remove"Catalan"/"Basque" and replace it with "Spanish" and your denial in the face of clear evidence does not do much for your credibility. I understand completely that other editors involved are making the reverse edits to yours, but that does not make their behaviour wrong and yours right. You are simply interpreting MOS very narrowly to suit your own POV. Others are entitled to interpret it more broadly: some will state that the Basque people constitute a nation, with their own language, culture, traditions and self-government. That would satisfy the New Oxford American Dictionary's definition of a "country", although it is clear that the sovereignty of the Basque region belongs to Spain. You do not have a monopoly on the ability to interpret MOS, as the RfC on Carles_Puigdemont (a "Catalan politician" by consensus) demonstrates.

What would be fair is for you to accept that the other side in this dispute has a POV that is equally as valid as yours; to accept that you can't force your POV on articles by edit warring; to accept that you should not fill article talk pages with so much text that nobody else has the strength to keep up with you; to accept that you should be striving to find consensus and common ground with those whose opinion differs from yours. Editing Wikipedia does not have to be a win-lose endeavour. --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I confess I passed on reading all of the above but I get the sense that there is not only one NPA breach there. Let me say this. Back in the fall, when the Catalan protests were raging, I worked on the page with Ballena, Inyaki and also some others (Carbon, Impru20, etc), and often what I ended up doing was mediating conflicts between one side that could basically be called Spanish sovereigntist and the other that is at least regionalist (see Basque nationalism, Catalan nationalism -- much of the acrimony is due to hangover of events from the Francisco Franco era, which is why this is a more volatile area than say English-Scottish topics). The sense I got was that despite hte accusations of "being nationalist" hurled back and forth above, neither Ballena nor Inyaki are the sort of the tattooed soccer hooligans you might imagine -- they're actually both very productive editors in their respective domains. My feeling is that both are "defensive" on the rather emotive issue -- for example, Ballena would react very negatively to portrayals of Spanish police as abusive and present sources (which to be fair were from RS) portraying Catalan protestors as violent, which would cause Inyaki to become defensive and present more sources (also RS) either mitigating these or reinserting ttext about police abuse, and the "defense" cycle would continue. There was never an independent POV push by either party that wasn't in reaction to something. I noticed WP:NOTHERE POV warriors on both sides, neither of these two was among them.

Well many months have passed since I stopped editing in the topic area but I believe the same trajectory probably continued. The central issue was a mutual inability to WP:AGF plus the gradually worsening personality conflict (both sides consider the other to be Spanish/Basque nationalists and loyal only to that, rather than also loyal to our collaborative project of an online encyclopedia -- which I actually believe both to be). I'd recommend to both to stay out of their area of conflict for a month or so -- you'll notice how much nicer life is without constant Wiki wars. They're really a waste of time and even when you actually are a POV pusher, they're kind of futile.--Calthinus (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Thank you very much for your feedback, you are very kind. I really appreciate your opinions, I consider that you are a neutral and very valid editor. You are right in many of your observations, but I would like you to see how the situation is now (see for example this and this) and how I am trying by all means to reason calmly with Iñaki LL, but he usually reacts with little tranquility, as he himself says "Admittedly, at times I got bit on my nerves."

I just want him to calm down and he answer calmly, objectively and without personal attacks. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you definitely do deserve credit for trying to work it out as collaborators on his talk page BallenaBlanca. Iñaki LL did make a mistake not to engage you there (though I don't think that deserves a block). Looking further at this it seems a lot of the worsening of the dispute came as a result of the dispute about Carles Puigdemont's identity -- honestly, that is just a waste of time for all parties, you expended 10K or so of talk page argument text over a couple words which don't really even matter to readers, and both sides managed to alienate each other (for what its worth, it is true that Wiki policy prefers mentioning citizenship in the lede versus ethnicity -- but personally I think this should be amended for the special case of those who have strong separatist identities).

A lot of the "extra" commenters here seem to have made this thread itself a lot worse. I see one was blocked. "Unclean hands" is something I wouldn't say to even someone I wanted permabanned. Another two went into an argument about whether someone identifying as "Basque" and not Spanish was legitimate or not -- an argument that is frankly ridiculous to have (who gave either of you the right to say whose identity is valid or not?), especially on an ANI thread. This thing has gotten so long partially due to that, it's not really fair to expect mods to put the time into reading it all.--Calthinus (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight for those who don't have English as a first language, the phrase "unclean hands" is a legal term-of-art with a precise meaning. It is an equitable defence which argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to an equitable remedy because of their own behaviour prior to the complaint. My point in this case is that I mean BallenaBlanca's editing was just as much a contributory factor to the dispute as Inaki's. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. It was also tactless to say, especially for those who aren't native speakers of English let alone English legalese (BB is in the biomedical field I believe). Actually the use of legalese when it is not relevant to the topic (i.e. a law article) for content conflicts is... not civil, in my opinion (it is by its very nature a confrontational form of discourse). We all make mistakes, it's okay, it just shouldn't have happened. --Calthinus (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I object to your criticism. The term "unclean hands" is used regularly on these noticeboards, and I am not going to be held responsible for your failure to understand what is common usage here. A quick search shows 195 instances of the phrase's use on ANI, on ArbCom, and in the behavioural guideline Wikipedia:Gaming the system as well as the essay Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot - each of which are recommended reading before filing at ANI. Please be kind enough to do your homework before pontificating in future. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on calming this RexxS and Calthinus. I would have two small points on your last edit, Calthinus, that are on my opinion the two main factors here. I think Iñaki LL (and also me), assume that we have a POV on some subjects, but BallenaBlanca doesn't think his reverts or editwarring if also reflecting his own POV. It would be a clear case of WP:TEND (as I see it). BallenaBlanca thinks (WP:AGF) that he is only defending the right interpretation of the MoS, but this was pretty clear not to be the case in Talk:Carles Puigdemont. For me, it would be enough to read him saying he has, indeed (and obviously, by the way) a POV in the subject.

I would also like to note that identifying someone as "Basque" or "Spanish" is not ridiculous, as identifying someone as male or women (or whatever) is not ridiculous for some people. If we all understand that, this discussion, the editwarring and the AN/Is would be over.

Once again thanks for your patience and help on de-escalating this. -Theklan (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Should clarify -- what is "ridiculous" to me is for multiple users to have an argument (on an ANI not about that user!) over whether another user has a right to identify as Basque and not Spanish "because Basque is not a nationality". That's their right alone. The ethnicity/nationality of subjects of wiki articles are another (largely futile, see also Nikola Tesla...) issue, but obviously challenging someone's identity to their face is considered by most people to be offensive. While I don't think challenging the identity of another user is technically a WP:PA, it's pretty obviously not socially acceptable.--Calthinus (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not get all the details above, as I said to BB at the moment prior to igniting this incident, I am not stationary now and adds difficulty for me to gather or answer to all relevant details. Calthinus, your work to calm down the atmosphere is appreciated and your contribution of great value, it is no doubt well meant, still let me disagree.

The issue is that there is an editor who takes it as a self-assigned duty to go to articles where he has no thorough understanding and has actually contributed nothing, to impose a contended vision of his in which according to him "Spanish" is tantamount to NPOV and "Basque" is marked and second rank or irrelevant or not worth appearing in the lede, removing key identity information. Or he may claim "per MOS" just like this [95] in which the "per MOS" in the edit summary might as well be "per WP Principles", or "per NPOV", or whatever comes to BB's mind really, when it is just "Expanded", paraphrasing it, "I am adding a new piece of information and referencing it", which is the accurate and helpful edit summary for other contributors to have a clue.

Furthermore, after forcing repeatedly a wall into another editor's personal page (me), citing WP:TALKNO [96], he decides that he will open an Incident... against me (!). He goes on to do up to circa 15 reverts removing "Basque" and adding "Spanish" instead in articles where I had edited not long ago (I guess that is also per NPOV!), and I receive up to 17 alerts (notifications) all of a sudden, which has never happened to me so far.

Note also that in the edit summaries where BallenaBlanca adds Basque → Spanish, he cites "See Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Controversial use of above RfC"[97]. Well, it is/was an ongoing debate, nothing is conclusive, and hence it cannot provide support to neither option.

BB keeps adding walls that knocks out editors out of tediousness. Well that very hint ("be concise, Ok?" ) and request of clarity was exactly what I added to his talk page, [98] to which he responded with an unhelpful wall in my talk page [99]. Sorry if I have been too lengthy above, I had to collect all the ideas that I think are relevant to the circumstances in which this Incident started. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's ok Iñaki LL, you're not the only one who posts walls here. Well I have been slightly idiotic in this thread myself. I'll be more clear: I really doubt that admins will hand out bans to anyone in this thread. However, if you guys -- and all the others in the topic area that I have noticed when I edited the area -- continue down your current path, the long term result is going to likely be that Catalonia affairs (possibly also Basque) will be covered by discretionary sanctions like India-Pakistan, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine and Armenia, etc. When and if that happens, mods are not going to want to go through the history of this all (believe me there is a lot)-- instead they will simply start handing out sanctions and/or topic bans like candy until the headache dies down (remember, I edit the Balkans, I've seen it). Personally, I don't want that to happen (though I confess it may become necessary), as we lose capable editors from the area, and it will also chase away some new editors from the area. Truth is you both have your own personal POVs (so do I) and emotions about the issue, both of you do also authentically care about the quality of encyclopedic coverage there. You will never "win" against the other, instead you will boht "lose" (definitely a lot of time and sanity, possibly editing privileges). If you want to "win", stay away from wars over nothing (if X-Basque/Catalan/Galician accomplished person is describes as or becomes just "Basque/etc" or just "Spanish" or Martian, reverting this will not help you even if you were solely trying to convince the reader becuase this doesn't convince the reader of anything). Each others' editing habits also aren't as important as your ability to get along in the long run. Attempts to ban the other side will get either both of you banned or neither in the most likely scenario -- admins are humans and tend to prefer the "safest" scenario. It's good that there are both sides there to balance each other out, in the end the articles affected are better in the long run because of it (better source checking, etc...) -- if we ignore the temporary issues of disruptive edit warring and the POINTy COATRACK sections that occasionally appear. You don't have to like each other, you just have to pretend to in public enough so that you don't end up liking each other even less.

