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

BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog

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

---

• Iwog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• False accusation of rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iwog today expressed that "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over regarding an issue on False accusation of rape ([1]). This user has edited solely on this article and its associated talk page. They made a few edits initially over the presentation of percentages in the article's lead and later adding a sentence to the lead that, to me, appeared to be a tendentious edits to try to comment about the "flip" of the topic ([2], [3]). This user has repeatedly opined about the "bias", "lies", and "dishonesty" in the article and that the lead is "written intentionally to deceive".

I am requesting admins and/or the community review this user's behavior. To me, this user's behavior seems very disruptive. I know I have stronger-than-average feelings about this topic, so I'm also asking for a "reality check" that this user is indeed being a problem and that it is not my own stances on the issue making me view their behavior as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. It seems like this editor is more interested in pushing their POV rather than interest in verifiability. In fact, this editor mentions "accuracy" multiple times in edit summaries [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. In the third diff, the editor engages in the fallacy that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle". Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it's clear that this editor isn't here to contribute to the project but to crusade against perceived underreporting of false rape. The editor even says they're "going to war", which is good evidence that they're viewing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not engaging with the project in good faith. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The main complaint against me seems to be one of semantics. Since I'm new here, I was not aware that "going to war for truth" made my contributions into a battleground and you will find the rest of the subject is treated objectively. Although links were given for my use of the word "accuracy", no links nor any quotes were given that in any way indicated I was insisting "the truth is in the middle". I am well aware that this topic is rife with strong emotions on both sides which makes it vitally important that it is treated coldly and objectively. IMO the article is far from objective and contains much bias which I have detailed in great length. The accusation that I am not here to contribute is false. I am only here to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing my actual quote, "The actual number lies somewhere in the middle", I will clarify that my intention was to say the true number can lie anywhere within the data set bracketed by both known ends of the spectrum. I can see how this was misinterpreted. At no time did I ever intend to claim a number was half way in between or located anywhere within the set of unknowns. This is not a fallacy, in fact it's a statement of mathematical fact. Iwog (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up on WP:V. Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again I have to take issue with your use of semantics here. I am not using the term "accuracy" to indicate anything other than adherence to the citations being presented. In short, the way I am using the term is ONLY about statements on the page being verifiable.Iwog (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Added: This is the first instance you cited: [9] It is clear that I am arguing for the inclusion of a large set of unknowns which is present in every single study being referenced. It's obvious that "accuracy" here means adherence to facts that can be verified. Iwog (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We've actually already explained to you that including the conviction rate with the fully intended implication of "any report that doesn't result in a conviction is or could be false" is a WP:OR violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes you've explained it but you are wrong. Currently the implication is "any report that cannot be prove false is true". Please explain how this isn't a WP:OR violation since every study admits unknowns exceeding 80%? Iwog (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That implication is also present in virtually all of the published research on this and every other kind of crime victimization: crime stats are usually based reported crimes, and these victimizations presumed true unless there is evidence that an assault did not happen. To be clear, "evidence" is a much lower standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - the figures reported in the research don't represent "proven" false allegations at all, they represent allegations where there was a good reason to believe the accusation was false. Perhaps you think we should record crime victimizations differently, but Wikipedia adheres to reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are not correct and the implication that you are stating is completely absent from any study cited on that page. In most cases, allegations are only deemed false when law enforcement deems an allegation as unfounded or provably false. Considering the liability taken on by law enforcement when they make a wrong determination, the VAST majority of cases where there is any question of legitimacy will be kicked further down the line for investigation and/or referred to a prosecutor. In fact we can cite RAINN itself to see how rare this is. RAINN reports that a mere 3% of all cases have enough legitimacy to be sent to a prosecutor. This citation proves, by itself, that the presumption CANNOT be 5% in any study. How in any conceivable universe can an actual 5% false allegation rate co-exist in the world with a real 3% prosecution rate ASSUMING POLICE ARE THE ONES MAKING THE DETERMINATION IN ALL OF THE STUDIES?? I'm sorry but the preface in this section is grossly misrepresenting the data. Iwog (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Iwog, in this revert that you describe as "far more accurate," you add text reading Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true. This asserts, without evidence, that "conviction by a court of law" and "can be presumed to be true" are synonymous... yet a failure to convict can occur because the jury thinks an accusation is true but is not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. It can occur when 11 jurors are utterly convinced and one hold-out is being stubborn for reasons unrelated to the case. It can occur because the evidence relating to sexual assaults can be thin as such crimes often happen in private locations without witnesses and as victims may not immediately report, resulting in a lack of corroborating physical evidence. Convictions can also occur when the evidence is thin and the jury is biased - look at the number of unsafe convictions that have occurred due to racial prejudice, as one example. Do you maintain that a jury conviction is needed for a victim's statement that s/he was raped to be presumed to be true? EdChem (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No I'm maintaining that it is absolutely absurd to claim 5% of all rape allegations are false, a conviction rate (including a citation) is 1%, and the remaining 94% of all cases can be assumed to be true. It is outrageous that this implication is made in the preface considering no study used as a source is claiming to contain the actual false accusation rate, only those deemed false by law enforcement. Furthermore I've laid out how the opening paragraph wrongly connects two completely different concepts and makes it appear to be talking about the same thing. I've had no response at all to that specific and provable claim. At the very least, it fails high school grammar and I'm not being hyperbolic. Name the subject of the second sentence if you don't believe me. Iwog (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Iwog is a pure WP:SPA and obviously came into WP hot; this is pretty obvious subtweeting of the Kavanaugh matter. I propose a TBAN for anything related to gender-relations under the gamergate DS; any admin can do this. This person needs to stay away from this topic that is too-charged for them, and try to learn what we do here and how we do it, on non-controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support this. Iwog's userpage suggests a pretty close connection to the Men's Rights Movement - I don't think this necessarily precludes them from ever editing productively on gender issues, but they clearly have more passion than knowledge and they need time to learn the ropes elsewhere. Nblund ^talk 15:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't believe men's rights activists can ever productively edit on gender topics unless they show proof that they're genuinely remorseful and denounce it. Men's rights activism is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree++. Suggest topic ban from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, per the GamerGate Discretionary Sanctions--Jorm (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Misguided, misinformed, and sometimes-to-frequently used as cover for sexist beliefs and language, but "hate speech" is an overkill claim, as is the notion that people who don't share your beliefs should be barred from editing certain topics. That's really not how WP is supposed to work, unless such people are bringing disruption with them, which should be decided on an individual basis. Statements like this just serve as fodder for the "left is out to get us" conspiracy theories, anyway. Grandpallama (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unfriendly enough to women and other minorities as it is. If you want Wikipedia to offer safe haven to misogynists on gender topics, then by all means, advocate for misogyny. It's my personal opinion that hatred has no place here. And no, I don't want to ban people that disagree with me, or I'd be asking for bans against everyone who voted differently from me on WP:AFD. Please don't mischaracterize my opinion as "ban people who disagree with me". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Characterizing people on the conservative end of the sociopolitical spectrum as engaging in hate speech is not appropriate, unless they engage in actual hate speech. Implying that I'm advocating for misogyny is dangerously close to a personal attack and also not appropriate. Pointing out that you are suggesting you'd like to ban people from editing on this topic who disagree with you is a perfectly accurate characterization of the extreme position you laid out, including the expectation that there should be public apologies that demonstrate "genuine" remorse. Wikipedia should be a safe place for everyone who edits it, and those who engage in any unacceptable behavior should be immediately addressed, but expanding the definition of that behavior to include positions you dislike by trying to classify them in a new way while also expecting displays of contrition in order to earn the right to edit again is misguided. And, as I said, it feeds the trolls who seize upon such statements as proof that Wikipedia is some sort of weird leftist hotbed, which it is not. Anyway, this is tangential to the specific behavioral question that was brought here. Grandpallama (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world? You realize I'm not saying "ban all conservatives from Wikipedia for being misogynists", right? Mens rights activism was specifically identified by the SPLC as a hate group. It is not controversial to suggest that hate groups like white supremacists, male supremacists, and Nazis should not be allowed to edit in areas where they have an agenda of hate to push, and I would like you to reconsider the difference between advocating that hate be restricted from certain areas on Wikipedia and restricting people I disagree with from talking. There's a world of difference between the two. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What in the world is right, as I think we're not exactly so far apart. As I said, hate speech should be restricted, but it should also be recognized that the SPLC (and even our own page on the so-called MRM) draws some distinctions between "male supremacy" (which is what it categorizes as hate groups/speech/activity and what I now think you were specifically saying you'd like to see outed as such) and the men's rights silliness, and acknowledges (as I did) that there are some legitimate voices in the latter that don't necessarily fall into the former. Every male supremacist is into men's rights activism, but not all of the goofy men's rights activists are male supremacists. Most of the ones I encounter on a daily basis who describe themselves as men's rights activists are just anti-feminists or traditionalists who exhibit some ignorance or poorly thought-out positions, and say largely stupid (but not really hateful) things, rather than seek to advance some sort of actual ideological creed. I actually think we're on the same page and just disagreeing over a point of semantics. If you are saying that male supremacy is hate speech and has no place on the encyclopedia, then we're simpatico. Grandpallama (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing the MRM has had even a remotely valid point to make about since the mid 1990's is that father's are more frequently given the short end of the stick in family court and that some feminists occasionally say hysterical things. Literally everything else they go on about is pure misogyny, and misogyny is absolutely "hate speech". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And if we see something hateful said, misogynistic or otherwise, we should respond accordingly. But there are a lot of people who self-identify as men's rights activists who are really just highly conservative. I'm not advocating giving any room for hate speech. Grandpallama (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, @MjolnirPants: I was waiting in line for the toilet the other day, and I was thinking "Man, if that thing with Chandler seeing a woman walking out of the men's room and she said that there was someone in the ladies' room and she just couldn't wait actually happened, she'd totally get away with it, but if a guy did the same thing and tried to use the women's bathroom he'd be immediately tagged as a prevert, even though men who would want to go into the ladies' room for a reason like that are probably a much smaller minority of men than men who legitimately really needed to go". :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Bah, I used to go into the ladies rooms all the time and never got much more than a curious look. Of course, at the time, I was pushing one of my sons around in a stroller that carried a certain malodorous aura that any parent would recognize, and there was no changing table in the men's room. But, to be fair, I'm 6 feet tall, was around 230lbs at the time and had a beard, two arms full of ink and just all around looked about as scummy as I am. If I didn't have the kid with me, I might as well have tattooed "convicted rapist (and occasional drug dealer)" on my forehead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support any and all sanctions that are on the table I've gone on record as rejecting the usefulness of TBANning SPAs, so I would support a community indef block, or a block with a broad TBAN set as the unblock condition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed to just block the NOTHERE sock-abusing troll. Nothing more needs to be said. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly related: although Iwog has largely gone silent, a MugyuToChu (talk · contribs) was created this morning sided with Iwog in her first and only edit about 20 minute later. I'm not crazy for thinking this seems like a very hamhanded attempt at trolling or concealing sock puppetry, right? Nblund ^talk 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Nblund for pointing this out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I just saw this notification at the top of the page. I am a feminist and one of the first articles I looked at was this one because of the Kavanaugh issue going on right now. I'm surprised at the rude reception I'm getting. If I understand what the BATTLEGROUND law means, then Jijiri88, Roscolese, and Nblund definitely seem to be violating it with how they're treating me. It's a shame, because looking at their edits all three also appear to be feminists. Can't we all get along? MugyuToChu (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious sock/troll/joe job blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Here's Iwog on their hobby horse: "Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true." One step at a time: there is no "likewise". One source, this source, cannot establish "generally agreed upon". Where is the "1-5%" on this page? "Total rape allegations"--the source provides data from the US; globalize, Iwog. Finally, "and can be presumed to be true" is complete BS: it's original research, POV commentary. Iwog will have us believe that 95 to 99% of rape allegations are likely false? And all this in the lede (or lead, whatever...). So, we have here a toxic soup of SPA, POV, OR, and possibly CIR (every step I laid out involves incompetence of some sort--rhetorical, logical, situational). Place a topic ban, or (someone) impose something useful via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN for gender-related topics under the Gamergate DS. A clear SPA for the area, with continued disruption and a lack of a learning curve. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So, when is somebody gonna block this guy?

