Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 12 June 2016 (→‎Borderline racism and trolling by experienced editor: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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


    multiple editors are theatening to block me...

    ...for following the rules. The guidelines clearly state that unsourced material can be deleted immediately, which is all I did. See the edits here. I have done absolutely nothing to warrant a block and I'm not at all happy with this treatment. User:Toddst1 and User:Hirolovesswords are the two issuing the inappropriate warnings. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The info seems to be pretty well sourced now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is always best to try to find reliable sources and add them in support of unsourced content. It is best to remove content only when reliable sources cannot be found. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    An exception would be made for contentious material. In this case, it was fairly unremarkable stuff but unsourced. The OP's real complaint seemed to be too much detailed info about this "goon", and he might have a point, but that's another matter for the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    To the 47 IP: You were not "following the rules". WP:Verifiability says: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (emphasis added). Not must but may. If you think the material is blatantly false, then by all means delete it, but if you aren't sure, check for sources, or mark the material with a "citation needed" tag. ({{cn|date=June 2016}}) Deleting material which is probably accurate simply because it is unsourced is not a benefit to the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced material that is contentious or potentially defamatory can and should be removed. Like for example if it said, "His hobbies include running over squirrels." But there was nothing like that in the article, nothing defamatory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite. Per WP:BLP, all contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately, "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." It doesn't have to be defamatory or even negative. The next argument, of course, is what "contentious" means. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Am I the only one that sees that this IP was edit warring, removing well sourced material?
    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    with @Athomeinkobe: adding the Coup de grâce to the edit war
    4. here [4]? Toddst1 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. I removed unsourced material and attempted to move the sourced content to a new section. Are you one of those editors who sees an IP and immediately assumes bad faith? 47.55.192.66 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom line is this: my edit summaries were clear, yet they were completely and repeatedly disregarded by these editors. I made it crystal clear that I was abiding by what the guidelines state and I made it clear I wasn't interested in the conflict that was quickly and inexplicably building. A veteran editor has a responsibility to read an edit summary and join the pre-existing discussion before reverting and issuing threats to block. There needs to be accountability. I have never done anything resembling "unconstructive editing" and that can be easily verified. I played by the rules and received threats as a result, and that's the problem I have. I don't care about the article or the content anymore. Do these editors even have the authority to follow through on their threats to block? Pretty sure they don't. They assume bad faith, target people who edit anonymously, and issue inappropriate warnings. This is why newcomers quickly learn to avoid editing Wikipedia. These editors need to be censured at the very least. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion does not take place in edit summaries. Editors do not get blocked "for following the rules." Conflict does not "inexplicably" build. Editors are under no obligation to discuss their edits prior to execution. What you keep describing as threats are templated warnings; I see no evidence of their misuse. Tiderolls 13:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple editors thought your (the OP's) edits were not constructive, yet you persisted. Your edit summaries weren't sufficient to explain your actions to these editors and instead of engaging on the article talk page, you barked at the individual editors on their talk pages. That will not work well going forward. Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like you ( ip: 47.55.192.66 ) were | removing sourced information. For example, that first paragraph you removed was sourced to the two sources named, sorry, I'm not buying it. KoshVorlon 15:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody else feels the need to close this as a content dispute? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Page blocked & tagged edits removed for no reason. (T._P._Lahane)

    (non-admin closure) User:Soundofthesea blockedFAMASFREENODE (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    T. P. Lahane has been bocked by: User:Diannaa

    Everything that was removed from the page was tagged & sourced from newspaper articles. No reason was given for the block. Does she/he down wikipedia ?