Well speaking of walls, that's it from me. I'm not perfect myself. Perhaps I haven't actually be helpful here. I hope I have, but fear I haven't. We'll see I guess.--Calthinus (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly

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

---

Good evening, I am requesting the attention of an Administrator, as I am repeatedly incurring issues with Marchjuly, as they have consistently followed me around Wikipedia as I edit and create, citing all manner of virtually irrelevant standards and protocols, and I have tried mitigating their concerns, however they just seem to raise more and more, and such is why I've been forced to semi-retire, as I can't take the mental strain and anguish that has stemmed from the acrimonious debates he has caused. Prime examples include Talk:Vancouver Police Department, Talk:List of British Columbia provincial highways, as well as a litany of deletion requests he's filed against me in the Wikimedia Commons, ignoring rules as he went. I have tried to explain things to him, and sadly much of that was lost when I purged my talk page prior to my short-lived retirement, which ended when I decided that I still wanted to be a part of Wikipedia, and thus transitioned to a semi-retirement, as explained above. I truly need him dealt with, as I have worked my fingers to the bone in attempts to satisfy him, however he has been nothing but uncooperative, and has made no efforts to help the community in his actions. He has only torn it down, created hostilities, and made my life here hell. Please address this ASAP!

Thank you, Fhsig13 (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please cite specific diffs, showing edits where Marchjuly has violated specific policies. Vague accusations such as this can and have been taken as personal attacks, and the result if you fail to do so could be sanctions against you, Fhsig13. The fact that MJ is only one of multiple editors that have reverted you on the articles you mentioned does not speak well for your filing here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given specifics above that show that he is guilty of Wikipedia:WikiBullying, and I will ask that you withdraw you involvement here, as you are involved in these incidents, and your ruling on the matter would therefore constitute a conflict-of-interest. Fhsig13 (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

One problem everyone who has dealt with you on Wikipedia has had, Fhsig13 is your tendency to engage in WP:IDHT behavior. You'll likely see a flying aboriginal weapon if you do that here. You are REQUIRED to post WP:DIFFs to back your claim of harrassment, or bullying, or whatever it is you are claiming. Also, by coming here, your behavior is open to scrutiny too. Further, content disputes are not settled here, so the fact that I am editing on one of the two articles you've mentioned is irrelevant. I'm here, whether it suits you or not. You've made an unsubstantiated claim about another editor's behavior. How does the fact that we've edited on the same article effect that? John from Idegon (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

[Non-admin comment]. I took a look at the Talk:List of British Columbia provincial highways and if I understand correctly, the signs cannot be used because they do not meet the criteria for non-free fair-use rationale. You could, though, use {{External media}} or the External links section to provide links to the signs from elsewhere on the web.

Regarding the table of fallen soldiers that you want to add, it is not standard to have such a section in articles about police departments. And, there was a legitimate reason given for removing the list. I don't see what the issue is here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure how to repsond other than to ask Fhsig13 to please provide WP:DIFFs in support of the specific claims he's making, particularly the ones about me "ignoring rules" and about me Wikibullying. Also, while WP:BLANKING his user talk page is permitted, whatever inappropriate things I am supposed to have posted there can be found in the page's history. I am more than happy to try and explain/clarify them if specific examples can be cited. Same goes for any comments I might've made on any article talk pages or even Commons. Finally, since Fhsig13 has started this discussion here, he should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG, WP:HARASS#NOT and WP:CRYBULLYING. Anyway, that's all I have to say on this unless there are questions about specific edits or specific behavior which need to be answered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fhsig13, just in case you don't understand what a "diff" is, here is the diff of the personal attack you just made on Marchjuly. John from Idegon (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Fhsig13, did you really just come here to ANI to complain about another editor's conduct while almost simultaneously calling the other editor an "asswipe"? Do you have any idea how bad that makes you look? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fhsig13: I strongly suggest that you back up your claims with WP:DIFFs as several others have noted and retract the personal attack linked above. While the general requirement or civility here may be loosely enforced here, calling someone an "asswipe" as you did is, in my experience and opinion more than sufficient for you to be blocked from editing for a time. If you continue to attack editors and make combative statements like " If you keep following me around wikipedia, critcizing all I do, when you aren't an admin, I will ensure you get what is coming to you. Last warning, Sir. Your move." I anticipate the "semi-retirement" you mentioned will become both permanent and enforced.

Please, in a concise and at least minimally polite manner, state your complaint and provide diffs to support each accusation. If you are unable to do that then it would be best if you withdraw this request. Regardless of what you choose to do please stop with the insults, name calling and unsustainable threats. No one is moved or amused by such behavior and it only serves to weaken your position. Jbh ^Talk 07:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:, you've some experience with this editor. Any comments? I also note that this use of personal attacks has a long history, see the attempt at an ArbCom case[100] and their comment at the bottom (under our vote)".I urge you to please reconsider your verdict on hearing the matter, as these two despicable gentlemen insist on having everything THEIR petty way,". Frankly I have little hope that this editor will or can reform and am considering an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocking indefinitely. Wikipedia is not therapy; nor should this longstanding problematic editing behaviour in addition to unsubstantiated attacks remained unaddressed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• Post closing comment Apologies, I am a bit late to this discussion. This is a newish user that I spent some time trying to help grasp the way we do tings here. Unfortunately I think I failed. Their behavior in this situation and refusal to engage in the discussion they opened appears to be part of a pattern of problematic editing. Some of that can be chalked up to the sort of stuff we see in newbies. And some might well be behavioral issues that signal deeper problems such as the already mentioned IDONTHEARYOU behavior and a general inability to function in a collaborative project. Given that I specifically warned them about the perils of the drama boards and they seem to have chosen to ignore that warning I support a BOOMERANG block. This editor needs some time away from here and their behavior has in fact reached the point of being disruptive. I'm not sure if I would have started with an indef but I leave that to the judgement of the blocking admin. Courtesy ping Doug Weller -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

View on Catalonia seem to be spoiling for a fight

Hunig3 (talk · contribs) seems to be an WP:SPA and his recent contribs, however valid some of the points may be, are far from being consensual. Not sure what the best route forward is? I will notify him now that I have opened this discussion. Fob.schools (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• [Non admin comment / question] - Fob.schools, unless I am missing it, I am not seeing that you had any conversation with this user about what you perceive as a problem. See WP:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party. Why not post something with the user and try to resolve the issue that way first? What is the problem?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I started a conversation at Talk:Catalonia national football team#Editing about "national" team and pinged the parties involved. It seems that discussion should take place before getting into an ANI posting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

TBH, it’s not my forte at all. I just noticed a whole bunch of page moves and I can see arguments on both sides. I’m not sure who is in the right, but I think it’s obvious that Hunig3 is an SPA. I was hoping someone with more experience (you!) would know what to do next. You did. Thank you. Fob.schools (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for bringing up the topic. I have already replied to the discussion atTalk:Catalonia national football team#Editing about "national" team. I am new at this and did not spent as much time as I needed before editing. Nevertheless, I am honestly surprised that this post is directed to me, when Fcbjuvenil (talk · contribs) has reverted all the edits to include the Catalonian propaganda. Of course, that is the current version, and seeing how things work, will always be the published version, since it is not "consensual" to change it. If somebody wants to spread false information, as long as they produce it, you just need to claim that it is controversial, and report anyone who changes it, wishing that at some point, some day, it might become true.Hunig3 (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As requested, the conversation was moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Discussion about whether Catalonia is a national football team.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• half-serious list of topics on which WP should just drop all coverage as not worth the drama The second of two threads on the board RIGHT NOW related to Catalan separatism. Jesus. EEng 17:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the topic is more suitable for an encyclopedia than beauty pageants or WWE... –FlyingAce^✈hello 20:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This has also been posted at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but I don't know how active that talk page is. Two non-free images I recently used have been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. He's doing a lot of that today, not just mine, so this must be his area of concentration, at least for today.

I, for one, am not overjoyed by the method of deleting without talk page discussion explanation, but whatever . I need explicit information, not just linking of the policy. One was the album cover art used in the infobox at Emma Veary. The other was a newspaper clilpping used at Charles K.L. Davis. Can you give me a detailed explanation on what governs this?

— Maile (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Aye. A non-free image should be increasing the reader's knowledge of the subject of that article. A non-free album cover is absolutely fine in an article about that album, but is spurious in an article about the artist - a cover tells us nothing about that person (there have been a very few exceptions). In the other article, we already have a non-free image of that person, the clipping adds nothing else to that and is thus excessive. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IP Editor 94.66.144.210

94.66.144.210 has been repeatedly blanking COI and other templates on Alexis Marcou. See Special:Contributions/94.66.144.210/24 for that IP history. I and TheEpTic have reverted this edit a total of 5 times now. They were warned, and yet they continued to blank the pages. They are not responding to any communication. I posted on AIV, but nothing seemed to happen, and the unconstructive edits continued so I'm bringing it here. --Theredproject (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The IP hasn't touched the article for four days and there is no discussion on the talk page over the tags. Why not start one? I'm not surprised your AIV report was thrown out - see WP:DOLT. The tag says "This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject" - the principal contributor to the article is Mike1582 who hasn't edited in three years. Sounds to me like the tags have expired. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Theredproject: I agree with one of you the former the latter. Even an IP can be right most / some of the time  :) I've removed the tags. My semi-literate edit-summary should suffice as to why. Thank goodness no-one ended up at WP:ANEW, that's all I say. That would have been most unexpected. Have a good weekend everybody! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The article was actually started by 311080marc and earlier by them at Draft:ALEXIS MARCOU. Based on other edits like this it seems very likely that Mike1582 was then recruited as an undisclosed paid editor to "fix" the article. It is still riddled with unreliable sources and is highly promotional. I'd hazard a guess that much of the content will fail verification as well. Since when did tags expire? @Serial Number 54129: Please deal with the issues rather than removing the tags. I'm replacing them, and if the IP removes them again will block. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers

Over at AR-15 style rifle There is an ongoing dispute over the use of the word lethal [101] (well lethality, but much the same thing).

User:72bikers has added this a couple of time and been reverted, however their latest attempt was this [[102]], adding (more or less) the same material as this edit [[103]] [[104]](with some additions) and marked this as a minor edit.