Sorry to paraphrase the worst extra ever, but the above-cited WP:DUCK behaviour is grounds for immediate indefinite block of both accounts. @Yunshui: Sorry to ping you, but you're kinda my go-to for sockpuppetry issues, and buried at the bottom of a relatively stale ANI thread this ran the risk of not being noticed before getting archived. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but it's not going to be me (nor Drmies, who has also run an inconclusive CU with regards to this). There's no technical evidence linking the two accounts, and as yet I don't think the behavioural evidence is sufficient (suspicious, yes; suspicious enough to warrant the check - but not enough to warrant a block in the absence of anything else). No comment on the rest of the above. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The sock that turned up the other day, was CU'd to be User:Architect 134, a notorious false-flag trouble maker in the Nsmutte vein. This could be similar, although it's quacking loudly - who spells the first paragraph of an article "lede" with their very first edit? Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yunshui is correct--that is, there is no support for a CU block. And while some editors deserve to be blocked for one single edit, this is not yet the case. Black Kite, I believe you are correct too: this is a troublemaker, and it certainly quacks, but given the repetitive nature of trolling, who knows. At any rate, if this ever turns into an RfC or a more formal discussion, an admin/seasoned editor will know how to weigh such drive-by comments... Drmies (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding on to the WP:DUCK, there's this diff [10] that Simonvino immediately tried to undo when they realized they'd given themselves away as Iwog. Pretty sure the "talk page discussion" and "dragged to ANI by agenda motivated editors" is Iwog forgetting that they're on on the Simonvino account. Not to mention this really silly edit on User:MugyuToChu's user page [11]. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Er no - Simonvino wasn't Iwog, they were User:Architect 134, that was proved by a CU. It's actually pretty typical joe-jobbing by A134 - writing something that "gives them away", then immediately reverting it as if they've suddenly reaslised what they've done. User:Nsmutte has been known to pull the same trick. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh. Well, that's weird. I guess I should've known better. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• This person has not edited since Sept 28, per their contribs. Gone to ground, or gone? I still think an indef is appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that nothing I have ever written is as personally slanderous or as indicative of a battleground violation than many things contained on this very page. I wonder how the rules are applied these days? Iwog (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• ah it was gone to ground. They are back in the same battering style as before. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any indication that this will stop on it's own. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I note that Iwog has posted a response above to my question. As far as I can see, Iwog is not stepping away from the edit / revert (described as "far more accurate") that conviction by a court of law means a rape "can be presumed to be true" – implying that the absence of a conviction raises doubt about whether a rape actually happened or suggests that an accusation may be / is false. An editor who can't see why this is a problem should not be editing an article like false accusation of rape. The latest Iwog edits on that article's talk page are also not encouraging. Some action is needed. EdChem (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:E-960

Problematic POV pushing. Page blanking against WP:Consensus at Blue Army (Poland). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected. This'll give the users involved an opportunity to discuss everything fully on the article's talk page and work things out. I see back-and-fourth reverting that goes back at least a few days, so this appears to be the right and fair way to stop the disruption at this time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - there is a longer term pattern of abuse here. E-960 has been attempting, against consensus, to excise coverage (in the lede and body) of anti-Semitic attacks by the Blue Army (which reliable academic sources treat at depth, often as the primary subject of their coverage of the Blue Army (or Haller's Army)) for years - e.g. 17:51, 24 November 2015 (shifting blame to Ukrainians along the way), 06:31, 6 March 2017, 15:07, 25 May 2017 (an edit summary full of OR - referencing a PRIMARY contemporary source - which was composed in 1919 - 2 years prior to the peace of Riga in 1921), 15:30, 26 May 2017, 21:37, 20 October 2017, 08:26, 22 September 2018, .... 06:09, 8 October 2018, 17:17, 9 October 2018. All this - against talk page consensus and RfCs - e.g. Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia from May 2017 which discussed the language used in the lede. They have engaged of canvassing of editors involved in WP:EEML - 13:25, 8 October 2018, 13:21, 8 October 2018 (this after - 07:56, 8 October 2018 a highly non-neutral stmt to NPOV/n apparently attracted the wrong sort of editorial attention). An editor that thinks that 200-300 casualties in 3 years of fighting and 200,000 soldiers, that's insignificant, and only confirms my concerns that some editors just want to stack this article with biased one sided statements (again - wrongly referring to Morgenthau's mid-1919 number (the Morgenthau commission did not have a crystal ball) which estimated 200-300 killed through 1919 (casualties - including wounded and abused - would be much larger of course). They have also misrepresented sources - 06:01, 9 October 2018 (not only is Lvov in the Morgenthau report, using David Engel (1987) to rebut a 2005 book is a tad odd - and in this case completely unsupported by Engel (who actually, in his footnote addressing Morgenthau , writesthe opposite). An editor acting against consensus (on the same issue) for years, and who considers widespread antisemitic attack by an organization to be "insignificant" (despite widespread coverage - to the point that some sources primarily cover the Blue Army in the context of antisemitism) - should not be editing the topic area. Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, where you have no arguments and are trying to deflect from your own disruptive behavior then... you bring up "EEML", a ArbCom case from freakin' ten years ago that has nothing to do with this article. You know that's just more evidence that you're not editing in good faith, right? Volunteer Marek 14:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make a critical statement, thought not in an effort to point fingers at anyone and not in bad faith, however a frank dialogue needs to take place. There is a persistent bias on topics related to Polish history, how can any one that is truly for Wikipedia neutraliry say that an article is balanced when it contains 3,100 words 900 (30%) are devoted to just one issue and this also happens to be a contriversial topic. When a few days ago I opened a disscussion on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to see if the disputed text can be condenced, cynically user Icewhiz responded by adding two more paragraphs to disputed section (also pls see user Icewhiz history, as he has been accused of POV pushing on topics related to Polish-Jewish history in the past). Also, the disputed text is almost all exclusivley the work of one editor user Faustian, who over the years blocked any attempt to make the section more neutral or balanced. Now, Wikipedia guidlines clearly state that undue weight can include depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of text and article structue. So, how can anyone argue that one issue taking up 30% of the article is ok. In no other Wikipedia article would that be allowed. Instead you have artificial "consensus" where the same few editors jump in to support each other, and establish "consensus which clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines. I as that sevral admins to actually look at the Blue Army article and say that the text meets Wikipedias neutrality standards, when the article focuses on just one ethnic group which sustained the least casulties in the war as a result of the army's actions (around 500), while other ethnic groups count their casulties in the THOUSANDS and there is just one passing statement devoted to them. --E-960 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It would seem neutral, reliable, secondary academic sources treat the Blue Army's antisemitic atrocities against civilians (abuse, cutting of beards, pillaging and robbing, maiming, and killing) at great length in comparison to their performance on the field of battle. We follow sources - not editorial opinion that such atrocities are "insignificant"(diff - 10:33, 8 October 2018). Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making that statement user Icewhiz because it unmasks your POV pushing, since there are pleanty of sources which say the Blue Army turned the tide of the war and that is the center of their material. However, the sources you champion just focus the the abuse, besides this is not the first article you are trying to impose your POV to the objectin of other editors, no sure what the point of that link was since we are talking about UNDUEWEIGHT.--E-960 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it's pretty clear that if anyone is trying to use Wikipedia to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS", it's not E-960 but you. E-960 is making a straight forward policy based argument about DUE WEIGHT. You can disagree with that (the real question is whether this article should spend 1/3 of its space on this issue even though the subject is notable for other reasons, or whether that info belongs in a different article), but there's no need to attack them or insult them or falsely misrepresent their actions, like you're doing by accusing them of RGW (I don't see ANYTHING in their comment which would suggest that). On the other hand, pretty much everyone familiar with your editing history has a pretty good sense of your WP:ADVOCACY and pattern of POV pushing in this and other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that if E-960 really was concerned about undue weight, he would have taken all that time he spent trying to get this information about atrocities against Jews removed, and instead applied it towards building up other aspects of the history of the Blue Army. Instead he has, for years, just tried to get this information removed. So his actual motive is to remove information he doesn't like, and not make the article weighted as he sees fit. The percentage of the article devoted to these atrocities would have been much smaller had E-960 spent a couple hours in the library doing research and adding other information to the article, rather than spending hours trying to remove information. So let's not pretend that he cares about undue weight. He just wants to remove referenced information that he doesn't like and engages in edit warring and blanking (see here: [12]) while doing so.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Faustian, what you are doing is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, literally no changes have been made to the disputed section in YEARS, because you sit on top of that article and revert all attempts to change the text or even seek a compromise solution (that's not even an exaggeration, the text has been frozen for YEARS due to your stonewalling). --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By "no changed" in the disputed section you mean, your repeated attempts to remove information without consensus. If you are concerned about undue weight, why not build other sections rather than remove reliably sourced info from this one? I doubt you really care about undue weight. You just want information that you don't like to be removed.Faustian (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article does indeed have severe undue weight issues. Interestingly I have also checked the sources used and for example Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books by Blue Army soldiers and explanations of the situation have been cut out by the editors adding the information about killings.I compared this article with the article about West Ukrainian People's Republic that exised in the same time and area which engaged in mass opression of Polish population, up to setting up internment camps for Polish population. It is quite interesting to compare the two articles.While here we have almost half of the page devoted to these events, the mass persecution of Poles in WUPR is passed over and blamed on "Polish sabotage". I can't help but notice the radically different treatement the two articles about similiar events in the same time and area and conflict receive.So to summarize-I do believe there is undue weight here and comparing this to other articles on the conflict with similar events there seems to be bias involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And what matters is not what our articles say, but what RS say. So if there is an imbalance maybe this is due to an imbalance in reliable sources saying something. Again if there is information left out of an article that is relevant and can be sourced add it, do not remove sources material from another article in the name of balance.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• We are back to the theme of trouble in articles on the subject of Polish-Jewish relations. As far as I’m aware there are three editors banned from the area at the moment, and E-960 was editing with them, on the same articles. Whether or not one agrees with this editor on article content, what we're required to do here at ANI is consider conduct. This particular case comes within a context, which I'll start to show some of here.
• For the record, at WP:AE the administrator NeilN has already advised E-960 “to be more careful when reverting” in the conclusion to a WP:AE revert-warring case: [13]
• This came after another WP:AE revert-war case where administrator NeilN asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future: [14]
• MyMoloboaccount has recently asked E-960 to “chill out”. [15] .
• Slatersteven messaged E-960 in May to say their conduct was starting look like WP:TE: [16]
• K.e.coffman messaged E-960 last month to say: Hi, I am leaving a quick note to let you know that I did not find these Talk page comments to be helpful: [17]. Talk pages are for discussion of content, not contributors. I would appreciate it if you did not unnecessarily personalised disputes. This could potentially drive off other editors if they find the atmosphere too unpleasant. Thank you. [18]
• I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with E-960 around 15 months ago, at the Poland article here: [19]
• In December, E-960 by their own account alleged a "Planned POV attack on the Poland article" which goes a long way to explain the perception issue here, which seems to motivate the behavior. User:BytEfLUSh responded by saying "I fail to see how someone saying that they intend to improve the article could be viewed as POV-pushing. Also, regarding 3RR, you might want to check the article history and look at the timestamps of your reverts... " Unable to leave alone an editor who had swam away from the WP:BAIT, E-960 added: "This reminds me of several incidents in the past where an editors/suck-puppet dumped information on unusual topics/minutia (normally not covered in other country articles) such as traffic fatalities in the country." I am the editor who had added road deaths to the Poland article (because no matter how embarrassing to the country, they are notable in reliable sources - including Polish news coverage and political discussion - because they are the highest total in the EU), before leaving it per WP:DISENGAGE. E-960 produced no evidence that I am a "suck-puppet". [20]
• Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE), named Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, in response to an edit by E-960 there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, E-960 reverted [21] my addition of sourced content [22] which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which François Robere had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning E-960 was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; E-960’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if E-960’s knows the universal truth.
• At times E-960's Talk page discussion has been misleading. For example, at the same article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies, their "I agree with Chumchum7... Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to..." is not an agreement at all but a case of putting words into someone else's mouth, because I had made a general statement about how we might be able to build consensus and stability, and I had not taken sides against the editor E-960 happened to disagree with: [23] Similarly misleading communication has been witnessed by Paul Siebert: [24]
• The common theme with all these articles is that E-960 has an axe to grind about Poland’s reputation and Polish-Jewish relations in particular, but they do this with the appearance of trying to intimidate, win and control, and often with projections of bad faith and a personally disrespectful tone, which is at odds with the ethos of our community. While I happen to agree that the allegation of Polish antisemitism is sometimes exaggerated and has led to stereotyping and is an aspect of prejudice against Poles, it is equally true that Polish antisemitism is sometimes downplayed, denied, justified or whitewashed. The solution in Wikipedia is to try to find a consensus solution which represents the sources fairly, because it is a fight which will never be won: those who insist on fighting about it will be stopped.
• This has gone on too long. It’s stealing our time and warnings are not being heeded by the user in question; it may even be that our tolerance is feeding their conduct. This ANI needs to be seen in the wider context. Similar sanctions as those applied to User:Icewhiz, etc, may be worth considering. As far as I recall, veteran administrators on issues such as this are Sandstein and User:EdJohnston, who might be available for consultation as well as NeilN .Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 - I'm sorry but comparable "evidence of misconduct" could be constructed against anyone who edits Wikipedia. I will highlight that you spent over 3 hours (from 5AM until 8AM [25] - [26] [27]) on scanning for and picking anything that may appear to look perhaps actionable, causing otherwise a standard editor look bad.GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you're one of the three aforementioned editors topic-banned from the same subject area of Polish-Jewish relations in WWII (in your case for misrepresenting sources) where E-960 has been editing. This includes the article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, mentioned above. You're very much involved. Please bear in mind the possibility of appealing your ban in December. Your position that the same things here could be said about 'anyone who edits Wikipedia', and your allegation that my use of diffs is 'causing otherwise a standard editor look bad' is understood. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate here and the topics are E-960, WW1, and Blue Army Chumchum7 and thank you for recognizing that similar data could be found in most editors edit history not only E-960. Nothing extraordinary there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not recognize that similar data could be found in most editors' edit history. I said I understood your position, which is a different thing. For the record, that position and your subsequent misrepresentation of what I said indicates that you are not learning from your topic ban, which will be dealt with elsewhere. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Chumchum7 Now I understand what you meant by saying " my position is understood" I would also suggest to assume good faith and restrain yourself from issuing threats.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved, but well... I agree with what Faustian, Slatersteven and Chumchum said, and regret the latter's decision to stop contributing to said article. I just have two things to add:
1) As you can see, this discussion already pulled in a user previously topic-banned from "history of Poland during WWII" for anti-Semitic comments and edits using a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles - [a form of] tendentious editing [that] is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV [28] (the other admins had more harsh words on the matter, but that's the gist of it). The ban, I'm afraid, was ill-defined: The user should've been banned not from "history of Poland during WWII" but from "history of the Jews in Poland", which would've included both world wars. A ban that allows a user to join in on exactly the same kind of discussion because the events took place 25 years earlier is flawed.
2) E-960 tends to assume others have hidden agendas, and too often for my tastes "casts aspersions" (see admin's comment here), and blocks benign changes because they fear they're intended to malign the Polish nation. Some recent examples:

1. [29] A simple CE blocked because it looked like material was removed.
2. [30] A simple CE - accusation of "massive change" and trying to "sanitize" text.
3. [31] A list of reversals with accusations of "POV pushing" and the like. Notice that despite the length of the discussion, little is actually discussed - most of the changes are just blocked without further explanation. They're later joined by two other editors, but those two don't offer explanations (in fact, one of their comments is so out of place it refers to something that wasn't even discussed). Despite further "stonewalling", 3/7 changes were eventually accepted when other editors became involved, and I suspect others will pass in the future.

Bottom line: When simple CEs are blocked because someone, somehow feels they're driven by ideology, they're showing "battleground mentality" that isn't helpful for Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere - I'm assuming good faith, and I will accept that you are unfamiliar with the judgment and why I was topic banned [32] - could you then kindly cross out this false story composed by you above? --> topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII for anti-Semitic comments and edits. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel unease about Chumchum7 using my comment to E-960. To be frank I said to E-960 to chill out, because I have feeling other users are provoking him into making statements that will be used to push for sanctions. Seriously at this moment some users are doing what can only be described as spamming numerous articles with every exaggerated detail about alleged atrocities by Poles, leading to situation where 30-40% of the article lenght is being dedicated to every claim that can be found, no matter how outlandish.I don't mind covering these topics at all, but at the moment it is getting out of hand and seriously is getting non-neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Article was protected. E-960's proposed changes and opinion of the article were discussed here: [33] Two editors supported him, six editors disagreed. So consensus was 3:6 in favor of not implementing E-960's proposed changes. Protection was lifted. E-960 immediately made the changes that were rejected by most editors. I restored it (talk here: [34]). So it goes.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In E-960's revert, not only did he defy consensus, he also introduced WP:OR -- The Jewish Yearbook of 1920 does not support In an effort to curb the abuses- the source says JULY 2. Warsaw: Anti-Jewish riot; fifteen Jews wounded, and one killed.—Warsaw: General Haller publishes proclamation in the Poranna, signed by Polish, English, and French representatives, ordering his troops to stop the cutting of beards of Jews.. - Haller order his troops to stop (before foreign representatives), however nothing in the source says this was an actual effort to effect a stop. Even, worse Soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions. To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press is not supported at all, and is in fact contradicted, by the cited source - page 227 in Carole Fink's book (who scare quotes "immediate investigation" on the Polish government response to reports of violence by the Blue Army, and then describes a Polish publicity/propaganda campaign). Beyond source falsification, attributing such a statement to Fink (via citation) is a rather serious WP:BLP issue vs. Fink. The issue of misrepresentation was clearly conveyed on the talk page and in the edits that modified content attributed to Fink. Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Faustian this text was added by Icewhiz on 05:26, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [35] and 05:59, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [36] in the middle of the edit war, there was NO CONSENSUS on the talk page to include this NEW text in the article — this is NOT long standing material, see last stable article version form 02:19, 9 SEPTEMBER 2018 [37]. --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Incorrect - both on lack of consensus, and regarding the claim of addition. In both cases - as evident in the diffs - [38][39] - this was content that was long standing in the article but which cherrypicked/ORed (the Jewish Yearbook) or grossly misrepresented to the point of being defamatory to the cited author (Carole Fink) - which was corrected to faithfully represent what is actually written in the cited source. I will note that the gross misrepresentation was retorted by E-960 in a blanket revert on 21:31, 13 October 2018. WP:Verifying sources is important.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This sequence - beginning with 10:17, 3 March 2018 is symptomatic of E-960's editing - with the false edit summary of "moved training company photos down" E-960 modified the section title from the long-standing Anti-Jewish violence to Reports of anti-Jewish violence. Subsequent consensus on the article talk page section - is clearly against this title (raising of false doubt and NPOV issue - and one should note - no credible source disputes the Blue Army's widespread violence against Jews - at best some marginal sources dispute the scale). Subsequently, and against consensus - 07:22, 15 October 2018 and mis-marked as a WP:MINOR edit (a personal attack? Seems to be insinuating vandalism) - E-960 restores the title he previously sneaked in with a false edit summary. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Although Icewhiz has a history of conflict with E-960, if their allegations above prove to be accurate, for what it's worth I would support a 3-month topic ban for E-960, based on the precedent of the simultaneous ban for Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek [40]. This is now a matter of (i) helping a disruptive editor to learn, (ii) fairness to previously-banned users, (iii) restoring discipline as well as (iv) the ongoing credibility of the process. If for bureaucratic reasons a filing needs to be done at WP:AE, I would support whoever does it. But I would urge administrators to finish this here and now. If as MyMoloboaccount points out, it is true that E-960 is being goaded, the tormentors need to be rooted out and assessed themselves. But they provide the disruptive editor here with no excuse. Responsibly for behavior is held by the individual who conducts the behavior. One always has the option of WP:BAIT and WP:DENY instead of allowing oneself to be provoked. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To the extent that it takes two to tango, and considering that E-90 is not the only one with a "history" here, and that as has been pointed out, users like Icewhiz are goading him, a similar sanction on Icewhiz - basically an extension of his previous topic ban from Polish-Jewish issues during WW2 to ALL Polish-Jewish issues - would also be in order. Volunteer Marek 06:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented for any such "goading". Ample evidence has been shown for edit warring (over a period of years) by E-960 against consensus, canvassing (e.g. [41]), misrepresenting sources, and using misleading edit summaries. I will also note this personal attack by Volunteer Marek against @Winged Blades of Godric:, and VM's very long "history" in this topic - harking back to WP:EEML and his recent ban as well. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no remote interest in the topic area but I'm all for assuming good faith and that VM, certainly did not intend it to be a personal attack against me.∯WBG^converse 07:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, I would recommend the said topic ban apply to all Poland-related content, not just Polish-Jewish relations. After all the problem appears to be extreme personal attachment to Poland's reputation in general, rather than anti-Semitism or a particular obsession with Jewish matters. This would also be to avert what François Robere identified above: that if the topic ban covers too small an area, the flow of trouble just redirects elsewhere and we all have to go through all this time-wasting again. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. François Robere (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't kindergarten, boys. You don't get cookie points for being "goaded", and you risk getting your cookies taken for falsely accusing someone of being a goad. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think much of this discussion, but read through - one of the editors is pointing out a pattern of modifying maps on Wikipedia such that they under-represent German presence or influence (though at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit). You'll notice this bears some similarity to another discussion from some weeks ago. François Robere (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh... removing an WP:OR map created by a indef banned user [42] - who was indef banned for extensive sock puppetry, long term abuse, and pro-Nazi edits - ... and you, have a problem with this Francois? Care to explain why? Volunteer Marek 05:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, which is why I wrote that at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit. "On that occasion", as later in the thread another case is mentioned which isn't so justified. What bothers me is what's in common for both discussions: the emphasis on ethnicity, misunderstanding census data, and disregarding conflicting sources. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder whether the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY could be helpful reading. Perhaps troublesome editors in the WP:ARBEE area could all get together and agree that they love their grandparents very much, wherever they came from (it could even be an entrance requirement). And that it is high time to get out more [43]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The barnstar for a good sense of humor to you Chumchum7 (lol). GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the issue of the map of German language use, pointed out above by Francois, on enwiki at Talk:German language#E-960's edits ceased after E-960 was blocked at commons on 17 August. Looking through their contributions (and record on various admin boards) at commons, it seems that much of their contributions there involve removing ethnic minorities from maps involving Poland - in the modern era (e.g. German - 1950, or various deletion requests (rejected as in use) - [44][45][46][47], Russian -[48]),, but also at 1 AD. Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960 just blanked more info that he did not like here: [49]. Faustian (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User Faustian, did you not read what I wrote on this false claim in an earlier comment when it was first raised above, and the talk page disscussion, or you just ignore all that? You are talking about text added by user Icewhiz in the middle of an edit war, inserted with NO CONSENSUS. Pls, pls read the relevant disscussions before throwing around accusations of blanking text. --E-960 (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User Icewhiz, it just comes across as if you are tying to get me blocked, showing bad faith towards me in you comments, before you accuse me of "removing minorities" on WikiCommons map pls look at the history of the editor who created this original map user Michael Postmann, who was banned for, quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia (POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia)". So, I'm not sure what you are accusing me of, that I created a new map based of national census data from Poland, Czech Rep. and Slovakia, is this what you identify as removing minorities, using reliable reference sources to back up my material? --E-960 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahmedadan1951

Ahmedadan1951 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Ahmedadan1951 (not pinging)

See his talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barawa_District&diff=863587274&oldid=861918419 adds a link that I do not believe is real. As he seems to learn from my cues, I'm not going to publicly say why. But if you look at my history and his talk page, you probably know who to trust. And I'm not even interested in Somalia. I only got caught up in this shitstorm because he uploaded an image that I mass-tagged with a template without even looking at it, putting it on my watchlist.

For clarity, either the user is real (which I highly doubt) and it's some rebel leader in Somalia who shouldn't edit anything due to COI, or, more likely, we are dealing with a bored teenager. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, he just restored his unsourced crap on some articles like Barawa (and added unsourced crap to others). Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Please notify subject that you have posted here about them, as per instructions at the top of the page when you post here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: can/should I post somewhere else where that is not required? Any information he gets just helps him evade detection. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

How exactly? At any rate, they edit so sporadically, they won't even notice a short block. They've had a couple for (wait for it) making unsourced edits. I'm a little trigger happy, but leave it to the regulars for now. We aren't in a hurry.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: When I look at your history, it looks like you follow them around.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: not exactly. After his messing around with made-up flags a few months ago, Barawa and some related pages ended up on my watchlist. But it wasn't until now when he made an edit to Barawa that I noticed he woke up again. So I just undid his unsourced September edits. FYI, Ahmedadan1951 (or someone extremely close to him) operates the websites for which he adds links to articles about Somalia. https://www.parliament.gov.so/ is the real website of the Somali government and I doubt they would consider any of this very funny. Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What I meant with my history is: I'm a decade+ contributor who is obnoxious, rude, likes MjolnirPants and burns things. But I've never screwed you over. Ahmedadan1951 registered 9 months ago and gave us nothing but unsourced homemade crap with a sauce of edit war. Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

As there's no discussion here and the only answer I see is to indef Ahmedadan1951 until they respond to issues, I plan to do so if no one objects. They have not edited since before this is posted. Short term blocks have not had an impact.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Sounds reasonable. This is pretty bizarre behavior.  Swarm  talk  00:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

TBH, I forgot aboutt his. Will deal with it tomorrow is no one beats me to it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I don't think anyone has. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Xayahrainie43

• Xayahrainie43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has drawn concerned attention throughout their short career here. Of the current WT:WPM discussions, four concern Xayahrainie's edits (the two on which Xayahrainie is named explicitly, and also List of polygons and n-ary). Many edits tend towards large-scale, systematic changes to some article or sets of articles, with no discussion; often, against an existing consensus. So far there have been several clean-up efforts following their edits; here is the most recent one, but earlier there was this (there are four or five relevant discussions on that page; all the "-ary" discussions and also Hyper6) as well as some AfDs. The user's talk page is full of good-faith, non-templated advice and encouragement to discuss; so far this has generated no success. One can see in some of the RfD and AfD discussions their real lack of understanding of what it means to discuss notability or policy, and to reach consensus; see here for the most sustained example.