    Please remove this block. And let truth & justice prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofthesea (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please inform users you report here, as it states at the top of the page - I've done this for you now -- samtar talk or stalk 09:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just 2 lines of the entire page were cut & pasted from a newspaper called "Mumbai Mirror". And they have been removed. If anything else looks questionable I humbly request User:Diannaa to talk with me before taking unilateral steps. I am a reasonable guy who has a masters degree in logic. Please see this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqJzHNl5OEM User:Soundofthesea
    As you've been told by multiple users and admins, the content removed violated copyright, the edits are NOT from a neutral POV and the source given was not reliable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit history of that page is appalling. I don't think I've ever seen an article with that many revdels before. Blackmane (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Every edit except 4 from April 7 on has been revdelled. That's just insane. GABgab 16:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at the page history of Diana, Princess of Wales and see how many revdeled edits are there (Every edit from 14 April 2012 to 31 January 2016 is revdeled because of copyright violations). —MRD2014 T C 17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    GAB, what are you saying is "insane"? The fact that someone keeps coming back and repeatedly making the copyright infringements despite knowing that they will just be reverted? Or the fact that an administrator removed the copyright infringing content from public view? If you mean the first of those, then I agree, but there are a lot of insane people who spend a lot of time doing pointless things on Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note:Soundofthesea has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE by @JamesBWatson: --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I see another possible misunderstanding of how revision deletion works - so for clarity, revision deletion does not remove content. The copyright infringements were removed manually as a normal edit, and then every revision that contained those infringements was hidden from view - from the revision that first contained them to the final revision before they were removed. Any changes made in those revisions which were not part of the copyright violations have not been removed and are still in the current revision. As an example, I could choose any article and rev-delete every single past revision, and that would not remove a single word from the current article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But would that mean that an editor could not see who had made a particular change in an article, and when? RolandR (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - the past revisions could not be compared to see what change was made and when. If it is only the content that needs to be hidden, then the editor and edit summary (including the section name if applicable) would still be visible, so that might provide some clue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsuprisingly there is socking, webhost/proxy use etc. at play here. I've semi-protected the article for a couple of weeks. Not sure if the most recent edit (which I reverted) has the same copyvio issues, someone more familiar with the history may want to check. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It was identical to one of the sections removed from previously hidden revisions, so I've done the same again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A hate group is attempting to brigade an RfC

    A Manual of Style discussion regarding transgender people is currently being brigaded by an off-site hate group encouraging people to create accounts to "vote support". This group has been actively involved in doxxing, harassing, and making threats of violence against trans people in the past, and they need to be cut off from attempting to use Wikipedia to further their agenda. MarleneSwift (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Noting, in passing, the pure unsullied and unalloyed irony of the fact that your own account was registered... on 10 June 2016 at 13:24. Muffled Pocketed 13:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because my main account is linked to my real-life identity. My employer is listed on my main account's user page for crying out loud, and I don't want them getting death threats from this group. This group has targeted their opponents in real life before. Also bear in mind that I'm not !voting or offering my opinion in any way on the discussion. MarleneSwift (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be ironic if MarleneSwift issued a support/oppose !vote in the discussion, as that would be engaging in the practice he/she is expressing concern about. That is not the case, as far as I can see. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a problem with this report; if someone is scared enough to start a new account to notify us of what could well be a legitimate concern, we should thank them. I hope it's hot air in that thread. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than trying to play whack-a-mole by reverting and blocking the new accounts, simply place a prominent note about the situation to alert the closing admin/editor to it. !Votes by newly registered SPAs should be disregarded in any numeric assessments of consensus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said, if any of the new accounts do engage in "doxxing, harassing, and making threats of violence", this should be dealt with by immediate blocking and rev-del of the offending edits, and by notifying emergency@wikimedia.org should the situation be sufficiently extreme to warrant it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary Censorship

    An editor by the name of General Ization is arbitrarily deleting my posts on an untrue article on Laszlo Csatary. He is not allowing me to respond to a challenge of proof. This is a biased and racist move on the part of General Ization. He obviously has something against Laszlo Csatary and his family and knows little or nothing about the situation. The article is defamatory and untrue and should be removed from Wikipedia. It lacks journalistic integrity and is equal to tabloid trash. Get generalization off this article please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2016‎