Now I did not see this as a minor edit, and in fact see it as POV pushing by a back door rout to try and circumvent consensus (which they have not achieved.

Their response to my undoing their edit (as not minor and against consensus was this) [[105]].

I believe this was an attempt to POV push by a back door route. I do think calling it a minor edit was a massive misrepresentation, as well as a breach of the spirit(and maybe the letter, after all he must have known this material was contested already) of wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor Slatersteven from his AR-15 talk page statements only issue with this word, has stated [106] that the inclusion of this should only be allowed if in turn "wound characteristics" which consensus rejected, be allowed into the article. He has made statement like this [107] "It does not matter if one side are "experts" and one side are not", which appears to not follow policy. He has made repeated statement misinterpreting the use of this word "lethality". This statement, Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity. Clearly the statement neither states the weapons is lethal nor that it lacks lethality. They are merely stating the gun choice is not based on any form of lethality. They go on to state they believe they are copying what others have used "copycat" and explaining why. He for some reason believes this states the weapon lacks lethality [108], [109], [110]. The content in the article currently after Slatersteven started tampering with it, then Admin Drmies left this [111] Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.[59][60][61]

The recognized experts

Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator.

But I digress, that all is the context of the issue here. There has not been no repeated attempts to include content and he is taking things out of context. If you look at the talk page it was all supported and altered for that support. Editor Slatersteven would seem to be the only editor who is hung up on the word and its inclusion only if the non consensus wound content is included. I would like to not cast aspersions, but I belive he removed the quotes because he saw the word lethality. But not only did he remove the quotes from that citation but also 2 other citations as well. He removed quotes from the citations ([59][60][61]) and claims "NOt minor and no consensus, ad you know both of these things)", I believe adding the quotes to the citations was minor. I also do not believe policy states there needs to be consensus for adding quotes to citation already in the article. I believe the quotes taken directly from the references help the reader with context. As allowed by policy and like other (not left by me but bundled by me to help the reader) citations in the article . So he reverted my edit and came here to have me sanctioned, which is fine by me as I think this needs to be flushed out.

I believe his behavior is verging on disruptive and seems to follow a patern. He appears to have no interest in the AR-15 article other than reverting editors, all this is his reverts of me and other editors at this one article [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124]. -72bikers (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you can see this discussion [125], and this one [126]. Thus we have in fact about three places where various iterations of this material are discussed, and two where multiple users have objected to its inclusion. Thus the reference above to only me objecting only related to this [127]. Now I cannot guess why no one has commented again, as there are going to be many reason, but I think it is a stretch to assume it is because they now accept the edit (and even this is not true [[128]]). Which was followed by the edit where he just included the text as an in cite quotation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Lets stay on topic, you assert I violated policy for adding quotes taken directly from the sources to the citations already in the article. I believe you have no policy support for removing them, from three citations, simply because you saw the word lethality in one. Your behavior at the article is verging on disruptive as shown above. I have not been the only one to notice this as others have shown him his hasty reverts of me were not correct [129]. -72bikers (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As to this editor claiming violation for the quotes to the existing citations marked as minor. He himself, on the rare occasion he edits anything other than a noticeboard or a talk page [130], has made substantial edits on volatile content and not left any edit summeries at all, such as here [131], [132] found from just a quick look. -72bikers (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• Speedy close: This is a unneeded ANI for a non-issue. 72bikers added quotes to some citations. This was not a repeat of a previous edit and the edit neither changed the text of the article nor it's sourcing. I do get that citation quotes can be a form of POV push and Slatersteven could have that concern here. That said, when Slatersteven reverted the change 72bikers didn't restore it and that was that. It was not an unreasonable change. It was reverted and that should have been the end of it. Springee (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Being that this was brought here there should be a decision made. Did I violate policy, how is what I did any different from the many other citations in the article? If not the quotes should be restored. Has Slatersteven been disruptive? If so should he not be told to change this behavior? I am not looking to get anyone blocked or sanctioned. I just want a more conducive environment to improving articles.-72bikers (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the gist of this, it is not that he was done this before (not this exact action), it is whether or not his opinion that I did breach policy and should get a block [[133]] is correct, or was this in fact an attempt (as even Springee appears to be admit is can look that way) to get text added (and yes he did try to add the same point) that had already been rejected by a back door route using some "eccentric" wikilaywering "well it was not in the body" ect. It does (in that respect (and if I am right)) represent a pattern, a tendency to try and wikilaywer about very unique views of policy as well as the fact they are still leaving (and asking for warnings to be left) warnings on article talk pages (as well as disusing other editors actions there). Also they have made it clear they will still add this material again [[134]]. So before they even think to do this it must be clear whether or not quotes within citations are considered part of the article (and thus covered by the same polices as body edits). As I have said, if, this was not a case of a user who consistently argues from the POV of their interpretation of policy (including issuing frivolous warnings, something they have demanded others do not do to them, in inappropriate venues) this would not be major issue. They do thus I think it is, they really do need to be told that they need to really read and understand polices before they start to bandy about threats of bans that disrupt article talk pages. Either that or they are correct and In should be told this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As to the posting warnings on article talk pages, they have been warned about this by other users [[135]] I also seem to recall this very issue has been discussed here before, but cannot find it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Persistent pleas for help from Wikia user on my talk page on Wikipedia

About a week ago, I was contacted on my talk page by a user seeking help. He was blocked on Wikia for a TOS violation and was trying to find someone who could help. He had tried contacting a few other Wikipedians, one of whom is an admin, but was ignored or quickly shut down by them. I politely told him that I am not involved at Wikia but would look around to see if there was someone I could contact on his behalf. Based on the block details that he gave me, I was not optimistic that I would be able to do much if anything. My conclusion was that his best recourse was to file an appeal through Wikia's block appeal forms and to be patient in waiting for a response; I noted that if I messaged one or more admins or staff members there, it could be taken as meatpuppetry and would not help his appeal. This user is still messaging me trying to push his case. I think I have done as much as I can for him. I reminded him to remain civil and be patient, but his frustration level over the block is leading to him still leaving me more messages. I need another admin to take a look at this. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Slambo - It's good that you're at least trying to see what you can do to help this user. The WMF and Wikia, though they are both operated by Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley Starling - are completely different from one another. I don't know much nor do I participate in the "Wikia world", but all things from the ground up (and maybe with some similar Terms of Service) are completely different. Wikia is for-profit, the WMF obviously isn't. Unless ther's someone here who happens to know Wikia very well, there isn't anything we can do at all that would be helpful to him except to point him to where he can appeal his grievances with them :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah -- did you mis-type when you said that WMF and Wikia are both operated by Wales and Starling? Our article about Wikia says that Starling left involvement with it a few years ago; and I'm not sure that she still has any role in the WMF at the present time either? I could be wrong...?

Umm... I think I may have? I took a glance through the Wikia article before I came here; it was probably a result of a "mis-read"... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Slambo, I agree with what Oshwah said, you have been very patient here. Unfortunately the dispute is about some editor of some other website who was banned for a year on that website for uploading some porn pictures to something or other, and admits that they think the staff of that website do not care about their complaint. (All that from your talk page!) No-one here can help, so the kindest thing would be to ask someone to semi-protect your talkpage for a while if necessary, assuming a rangeblock would be more disruptive than that. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course, you could also suggest that they register an account here instead, if they are really sure that they want to edit an encyclopedia instead of a fansite or whatever Wikia is, and that they do not want to upload porn pictures as their main activity. They probably won't be interested in that opportunity -- which might be just as well -- since they seem to be counting every single hour until they can get back to whatever they were doing with "stories" on their site on Wikia. MPS1992 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to provide further help to this IP who got blocked for uploading porn to a website that has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. This person has shown zero interest in contributing to this encyclopedia, and their "persistent pleas" are disruptive. Accordingly, I have blocked the IP for a month. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Slambo was very kind and patient, but it is a crazy scenario - particularly as the IP user seems to feel entitled to insist on having someone go out of their way to fix an issue of their own making.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

So send them to commons then? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:MHS1976 on Western Kentucky Hilltoppers football

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football has created a general template for ~300 CFB team articles inclusive of a "History" section (Ex. Miami Hurricanes football#History, Akron Zips football#History, etc see List of NCAA Division I FBS football programs) formatted with multiple "Coach Name era (19YY–19YY)" subsections, ala:

History

• Early History (19AA-19BB)
• Coach Name era (19CC–19DD)
• Coach Name era (19EE–19FF)
• Coach Name era (19GG–19HH)
• etc

In the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers football article, the comprehensive use of coach/"era" subsections is stable to 2014[136] and even earlier when the History section was smaller and contained fewer subsections.

User:MHS1976 is now engaged in WP:DE of the CFB project's "era" naming convention in this article's History section, having repeatedly removed "era" (and occasionally substituting "Tenure" with associated MOS:HEAD issues) from the History section. While the edits and edit summaries change over time, the editor's general view seems to be that use of "era" is inconsistent with shorter tenures -which is inconsistent with the CFB project's view and global usage. [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] PP occurs 18:28, 5 July 2018 19:49, 6 July 2018 20:39, 6 July 2018

Recent pings to User:MHS1976 to engage on the WKU article's Talk page around these non-consensus edits:

20:25, 25 June 2018 19:46, 5 July 2018 20:30, 6 July 2018

User talk:MHS1976: Revision history shows multiple editors and one admin flagging these DE/3R edits, but failing to elicit much response. Recent examples:

May June [149] [150] [151] 22:06, 13 June 2018 prior ANI notice 15 June 2018 Admin warning re edit warring 05:28, 15 June 2018 DE3 warning 19:48, 5 July 2018 DE4 warning 20:34, 6 July 2018

While litigating of the use of "era" is not part of this notice, here is a good-faith offering from an AP story dating before the current WKU's coach first game as coach, "Western Kentucky starts new era with Mike Sanford as coach".AP story on USA Today This aligns with the project's global view that use of "era" is appropriate regardless of the duration of a coach's tenure. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There now seems to be SOCK behavior as well.9AVia9, 67.134.58.222 I can escalate that independently, pending this outcome.UW Dawgs (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruption to Aszure Barton

• 2600:1700:C850:9CB0:8596:75D4:2D36:EEE1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) &ndash
• 2600:1700:C850:9CB0:CDDA:B28D:EFEA:4C62 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) &ndash

This article has been heavily edited the last few days by similar IPs to include promotional material. The IPs involved are listed above. The material added seems to be poorly sourced. The revisions are also very badly written. The edits are clearly made to promote the subject in question. Funplussmart (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There's another user that came along and posted a tag to nominate the article for deletion, but didn't complete the steps to actually get it underway - no Afd page and no notification of the original article creator. So, I posted a message at Talk:Aszure Barton#Nominate for deletion and pinged the user, since the user only has two contributions at this moment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not possible for the person to execute all the steps, as to do so requires creating the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aszure Barton, and IPs cannot create pages. Also, I'm pretty sure pinging IPs is not possible either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the AfD template was removed and someone posted a message on the IP user's page that they need to create a user account to perform all the steps necessary to nominate an article for deletion. My guess is that it's related to these other two IPs and they are unhappy that the article has been cleaned up of promotional language, uncited content, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC) I don't know if the other IP is related, but here it is User:2600:1700:C850:9CB0:6427:5C21:EAE:4F5D.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There is now another user, a single-purpose account, adding problematic content to the article Dancenews, including removing adding a long list of accolades in the reference section and uncited content. This appears to be a situation that includes COI and WP:Sockpuppets.