So far all warnings and attempts at discussion have failed to make an impression, so I request a short block (with possibility of escalation if there is no change in behavior). I do not watchlist ANI, please ping. --JBL (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think a block is needed yet, but would support a short TBAN against this user creating redirects. They should not be creating more redirects similar to those being discussed at deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not just about redirects; check out this recent article creation (currently at AfD). Or creating hatnotes for non-redirects for special characters (dealt with by me eventually). --JBL (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • To add: I do not understand the idea that a short block is more invasive than a topic ban. This user's problem is failure to communicate and to appreciate existing consensus -- this leads to disruption wherever they work, and needs to be solved by a method that will convince them of the seriousness of discussion in the WP process. I would not support a T-ban for this user (even in the absence of a block), it will not solve anything. --JBL (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• The disruptive edits of this editor are far not limited to redirect creations. Many are aimed to name or list, as far as possible possible, objects that are indexed by integers, such as n-gons, n-ary. In this sequence of edits, they tried to extend from 8 to 12 the explicit examples for low n. I have reverted these edits because they add nothing from an encyclopedic point of view, and also because they contained some mathematical errors. Fortunately, they do not tried starting an edit war, and I considered the subject as closed. However, it is useful to mention it here, for having a global view of the problem. D.Lazard (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• The deleted version of this user's user page (if you can see it) will give you a very clear and typical idea of this user's contributions (I believe also as an IP before creating this user account): piles and piles of original research, both as walls of text and big tables of numbers, added to articles with zero references (or with only OEIS as reference), and with a special emphasis on base-12 notation. Or for a non-deleted example, see Special:Diff/863227170 and scroll down to the part starting "searched up to 1048576". Also note the complete lack of usable edit summaries. If this junk is removed by other editors, the same editor will come back days or weeks later to re-add it. I think WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE are in play. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal illustrates the fascination with base 12. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Links: Xayahrainie43 (talk · contribs)

  Something drastic is needed because enthusiasm can waste a lot of time. I explained a problem at the user's talk here but got no response. That talk has been edited 72 times—three of those were by Xayahrainie43. That level of collaboration is not satisfactory. The suggestion above about a topic ban against creating redirects is not sufficient because other problems exist (see my "here" link for example). Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Johnuniq (and others above): A block is necessary. An indefinite block. Lifted only when he agrees to stop the problematic edits and to actually respond to talkpage notices. It's unclear whether he can be rehabilitated, but at the very least his editing (50+ edits per day!), which is highly problematical, has got to stop. Softlavender (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Is it possible to permanently disable write access (including creation and move rights) to article space (including redirects), but not to article and redirect talk pages and to draft pages?

If so, this might be a solution to the problem, so that s/he can still participate in the project by proposing changes on article talk pages (and thereby will be forced to learn to motivate/discuss changes so that others will accept them), but cannot cause disruption by changing article contents, mass-creating undesired redirects, etc. This way, noboby would have to monitor and cleanup after this editor, and still the project could benefit from the editor's knowledge. The editor's particular dedication (obsession?) with certain topics might even help us to round out some topic areas with aspects overlooked by editors without this dedication. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

They're working on that feature, but it's not available yet. A straight indef is the only option. All they'd have to do to get unblocked is start communicating though, so it's really not the end of the world. They have not edited since another admin has asked them to respond here, but if they fail to do so in a timely manner, or if they make any edit that isn't responding here, I am going to block them.  Swarm  talk  19:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a new 17 October edit by Xayahrainie (later than the above statements) so I think User:Swarm's criterion for issuing an indef block is now met. Xayahrainie has made no response to my last-chance advice from 16 October that they might respond to this ANI to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Swarm has administered an indefinite block, with further encouragement to engage. --JBL (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The return of User:Daniel C. Boyer

Because of a pretty good edit filter we haven't had much trouble recently from frustrated unknown artist and LTA self-promoter Daniel C. Boyer, who was community banned last year [50]. But he's reappeared recently as Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E860:5500:30CE:29B1:3721:C3C9 with some edits that escape the filter [51] and insertion of a "work" of his own that resides at Commons [52].

We need a block (or range block -- experience shows he'll keep coming back once he's found away around the filter). If someone wants to tinker with the filer, take a look at User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer#Oct_2018_socking. Pinging John from Idegon, Beyond My Ken. EEng 02:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Good grief, is he still about? He was spouting garbage right back at the very dawn of Wikipedia; you'd think he'd have got bored by now. ‑ Iridescent 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the ip for a week. I guess for a range block we need an evidence that they have used more than one IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My vague understanding is that there are some low-order bits that are almost always a block of addresses for a single customer or whathaveyou. Anyway, let's leave this thread open a few days to see if he comes back in another guise. Any edit filter wizard who has a minute might want to follow the link a gave earlier to get an idea of what's needed as far as extending the filter. EEng 04:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My goodness, he's nothing if not persistent. Revert and block on sight, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know I was dealing with a celebrity. Just thought it ludicrous that we are supposed to accept that there is a new form of surrealism that involves cutting holes in photographs without a source. John from Idegon (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that thing has been marked {{cn}} since 2009, and the only "sources" I could find which defined it were just copies of what the Wikipedia article said. Nice to see it's finally been expunged, but it's a shame it's been there long enough to taint so many other sites. I also see it was added to Ted Joans in 2003 (where is has also always been unsourced) with the edit summary "(adding from outagraph)". Outagraph, which was deleted in 2005, was created by Daniel C. Boyer in 2003. I've also removed the claim from Ted Joans now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Portraits of the artist as a pretentious dork: [53][54][55]. His latest work is "The Green Woman with the Tiara Does Not Elope but Marries the Man with the Seventy-Dollar Ears". So deep! So avant-garde! So boundary-challenging! It's even acrylic and gauche! EEng 05:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• à chacun son goût -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think they used to call it "the disease of kings" -- Henry VIII and so on.. EEng 07:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• I just noticed that the current version of the Consensus reality article he created way back in 2002 includes An Analysis of the Metapragmatic and Therapeutic Dimensions of Vampiric Live Action Role-playing as a 'source'. Someone should probably look through those pages he created over the years and see how problematic the rest of them are, regardless of whether or not they're direct spam for him. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I can't face the thought of that today, but here's a list of his page creations in case someone wants to formulate a plan for dividing up the work. [56] EEng 21:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I checked the A's and the B's and didn't find anything. EEng 21:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  I did a randomish dip sample—there's a lot of drivel like Fax art and Arsenal/Surrealist Subversion, but I'm not seeing much that's problematic. Because his main burst of activity was over a decade ago, it looks like for once Wikipedia's model has functioned as it's supposed to, and the garbage like Mattila Square, Quad-ruled paper and J. Karl Bogartte has been removed by Wikipedia's natural processes of article patrolling. ‑ Iridescent 01:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  Arid desiccant, I've been meaning to ask you for some time: what's the difference between a dip sample and a just plain sample? EEng 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Dip sample

Dim sample

• Are not all desiccants, by nature, arid?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. It is the natural destiny of desiccants to lose their aridity in the performance of their duty. EEng 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

très tragique-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@EEng For a dip sample, you take the whole list and select entries from it at random; for a representative sample, you divide the list into chunks and sample one entry from each chunk. Usually when people on Wikipedia say they've checked a sample, they mean a representative sample as the way contribution histories are displayed makes it easier to keep clicking "older" and sample one entry from each 50-entry page of results, but in this case I genuinely did pull up the whole list and click on it at random, which IMO is a fairer method when you're looking to see if there's a pattern of problems (representative sampling top-loads your results towards either the oldest or newest edits depending on which way you're working through the list, as even if one starts out with the intention of checking the entire history one tends to abandon the checks once a pattern becomes apparent). ‑ Iridescent 12:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Daweibj

• Daweibj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StarTimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Access to Satellite TV for 10,000 African Villages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user has mainly edited these two articles, and I couldn't find any single sentence of criticism against both subjects. If the user is somehow related to the StarTimes company, I'd like to declare it's against WP:COI, but I couldn't find any sufficient evidence. (I do believe these articles need to be retouched, however.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 19:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

JSH-alive, I haven't looked into this yet, but I'm just letting you know (if you don't already) that there is also the WP:COIN, which investigates these matters, if you get no traction here. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't really do much here if there's no clear evidence of wrongdoing. For further investigation into whether the editor has a COI, WP:COIN is the proper place, and for further consideration of POV concerns, WP:NPOVN is the place for that. If you come across any clear evidence of bias or POV, we can certainly do something about it here, but if you need help digging into the users articles and edits, you'll probably have more luck at one of the other noticeboards.  Swarm  talk  21:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:FilFootyGuy

• FilFootyGuy (talk · contribs)
• 2018 Bangabandhu Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:2018 Bangabandhu Cup

I don't see any hope he will stop his disruptive editing. Refuse to read the consensus in the talk page of the article, refuse to leave any word in Dispute resolution noticeboard. After the expiry of the temp block, disruptive edit the article again (Special:Diff/863577825, Special:Diff/863990580). Please let us know how to deal with the issue. Matthew_hk tc 01:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Das cray. I don't know what to do about the problem, I only know what to do with the editor--a week-long block. I don't if there is an iron-clad consensus on the issue; that talk page section isn't perfectly clear. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Just a heads up: This guy smells like the banned User:Banana Fingers. Can anyone with the right tools check on this? Howard the Duck (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Drmies can, actually.  Swarm  talk  00:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm the last confirmed Banana sock is from 2014, so don't get your hopes up. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• OK, here is the thing. Howard the Duck, the Footy dude has a double, User:InternacionalFutbolista. They are a perfect match, they overlap, they will both be blocked. I have a strong feeling that this is your Banana, but I am going to leave that final determination to whoever will finish the job (and I hope that's you, or maybe User:Matthew_hk), by adding to the SPI and making the case. When that is done, and a determination is made (on behavioral grounds) that Footy is Banana, they can all be tagged appropriately, and there's "fresh" CU information for what seems to be a regular socker. Do NOT ask for CU at the SPI--there is nothing more to see, no older accounts, etc.--so a regular admin can handle it, and maybe that speeds things up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Filing SPI with behavioural ground need exact diff comparison. Since I haven't encountered the user exactly. (Unlike Antony or the Belgian weather box vandal), I don't know where to start to look for , which went to look like witch hunting job. Matthew_hk tc 09:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is noted, and I'll do the bureaucracy when this user causes ruckus again. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP 1.42.39.16

User:1.42.39.16 has recently posted some legal threats on their talk page (replacing several warning templates, including a final warning, if that's pertinent). Not sure what to do about it, not even sure if anything needs doing, but figured I should report it here. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih reverted them without fueling the fire. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

RefDesk header urgent

Nasty vandalism affecting the RefDesk header. Look at the desks or at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/headercfg. I can't work out where the vandalism actually is. DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Found it - this edit by User:Seckroots. Please can they be blocked forthwith? DuncanHill (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone really needs to block this editor now and carry out appropriate revdel.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist mere seconds before I could.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Great Land o' Goshen!. I'm at work and won't have the opportunity to revdel this mess.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a very weird account history Special:Log/Seckroots. I thought it had been created ~104 days ago to get around the RD protection but it seems it was actually in 2009. The edits for autoconfirmed happened just before the spree. I'm not really sure what happened but I'm assuming that means a CU to look for sleepers will definitely be useless. Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If someone is using for this purpose an account created in 2009, it is quite likely that this individual has been actively disrupting Wikipedia in many ways for a long time, including currently operating multiple accounts. I therefore wouldn't rule out the possibility that a checkuser will be able to find something. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be another sleeper, created in 2010 (now blocked) Mirroringelements (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think it's almost certain that this user has other accounts, including "good hand" ones. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm about 95% certain this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll. They haven't otherwise mentioned Nazi-ism, but everything else about the nature and ferocity of this attack matches him quite well. Using registerred sleeper accounts, deep familiarity with various ref-desk regulars, and repeatedly hammering the desks to force protection all match perfectly. --Jayron32 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See also Special:Permalink/864011166#Reference desk protection. One of the "disallow" filters was modified on Sunday afternoon. This is a public filter and it's not stopping Soft skin. A private filter was modified last night which disallows phone numbers but it's not stopping him either. This is unsurprising since he's adding fictitious Los Angeles numbers whereas Medeis lived in New York. Another private filter was modified yesterday afternoon and another on Sunday afternoon. We now have desks protected for a month. This is unnecessary. Soft skin has apparently encountered a filter which stops him writing "Medeis" in edit summaries. So he writes "M E D E I S" instead. Might I suggest unprotection combined with the following filter modifications:

• Stop IPs inserting "M E D E I S" into edit summaries in project space
• Stop IPs inserting Medeis' fictitious Los Angeles postal address into edit summaries in project space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7986:D200:D81B:21A3:5CE2:CA75 (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't deal with edit filters, but it seems fairly obvious that the edit filter is going to have to stop more than simply spaces, surely including substituted letters etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was any chance the editor had somehow acquired a bunch of old accounts created by someone else e.g. on the dark web or whatever. But the other account actually asked a (fairly innocuous) question on the RD around creation time so I suspect they must have been created by by the abuser themselves for possible future use and/or for existing minor disruption. Although I haven't seen as much as admins and those dealing with this, the connection with the stated LTA seems likely. An interesting point is that 2009 or even 2010 AFAIK predates the first signs of this editor that I know of, I think that was in 2013 or maybe 2012 or 2011 at the earliest so there was obviously something going on before the later problems. If CU finds something that would be great. Main reason I was wondering is because at least for their anonymous edits, the editor seems to use a lot of VPNs or proxies or whatever & thought they would be careful not contaminate their old accounts. But I forgot how many sleepers the editor tends to have. Given the age, let's hope they don't manage to get any account through to EC status. BTW, with the VPNs or whatever there's probably not much they can do, but is the foundation aware of the recent problems? Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

I suppose I am more than likely as versed as I need to be on your vandalism rule. I made some really great edits on the Fort Mill High School page. I adjusted the alumni, giving them accurate links to wikipedia pages as well as creating more understandable definitions to why they were "notable". I also helped out the achievements section by removing confusing verbiage and unneeded words, making it more of a list rather than a paragraph summarising all the achievements. What am I not getting here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCPrivilegeChecker (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@PCPrivilegeChecker: You may want to check out User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives for stuff like this. In the mean time, I reverted ClueBot NG's edit for you. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

...Anyone else concerned about that user name? --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look at all like a POV-pushing sock at all to me. Natureium (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I just gave them a username warning[57]. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Wombles vandal from Texas -- rangeblock request

There's a long-term abuse person from Texas who has been disrupting articles about The Wombles (band), Lily's Driftwood Bay, Huey Lewis and the News, Poppy Cat (TV series), and many other music, TV and radio articles. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2603:300C:182D:4600:0:0:0:0/64? A common connection is the identical edit summary, present much of the time. Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sep–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/108.244.219.139
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/50.197.217.214
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/Verone66 (indeffed)
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/172.58.99.57
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/107.77.173.4 (blocked six months)
• Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/96.68.90.41
• Aug–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/76.30.25.202 (blocked one year)
• Aug–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/4.16.216.194
• Aug–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/96.64.46.166
• Aug 2018: Special:Contributions/73.232.193.116
• Aug 2018: Special:Contributions/76.31.1.219
• Jun–Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/2600:1700:C370:7A00:0:0:0:0/64
• Jun–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/2603:300C:182D:4600:0:0:0:0/64
• Jun–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/2603:300C:1806:1200:0:0:0:0/64
• May–Oct 2018: Special:Contributions/96.91.42.38 (blocked two weeks)
• Nov 2017 – Sep 2018: Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1260:BD40:0:0:0:0/64
• Aug 2017 – Jun 2018: Special:Contributions/107.77.169.7 (blocked one year)
• May 2017 – Mar 2018: Special:Contributions/99.23.39.93 (blocked one year)
• May–Nov 2017: Special:Contributions/2602:306:3740:AEF0:0:0:0:0/64
• Oct 2014 – Mar 2016: Special:Contributions/98.198.137.139 (blocked 12 hours)

@Binksternet: I've blocked the two active IPv6 ranges (2603:300C:1806:1200:0:0:0:0/64 and 2603:300C:182D:4600:0:0:0:0/64) for three months each.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks good. I will watch the articles of interest for future disruption. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:2405:3800::/32

• 2405:3800::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (ISP: U Mobile)

The whole ip range was mostly nationality hoax, such as he did in Fernando Muslera, Rodrigo Bentancur. Block on single ip today was resulted in using another ip to vandal within hours. Despite it may had potential high collateral damage to other user that using the same ISP, most of the edits in that range currently are related to the same vandal pattern.

Those exception (not related to nationality), such as this one (Special:Diff/864265524) on Environmental engineering, is a vandal

While this edit : Special:Diff/861837676 still a vandal.

Only very small amount of edit, such as Special:Diff/861914724 and Special:Diff/861914641. So, would a range block is more appropriate to the matter? Matthew_hk tc 12:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional note:

He used at lease three ip today and yesterday:

• 2405:3800:82:E7FB:144C:A94F:7C94:7E2A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:3800:481:569C:B5FF:6E7:37FC:4E8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:3800:82:FDB:408:3167:ACBF:B3CB (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While on 1 October and 30 September he used

• 2405:3800:402:78:70FC:E51:2831:E8F9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• ‎2405:3800:200:f931:51cf:a251:d5cb:a052 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• ‎2405:3800:400:81a8:f806:34ae:10ea:437e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2405:3800:401:240:9417:eef2:fce9:90bd (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

--Matthew_hk tc 12:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Second additional note:

Based on the page history of Sporting Kansas City, he also used those ipv4 ips

• • 123.136.116.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 123.136.117.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While the range 123.136.96.0/19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had more unrelated ip (even Special:Contributions/123.136.116.* and Special:Contributions/123.136.117.*), those ip were still involved in nationality vandals.

• • 123.136.116.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

While this ip from the second range of the ISP, performed different kind of vandal.

• • 123.136.116.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

––Matthew_hk tc 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The latest is 2405:3800:380:E6A5:ACE2:E809:1AFE:5DAA (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is becoming a real chore. Given the similarity of IPs (v4 and v6), is there a 'safe' rangeblock that could be implemented? Nzd (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Using the 4 ips of this week alone in {{IP range calculator}}, the range would be 2405:3800::/37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), affecting 128M /64 addresses. Had collateral damage on 2405:3800:281:40e5:d4cd:f955:bebf:f06a (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2405:3800:502:2cda:edf7:d142:9028:3b53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which were last edited in late September). Matthew_hk tc 20:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew hk - I looked through your report here and calculated the same range as you did just above: 2405:3800::/37. I've blocked this IP range for one month for continued vandalism and disruptive editing. I note that you also included "Special:Contributions/123.136.116.* and Special:Contributions/123.136.117.*" above (which is 123.136.116.0/23 in CIDR notation); do I need to look into this range as well? Please let me know if I need to review any other ranges and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I had not decided on ip4 range as there are more unrelated edit (unrelated to nationality vandal) Matthew_hk tc 11:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew hk - Okay, cool deal. I noticed the same thing, which is why I asked about it here ;-). I think we should keep an eye on it for further disruption, but as of right now I'm going to hold off on taking action against the range or any sub-range of it until it's really necessary. Are there any other ranges that I should take a look at? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So far the Hungarian and Korean vandal which limit to football only article had been deal with, for this Malaysian ip which also vandalize singer and actor, it seem this is the range so far. Matthew_hk tc 12:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just ping me or message me on my user talk page if I need to look at any more ranges and I'll be happy to do so. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Garbage articles created by blocked user

John Carter (who is currently blocked indef) has created 655 pages. So far, 103 have been deleted and another group are at AfD. They are nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal ad Dayt for an example. I clicked on some of the notices on his talkpage about other creations that were deleted and they are nonsense as well. It would probably be a good idea for someone to review all of these articles, because this is a pretty poor track record. I do not want to go through 500 pages on my own. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Alexandermcnabb is meticulously combing through these. There are several threads on A's talk page regarding these including this one User talk:Alexandermcnabb#A cup of coffee for you!. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a saint. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I accept the beatitude with grateful thanks. Mind, I could use some help. There IS some good in there, the odd nugget, but there's an awful lot of total rubbish and over the past ten years it's spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of WP-derived web pages in/about the UAE. Each of those damn stubs has, in ten years, created a virtual universe of non-existent places offering tours, trips, car hire, shoes - maps citing WP, WP citing maps. He made his whole own UAE on WP. I've been AfDing the articles individually (which has caused some irritation, I know, but a) I didn't know how to bulk AfD and b) I was scared of WP:Traincrash. There were a few of the 'settlement' stubs which had their staunch defenders despite the places totally lacking in notability, for instance this Dahir, Fujairah and this one, which is a residential block in the city of Ras Al Khaimah Al Mataf). I'm now trying to bulk AfD them where relevant but have to admit the task is Augean. I didn't know he'd created 655 pages and do fervently hope they aren't all UAE stubs because it's caused an immense amount of confusion and damage. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I reached the end. He's created thousands and thousands of categories and redirects, but appears to have only (relatively) briefly focused on the UAE's geography. Someone may like to take a look at the rest of the creations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dang... that's a lot of articles. Thank you, Alexandermcnabb, for going through them. Looking at the user's contributions and filtering to show only mainspace edits that are page creations, there's... wow... a ton of redirects that go many years back. If I can be of any assistance, or if any tools like Special:Nuke might make anything go faster, let me know and I'll be happy to help. We just want to make sure that we don't go crazy and delete anything that is legitimate and shouldn't be. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah but I'm done with my bit - I got involved when his edits touched geography in the UAE and I stumbled on the considerable mess that got left behind - and that's what I've been cleaning up, article by article and AfD by (sometimes contested!) AfD. But I'm no good on the Wiki procedural stuff (what's a valid redirect, what's not? Are all those thousands of categories necessary/needed?). I'm a little concerned that if all that other stuff is of the same quality/utility of the stuff I found, and where I have occasionally dipped in while paging through his edits to find if he'd done any more UAE stuff I hadn't so far found (I didn't see that he had) it was of dubious utility as far as I could see. But I am no WP procedural wonk, I have to leave that to you guys! Even making a bulk AfD work had my head bursting... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts, given the scale of the issue here, why don't we simply nuke first and ask questions later ie delete them all, and if any turn out to be notable (unlikely) in the future they can be restored? GiantSnowman 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have took a couple more articles of the UAE stubs that are not notable to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree all of the UAE stubs need to be mass nuked. It's exhausting AfD and exhausting the time and patience and research of many users to have to deal with them. I agree this is a Neelix-level cleanup, but unfortunately unlike the Neelix creations, since these are articles (as opposed to redirects), the hundreds of inaccurate decade-old stubs have created a massive amount of misinformation spread all over the internet. This is, literally, a Wikipedia's worst nightmare scenario. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support a mass delete, to make it crystal clear/easy to see for reviewing admin. GiantSnowman 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Block or not block this Georgia Dept. Education range?

A lot of vandalism at [58]but it's not all vandalism. I think. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at everything from the last two months, and found two constructive edits, very minor ones, in a great river of typical school vandalism. I say block the range for at least three months, Doug. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

This is obviously a middle school's media lab range. I mean, who could make a coherent argument that this edit was not made by a 12 year old boy (who was giggling while writing it)? I say block away: teachers who want to teach kids this young to edit WP can also teach them to create accounts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Blocked 3 months. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse my pedantry, but no not quite exactly. The Georgia Dept. range (it's a /14 range) spans the whole state and multiple, multiple institutions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

But a /14 range block is larger than what is allowed, since the max range (is this because of the MediaWiki software, on all MediaWiki wikis, or is it just Wikipedia or all Wikimedia wikis) is /16. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The /16s have all been blocked before, meaning they can be range blocked. My point however is not to encourage a /14 block, but to point out that this is not a "middle school's media lab range". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the/14 range constructive at all. It's a silly rule if it allows vandalism to go unchecked. Soft block and allow legit users to create user names?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Arguing against obvious hyperbole is generally not advised. I was not speaking literally. That being said, big institutions (like school boards) absolutely do block out IPs to whole districts earmarked usages like "media labs", giving more IPs to each school than it needs (I'll bet you can find large groups of consecutive IPs in that range that never have nor will edit). I don't know that GA does exactly that, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. You could have just changed my "a middle school's media lab" to "some middle schools' media labs" and taken it from hyperbolic to literally true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't mean the first sentence to sound as dickish as it sounds, so please excuse me not including the link I'm giving it in this edit right off the bat. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Princess Eugenie of York