    The edits that were removed do not have any sources to back up their content. This is something that will require being discussed on the talk page of the article. Also, claiming the user has something again the subject, and especially calling them racist is a personal attack and should not be done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness to the IP, there are sources - and they are already listed in the article, but not presented in the way the IP wants them to be presented.
    The IP seems to want the article to state unequivocally that the subject is innocent of all crime; their argument being that the Budapest higher court suspended his case on 8 July 2013 (already stated and sourced in the "War-crimes indictment", but currently qualified showing reasons they were suspended), and because a book was published in 2014 that claims he was not physically located where the crimes were committed (the book is also already presented and sourced in the "War-crimes indictment", stating the claim made in it by the author). The IP also appears to have a conflict of interest in the article, as they have claimed to be the son of the article subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has not notified General Ization of this filing, so I have done so. GABgab 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the notification, GAB. Barek has accurately stated the basic history of this case, with the remainder available on the IP's Talk page. The IP has repeatedly engaged in the behavior described at WP:IDHT, in addition to personal attacks, legal threats and claims of censorship. I have considered that I could leave his statements in place on the article's Talk page, but each time they would require the same explanation in reply which I have provided here (in January 2016) and here (last night). The IP's repeated posting of the same claim -- that the self-published book already cited in the article proves that Csatary is innocent, and hence the article should state unequivocally that he is innocent -- is, of course, a violation of WP:NPOV, among other policies, and contributes nothing to the improvement of the article. General Ization Talk 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. - I am also the editor who located and contributed the citation that now exists in the article concerning the book, after the IP repeatedly inserted the claim without any source. General Ization Talk 00:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Request consideration of WP:ABAN. General Ization Talk 03:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Compromised account

    Account blocked for a period of a week by HighInBC. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Maybe the account In Citer has been compromised. He has recently made bizarre edits and received a warning from Doug Weller. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a little surprised that this was given a warning instead of a block. The user continued being disruptive after the warning and I have given a 1 week block which I think was generous. I see no reason to think the account is compromised, this sort of hateful speech seems to be in fashion. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 00:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I should have blocked at once. It was his clean block record that deterred me. At the time I hadn't seen his statement of article ownership either. I did tell him that he might be banned from articles dealing with religion, which could be done as a requirement for an unblock from an indefinite block. 06:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    GentleCollapse16

    I want an interaction ban imposed on GentleCollapse16. He keeps going to articles I contribute significantly to or have before and absolutely shitting on my contributions. This has been on-going for a while and I have no idea how it got started or how back it goes, but these are just a few recent examples of the editor's belligerence and hostility toward me:

    • Deriding my bringing Maxinquaye to featured-article status; in response to a recent addition to the article, he posted comments at the article's talk page, in the section of an archived RfC, deriding my contributions and attacking me ([5], [6], [7]). The RfC that was meant to address a past complaint of his has expired and been considered "obsolete" in its closing, yet the editor has not moved on.
    • Removing a paragraph I added last month to Miles Davis (03:00, 11 June 2016 --> 03:08, 11 June 2016); part of his rationale is an attack toward me and comes off the heels of me reverting a recent edit of theirs at the first article listed in this post.

    Just to note, I reported a previous incident instigated by the editor at ANI and nothing was done in response to it ([11]); @Boing! said Zebedee:, @Diannaa:? Dan56 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Borderline racism and trolling by experienced editor