Here are all the single-purpose accounts that have made edits that had to be RevDel'd for copyright violations:

• Dancenews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:ec6b:655:6278:7de6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Aszblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:cdda:b28d:efea:4c62 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:8596:75d4:2d36:eee1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:6cf1:5a04:6378:25ea (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - not sure if it was copyright issues, but it was similar to other previous edits and uncited

–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Could one of two things happen: 1) investigate for sockpuppets or 2) require users to request edits?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Added another single-purpose IP user to the list. Just wondering, are more examples needed to see that there is a problem?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Or, do separate tickets need to be opened up for page protection and a sockpuppet investigation... and see how that goes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

G6

Could someone delete Angela Ponce? Its been G6'd for seven hours. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Could someone patrol the page too? I'm getting a shit ton of errors all the time about invalid CSRF tokens and stuff like that. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't even see my notifications of load xtools or anything like that. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

L293D, I don't do page patrol, so I'm not clear where to go to get the [patrol] link. Is it still giving you issues? I re-deleted it and undeleted it; probably that won't help, but I figured I could try. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Its probably due to my poor internet connection. Pinging Boleyn and L3X1. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm abotu to head out, but I tried, and the curationt ool is not popping up on her page. It is working for me elsewhere. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd say you're lucky, because I can never get the curationt ool to do a goddam thing for me. EEng 14:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The curationt ool® is the new next generation of magickness, which will have features such as allowing editors to irrevocably delete pages they disagree with, and to summon genies four times an hour. Only a select few were selected to test it while in the beta stage, which is probably why it isn't working for you. Let me check the logs……hmm…yes…for some reason your access was revoked last year and its been throwing errors all the while. Let me go down to the basement to see why ti was revoked >49 flights of stairs later, opens door to see robot with evil red eyes foaming at the mouth while making memes on a new TRS80.< ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

True statement of fact: I once spent $1000.00 for an upgraded TRS-80, and those were hard-earned 1979 dollars. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So all tthose photos of you are of your brother? Cousin? Mayor? You don't have red eyes and foam at the mouth. Or do you…^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Lovemankind83

Taking this here from ARV on the advice of IanDBeacon (talk · contribs).

My initial report was: "Vandalism after final warning; Significant amount of vandalistic edits after an indefinite block was undone and final warning for vandalism. In these edits, user removes sources and content; some edits have no edit summary. Here is just a few I have seen, all of which are within the past 2 days. User also appears to be using sockpuppets and jokes about it.

• [152]
• [153]
• [154]

User blatantly removes an alternative title for an article.[155]"

User who told me to bring this here also notified me that the block was not for vandalism, and instead for the previous username of the account. However, Looking past 7 days this user has dozens, if not scores of similar edits which add bad grammar, remove sources, and delete content, and are generally disruptive. Many of these edits have been undone but no warnings left for them. R9tgokunks ⯃ 03:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This recent edit is less than good, taking out ref and substituting a redlink. When is a joking editor not a joking matter? Shenme (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hohes Gericht, Supreme Judges: If I may defend myself against those vicious claims, please Do Note, that I am not a native speaker. Following is the case: There is no vandalism ((which is by the way a trigger wording who discriminates the German tribe of the vandals) in my editing, but a restraint fight for the truth against commerical and political Marketing, which you can see here Ieuan Wyn Jones. I am full of hope that you (or the history) will speak me free!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm tempted to endorse an indef simply because any editor complaining that the word "vandalism" needs a trigger warning is participating in bad faith. Looking just at the editor's edit history, they do need to generally calm down, but I don't see enough for an indef block. A CheckUser may want to look at the confessed love of sockpuppetry, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

[Non-admin comment]. It seems to me that your other edits are problematic, Lovemankind83, but I agree with the edits you made to Ieuan Wyn Jones, you were removing non-encyclopedic content in that case.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:, you need to look at that diff again. The entire bottom paragraph was removed and it held a named BBC source that was used in other places in the article, thus rendering it unusable. ("Speaking about moderation at the British-Irish Council at Stormont on 16 July 2007, Jones said "We in Wales have also seen a coming together of parties with different traditions, on the basis of a shared programme for government, and a shared commitment to improve the lives of all our people in all parts of Wales.."<ref name="stormont">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6900349.stm |title=Jones and Brown meet at Stormont |publisher=BBC News |date=16 July 2007 |accessdate=27 April 2010}}</ref>") R9tgokunks ⯃ 06:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: But who on earth says, that every piece of Content of a serious source like BBC have to go in article, especially when the questionable section aim is so shamelelssly Marketing praise in front of an election? (lovemankind83)

Exactly. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source, and what a news source decides to publish is of little relevance: encyclopedia articles are based on secondary sources, not news reports. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been an SPI filled as a result of the aforementioned possibility of this person using sock-puppets. See here [[156]]. IanDBeacon (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi

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

---

The editor Winkelvi exhibits a pattern of repeated bullying of the participants in the Wikipedia talk pages. For reference, please see this editor's talk page where multiple users have complained about Winkelvi's behavior. I am not extremely adept at how to handle these issues, but I felt that this needed to be reported in some format. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The editor Westwind273 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be something of an SPA about what African ancestry means recently, particularly regarding Rachel Dolezal and Barack Obama. I don't have the time or energy to determine if their complaint has merit, or if a WP:BOOMERANG is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It does not have any merit. Looks like a competency issue or at least a IDNHT one on the part of Westwing273.--MONGO (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, if I knew that this was the reaction I would get, I wouldn't have complained in the first place. Sorry I posted anything. I won't come here again. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like your complaint is in regards to this discussion. An uninvolved admin can check that out but does not appear anyone is bullying anyone to me. All I see is some fringe stuff being promoted by Westwind273.--MONGO (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have had a few disputes with Winkelvi. But in this case, Winkelvi is entirely correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG beyond shadow of doubt. Westwind begun by posting forum style messages on Talk:Rachel_Dolezal, adopted a combative posture to requests for specific article adjustments and sources and followed it up by spraying the talk page with accusations of PA/bullying off-wiki links to rant threads on quora. The actual content of the article in question (a minor sourcing discrepancy) took five minutes to edit and consisted of modifying a single sentence, all of which could have been done by Westwind in the first place. WP:BOLD! Edaham (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I checked out Westwind's edit history and he/she hasn't made one edit to an article in a year. Over the years, 80% of the edits have been to article talk pages. Ten-twelve years ago there were some edits to articles And, the contributions definitely seem to be forum type kinds of conversations rather than clear communication of proposed language, backed up by reliable sources. So, people understandably get frustrated and try to get him/her to understand the need for clarity and sources. But I have not seen bullying.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to delete this, but it was reverted. If I had known this would be the reaction, I never would have posted here in the first place. Isn't it rather vindictive for people to keep commenting on this when I clearly stated that I wanted it taken down? I would suggest that you do some self-reflection on the vindictiveness and mean-spiritedness of throwing around the WP:BOOMERANG threat so casually, especially toward someone who made use of this complaint format for the first time. Frankly, I had thought of my participation in only the talk pages as a sign of admirable reticence. But I have learned that you people who are highly proficient in Wikipedia really live in your own world. So we will go our separate ways, but as we do, I would ask you to reflect on the virtue of kindness. It seems to be in short supply around here. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

When you file a report on AN/I, the behavior of all the involved parties is subject to examination. Because your behavior appears to be sub-optimal, the discussion has moved from your initial complaint about Winkelvi, to a discussion about whether you should be sanctioned in some manner. Because of this, you can withdraw your complaint about Winkelvi, but you cannot delete this discussion. (Besides, AN/I discussions are rarely deleted, except for vandalism. Instead they are marked in place as archived ("closed"), and then, eventually, moved to a Archive file.) Please do not attempt to delete this discussion again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I withdraw my complaint? I have come to realize that this is not a kind environment, and I just want out. (And by the way, isn't putting words in italics and bold considered poor etiquette?) Just get me out of here. --Westwind273 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

NguyeQuanTie

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

---

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

This user was blocked 48 hours by GiantSnowman due to adding unsourced content. Since his block is expired, he undid some of GiantSnowman edits and did this [157] on GiantSnowman user page, and tells us he is an admin on his user page [158] but actually he is not an admin. GiantSnowman is taking break now, so I post here Hhkohh (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest block NguyeQuanTie indef, but leave other people comment Hhkohh (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I am for an indef Block, because we should cultivate a Zero tolerance policy against trouble Maker like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Redact request

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

---

I need this diff] and the preceding diffs related to that section redacted. I think this is a WP:BLPVIO. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you miss the announcement at the top of the page and the edit notice in pink telling you "If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here"? Natureium (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did not pay attention, sorry! Do I need to follow that process now? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, now you know :) As it hasn't been revdel'd yet, doing that now would probably get it more prompt attention. Natureium (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Block review please

Swarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently blocked Theklan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) see this diff. The block reason there is given as "for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Iñaki LL". Swarm has since followed up by threatening to remove talk page access when asked "Can someone explain why I have been blocked? I don't understand the reason". IMHO, that is unacceptable intimidation from the admin, as any user may legitimately question a block reason that they do not understand. Permalink to talk page discussion.