Sorry, guys, BUT: Way to lie about a BLP! This is bogus! Welcome to the wonderful world of needing to be big kids!2605:8D80:403:F5D9:2911:88D4:2E93:72EE (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This user is linking to a thread in which they (on a different IP) made personal attacks, and were blocked for it. The original block has not expired yet. Looks like the stick will be bent into a boomerang. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"This user" is pointing out that a BLP has been changed without any proof whatsoever and Wikipedia requires a valid, third-party source for any and all changes. I'm sorry "this user" is following policy.2605:8D80:403:F5D9:2911:88D4:2E93:72EE (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP keeps popping up under different variants of the v6 IP address. What started out as a naming dispute and edit war seems to have turned into personal attacks and general disruptiveness.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an indeffed editor. I range blocked the newest IP range for a few days. I think that should resolve it for now. Let me know if it doesn't. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: As info, this is continued on new IPs after I reblocked 2001:569:77E2:3900:0:0:0:0/64 which had previous block expire on Sept 25, 2018. I also blocked 2605:8D80:403:51DA:0:0:0:0/64 earlier today/yesterday. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while since I dealt with this ISP, but the 2605:8D80 ranges typically require a /48 (or slightly wider) to stop the disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: The title of the article isn't dictated by WP:BLP, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people makes no mention of requiring any honourifics for article titles. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 21:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

True, but there's a bit of a local convention at WP:NCROY that leads us to bypass the usual rules of WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME for certain members of the royal family. I don't entirely agree with that, but it's stuck for some time now. (Also this isn't really the place to be discussing the content issue!)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left an oppose !vote on the talk page in question. I know it may seem out of place, but I'm just trying to establish consensus (not that I care). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: BLP does absolutely and specifically apply to titles, see WP:BLP#Applicability of the policy. The most obvious case would be transgender people. I do agree that in this specific case, it's probably a non sequitur, but as a blanket statement, that's incorrect. ansh666 23:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: I see nothing in the linked policy about article titles, which is what I'm referring to (not the title of the person, that's a whole different matter) Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's right there, in the first sentence of the section I linked to. BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. (emphasis mine) ansh666 23:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Thank you for the clarification. Struck above accordingly. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, although the above mentions talk pages, probably the key take away is anywhere. If it's on wikipedia then BLP applies. Stuff outside wikipedia is not directly our concern, but linking or inferring it could be a problem. Wikidata and Commons while technically not hosted here obviously have even more extreme issues since they can directly appear here. This doesn't mean that the same standards everywhere, there's generally slightly more tolerance on user talk pages and sub pages although precisely how far this goes is often disputed, and in fact was just recently disputed. Incidentally while transgender people may be a decent common real example, it's trivial to think of more extreme cases. E.g. it should be obvious an article title John Smith (murderer) or John Smith (paedophile) could be a serious BLP problem. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced

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

---

IP keeps recording unsourced info (Redacted) ([59]).GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I warned the IP, in the future, please don't post links to BLP violations on ANI. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella - Thank you for reporting the edits; they were definitely BLP violations that could be considered libelous. I'll echo Tornado chaser's response above: please report blatant and serious violations of BLP like this to an administrator privately by emailing them. Don't report such things publicly on Wikipedia such as in a noticeboard discussion here - it creates a risk of the Streisand effect taking place and it will only increase the number of people who will read such content - both things that we do not want to have happen. You're welcome to email these BLP violations to me in the future and I'll be happy to take care of them. Just visit my user page and click on "email this user" located on the left-hand side :-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Панн

User Панн is not grasping some basics about formatting. I have tried to help several times on the user's talk page, but have gotten little reply, and no actual discussion. It looks like this is an ongoing problem, per other messages on the talk page. My current concern is Protests in Armenia (2018), which is 100% unreadable as of this edit. If there is a better place to ask about this, please let me know. Thank you for your time. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Unreadable doesn't do justice to this exemplary trainwreck. EEng 04:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Jessicapierce, I see that you have left some messages on the user's talk page about these issues but your most recent message was 2-1/2 weeks ago. Why come to ANI now instead of trying their talk page again? More talk page messages is better in such cases. If the main problem with the user's edits is minor technical things like an extra space in a ref tag, then maybe the best thing would be to correct the minor errors yourself, and leave a friendly explanatory note for the editor. Also useful in cases like this is to end your user talk page posts with friendly questions like "do you understand now why this was an error?" and "will you try to do better?" Such questions may draw a shy or insecure editor into discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

They broke the html, but I don;t see where/how.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is at least in part an uncredited translation of hy:Բողոքի ցույցեր ՀՀ ԱԺ ցրման պահանջով. (Having found it via the other uses of the image, I checked the infobox and Background paragraph via Google translate). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

"maybe the best thing would be to correct the minor errors yourself, and leave a friendly explanatory note for the editor" - That's exactly what I did, as you can see in the "Broken formatting" section of the user's Talk page. I went to great pains to show the difference in spacing (</ref> vs. </ ref>) which can result in format errors (this particular error is the merest part of the problem). I received no reply, and the problem has persisted in the user's more recent edits. I'll try posting to the Talk page again, but I don't think I'm going to get anywhere, so it felt like time to ask for help. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I made a pass and left a "copy edit" on it. Now we can see how truly bad it is.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What language Wiki is that?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::I edit conflicted with you. I'll look into it some more. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Armenia. I left a cite to the Armenian page on the article, but probably did it wrong. As to the user, I've just come from their talk page where I left yet another message. This is an ongoing WP:CIR issue as the user keeps creating messes in article space that are being moved to draft space, which I nearly did with this article. They need to not create in main space till they are better at formatting and citing, and I said as much.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone speak Armenian?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Or is it беларускі?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed the remaining cites and such, enough that it's not a morass of broken html and cite tags. Blackmane (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a machine translation, with the reference-breaking spaces introduced by the process. A tell-tale is that ref titles are translated. I fixed a couple of references where the URL had been interrupted, and in the process used the title= and trans-title= parameters correctly. Панн has linked them on Wikidata; Dlohcierekim, I replaced your in-article attribution with the template we use on the article talk page, and I have now added the "rough translation" template and added the article to the woefully long list of bad translations at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I'm afraid I am very much unable to read Armenian. But if this article is to be kept—and it does seem to be a notable topic judging by international press coverage—I note that we already have 2018 Armenian protests, redirecting to 2018 Armenian Velvet Revolution, so something needs to be moved to avoid confusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Well done. It does mention Velvet Revolution. Is this an article that already exists or is that other article something else? Mergeable? MOve to better title?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

(I just got up, someone may have done something already): This article is still incomprehensible, but it's about events in early October. 2018 Armenian Velvet Revolution is about events earlier this year, March and April if I remember correctly. So if this article gets kept, I would suggest changing the titles of both articles and making the 2018 Armenian protests article a DAB page; however, a merger might be better; I am not competent to assess the sources in the new article and look for later ones to see whether the events this month are better treated as a continuation or as distinct. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Uncivil aspersions, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

• Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The AR-15 article is under this restriction, editor Simon223 has made unfounded aspersions against me [60],[61],[62]. These remarks "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," I initially tried ignoring it and collapse the comment as it was off topic and uncivil [63]. That did not work and he just went on to make more of these unfounded aspersions [64] "I wouldn't characterize me pointing out that you in fact said the thing that I asserted you said as abusive. It's just making a factual statement.".

He claims[65] this link supports his assertion's [66]. The edit of mine was just one minor edit to this [67]. In it I am asking uninvolved editors at the NPOV noticeboard about including this from James Alan Fox a highly regarded professor of criminology (most noted for his studies) on C-SPAN[68]. There view there was that reliable sourced compiled data with expert analysis should hold more weight than just journalist speculation. I am in no way implying the AR article needs to remove mass shootings content from the article, in fact I am doing the opposite.

Extended content

This editor came to the article removing reliable sourced content from Dr. Fox [69] claiming "illegible" (policy states fixing grammatical errors) needing improvement sure but as clearly seen far from illegible. He then went on to make grossly uncivil personal attacks on my intelligence [70], [71]. Admin Drmies pointed out "Simonm223, this is really not cool. I know you're talking about content, but I also know that you're really not."[72] After he stated this there at NPOV "I'll note I'm not strongly anti-gun, although I do think firearms that are designed specifically for killing groups of humans should not be available for sale." It was pointed out he made these comments"This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk), 27 September 2018"[73]. A uninvolved editor wrote "Ok, so you are anti-AR-15... Rather than balance between pro- and anti- editors on a topic, I think Wikipedia would be better off if we called that a variety of WP:COI. Let people who are removed from the controversy do the editing. At the least, one should be suspicious in reflection on one's own behavior when one's POVs on political topics persistently line up with what benefits those POVs in articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 4:25 pm, 2 October 2018, Tuesday (15 days ago) (UTC−4)"

I feel I should not have to suffer this abuse. -72bikers (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of this seems to be a heated content dispute. And, the original edit in question was, indeed, slightly incomprehensible (e.g. the use of past continuous conjugation of the verb "say" here - Professor Fox saying "most mass murderers don't use assault weapons". or the absence of definitive articles in a few sentences like this one Rifles have been used 25 percent of time in mass shootings ...[74]). However, sourced content that does not meet a minimum threshold of comprehensibility should probably be copy-edited rather than simply reverted or removed and invoking words like "illiterate" is likely to enflame tensions. Chetsford (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Investigating... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion has been going on pretty civilly between most editors when I look at "the big picture" of things, but I do believe that 72bikers was simply asking about the inclusion of the content in the article with his response here at NPOV/N, not explicitly stating that the content should be removed entirely. 72bikers has asked Simonm223 repeatedly to stop stating or implying that he said that he wanted this content removed. The edits here and here don't make the situation better, either. I agree with the response that Drmies made here (not just to Simonm223 directly, but to everyone in general with a reminder to "try and get along"). Ivanvector also responded to 72bikers's message to him with this, which shows that both Drmies and Ivanvector didn't feel that Simonm223's comments or responses were at the point of being actionable - even with the active arbitration remedies in effect for the article and related talk pages or discussions. Apart from maybe talking to Simonm223 directly and asking him nicely to keep in mind how his words may translate to others as being uncivil toward them and to let the NPOV/N thing go, I think Drmies already said it perfectly: "try and get along". :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure looks like forum shopping to me. --Tarage (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my point, 72bikers has already talked to two admins, not gotten the desired result they wanted, and ran here trying to get someone else involved. Not amused. --Tarage (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The more I read the more I am convinced a topic ban is needed for 72bikers. This is ridiculous. --Tarage (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers involvement with gun topics has been problematic for months. They edit from a very clear bias position pushing against any info that paints guns in a bad light. This spilled over from a 3RR report. [75] where I warned 72bikers we may vote them a guns topic ban, amd they filed this anyway. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Like I said I'd support a topic ban if nominated. --Tarage (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, Legacypac - Speaking as a completely neutral and uninvolved editor here: I'm not aware of the problematic issues that you describe have been occurring, but if you feel that a topic ban is necessary, needed, and the best solution - it's completely within your prerogative and your right to propose such if that's how you truly feel. Just make sure that any proposal made also includes a strong explanation and necessary details that show a pattern of long-term issues, as well as diffs that support each detail or reason stated. Else, it'll have a very little chance of being successful per community consensus. Any uninvolved administrator can apply this sanction unilaterally due to the active discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom (that's not an implication or invitation to go "admin shopping" to have this happen, obviously... haha). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It is strange that Legacypac would come here because I do not see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation of WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [76] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [77] by editor Legacypac.