    At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, User:Floydian felt the need to refer to Muhammad Ali by his original name [12]. When called out on this by one user ([13]), his response was this, with the edit summary "Praise Allah, I don't care". On being pulled up again, his seond response was "White liberal guilt alert" with the edit summary "Call the waahmbulance". Since no editor at the page is managing to convey to Floydian how unpleasant his behaviour is in a collaborative encylopedia, perhaps an admin could provide a friendly word? Laura Jamieson (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Urban dictionary - "wahmbulance" - when someone is crying over something stupid, you tell them that you are calling one of these[14] DrChrissy (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this should be considered actionable except insofar as what I see as misuse of edit summary. That is just my opinion. I can accept that other opinions could be as valid as mine. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm not suggesting a block, just perhaps that someone should provide some sort of clue as to the correct method of interacting with others, since said clue appears absent. Laura Jamieson (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In a sense, it takes two to tango. Once the statement "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive" is made, a response becomes likely. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's sweet. Longtime editors should know better. "I've never made any attempt to conform to political correctness nor to avoid offending someone" sounds all manly but is just ignorant; the one offended is Ali, who (duh) changed his name for well-known reasons. Using his birth name, which Ali of course called his "slave name", is typically done by white folk who still can't handle a black man being not just a good boxer but also an outspoken critic of the racism of his time. I don't know if it's straight-up racism, but it's a kind of race baiting. Floydian, it's been a few decades since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance--get over it. And, eh, what's wrong with avoiding offending other people? Isn't that one of the bases of civilized society? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If his father's namesake Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician) were around, he might be a little sad that Clay abandoned his birth name, but would likely be mightily impressed by the changes that Ali helped to bring about. As to racism or offensiveness, it's really just silliness. If he were talking about George Burns, he wouldn't likely insist on calling him Nathan Birnbaum. But those names were both essentially "stage names" - and in America, at least, you can call yourself whatever you want to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Xenophobia and racism is founded on ignorance. I hope Floydian now realises his incivility and will now be dropping the argument. Of course, he could just be recalling the barbershop scene from Coming to America (though Eddie Murphy can get away with it as he's parodying stereotypes). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Xenophobia and racism is founded upon deliberate an vexatious ignorism. I'm sick and tired of the argument that labels you with these traits/terms just because a statement you've made might offend someone. Muhammad Ali (did I spell it right, someone ridicule me if I did not) is Cassius Clay and Cassius Clay is Muhammad Ali. My use of either name has absolutely no influence on any state of affairs. Hence, my reference to white liberal guilt; the idea that we should censor any idea, concept or opinion that could possibly upset someone, even when that person will not and can not ever witness said "offensive" statement themselves. I am parodying stereotypes myself; the difference is that I am not a member of the culture being sarcastically stereotyped. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we hat the off-topic discussion of a good faith but reverted close? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    FAMASFREENODE, I seriously doubt that Drmies or Ritchie333 would agree with this "not even an issue" close (now reversed). Civility incidents described as racism and xenophobia are very definitely issues, even if they don't result in any sanction. Non-admin closures should be non-controversial and include a balanced summary. Looking at your talk page, it looks like you are keen to prove yourself to be sysop-worthy after your recent NOTNOW RfA, but closures like this one won't help. EdChem (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Added diff of close EdChem (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that "not even an issue" is not a non-controversial non-admin close, and have reverted it. I offer no opinion on the dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Boing! said Zebedee: It's not the first time he has made a close that had to undone, and with exactly the same edit summary. Muffled Pocketed 13:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Boing! said Zebedee and EdChem:referral by birthname is not any integral part of racism. the defendant user mentioned that factFAMASFREENODE (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not for you to decide - when you close an ANI report it should only reflect the consensus that has been determined, not your personal judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This user notes the fact that the revision displayed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is one reverted with praise towards this user.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well. That user should recognise that I was assuming good faith and phrasing it gently, kindly even, in the knowledge that you were probably trying to help. If I had possessed the knowledge then that I possess now (that you had put yourself forward for an RFA after just five days here?), then I assure you my form of words would probably have been very different. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 13:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeez, Floydian, if you prance around with an attitude of "you can't catch me, I'm unblockable" then you run the risk of an admin rising to the bait and blocking you. Stop stirring the pot and do something useful. For example, it looks like David Gilmour is not too far off taking to GA. In future, I would choose your battles more carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not that I'm saying I'm unblockable nor is it meant to come across as snarky attitude. I'm simply disillusioned at the politicking that has come to plague many processes here (ITN being a notable one), so I just don't care if I'm blocked; it wouldn't be punitive. As for doing useful stuff, I have two A-class nominations and a Good/Featured topic on the way in a few weeks. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good stuff. I personally can't think of a situation where I'd want to block you, but I'm not like other admins. In my experience, when you get your head stuck into a good GA improvement the noticeboards just fade into the distance. I'm still beavering away at User:Ritchie333/Monopoly myself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it should matter if someone made a passing reference, including in edit summary, to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay. This apparently began with one reference to "Clay" by Floydian, seen here. Another editor responded, saying "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive".[15] Is it "pretty offensive"? I think that comment is slightly over the top. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some cheese to accompany your whine?
    What boggles me, is whom did I offend? That user? Ali? Ali's family? Every Muslim convert ever? To BaseballBugs, I meant that more as a tongue-in-cheek poke to what you said; the bane of the lack of tone on the internet. I am a Devil's Advocate, and I have no problem debating against a person who shares my point-of-view if only to bring unspoken points to the discussion. As I stated, this is part of my persona, and I will not change that... nor have I over the past decade. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is not that you offended someone, but how you reacted afterwards. You could have done nothing else and ignored it (my recommendation), but instead you said "call the wahmbulance". Now, that's slightly better than "Fuck you, fuck you and fuck you ... who's next?" but not by much. Drmies' point in particular is you didn't seem to either realise or care that you caused offence, and just came across as naive or ignorant. Anyway, I'll tell you again - if you want to say "fuck you" to anyone who doesn't align with your way of working, you do it at your own risk, and just - you know - lighten up a bit. I think anything else you post to this thread is going to cause more harm than good and make it more likely someone like John is going to hit "block". As the old saying goes, you've really gotta drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP's promotion of "Freddy Maguire"