The block itself has all the appearance of an administrator taking sides in a content dispute (whether individuals may be identified as Basque or Catalan) as it removes one of the participants from the debate. It does not sit well with Wikipedia's stance on neutrality in such issues to have an administrator sanction one side while effectively turning a blind eye to poor behaviour by the other side (edit-warring, breach of TPG, as outlined in the [[#Iñaki LL|thread above).

I would like to see how uninvolved admins see the block and the threat of revocation of talk page access, please. --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this is resolved, as Swarm has now unblocked Theklan. Sandstein 21:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that Swarm has done the right thing and unblocked. However, on the other issue, I'm going to suggest that he needs a warning not to threaten to remove talk page access over something as innocuous as an editor asking for further explanation.

It is clear that Theklan was mentioned five times before he replied in the thread above. WP:Harassment is intended to deal with "repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person". From Theklan's comments above I see only one that I would characterise as stepping over the mark:

• "The problem with strongly Spanish nationalists like BallenaBlanca ... a narrow spanish-ultranationalist POV ..."

Surely it is reasonable for Theklan to ask what Swarm meant by 'harassment' in his block notice? I can see no justification for the threat to remove talk page access, and I think Swarm needs to understand the circumstances when that is appropriate. This was not one of them. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors, admins, everyone has their way of handling issues; sometimes, everybody makes errors. This is not to say Swarm made an error, but I'm sure Swarm has taken your view into account. I don't believe there's any need to belabor this issue, given that Swarm has unblocked the editor. If you have any further issue, take it up directly with Swarm at their talk page, than at ANI. Thanks, Lourdes 06:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Lourdes's comment; RexxS has already engaged with Swarm on Theklan's talk page. I think the context is important here ([159]); although I haven't read through all of the walls of texts, heavy-handed actions against one side without examining potentially problematic editing behaviours of another side, like RexxS said above, is probably not the most helpful approach. No comment about "threatening" to revoke talk page access; I think Swarm made the comment with the previous three disruptive unblock rationales made by Theklan in mind. But Theklan was not being as disruptive with their unblock rationale this time, and accusing RexxS of "inviting harassment", "committing the same personal attacks" and "escalating drama" looks to be unsubstantiated; but maybe I am missing something. Alex Shih (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your point is well made, Alex, and on reflection I can see how the previous blocks could have influenced Swarm's thinking. Given that, I'm content to see this section wrapped up. I'll defend myself against any accusations aimed at me in the appropriate place. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Swarm making yet another rash decision out of anger? Shocking... Oh wait, no, the other thing. --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I have blocked the above user and they are obviously still upset about it. Will not be taking the bait again. Swarm ♠ 17:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Duc4Wikmedia

Duc4Wikmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is a vandal troll who has annoyed users on other non-related Wiki sites like the WikiFoundry ran CLG Wiki (as Duc4WikiFoundry) and on various Wikia ran Wikis (as Duc4Wikia). forcing users to make pages for him and really annoying them. I am a pretty easy target for him as he won't stop nagging me to make pages (through various sock IP addresses). No matter what I tell him (or anybody), he still continues. Could you find a way to block his account and all his IP addresses please? (One of them got blocked just now) Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

LTPofficial - Is there any evidence of on-wiki harassment, behavioral issues, or disruption by this user here? Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done regarding his threats and harassment towards other editors that don't involve Wikipedia (i.e. occurring on a completely different and non-WMF website). I need to see evidence of continued and repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines before I'd even begin to tell you what direction we should take this in...... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia wise, he annoys me a lot (mainly using IP addresses, maybe annoys others) and forces me to make pages, otherwise his main target was the CLG Wiki on WikiFoundry. Here is a forum post about him (It is however mainly about the CLG Wiki though). http://www.closinglogos.com/thread/5347326/;jsessionid=55FEE235CF74A6717569DE308F28141B?offset=0&maxResults=50 Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see how the IP user postings on your page would have been annoying. One of those users is blocked now. Since you're really complaining about IP users, and so far I just see it as annoying to have the requests, do you want your page protected against IP users? Do you want to just remove annoying posts as soon as you get them and they'll get the hint?

It looks like the activity that began June 4 is tailing off.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll go with my Talk Page being protected to IP users. Still the IP users who keep annoying me might possibly be Duc4Wikmedia and so he might message using his main account, but if so i'll just delete his messages. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am not an admin. I was just trying to get to what you wanted in that the issue is IP users posting on your talk page. (i.e., just because I suggested it, doesn't mean that's how an admin will resolve it). Sorry, I should have been clearer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

9/11 truther

We have a 9/11 truther who has been amply warned about 9/11 sanctions inserting truther spam at September 11 attacks [160] [161] [162] and being silly on my talkpage [163] [164]. Either an indefinite topic ban or blocking would be good. I consider myself involved on this topic. Acroterion (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done User:Itistoday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) blocked indef. Sandstein 21:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Acroterion (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

He's vandalizing his unblock review now: [165]. Might be time to take away his talk page access. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Itistoday has just refactored MaxSem's declined unblock comment, see Special:Diff/849283754. Might as well revoke talk page access for him. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Already done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Hmmm... wondering where we are in the lunar cycle. I just had to indeff a Sovereign Citizen true believer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists are getting elderly and are usually easier to contain, right, Ad Orientem? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    • In my limited experience with them, they seem less aggressive in pushing their views on here than some of the adherents of more contemporary conspiracy theories. But I have also seen exceptions as in the case of the Dorothy Kilgallen article. The battle over that article has been an on and off struggle going back years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

User:75.136.153.85

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

---

I tried to edit multiple times at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5) on multiple dates. Those edits have been reverted repeatedly by 75.136.153.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Full disclosure: multiple reverts were made by both of us in May and June. It was basically turning into a "slow" edit war, and I apologize for any mistakes on my part. I will accept the consequences of that. I got some advice from a fellow user as well as Wikipedia: Responding to a failure to discuss, and hopefully have followed protocol a little more closely since then. If not, I will gladly accept any advice regarding that, in order to handle similar situations more appropriately in the future (especially with an anonymous IP user).

I once again requested on the article talk page that he/she discuss the matter with me, Talk: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5)#Plot section and Talk: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5)#Plot section and episodes and left a talkback to that request on his/her user talk page User talk:75.136.153.85 on June 15. When I hadn't heard from him/her in 2 weeks, I made my proposed edit (June 30). He/she reverted the edit again on July 2. Diffs: [166], [167], [168], [169] I left another talkback. When he/she still had not responded in ~3 days, I tried the edit again. I also left an additional warning message on the Talk page Talk: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5)#Request for discussion. He/she reverted me again, still without discussing. [170], [171] The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What is the next step here? Would this (persistent editing without discussion) be considered disruptive editing? Thank you for any assistance. PlainsRider (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You've absolute done the right thing here, PlainsRider. Have warned the IP and semi-protected the page for a week in the hope they'll start engaging on the talk page about the content. I've watchlisted it, but feel free to ping me if the edit-warring continues after the protection ends. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor 金城湯匙 and possible issue on user page

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

---

So I was thinking of warning 金城湯匙 for what appear to be unconstructive edits, but then I looked at their edits more closely. They appear to be a Chinese editor editing on Japanese related topics, which is fine. However scanning their user page and running it through a translator one line is reading as "World first class 垃圾 inferior ethnic group" which obviously concerns me. Could someone who speaks Mandarin take a look at their user page and talk page and see if it is actually as worrying as the translation software seems to suggest. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Dr pragmatists

A bit of history:

On July 6th, I reverted several of Dr pragmatists's edits because they don't have a citation. I left a warning on the user's talk page, informing them about the revert and telling them that they can add the info back if they provide a source alongside. Later that day, Dr. pragmatists replied saying that they cannot add a source because they are blocked. I searched the block list], but no blocks are visible. Plus, a block does not appear on their user contributions page as should've been for a typical blocked user. Admin SQL even said that the user wasn't blocked.

Today

Earlier today, pragmatists left two messages on their own talk page, apparently informing themselves that they are blocked. Again, I checked the block list, yet their name still doesn't appear. These "block messages" were supposedly signed by admins SQL and KrakatoaKatie, but were left by pragmatists, curiously enough. I left a message informing pragmatists that I can't find their block, but I don't know what else to do about this. XYZt (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As the blocked editor has been told - without your IP, there's little we can do to help. That I'm responsible for at least one of the underlying blocks indicates that this is probably going to end up being vpn-related. SQL^{Query me!} 04:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither {{Webhostblock}} nor {{Blocked proxy}} seem very easy to understand unless you have a background in IT. I think this is part of the problem. When dealing with webhost blocks, I very rarely see someone make an unblock request that sounds like they understand the situation. Maybe we should start a discussion at WP:VPT to see if the templates can be improved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

ImmaImmaTaco having a strop

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

---

Long time since I've had a good strop

-EEng

Please can we yank talkpage access for User:ImmaImmaTaco? I think that this is more than sufficient reason (although I am not the only person he has been abusing). It might also be a good idea to revdel his recent edits and edit summaries. (I did try to raise this on AIV but the bot removed it as he is already blocked.) DanielRigal (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih has revoked talkpage access now. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Citation spam?

82.81.56.9 (talk · contribs) seems to be editing mainly to insert " Mahieu (Between Rome and Jerusalem, OLA 208, Leuven: Peeters, 2012" into articles. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the works of this scholar are even notable? References may be fine, if they cover it and the author is of recognised notability in this area, but the random bibliography cites just smells of advertising spam. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the author's credentials: [172], but I'll leave it to topic experts to assess them. On first glance, this looks like a possible case of undue WP:SELFCITE bordering on WP:CITESPAM. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't seem that credentialed. And in fact when they wrote the book that's mainly being spammed they had just a diploma and it wasn't until later they were assisting professors. That suggests to me this isn't a well peer reviewed and respected author or academic work. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

He teaches at an online Dominican university.[173] This is his latest edit, which is a bit of a mess.[174] I'm reverting it not just because its spam but because it's also WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE maybe a issue but I would like to see if there is any self admission by the editor being related to the author. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I find this set of edits worrysome. Basically they're modifying existing references to provide a critique and contradiction inside the actual reference. I've reverted those. Canterbury Tail talk 01:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Borsoka (?)