Take it to ANi 72bikers. 3RR is not designed to deal with this kind of dispute. There we can vote on a "guns" topic ban for 72bikers. Legacypac (talk) 2:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)[78]

Legacypac has repeatedly threatened me, he stated if I brought editors simons223 behavior of casting unfounded aspersions to a noticeboard he would get me topic banned. He has also been extremely uncivil. As to Tarage I have never had any interaction with him and I am not forum shopping, I also am not looking for any action to be taken on Simon223 previous misbehavior nor am I looking to use this as debating any content inclusion or exclusion, all of that is just context. Editor simmon223 recently made numerous unfounded personal attacks, he made these with what he claimed made them facts but as everyone can clearly see they were unfounded and thereby violations of the articles "civility restriction".- 72bikers (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Look it is abundantly clear with all of the hostility and personal attacks on my intelligence present here "semi-illiterate walls of text", "the fact it was also borderline gibberish just made it more...insulting (and yes I think it was a calculated dig" and this is just a sample of what I have to bear. Surely I should not have to suffer this type of abuse.-72bikers (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So are you really saying you did not see that edit as so poorly written it was difficult to follow what it was actually trying to say? This is why we are here now, it is why some users took to being more strongly worded then was needed, your refusal to accept that your editing style has any issues (And it is not just me who has said this, even in this current kerfuffle you have been told some of your posts are nonsensical). Look at how much effort it took to just get you to indent properly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I appreciate your feeling about 72biker's strong POV in this subject area. However, you also have a very strong POV on the subject and have shown a willingness to bend editorial rules/guidelines to support your opposing views on the subject. I've been on the receiving end of your less than civil editor interactions. Given you weren't involved with any of these recent edits your comments strike me as motivated by a desire to vote the opposition off the island. Springee (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Springee do not come to ANi and throw mud and tell lies about me. You are just proving that you and 72bikers have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality where anyone that challenges your highly POV edits is wrong. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Your block log and ANI history shows that you don't play nicely with others. Your insistence here [[79]], [[80]] on defending blatant OR material (added by you) suggests that 72biker's isn't the only one with a strong POV on the subject of firearms. I bring this up here because you are discussing your personal interactions with and opinions with respect to 72biker's objectivity. When people read that it's helpful if they know where you are coming from. Springee (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

With this [[81]], it is clear that 72bikers is not listening, he quotes a rule about what admins can do to justify his action. As to the material under dispute here, yes it could have been copy edited, except that many of us also did not see why it should have been included, the fact it was also borderline gibberish just made it more...insulting (and yes I think it was a calculated dig).Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In this latest spat he moved (well actually moved his, the effect is the same) his comments (and even seemed to use this new sequence in his complaint about Simon) [[82]], nor is this the first time [[83]]. This is (as far as I know) a breach of policy, not just DS. It also makes it very hard to follow threads (and he does this often). He had repeatedly cast assertions as to double standards as well as calling out users standards of literacy. Moreover his semi-illiterate walls of text are not new either. I would also point out that in a number of situations we had seemed to be working towards a compromise in a spirit if cooperation until he showed up and basically posted some non sequitur wall of text that derailed a thread.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers is still upset that some sharp comments I made in August with regard to one of their edits at AR-15 style rifle were not deemed actionable. But their claims that my recent statement constituted abusive language is absurd.

Their participation at user talk makes it hard to follow often heated discussions as they move their comments, repeatedly edit comments after they've been replied to and write in opaque text walls.

Furthermore, this complaint is mostly retaliatory for my complaint to WP:3RR/N yesterday, where they were warned for breaching the 1RR restriction at AR-15 style rifle. It is worth noting that 72bikers has been blocked twice this year for edit warring; so this is part of a pattern of behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

One final note; on the NPOV/N thread which was the starting-point for this particular go-around, I in fact asked 72bikers for clarification [84] considering their POV, the statement, on any inclusion seemed like soliciting feedback to exclude but I wanted clarification. Their next edit was this: [85] - an edit to a comment that I'd already read - and as it's a high-traffic page I literally never saw that they'd made that statement until just now when I went back to check. They never provided me with a clearer response to my question. So I was acting in good faith when I assumed they wanted to remove that material from the page - when I'd asked them if this is what they were trying to say, I never saw them say that it wasn't and I had grounds to believe, based on their statement and my past interaction with them, that it was. On the talk page, when I addressed that position, in the context of suggesting that if two other users on opposite sides of a content dispute came to a compromise I'd support them, 72bikers still didn't clarify their position. They just told me to shut up and then hatted my comments. After that, yes, I got snippy and argued with them a bit. Because, from my perspective, they'd leveled an unfounded claim against me and then, when I provided evidence it was unfounded, they moved their comment to make it look like I was addressing somebody else, (a position I came to when they said to Slatersteven It appears he is referring to your comments on denying mass shooting content regarding this exchange) and then hid my comment altogether. Considering Slatersteven and I get along, trying to stir up drama between us is rather the opposite of WP:AGF so it's a bit rich that 72bikers is coming here to complain that I haven't given them sufficient good faith. Simonm223 (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes he made the comment on my talk page, but I am having trouble figuring out what he meant by it. I cannot figure out what comment of yours he thinks was referring to my comments on denying mass shooting content.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I assumed in my reply that 72bikers meant the comment they'd hatted; since when they moved their comment, yours was immediately above mine. But honestly, I could be wrong about that. I don't think we've really come down on opposite sides of this particular edit conflict - we both think gun control information is relevant and should be drawn from reliable sources, we both consider mainstream journalistic sources reliable for this topic, even if we've occasionally disagreed about specifics, I don't think ever enough to engender any sort of content dispute between us, so honestly? I just don't know. Simonm223 (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, 72bikers, which comment of mine do you think Simonm223 was replying to? This needs clearing up as at this time it looks like you moved a comment to give the appearance it was a reply to user A, and then made just that claim, that it was a reply to user A (when it was a reply to you). Now I have asked you before to have more care in how you reply, as you tend to have a very poor indenting style which makes it (along with your walls of badly written text) difficult to follow what you are saying and who you are saying it to. So can you just provide the diffs to my comment and the point at which Simonm223 replies to it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've been more or less following this since the August incident because it led itself into an entirely unrelated conflict for me, but that's neither here nor there. Here's some history of noticeboard discussion on this topic:

• AN3 2 April: User:72bikers reported by User:Dlthewave (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
• ANI 17 May: 72bikers talk page issues (on 72bikers banning editors from their talk page and deleting messages)
• ANI 6 July: User:72bikers (evidently a content dispute)
• AN3 28 August: User:72bikers reported by User:Waleswatcher (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
• AN3 18 September: User:Slatersteven reported by User:72bikers (Result: Stale)
• AN3 22 September: User:72bikers reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Withdrawn) (withdrawn after 72bikers self-reverted)
• ANI 3 October: 72bikers accusations of harassment (72bikers accusing editors of harassment who post on their talk page)
• AN3 17 October: User:72bikers reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned user(s)) (72bikers self-reverted after an admin [me] reminded them they had made 3 reverts on a page they knew was under a 1RR restriction, had they not I would have banned them from the topic under the gun control DS)
• Also of note: the discussion on Drmies' talk page about Simonm223's poor choice of wording took place when 72bikers raised the point a full month after the fact, completely out of context; I replied here. The note about it here is another full month later, after two admins (myself twice) have told 72bikers that this was not a personal attack but a fair comment on their messy edit.

This is an editor with a history of being unable to "try and get along" as Oshwah quoted, further hampered by less-than-optimal command of English, and themselves assuming bad faith in everyone else's intentions. They've been blocked twice this year for edit warring on gun-control-related pages and escaped with a warning or a self-revert several other times. As several other editors have pointed out here, they needlessly inflame discussions on controversial topics by editing and moving comments, posting walls of text which are frequently incomprehensible, and insisting on derailing discussions into fights about other editors' conduct towards them, all while everyone else editing these pages does seem reasonably capable of the "try and get along" approach even though they clearly have opposing viewpoints. This has continued right up to this current incident, where Simonm223's benign agreement with consensus was interpreted by 72bikers as a directed personal attack, and a discussion that was very close to improving an article is now here as another "everyone is out to get me" diatribe. I agree that 72bikers' conduct is the problem here, and so I support banning them from the topics covered by WP:ARBGC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, I certainly agree that frequently the comments aren't written well enough--it's not just typos or whatever, it's that references are vague, antecedents are missing, that sort of thing, and that becomes counterproductive in its own right (which helps make for these interminable talk page discussions). I think once or twice I've suggested to 72bikers that they need to be more careful in their comments and responses. I also think, and I say this generally since I haven't wanted to nitpick their article edits, that they don't yet have the analytical skills to edit in this difficult topic area, by which I mean the capability of carefully weighing sources, their reliability, and what precisely the arguments are. We've seen this before in the gun debate cases. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, "not well written" is precisely what I meant when I (I thought charitably) said "less-than-optimal command of English", but it's not just that they write poorly. We could coach that, and/or copyedit, if they would respond to reasonable questions clarifying their intent. But instead, when editors have asked in good faith, 72bikers has interpreted these as attacks on their intelligence or just outright harassment and personal attacks, and responds by banning editors from their talk page, threatening people under the civility restrictions, and starting noticeboard discussions like this one. Slatersteven's comment directly above my links shows two of the involved editors trying to get 72bikers to clarify a confusing link they posted; as of my edit they have not responded but have put up another wall of text paragraph about harassment and suffering abuse. As it happens this was the same link I asked 72bikers to clarify after they posted it twice on my talk page yesterday. Rather than post a coherent response, they replied with exactly the same text they randomly posted above about it being "strange that Legacypac would post here", repeated the quotes from Simonm223's edits which they've also posted here, and followed that later with the "civility restriction" bullet they copy-pasted to open this thread, and closed all of that off with their comment (also duplicated here multiple times) about not suffering this abuse. They haven't listened to a damn thing anyone has said to them about Simonm223's comments not being personal attacks, they're just repeating the same things over and over. I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be trying to work on a controversy-loaded topic with an editor who behaves like this, and I commend everyone involved for being as civil as they have been. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the past discussions, I do remember this ANI and trying to work with 72bikers and the other editors he banned from his talk page in order to get 72bikers to agree to unban them. I repeatedly tried to explain why their warnings and edits weren't attempts to attack or harass him and that what they were doing were actually for his benefit, not necessarily theirs - and to open a dialogue of communication where he can let them edit his user talk page and he can discuss issues with them civilly and respectfully, and work the issues out with them in a positive way. Unfortunately, he wouldn't see past the thoughts of harassment that he put in his own mind and this didn't happen and the discussion ended up closing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban: However, 72biker needs to not assume others are acting in bad faith. We all know it can be frustrating working with editors who are certain they are right (and of course they never are). But I also understand how editors who are involved in these areas, particularly editors who are personally knowledgeable about the subject, get frustrated. Suggest warning to not jump the gun (no pun intended) when filing warnings. Simonm223's comments weren't baseless. I also would STRONGLY suggest 72biker engage in user talk page discussions with editors FIRST. Perhaps the appropriate response here is a ban on bringing people to ANI until they can show a good faith effort to discuss the problem on their talk page first. Springee (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be quite difficult to impose such a restriction on an editor who responds to just about any notice left for them by banning the poster from their talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This is my take on it, I had this just for asking them to indent correctly (as a courtesy to us so we would know who they were replying to). What (in effect) we have now is we cannot ask him (or tell him) on his talk page until it gets to the stage of an actual violation. So we end up here all the time (well and and at other boards) precisely because he cannot be asked (or told) to act in accordance with the MOS (let alone policy). BY the way he did "engage in user talk page discussions with editors FIRST", and when he did not get his way he launched this (despite being told he was wrong). I am not sure I want a topic ban, but think it must be stronger then just another slap on the wrist. This ANI proves he is not listening.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Two weeks ago (to the day), when we were last here about 72bikers, I said this: [86] - and since then, 72bikers edit-warred on page talk to hide a comment from me rather than clarifying to me that I'd misunderstood their statement - even though I'd asked for clarification - and then they posted this retaliatory filing here at WP:AN/I against me. While I will concede my statement about WP:NOTHERE may have been off-base, there's a combination of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT and WP:CIR going on here that makes 72bikers a constant distraction from the work of hammering out a consensus on a contentious issue. Perhaps they're editing more constructively in articles about motorcycles, but we've been going in circles with them on article talk, at WP:3RR/N and here for at least two months now. I honestly am neutral whether 72bikers is given a topic ban or a block at this point but I would like to see a Boomerang of some type for this incident of retaliatory forum shopping. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Springee is attached at the hip with 72bikers in pro-gun/anti-anything negative about guns viewpoint. I'm not an American and don't have strong feelings on gun control. I just want to see the topic properly covered and disruption minimized. 72bikere banned me from their talkpage back in April while they were blocked and several other editors were attempting to discuss a way forward. See [87] where he was removing my comments from the middle of a discussion, after they were replied to. Look at the rest of the discussion for even more context. I recall a gun topic ban was under consideration in addition to the block. Removing 72bikers from the topic will significantly reduce the talkpage amd editing battles around guns. I agree with most of the analysis posted above. Attempts to discuss anything with this editor makes me want to smack my head. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have asked editors to not post on my talk page. I simply did not want there hostily (as Legacypac comments show) there constantly badgering me, as policy allows WP:HUSH and WP:NOBAN. I received the first ban because the admin said I did not respond on the noticeboard fast enough. But as I was preparing there was a pile on of editor badgering me on my talk page. I should have just ignored, but got caught up in the hostility. I would also point out one of them actually started a discussion proposing to have these policies removed, but all the admins felt they were needed policies

The second was a editor that openly stated he was adding overly detailed content about a gun in a non gun article until he was allowed to include the content he wanted. I miss counted and as stated there. "I agree, it's 4 vs 5. Also, it should be noted that WW's own behavior on this article and the related AR-15 article has been less than helpful. Some of 72biker's recent reverts are restoration of material that WW removed without edit comment and in ways that were guaranteed to cause ill will. That said, this is a slow edit war that WW in which WW has been a very active participant"

To be clear the "72bikers accusations of harassment" was a editor trying to get me sanctioned for asking them once again to not post on my page, on something that was not even a policy violation. I stated to them that not following this request "could be perceived as harassment", and most claims have been unfounded like this. they have shown at drop of a hat, they file reports. Comment there "they're a decent editor and, unlike 72bikers," Simonm223 (talk) 4 October 2018 and there were repeat calls for or topic ban on the bases I ask a editor once again to not post on my talk page. Other comments there brough up "The question here is why do people feel that they need to post warnings on their page?", "and yes, it's generally expected that the user's wish is honored when such a request is given.", "Also, since your fully aware of and took part in the previous discussion regarding his talk page, this appears to be an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP".