    Not an immediately helpful usertalk comment, but not a legal threat. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This IP, User talk:119.224.85.251 has made this edit [16] about Freddy Maguire. However, after reverting his edit, this IP seems to have said on my user talk saying I will receive a "strongly worded letter", which seems to be a euphemism for a legal threat. This is the diff of the message on my talk page: [17]. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have dropped a note on their talk page, telling them they are editing in the wrong place and will have better luck submitting via WP:AFC. I don't fancy their chances of creating something that doesn't get deleted per A7 / G11, but it will at least stop them getting blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A "strongly worded letter" is not a euphemism for a legal threat. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StronglyWordedLetter
    It is a trope that means something like: "I can't really do anything about it except express my displeasure".
    Example:
    Hooligan: "I am gonna kick ur face in!"
    Nerd: "If you touch me, I will... ehm... send you a Strongly Worded Letter!"
    This phrase has turned into a meme. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
    If you do receive a legal threat then please report it here so the IP can be blocked per WP:NLT, but for now I think this can be closed.
    The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Brenda Allison

    Blocked indefinitely by Nyttend (non-admin closure) Muffled Pocketed 12:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This user has a long history of trying to create an article Brenda Allison (it has been deleted loads of times on Wikipedia because she is not notable). All this user does is add the name Brenda Allison to articles, or add information about this person on the articles Human magnetism and Nefertiti.

    As of June 2016, this is still going on [24], this user has been doing this on the human magnetism article since September, 2015. This user has been blocked in the past in February (check their talk-page, after they were blocked they claimed that Wikipedia is racist because they are black [25]). Interestingly when I google search the name "Brenda Allison", a twitter page comes up which makes this same unfounded statement [26], Ankhsn recently tried to insert details about Brenda on the Nefertiti article which matches what is discussed on this twitter [27]. This user is here to promote herself, not build an encyclopedia. Given the fact they seem to have had countless warnings I am just interested if an admin will look into this or not. HealthyGirl (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you actually check this users disruptive editing since the 5 June [28] on the Nefertiti article, I am amazed that this user was never blocked. HealthyGirl (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Prous Science

    Both accounts blocked as  Confirmed socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Two SPA editors Josepdavidana (talk · contribs) (since 19 April) and the newly-created Janajuliapuig (talk · contribs) have recently been contributing to this article by unexplained edits adding large chunks of copyright text, badly translated newspaper articles, and at the same time removing sourced content (and sometimes categories etc). I've now reverted 3 times today so am backing off, but perhaps an admin could have a look. PamD 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    size issue, reverts at List of Masters of the Universe Characters