I know, this is strange, but Cealicuca has been accusing me of diruptive edits ([175], [176]). Please discuss my edits with us in a formal way. @Cealicuca:, please provide your evidence. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about the topic and not wanting to know either, what I see is a lot of edit-warring and non-constructive discussion at the Talk page. Rather than blocking, I've fully protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Thank you!

Now regarding Borsoka, there are several things that I brought to his/her attention (summary): 1) (s)he marks a lot of the edits as CE. The problem is that some of those edits simply change the meaning of some statements. Moreover, it is next to impossible to evaluate the effect of those so-called "CE" edits as the sheer number of them makes hard to verify. Plus, the changes are "stealth" (voluntary or by mistake) in the sense that one can see a whole paragraph moved from one place to another, Wikipedia simply marks the whole paragraph as moved, while actually one has to analyse the paragraph word by word in order to find what (or if) something was changed in it. 2) There is virtually no discussion about any of those changes, beforehand. Borsoka treats the whole article as his/her personal fiefdom. The article itself is hotly debated, sometimes right down to a sentence (because of the PRO/CON structure of it - read it and you'll see whole sections organized on the line of "Source A said, however Source B said, however Source C said etc", but this is another story) so the way the edits come simply does not help with the overall editing process.

• (1) Example of so-called CE edits that contain small, "stealthy" controversial changes (or otherwise "additions" of the editor himself): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=next&oldid=849031711

Notice the sheer number of changes. No go and search for "Madgearu and many other historians argue that the Volokhi are Vlachs.". The editor took liberties and changed it to:

→"Madgearu and many other (mainly Romanian) historians argue that the Volokhi are Vlachs". After you (I) find this... try to figure exactly what other small things the editor changed/added...

• (2) Example of other editing habits, no consensus built beforehand, removes critical information (in this case the link between the Proto-Romanian language to it's 4 Eastern Romance "children"): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=next&oldid=849034823

Replaced:

→"Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic loanwords adopted by all Eastern Romance variants prove that the start of the disintegration of Common Romanian into its four dialects (the north-Danubian Daco-Romanian and the three south-Danubian dialects of Aromanian/Macedo-Romanian, Megleno Romanian and Istro-Romanian) began in the 10th century." with nothing, argumenting that

→ "The formation of the Proto-Romanian language started in the 6th or 7th centuries and was completed in the 8th century.[395] The four main Eastern Romance variants were separated from each other in the 10th-12th centuries." was already in the text. Those two sentences (that were already in the text) were previously added by the editor, replacing another formulation. So in two or 3 edits, gradually, Borsoka removed the explicit link between Proto-Romanian and it's 4 Eastern Romance "children".

• (3) Another example of material change, on pretty much the same subject as the one above, that thankfully got to be discovered and remedied: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&type=revision&diff=849184137&oldid=849178638

The editor changed:

→" Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic loanwords adopted by all Eastern Romance variants prove that the start of the disintegration of Common Romanian into its four dialects (the north-Danubian Daco-Romanian and the three south-Danubian dialects of Aromanian/Macedo-Romanian, Megleno Romanian and Istro-Romanian) began"

into

→"The disintegration of the four Eastern Romance variants occurred in the 10th-12th centuries."

It's not the four Eastern Romance variants that disintegrated, it's the Proto-Romanian that transformed into the four.

• (4) Simply deleting content that was under discussion, by stating that the discussion was over (while it certainly was not): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&type=revision&diff=849178638&oldid=849137772

Note that the change was made on 07.07.2018 / 03.07. The discussion on the talk page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#%22Pan-Romanian%22_hydronyms

Notice my own reply on 06.07.2018 / 20:03. Then Borsoka simply stated that "The mistery is not solved. What is the connection between the sentence and the subject of the article? I deleted the sentence.", while not actually waiting for my clarification or reply or whatever (although I think I was clear enough in the first place). So now we are faced with a fait accomplit.

ETA: Forgot to sign :) Cealicuca (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I added numbers to the examples above to facilitate to comment on them.

• Ad Example (1): Before changing the sentence, I added a new reference to a new reliable source ([177], [178])
• Ad Example (2): I did not change the meaning, but shortened the text and added info based on the cited source. I shortened the text, because the core of the information - Common Romanian developed occurred in the 6th-8th centuries, while its disintegration into four dialects in the 10th-12th centuries - could be presented in two short sentences. Consequently, in contrast with Cealicuca's statement above, I did not remove the link between Common Romanian and its four "children".
• Ad Example (3): Yes, I made a mistake by chance, because I made the edit on my mobile. I apologized for my mistake on the Talk page ([179]).
• Ad Example (4): Before deleting the sentence, I raised the issue on the Talk page, stating that the relevance of a sentence in the context of the article had not been verified ([180]). Two other editors also stated that the relevance of the sentence was dubious ([181], [182]) and one of them explicitly agreed to delete it ([183]). Instead of referring to reliable sources, Cealicuca first shared his thoughts about the issue with us ([184], [185], [186], [187]), and then rewrote the sentence without taking into account the content of the cited source. I deleted the sentence and explained the reasons of the deletion on the Talk page ([188], [189]). Cealicuca admitted that at least partially I was right ([190]) and we were about reaching a compromise ([191]). And now ... and now Cealicuca refers to the case as an example of my disruptive edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ X

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

---

• Jesus Christ X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just came across this user while browsing recent changes. His contributions so far are on userspace, especially on User:Frederick Stadler, evidently indicating that he is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. This has been going on for some time now, so an indefinite block may be in order for this user. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Ronald McDonald shenanigans

An IP-hopping editor is insistent on keeping information about a guy who's pretended be a Ronald McDonald portrayer into this article, even though multiple PC reviewers, including moi, have determined it should be removed. A bio article on the guy has also been deleted at least twice. (There are also BLP issues about publicizing, directly or indirectly, the criminal record of a non-notable person). The IP-hopper has now announced they're going to keep adding the information no matter how many times it's removed, and has certainly violated 3RR. Checking back through the contribution histories, this editor concentrates on a relatively small number of articles, mostly dealing with minor performers and voice actors, as well as dhowing a minor fascination with dash issues, and enough overlap in targets with a certain long-term abuser. Perhaps someone more familiar than me with the LTA could take a look at this; I can't tell whether this is a returning vandal or just a run-of-the-mill clown. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've put in a request for semi-protection at RPP; this looks fit for it. Home Lander (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's this user, who admits they are doing it here, as well as how awful they think Wikipedia is. And yet they continue to edit here. *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging admins from above "Writings from blocked range" section: Edgar181, JamesBWatson, Ivanvector, Bbb23. Guess who? Home Lander (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Another extended confirmed cheater?

Zoomyzoomzoomz (talk · contribs) created two drafts, one of which is a hoax, and one of which is a broken redirect they've edited over and over and over, adding no useful content. I've tagged both pages for deletion, but I'm getting the vibe they are WP:NOTHERE, and are probably trying to gain extended confirmed status improperly. Home Lander (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Concur with OP, User:Home Lander as to questionable intent. Concur with an indef. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Indeffed. Deor (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Community ban for Dantebish

Ever since February, Dantebish has been socking and adding unreliable sources to back up their falze and dubious claims, as well as promoting non-notable events, most notably an incident known as 'Sexy Vegan' involved with Dr. Phil. Seeing that there is no sign of them stopping anytime soon and that there is an open SPI case, we should set a community ban to discourage the troll. An LTA may also be helpful. Bookwormboy2 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support a ban of this character, as I've been involved with dealing with him, but I must say that it seems a little odd that you, Bookwormboy2, just registered today and one of your first fifteen edits is proposing a site ban. Home Lander (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Bookwormboy2 has been CU blocked. Meters (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Somehow I figured. @Bbb23: is it possible to disclose whose sock this is, for behaviorial purposes? Home Lander (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but I don't mind telling you that I'd have CU blocked as WhenDatHotlineBling. You could probably guess from the history of Talk:Dr. Phil (talk show). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks zzuuzz, noted. Home Lander (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ugh. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ugh indeed. It is worth pointing out that a CU confirmed sock of WhenDatHotlineBling has done exactly what they were complaining about.[192] Joe-job-tastic. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrator's abuse

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

---

I was just blocked indefinitely by user:Yann [193] for asking him politely to please investigate a false accusation and blocking of user:nagualdesign. I did so because user:Yann seems trigger happy with the banning and ultrafast deletion of files created by nagualdesign without even asking a question. He also deleted my original post in nagualdesign's page; in fact he blanked the page so I have no diff to show: [194] This is an extremely irregular action by somebody holding power over valuable editors with long productive histories. This rogue administrator has to explain himself to his peers. Thanks Rowan Forest (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Rowan, I assume this did not happen on the English Wikipedia. This noticeboard is not the forum to hear concerns of other projects. I'll suggest you take this up at the project where you were blocked. Thanks, Lourdes 00:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Julian Williams from Lake Charles

Someone using IPs primarily from Lake Charles, Louisiana, has been inserting the name "Julian Williams", "Julian A. Williams", "Julian 'Jay' Alphonso Williams", or "Alphonse Williams" as a co-songwriter or co-performer in various song articles.[195][196][197][198][199] The disruption has been occurring since at least April 2013[200] with the total number of edits in the hundreds. The involved IPs include Special:Contributions/74.193.202.54, Special:Contributions/74.193.173.57, Special:Contributions/74.193.171.93, Special:Contributions/74.193.181.12 Special:Contributions/173.209.212.0/24, Special:Contributions/173.57.65.159, Special:Contributions/74.193.189.81, Special:Contributions/173.57.65.201, Special:Contributions/97.32.128.152, Special:Contributions/47.209.67.171, Special:Contributions/74.193.170.154, Special:Contributions/74.196.197.76, Special:Contributions/2605:6001:EA8E:9400:0:0:0:0/64, Special:Contributions/74.196.192.238, Special:Contributions/107.77.164.79, Special:Contributions/71.123.232.112, Special:Contributions/70.119.82.196, Special:Contributions/174.255.151.118 and, most recently, Special:Contributions/74.196.208.213. Most of the IPs are from the same location but sometimes the person uses another location's IPs, for instance Special:Contributions/107.77.164.95 (California) and Special:Contributions/107.77.168.23 (Texas). At least one registered account has performed this same nonsense: Jwdeandre 48. Is an edit filter appropriate for this disruption? Or do we simply block every new user that does this stuff? Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems deliberate long-term abuse from multiple IPs and at least one account. In my view, an immediate block followed up by edit filter support is required here. Lourdes 00:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You should probably request an edit filter at WP:EFR. I can't range block Louisiana. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Abused by Administrator Yann after I request him to listen a user in distress