As to the discussion with Drmies editor slatersteven tried to get me sanctioned on a frivallish claim. At that time I was not looking to get Simon sanctioned, but used his uncivilty as a example to show actual violation. Then editor Ivanvector showed up which I though was odd and tried to defend "I reverted a literally illiterate" Simonm223 [88]. There is only one way to interpret that, as Drmies supported. He then made acusations "and 72bikers was later blocked for their activity on that page" as if to paint me in a bad light, does not seem very impartial, and "At any rate, it does seem very off the mark to drop this comment out of context on an admin's page almost a full month after the fact, it kind of seems like score-settling". In what context is "I reverted a literally illiterate" ok? Does anyone really feel "have told 72bikers that this was not a personal attack but a fair comment on their messy edit." that is a legitimate statement? This does not reflect a impartial editor "further hampered by less-than-optimal command of English,", " are frequently incomprehensible," when truly not, and smells a bit uncivil and hostile. All the while painting the conduct shown above as completely acceptable. All I have done at the article is after very long time of denial (by the editors here that would try and get me topic banned, seems a bit self serving) of inclusion of reliable sourced compiled data and expert analysis and to keep out shown incorrect content based on sensationalized journalist speculation, or at the very least to just put it in perspective.

As to the last one all I did was collapse simons (as shown unfounded) aspersions, being off topic and a personal attack. As on the talk page and being of a policy violation I did not see any revert of the collapse as a violation. But was it not a violation to restore them? As such a violation of the civility restriction and this is what this complaint here is about. Being the 3RR board was not the right place nor was Ivanvectoris as shown here not impartial.

What I have suffered has been far greater than any of there perceived slights, as the sample above shows. -72bikers (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Guns topic ban [for 72bikers]

• Fine and with the above...I vote for a topic ban. Sorry but it is clear they are not getting it and have (in effect) rejected Springee's suggestion. The above sums up very nicely many of the issues... about the nicest thing I can say about it is that it is hard to follow at times.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support As I've stated above, a guns topic ban for 72bikers is the best path to better functioning of this topic. His posts claiming everyone else is harrassing him proves he can't be a positive contributor to the guns topic. Falsely saying another editor is harrassing you is itself a serious breach of our expected standards of conduct. I added a header above the post by Slatersteven. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban from guns, broadly construed This has gone on long enough and it needs to stop. For such an antisocial editor to hold this topic hostage for this long is unacceptable. --Tarage (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban from topics covered by WP:ARBGC broadly construed, per myself above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The principles at the ArbComm case are being breached including Making allegations against other editors, NPOV, Advocacy, and more. Clear cut case. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Pull the trigger EEng 18:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban from gun topics, broadly construed, as per my rationale above. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per pretty much everyone above.--Jorm (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban 72Bikers has been given plenty of reminders, warnings and second chances to improve their conduct. We're here to build an encyclopedia and this editor is not a positive, competent contributor to this topic area. –dlthewave ☎ 18:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I regret that it has come to this but I get why people are saying this and I think 72biker's last post did them no favors. I would suggest a 3 month ban with an understanding that they risk an indef if things continue after the ban is lifted. Springee (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic ban from WP:ARBGC-connected pages, broadly construed. Unfortunately, it seems clear that the user is too difficult to work with to be a net positive on these pages. If people haven't specified a time period, I believe they should be assumed to mean an indefinite ban. Please clarify if you meant something else, people. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

I'm of the opinion that all bans should be indefinite, i.e. may be lifted at any time the banned user demonstrates reform and successfully appeals, whether that's next Tuesday or the day after 20 years from now. No difference here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Ivanvector. I used to give time-limited topic bans, but I've seen too many people simply sit them out, edit nothing else, and then immediately return to their old ways. No, let the user appeal and show good editing in other areas and improved intentions for editing in the topic in question, and then we can talk. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

• Not this crap again. Can we just tban everyone? Support this as a first step. Not sure about duration, though, since from my prior experience, 72bikers is hardly the only disruptive editor in this topic area. ansh666 19:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support That last wall of text exemplifies everything other editors have been saying about the range of issues, as Slatersteven points out. The repeated cries about having "suffered" various insults and injuries are such nonsensical histrionics that they showcase there is no interest in listening and/or changing at all. Grandpallama (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support From the outside looking in, their editing in this topic seems almost geared towards engendering conflict. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support I've seen 72bikers on this board regarding the AR-15 page far too often. Looking at their edits they just don't get it and don't want to get it. They're right and that's the end of it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban from WP:ARBGC-connected pages, broadly construed. There's clearly sufficient evidence for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. Sufficient evidence to make it apparent that they aren't listening. I'm more pro-gun than the average person, but this needs to stop. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 19:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC) edited 19:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support T-Ban(g) per the above. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I think 72bikers can probably be a very valuable editor for articles relating to motorcycles, but as far as guns are concerned, he is too emotionally vested and would benefit from some time away. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I see some areas for improvement but it looks like 72bikers has been harassed and our response is to blame the victim. A topic ban is a last resort and I don't see where others have been tried responsibly. D.Creish (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for 72bikers. The original post in this thread is vexatious, and the more you look at the edits in quesiton the more it seems that 72bikers is engaged in tendentious editing, stonewalling and a variety of other problematic behaviours. Tetchiness in the face of obduracy is no the same as harassment. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from gun topics per above. I looked at some of the diffs presented by 72bikers claiming various problems but they showed nothing warranting the amount of time already wasted in various discussions. Wikipedia cannot satisfy everyone. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per Bishonen and others. This editor, editing on this topic, is a timesink. Miniapolis 22:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Really the very editors who wish to POV push and remove opposition that has only countered there sensationalized speculation views with reliable sources data and recognized experts, determine (who were running out of reasons to exclude) I get topic blocked. For what because they filed a bunch of unsupported claims. Really though?

And what of the actions to a editor who violated the articles restrictions? Its just hay look at this shinny object (topic block) and never mind the actual sanctionable behavior.

• Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

• I would also point this editor who made this comment "This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk), 27 September 2018"[89] He is openly stating guns are evil and finds it illogical that any honorable person would defend them based on his thinking as if any honorable or person of character would make statement like these "I reverted a literally illiterate" Simonm223[90]. I would point out a actual univolved edtor stated "Ok, so you are anti-AR-15... Rather than balance between pro- and anti- editors on a topic, I think Wikipedia would be better off if we called that a variety of WP:COI. Let people who are removed from the controversy do the editing. At the least, one should be suspicious in reflection on one's own behavior when one's POVs on political topics persistently line up with what benefits those POVs in articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 4:25 pm, 2 October 2018, Tuesday (15 days ago) (UTC−4)"

~Oshwah your are just the tool being used to fulfill the open threat made against me, if i pursued actions be taken for simons violations. "Take it to ANi 72bikers. 3RR is not designed to deal with this kind of dispute. There we can vote on a "guns" topic ban for 72bikers. Legacypac (talk) 2:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"[91]

Reads a little more like not the person but there views being removed. But hey what do i know i'm just literally illiterate.:) -72bikers (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated uncivil verbal abuse in film articles

Seems like some people are really frustrated. The Mohanlal v Mammootty fan wars has gone one step ahead, now a weird version of it is taking place in Wikipedia. Since 13th October, an IP (or IPs) was persistently trying to edit Mohanlal's name in Odiyan (an upcoming much anticipated film in the industry) cast list and replacing it with extreme foul language (Malayalam written in English letters). An otherwise less edited page, on that day there was at least 120 edits, warring to add the profanity.

Some IPs are:

• 2405:204:D105:E05F:EC1F:93DF:BBAB:3519 (14 edits) - most disruptive (also edited Kayamkulam Kochunni)
• 2405:204:D302:3DB1:D9AD:D0AA:A5B6:FE55 (3)
• 86.98.84.7 (1)
• 2405:204:D48B:93CF:346A:3D8C:26FE:8EF1 (2)
• 2405:204:D308:7024:5208:43DF:5B9E:8A86 (4)
• 137.97.155.163 (10) - most disruptive (also in Mohanlal regular collaborator Antony Perumbavoor)
• 49.15.207.246 (1)
• 42.111.228.116 (1)
• 78.100.162.226 (1)
• 2405:204:D401:C999:A711:D1EB:E234:868F (2)
• 2405:204:519E:B978:3F78:3C0A:BEDB:40E8 (2)
• 2405:204:D08B:9642:0:0:1E85:E8A1 (2)
• 43.239.55.13 (2)
• 2405:204:659A:E1A6:904D:6515:3C4D:FB90 (2)
• 83.110.229.77 (1)
• 2405:204:D206:94C3:79CD:B692:225B:ED5A (1)
• 2405:204:D282:32E5:0:0:2480:B8A4 (1)
• 45.125.117.2 (2)

Finally the page was protected for disruptive editing. Unable to vandalize Odiyan, the target shifted to Mohanlal's Pulimurugan (the top-grossing Malayalam film).

• 27.61.41.50 ([92], [93]) - vandalizing box-office data
• 27.97.28.205 ([94])
• 2405:204:D10E:F29C:2487:7A45:2113:988C ([95]) - profanity
• 27.61.22.115 ([96]) - profanity and box-office vandalism
• Fayismuhammed ([97])

The page was soon protected. If you observe here, 27.61.22.115 and Fayismuhammed edited in 1 minute gap with same edit summary. Fayismuhammed, an otherwise inactive user came at the same time ? You know what I mean. Check his contributions, it's all box-office vandalism, adding inflated numbers in Mammootty films (Rajamanikyam, Pokkiri Raja) and diminishing them in Mohanlal films (Drishyam, Pulimurugan). Same obscene words used by IPs here was also seen in Odiyan, so it's possibly the same person.

Then other IPs began returning the favour, doing the same in Mammootty films. But is less occuring when compared to the vandal spree in Odiyan and Pulimurugan. On 17th October, Frz latheef undid such an edit in a Mammootty film [98] at 21:29 UTC. Just a minute after, this IP went savage adding profanity in a number of Mohanlal films. It was from 21:30 UTC to 21:39 UTC just after Frz latheef's edit. Maybe his retaliation ?

Instead of protecting the pages and preventing good faith editors too, blocking the problematic IPs/Users will be more effective. After all, how many pages can you protect. Both the M's has acted in more than 300 films each. 2405:204:D483:E219:BC9B:BFD2:524F:F1C1 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've done some blocking. I think an edit-filter would be useful here, and I'm going to request it. Can you let me know on my talk page of any further issues? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the diverse IP ranges and edits made, I agree with Black Kite that an edit filter will probably be the best solution to this matter... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the tightest range here is an IPv6 /32, which is much too large to block. It's regrettable but this is why we have semiprotection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing and edit warring by User:Dragao2004

• Dragao2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rise of Macedon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At Rise of Macedon, User:Dragao2004 began pushing a pro-Greek POV. After a request for page protection on 9 October, the page was protected here. Discussions on the Talk Page were initiated here (prior to the page protection) and here (after the page protection). User:Dragao2004 participated in neither discussion, but initiated a third discussion here. During the course of this third discussion while the page was locked, it became clear that the majority of editors opposed User:Dragao2004's proposed changes and preferred keeping the long-term stable consensus wording. The main issue against the new wording is that it constituted WP:POINTy nationalist editing and didn't fit well with the overall tone and content of the article. A survey of involved editors was initiated as the page lock drew to a close here. User:Dragao2004 was clearly not being supported in his proposed change. Then, when he noticed that the page lock template had been removed, he reinserted his opposed edit here. His edit summary, "Greekness must be emphasized", clearly illustrates his nationalist POV-pushing attitude during discussions. This is clearly disruptive editing. A notice of this discussion was posted on his Talk Page here. A notice of this discussion was also posted at Talk:Rise of Macedon. --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Captainjackster disruptively adding categories

Captainjackster (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding categories to articles which are already in appropriate subcategories and thus should not have the additional categorization applied. As their contributions page will make clear, they are doing this to such a degree that it's impossible (for me, at least) to do any reasonable checking of their work. I asked them to desist in this conduct multiple times in the past[99][100][101] to no apparent avail. I am therefore forced to request that they either be topic-banned from applying categories (if that's possible), or blocked until such time as they indicate a recognizance of the fact that their behavior is disruptive. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I stopped after you asked me to just now, when I added a category to Trading Places.Captainjackster (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

After making how many category edits? Which of my prior messages on your Talk page was unclear? DonIago (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)