    this user stumbled upon the page upon patrolling for things to edit. noting the violation of WP:SIZE (refer to article talk page), created seperate articles for the sections and moved them, see in here. it went unopposed and agreed on until the time the revert wars began (see subsequent revisions with edit summaries). requesting admin intervention.ping User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi User:TheDwellerCampFAMASFREENODE (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Now there's a coincidence! Muffled Pocketed 16:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So the OP has been around for about 2 weeks (if that). Within five days of being here, started this RFA (!) and likes to threaten other users with ANI. Not bad for a "new" editor. On an unrelated note, I think there's a boomerang in my sock. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the ping substitute the required ANI notice? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't. I concur that FAMASFREENODE is probably not a new user. His or her frankly strange manner of speech ("This user" in place of a first person reference, use of formal grammar in all situations) strikes me as geared towards avoiding speaker attribution efforts given its such an artificial manner of speaking. Whether that's relevant is another matter entirely. In any event there's a WP:ANEW thread on this editor as well. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mendaliv: @FAMASFREENODE: I agree. The use of "This user" is very odd, and he/she is clearly a sock of some other user. The user in question seems oddly good with Wikipedia policy, (That's not a indication of sockpuppetry), and seems very disruptive (Combined with the first statement, we seem to have a sock). Take that boomerang out of your sock, Lugnuts, you are going to need it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Irony here being that TheDwellerCamp is a freshly blocked sock. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 17:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but I still don't trust FAMASFREENODE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fun never stops on ANI... GABgab 18:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
    This comment in particular looks fairly suspect, [here's the link]. Some users are very good at editing Wikipedia when they joined (I read the polices for a month before I joined, and got 2 different messages from people asking if I was a sock), but if someone was good at editing Wikipedia from the beginning, why would they file an RfA? It's not adding up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • IF FAMASFREENODE is a sock (and I concur with the analysis above that raises suspicions), then its purpose is clearly trolling - no sock files an RfA without an intent to disrupt. Considering the report made here by another sock, could this be two puppetmasters competing with each other? BMK (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with these findings. Knowledge of concepts such as WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT, as well as submitting an RFA so early make me suspicious that there's sockpuppetry going on here. Omni Flames (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Winterysteppe isn't a typical sockmaster, he was a good editor who tried to fight his wiki-addiction by getting blocked, and makes socks to get his fix. ansh666 04:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, that sounds fairly run-of-the-mill to me, with the single except of getting blocked deliberately. I believe mamy puppetmasters have Wiki-addictions they can't control, and that some percentage of those were good editors at some point. Look at Kumioko. I don;t really care why one takes the step into the dark side, once you're there, experience indicates that there's very little chance of successfully coming back, even granted that the community is willing to extend the chance. BMK (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is still waiting to be notified that there is a discussion taking place about him. :) Muffled Pocketed 08:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @EdChem: Yes. It would be a clever way to camouflage a sock. But, it probably backfired, as it shows that the user in question had a clear understanding of WP policy, but is editing disruptively. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Another VoteX sock

    Vote (X) for Change, as is his custom, has long moved on to using other IP addresses. --NeilN talk to me 15:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    86.28.195.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Could someone do the honours? Thanks. Incidentally, is ANI the best place for this sort of report? It's not obvious vandalism, so AIV seems inappropriate. Tevildo (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    What does this person do? Change calendar related stuff? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    On the reference desks, formal trolling in the old USENET sense - that is, posting deliberately provocative and inaccurate material with the intention of causing a disturbance. Tevildo (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was answering the question. I believe that's the point of the refdesk? I can't help you don't like the answer. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Will someone actually do an IP check?! I am not a sock. Just because the reported presumably disagrees ideologically with me, is not reason for a block. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting a talk page interaction ban

    I am asking for an interaction ban between myself and Jytdog. I am asking that he not post any messages on my talk pages; my two usernames are: Bfpage and Barbara (WVS). The second account was created to allow WikiEd and my supervisor at the University of Pittsburgh to track my edits.

    Here are the messages that he has left on my talk page(s) from the most recent to the first:

    1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8., 9., 10., 11., 12., 13., 14., 15., and 16. The diffs are many but a short history might be helpful. The first few interactions had to do with my editing of the Sexism article when he believed I was part of a conspiracy of men dedicated to gender parity. He questioned my motives, my gender, and other personal information that I provided to him to assure him that I really was who I said I was.

    The other diffs are related to a discussion about a 3-day block placed upon me by Kevin Gorman. I am sure he would provide information regarding my block if he is available.

    Administrator Kevin Gorman posted the following on the top of my talk page after he read the messages that were being posted by Jytdog and others.

    As a result of Jytdog,s discourteous, accusatory, discourteous, disruptive and contentious talk page posts, I feel he is “following me around”, hounding, and stalkingme. I feel personally attacked. His uncivility has negatively impacted my own enjoyment of editing. I believe that the unnecessary emotional distress caused by his posts has had a negative effect on the encyclopedia since it impacts my concentration in creating content. His messages and edit summaries are distracting from the work I do on building an encyclopedia. Time I could spend editing has been taken up with dealing with his distressing talk page messages.WP:HOUND.