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

---

I posted in User:Nagauldesign a polite request for Yann (talk · contribs) to please review the origin of a disputed file, and if proven right, to replace the file and lift the ban to its creator User:Nagualdesign. Within seconds, User Yann bans me permanently without a reason. [201]. He also seemed blanked nagualdesigns Talk page and its history [202], so I have no diff of my original message/request. Although I don't use Commons often, I have been editing Wikipedia for twelve years, created over 180 science articles, and I have never been subjected to such extreme abuse by anybody. This is very irregular, so I kindly request other Administrators look into User Yann's seemingly "road rage" actions, and how many users he has done this in the past without a valid reason. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a Commons issue as you were told above. We can't help you here. Home Lander (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)\

@Home Lander: I was sure I was posting this to Commons after the message above. Again: I am unable to post anything on any board/Talk page in Commons and those links bring me here. Is't this supposed to be the place for Wikipedia's Admin help? User Yann banned me from posting even in my own Talk page (for politely requesting he helps a user in distress). That is very irregular, and he is evidently also preventing me from contacting an Admin. Will you please help? Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How about you try this link to add an unblock request to your discussion page on commons.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yann also disabled RF's talk page access. clpo13_(talk) 01:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. I just saw that from your posting on commons. I could post the unblock template on their behalf saying that they don't understand why they were blocked... or wait to see if they respond to Clpo13's posting there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I posted a message at commons AN. I don't think the admin that performed the block is around right now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. I don't use Commons often, but I am most concerned of having a rouge Administrator running loose. I am very, very grateful someone cares for the system, and for facilitating the most basic communication channel. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

• I actually think there's substantial educational value for Wikipedia editors to take a look at what's happening over there at Commons [203]. Admins here at WP can only dream of getting away with the shit that Commons admins apparently do. EEng 02:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• ...The fuck is wrong with that guy? --Tarage (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • They have a much lower tolerance for people deleting comments with the edit summary "fuck off" than we do here. Fish+Karate 12:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • And apparently administrative review and oversight is considered "bureaucratic nonsense."--WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • And now we have a vote for a de-sysop. The drama boards are contagious!--WaltCip (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• That discussion is turning disturbing. Again, I highly recommend following the link in my OP just below the close. EEng 14:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Boy, if I had known things are the way they are at Commons, I probably would have been more receptive to a complaint at this board. Home Lander (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That discussion has passed disturbing, gone out the other side, and entered "Well, there goes any will to get within a hundred meters of editing commons" territory. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The only time I cross over is when we have cross-project spam or vandalism. Home Lander (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• The discussion at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_appears_to_be_an_inappropriate_indef_block_of_User:Rowan_Forest has advanced to a desysop vote. I encourage all who care about our sister project to take the time to read the discussion so far and lend their thoughts. EEng 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Ohooh7

• Ohooh7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their user page and inability to communicate with other editors may suggest a WP:NOTHERE attitude. The latest answer to my recent note was "'tl;dr lol". Their edits were also of a POV pushing nature and when reverted no attempt was made to form consensus (the contributions history is short enough that I will not provide direct diffs). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Specific diffs would still help, although the user page is pretty suspect. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Repeated blind reverts at Wonder Woman 1984 – 186.167.251.225, 186.167.243.187, 186.167.245.171, 186.167.248.216, 186.167.242.81, 186.167.244.238. Use dynamic IPs, all from Municipio Libertador, Caracas, Venezuela. No explanation in edit summaries, nor is IP willing to discuss it.

Edits in chronological order :

July 4: [204], IP

July 5: [205], IP, [206]

July 7: IP, [207]

July 8: [208], [209], IP, [210], IP, [211], talk, IP

--Let There Be Sunshine 09:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP

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

---

Made by 2405:205:1483:EBB1:35AE:67BA:6987:5969 on the edit message of this diff: Special:Diff/849455246. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Handled. SoWhy 12:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Stuv3

{{uw-delete4im}} warning given here but deletion of content continued here and here and here. wumbolo ^^^ 16:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism -Natureium (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

They were directed to ANI from AIV actually by TonyBalloni RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Might as well delete the header at the top of the page. Natureium (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Wumbolo: This is not AIV where the evidence presented is short and sweet as you've done above. Here, you need to present far more evidence about Stuv3's misconduct and explain what sanctions you're seeking. AIV is rarely used for long-term editors, which is no doubt why TonyBallioni referred you here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, also on a quick review I saw use of the talk page, nothing new after recent user talk discussion, and what appears more like a dispute rather than vandalism. There could be disruption, but better sorted out at ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• The editor has a long history of receiving uw-delete warnings:

  level 3 warning on 2017-10-11

  (blocked on 2017-10-30 and 2018-03-10 and 2018-03-13)

  level 2 warning on 2018-04-11

  level 4 warning on 2018-04-15

  level 3 warning on 2018-04-24

  level 4 warning on 2018-04-24

  level 4im warning on 2018-05-26

  level 1 warning on 2018-07-04

  and now they do this

  and this.

wumbolo ^^^ 17:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment editing is not vandalism; this is best suited for ANI and not AIV. There are certainly a lot of warnings, but it's less clear what the problematic edits are. The Lauren Southern dispute is an American Politics Canadian politics-related dispute, deleting content (or BLP issues) are secondary. The removal at Nicki Minaj is one that I endorse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Graph:PageViews to Talk Pages

Hello fellow admins. I recently noticed an edit by Lindsay658 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding {{Graph:PageViews}} to Talk:Vince Lombardi (see diff). I checked the users recent contribs (see contribs here) and noticed that the user has added this graph to almost 1,000 talk pages in the last few days. I left a message for the user here. I won't be available much for the next few days, so I wanted to bring this up here to centralize the discussion. I don't see this as being productive, and would probably prefer the template be removed from all the talk pages. It doesn't appear there is consensus to add this template to that many talk pages, only where it is necessary and useful. Thanks for any assistance. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Then delete the template altogether. A solitary editor is fingered for transcluding a template that others transclude? Who is going to sit in judgement of exactly which article it belongs on? Who is going to police it? What kind of policy is it where it can be used for select articles, but not all of them? And then you have a never-ending edit war of delete and revert. Either editors can use the template, or they can't. Straight across the board. — Maile (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is adding an unnecessary template to 1000 articles indiscriminately. They are of no use on those pages. If they added them to a few articles, it would not be a problem, but adding the same thing to 1000 articles is disruptive. Natureium (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So what? Again ... who is going to police this? How about if we add some additional rules that governance and implementation of this needs an ArbCom decision? We can't set up a vague use policy like this. — Maile (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the policy is WP:BEBOLD? Can we make it a collapsable template, defaulting to collapsed, though?--v/r - TP 17:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the usage of this template should be similar to {{Talk header}}. It should only be placed where it's needed, on highly visible pages where it provides some use. I agree that there should be some guideline for how this should be used. I, however, definitely do not think that this should be added to 1,000s of pages indiscriminately, without clear consensus to do so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think those two suggestions: that the template default to collapse, and that it should be added only where useful, like "Talk header", are excellent ones, and the requisite changes should be made to the template and its doc to put those into effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just pulling out one random addition, Talk:List of Victorian Football League players who died on active service only gets a few views a day. Not very helpful. If anything, it would be better to add a link to toollabs:pageviews instead of a static graph that doesn't really tell you much (i.e. you can't hover over a date and see the exact page views per day). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing this matter to my attention. Given "WP:BEBOLD" policy, and my eleven years' experience, I was doing something that I thought was contributing to the "greater good" -- in the sense that it was, in my view, making the talk pages more informative for the average person consulting the talk page. Given the above comments, however, I will cease this activity immediately. Yet, having said that, if it was possible for the information to be included as as a collapsible template (as suggested by TP above), that would be a very useful alternative to complete absence. Privately, however, I find it astounding that there are views being expressed that seem to indicate that information about Wikipedia usage (freely available to "insiders" who know how to exhume the (otherwise hidden) information by going to the "history" section of the talk page and, then, clicking on "page view statistics") should be limited and made far less available to the average user.Lindsay658 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Lindsay658, The page view information is readily accessible from article, article talk, user, user talk pages, and other pages at the top of the page, just under the page name. All a user has to do is click on the number of "page views" (ex: 2,056 pageviews (30 days)) to get this kind of information.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Where? I don't see that information on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that either, and I think the addition of the graph to talk pages is a good idea. DuncanHill (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Carole forgot to mention that you need to have XTools checked in Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, now I added that. I was going to suggest someone create a script to do that, glad someone already has. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It'd be more useful to have the graph on talk pages where everybody can see it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CaroleHenson, you have made my point for me. You have "insider" knowledge that allows you to get easy access to this information; information that is not available to the "ordinary" user -- for whom, I thought, Wikipedia was conceived.Lindsay658 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean that the "ordinary" user cannot see that topline bit of information?

Except in rare cases, I find adding that information to just clog up the page and, if done en masse will take up a lost of server space unnecessarily. What's the point? Why is this important information?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Page views in some form are extremely useful and important information for editors in particular - more should look at them to understand how few (usually) or many people read what they are doing. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

But do we need to have a graph on pages for people to do that? I agree it's helpful information, especially for articles, to see if there are enough wikilinks from other articles so that the article is read... and can also give a sense of notability (or not) based upon how many people area reading the article.

If it's such an important tool, I would recommend adding a statement about it or a link about the page counts generally to the new user welcome templates. Rather than adding graphs to each user's talk page, that is.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the graph isn't very helpful. It is static and only shows a general picture. I would imagine that based on past discussions of spamming talk pages with various templates that the community would be against the use of a template to convey this type of info.

I again would like to reiterate that the issue was mass posting of the template to talk pages. I am curious as to how many pages Lindsay658 was going to post to before gaining some consensus that the community generally wants this exact template pasted on to every talk page on Wikipedia. Whether or not it is helpful is not the point. We have WP:VP or WP:RFC to determine if the community wants a new feature. Regardless, if no more templates are going to be posted than it would seem this discussion is over. Is there a desire to revert the 1,000 additions of the template added in the last few days or just leave as is? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your point above: I think the usage of this template should be similar to {{Talk header}}. It should only be placed where it's needed, on highly visible pages where it provides some use. I agree that there should be some guideline for how this should be used. I, however, definitely do not think that this should be added to 1,000s of pages indiscriminately, without clear consensus to do so. and believe that they should be deleted or someone else is likely to grab onto the idea and this discussion will start all over again.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• {{Graph:PageViews}} has been around for over two years now and it is there to be used. I myself developed a similar format to that used by Lindsay658 and created a wrapper template for it, {{annual readership}}, which has continued to develop and refine the possible uses. That version has now spread to over 4000 article talk pages and such organic growth is quite natural and reasonable. There does not seem to be any administrative action required and so we should just thank Lindsay658 for his energy and enterprise. Further discussion belongs at the individual talk pages or at the talk page for the core feature. Andrew D. (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, there is nothing wrong with organic growth and use. It allows editors to verify the necessity of the template for each article on a page by page basis (similar to {{Talk header}}). However, spamming almost 1,000 talk pages in 4 days is not organic growth in any sense of the word (some of these were done at a pace of one or two a minute). It appears that there is not consensus to add this template to every talk page on Wikipedia (if anything, there is probably a much better and easier way to have page view functionality than a talk page template), so there needs to be some sort of agreed upon use, if any. Frankly, most people don't visit article talk pages when they edit the article, so I am not sure how this template is really that helpful. See the example I gave above List of Victorian Football League players who died on active service, the article's talk page only has six page views in the last two months! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Spydakev, who I opened a sock puppet investigation about a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kev519 has continued his disruptive editing while this has been sitting open for the past couple weeks. This user doesn't answer any comments left on their talk page, and never leaves an edit summary. His IP address was banned for disruptive editing, which is when he started using this account. Today he is now just adding empty tables to various articles [212] or like here [213] removing valid tables without explanation. You will see in their contributions about a dozen or so empty tables added today just like the master sock did previously. Can we please either get some administrative action against this user if the SPI cannot be moved forward? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Another example of disruptive editing, this user just copied and pasted the same table to about a dozen articles, here are a few examples [214] [215] [216] - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given the editor a one week block. Please let me know if the disruptive editing resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

New editor imposing own preferred version, refuses to use article talk page

Mike Galvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly changed the wording in the infobox of Ernest Shackleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Owing to the previous long-winded and occaisionally heated discussion about Shackleton's nationality already on the talk page I reverted his initial change, and noted the need to seek concensus first (in my edit summary). Mike Galvin has repeatedly changed to his version, despite repeated advice to go to the talk page. I think I've gone over 3RR in this, and am rapidly losing my cool, so it would be far better for admins to take a look at this and for me to step back. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to this version and also warned Mike Galvin, as he far exceeded 3RR. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

DuncanHill also filed this at WP:RFPP where I provided this answer. Both sides have been edit warring, but the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles favors simply 'Ireland' as the country of birth for people born in the north before 1921. The MOS says that if the word is linked it should only be to Ireland. The area should not be described as Northern Ireland. For people born after 1922 you can start using the term 'Northern Ireland'. Striking my previous statement. As DuncanHill observes, Shackleton wasn't born in the area now part of Northern Ireland so the MOS has nothing to say. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Shackleton was not born in the North, but you'd have to have looked at the article to know that, and you'd have to have looked at the edits to know that nobody was claiming he was. Turn down the request by all means, that's your prerogative, but try to get your facts at least half-right when you do. DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Is This Okay?

(Anita Sarkeesian:Talk Section: "Date of Birth") "Wait, what? "Please, Sangdeboeuf, explain how one goes about "weaponizing" a DoB. Take your time, I'll wait..." - that's not being smarmy? It's totally being smarmy. It's also wrong. So being smarmy about your own ignorance. If you think that's an insult, you dumb motherfuckers have never been insulted.--Jorm (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)" Is this appropriate conduct in a talk page? -- Sleyece (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The more interesting question is, why did that conversation extend past the very first response? As far as I can see, nothing whatsoever of value was added after that point. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone please stop this guy

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

---

Me and two others are playing whack-a-mole with Special:Contributions/The_Return_of_Incarnater, no one is answering at AIV right now. Obviously not notifying. Home Lander (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ian.thomson has blocked The Return of Incarnater as a Vandalism-only account Abote2 (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Erescholar potential heavy bias in editing Eritrea related pages

I noticed some articles related to Eritrea have sections that are noticeably not neutral, or conflict with the tone of the article. After checking the logs, I discovered User:Erescholar has made many contributions on these pages, and from his edit descriptions and the edits themselves, may be editing these pages from a biased viewpoint.

Special:Contributions/Erescholar

Here are some quotes from his contribution log, and some details on specific revisions:

• ""struggle" changed to "The Struggle". It is more appropriate to identify is as such because when Eritreans say he joined GEDLI, every body knows he joined that particular STRUGGLE."

• "Replaced "war for Independence" with "armed struggle for Independence" because it is the appropriate description"

• "Just clarified that Isaias and others sent to China for training were not technically "soldiers" but liberation fighters, who were called Tegadelti in the Eritrean Tigrinya language"

• "Simply removed the nonsensical grades of "2.6 to 4". First, nobody with a low 2.6 GPA can be admitted to the College of Engineering. Next, who cares of his GPA?"

• "Just semantic refinements. This is important for those who wish study the history of the Eritrean people. The STRUGGLE, or "Gedli" in Tigrinya, changed the thinking of the Eritrean people forever."

• "Isaias joined an Eritrean Liberation Front that was engaged in an Armed Struggle for Independence. He did not join an "Eritrean War of Independence". There was no "war" at the time he joined."

• "He don't join a war. Isiais Afwerki joined an Eritrean Liberation front, or the Eritrean Armed Struggle for Independence"

• "There was never a "war" for independence"

• "Removed the mention of Isaias' mother as "a descender of immigrants from Tigray province". I smell evil political agenda in this uncorroborated statement. Suffice it to say that "she was born in Enderta". Did Isiaias father meet her in Enderta?"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=798248487 <--Altered sourced text and called it "evil political agenda"

• "The "Eritrean War of Independence" is a gross misnomer to the genuine Eritrean people's Armed Struggle for Independence. There was never a "war" per se between the Eritrean liberation fighters and the occupying Army of Ethiopia. It was an Armed Struggle."

• "Amnesty International is a corrupt organization that is paid to disseminate false information for some spy agencies of countries. To allege that 10,000 Eritreans are imprisoned in the small country Eritrea is a FABRICATION that belies logic."

• "Removed the statement alleging that a UN panel accused Isayas Afwerki of running a reign of terror. This is a LIE. This never occurred"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=787778368 <-- In fact, it did occur, according to the cited source, that a UN panel said that. Full report: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIEritrea/Pages/ReportCoIEritrea.aspx

• "Removed the quote attributed to Amensty Inernational that alleges that over 10,000 Eritreans are imprisoned. This is a pure fabrication."

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=787777924 <--This is a sourced statement from a reputable organization he removed

• "No evidence of Isayas failing an exams at College of Engineering and no evidence as this was cause for joining the ELF"

• * According to http://www.newsweek.com/who-isaias-afwerki-eritreas-enigmatic-dictator-515761 an extract from "Understanding Eritrea: Inside Africa's Most Repressive State by Martin Plaut": "Isaias’s studies did not progress well and he failed his June 1966 exams and had to repeat his year. Without funding for food or lodging it was not a tempting prospect. Isaias decided to leave to join the liberation movement then fighting for Eritrean independence from Ethiopia." Book source on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=LVAjDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT5&pg=PT76#v=onepage&q&f=false

• "To call the 30-year-old armed liberation struggle as "civil strife" is misleading and WRONG. "Civil strife" is what occurred between the ELF and EPLF in the 1970's

• "Removed uncorrobarated information of his parents birthplaces and innuendoes about Afwerki's relationship to TPLF and Meles"

• * The information he removed about the father's birthplace was re-added at some point and is in the current article.

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=610334760 Removed some cited information, and information that wasn't cited but could have had a "citation needed" tag added. Lots of information removed in this edit.'

• "Basically removed inuendoes, lies and hearsays. Only facts should reside in Wikipedia. People with an agenda should use other mediums"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=594048201 <-- Extreme "whitewashing" of article, removed lots of information (including cited information)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=579062574 <--- Rewrote article adding unsourced information while clainimg "Just rearranged to make it more readable"

• "54% to 45% ratio is the most logical, realistic and defensible number. To say that Christians are twice as many as Muslims (or vice versa) is a very damaging misinformation. And it has to stop"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=542101963 <-- Basically just made up some new numbers

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=542099872 <-- Rewrote section to present a non-neutral point of view without giving any citations

• "Removed an unnecessary inuendo totally outside the life of the subject in question"

• * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=538761994 <-- What was actually removed was a cited paragraph containing legitimate information

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=464789021 <-- Added uncited text

• "Improved english; removed lie about "10" of 11 of the G-15 being dead; removed info about Isaias' mother parents because this is unverified and has some evil intent"

All in all, this user has been editing these related pages for quite a few years now, removing useful information and inserting information that makes Eritrea and related subjects appear in a positive manner. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Aggressive POV pusher

Essentially all edits by Ajackson12 (talk · contribs) are POV-pushing in areas of discretionary sanctions, either Israel & Palestine [217] or American politics [218][219] or both [220][221][222]. They've been warned plenty on their talk page; you can see their engagement in this edit. Basically, I defy anyone to find any signs that this editor is anything but a WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior. Some administrative attention (more serious than locking their preferred version into place) would be good. I will notify after posting this message. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The user Ajackson12 should obviously be kicked off Wikipedia. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The decision to lock Ajackson12's version of an article was unfortunate, as the article currently features poorly supported smears in the lede. The smears are sourced to non-RS or misrepresent what RS say. This is content that Ajackson12 has tried to force into the article before, and it was pointed out to be the user and everyone reading the page that the sources were either non-RS or misrepresented. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)