    I remain unaware of any specific communication between Jytdog and administrator Kevin Gorman because for a time I was relieved to see that the harassment had ended. Now uncivil edit summaries by Jytdog continue to increase and he is back on my talk page. Though I’ve not done the math or examined the editor interaction log, it also seems as if he shows up relatively quickly after some of my edits. I am only asking for an interaction ban where he would not be able to post on my talk page. I don’t post on his talk page anyway since I thought that might reduce the tension that exists. Thank you for your kind attention on this matter. I will contact Jytdog on his talk page.

    Best Regards and thank you for your kind attention,

      Bfpage |leave a message  18:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a helluva lot of words. Did you expend any on notifying the parties you have mentioned...? Muffled Pocketed 18:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Jytdog and Kevin Gorman were notified.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for fun! I looked at all Barbara's diffs above. What I found was Jytdog giving Barbara good advice, which has clearly been ignored by Barbara. There are a number of things I could suggest, but perhaps the simplest is to ask Jytdog to not post on your talk page any further. He wont post on your talk page any further, except of course if policy requires him to. Simples. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 18:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog was asked to not post on my talk page and honored that request for a while. I would like a more formal discussion with other editors. Good advice can be supplied with different words than were used for me.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone mentioned your post has a lot of words, and more to the point 16(!) diffs. It would help the rest of us get a handle on the situation if you distill this down to the few diffs that are most relevant (not more than 3 or 4). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • The background. When Bfpage first arrived here, she ( and I never thought she was a man) was editing per the mens rights agenda and was hounding User:Flyer22 in icky ways like thanking people who were trashing Flyer, and was sanctioned for that, per this ANI thread. I believe the comment I made that prompted this over-reactive posting was this which is self-explanatory and was reacting to a mild form (a mild form) of the kind of behavior that she were sanctioned for originally (The editor on whose page Bfpage posted is one with whom I have been in disputes with). Bfpage, if you don't want reminders, don't make trouble. You said you were going to leave that behavior behind. There is no need for any kind of i-ban; we rarely interact. There is a need for Bfpage to just knock off the baloney. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jytdog and I differ on how to deal with certain problematic editors, such as probable sockpuppets (I'm not making any allegation here), but that's because I tend to take a blunt and direct approach, and he prefers to deal with such editors in a much more gentle manner. Because of this, I would be very surprised to find Jytdog being "discourteous, accusatory, discourteous, disruptive and contentious", since my experience is that he is always exactly the opposite. I'm going to delve into Bfpage's diffs now, and if I find that they are not clear examples of such behavior, I shall probably return with a recommendation of a WP:BOOMERANG. BMK (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have laboriously gone through the 16 edits provided by Bfpage - the oldest of which dates from a year and a half ago! - and, as expected, found nothing there to back up their contention that Jytdog has been "discourteous, accusatory, discourteous, disruptive and contentious". I do see, however, evidence that Bfpage has exhibited some of these behaviors. (If I am remembering correctly, wasn't there a brouhaha a while back about this editor, who presented herself as female, but posted strongly in favor of men's rights, raising suspicion that the reported gender was a smokescreen?) If Bfpage does not want Jytdog to post on their talk pages, Jytdog should honor that ban, but then Bfpage should avoid situations in which they come into conflict with Jytdog. I don't think that a BOOMERANG for Bfpage is in order at the moment, despite the misrepresentation inherent in this report, but I do recommend that should they make another report against any editor without providing true supporting evidence, then a sanction of some sort should be levied on them. BMK (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your responses and the recommendation that Jytdog not post messages to my talk page. The most recent post to my talk page was not mild. I do not consider my work with another skilled and excellent editor where we were (are) improving content to be trolling. The fact that Jytdog has had disputes with this same editor is/was unknown to me. Since I don't follow his editing, it is impossible for me to know with whom he has had conflicts. I can only know about his conflicts with other editors by checking the standing interaction bans and noticing if he has any there. My request was not to rehash old drama, but to help deflect the possibility of future drama. I already avoid situations where we come into conflict. His edits always follow mine. (no more diffs for me). I am also sensing my incredible distress and uncomfortable-ness with what I perceive as hound-like behavior to be irrelevant to those commenting here. What misrepresentation can be in the expression of how an editor has been negatively affected by the postings on their talk page? We both edit in project medicine and therefore, for my purposes alone, what would a valid 'report' look like-one that might result in sanctions such as blocking me? Certainly, this is something I would like to avoid. I would also like more time before this discussion is closed for Kevin Gorman and others to respond.
    Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  23:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Rambling Man's warring with editors, including Calidum

    This administrator keeps warring with Calidum to show his superiority to others. He changed from "posted" to "pull blurb" over and over; he reverted one of my edits. Or maybe the fault is Calidum, but TRM is also responsible. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing to do with "superiority" just English language. It is typical to post notices at ITN in the heading to garner attention. Calidum has misunderstood that, as has Ho. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What about [29][30][31]? Frivolous? --George Ho (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man and Calidum: Knock it off with the edit warring. Both of you are experienced editors and should know better. Calidum, stop making personal attacks. That's uncalled for. @WaltCip: George Ho provided diffs with his initial report. Let's not inflame the situation. Mike V • Talk 21:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, just find a hobby you lot. This is nothing, I couldn't care less that Calidum called me a dick, I couldn't care less that he doesn't understand how ITN headers work. However, I could care that Ho keeps on keeping on until he thinks he can get me and that's too much. Time to stop Georgie boy, I'm sick of it. If you continue, I'll see you back here for a ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, Mike V; the issue is probably resolved. Nevertheless, that doesn't leave both off the hook yet, does it? George Ho (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, George, that's right, keep sniffing for blood. What is your purpose here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    And please, when someone can be bothered to action this, please go to ITN and assess consensus on the Gordie posting which now has a strong consensus to pull, I mean Really Strong. Thanks all, bar Ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of the merit of the complaint, an accused is hardly the most objective judge of it. Defending oneself is one thing. Using bullying, intimidation, threats, and insult-just-short-of-personal-attack is quite another. I strongly object to these tactics, and to the community's tolerance (and even encouragement) of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    About whom are you talking, Mandruss: me or TRM? George Ho (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM. Sorry, I thought that was obvious enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I second with Mandruss. All of these attacks are immature and childish. Feeling compelled to reply to every comment Ho makes is clearly a child's work at play. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So will there be action against TRM, is admonishment enough, or can we do nothing about it? George Ho (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM is probably within the letter of policy and behavioral guidelines, so no sanction is likely. He has been around long enough to know exactly where the line is and what he can probably get away with. Many, many editors know the difference between the letter and the spirit, that acceptable behavior cannot be fully legislated any more than morality can be. It would be significant progress if more of them spoke up in situations like this, rather than staying silent for any of a number of reasons. Without that, TRM and others can continue to believe that a majority of the community supports their behavior. People need to take a stand, or they are just as much to blame for the results as the offenders themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it crosses the line with civility and is has inched away the line of personal attacks, but considering everyone loses their cool I don't think a sanction is necessary. Unless this kind of behavior has happened before which should be addressed in my opinion, it's best we let this thread go as it is and wait. Ho, I would consider ignoring all comments by TRM. Don't provoke him of making more attacks like this. Just let him be as it will all go back to him. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been complaints about him, Mirela: January 2014 discussion, another January 2014 discussion December 2014 (somehow resolved(?) after very short block), discussion that went nowhere, failed proposal on him, August 2014 discussion, etc. But I'll post my past conflicts with him. George Ho (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, since you mentioned my ID here, the end of the three-way IBAN was graciously initiated by TRM, and we have had few troubles since the IBAN was lifted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, too, he and I were okay with each other at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam and Diane/archive2. Somehow, I didn't see how his behavior later then goes... erratic maybe? George Ho (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand it either. Real-life stresses bleeding into Wikipedia work, maybe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried a complaint about him, which failed because I was accused of making a "drama" out of it. George Ho (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now hold on. It failed as "Not something requiring admin tools." The closer never mentioned drama.. Moriori (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I don't know whether I was "disruptive" when he scolded me for making numerous nominations at ITN without contributing to articles much. Also, he called my attempts to quit Wikipedia an unhelpful "pseudo-quit" because I didn't quit soon enough. About my quitting... that's a long story. George Ho (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, I didn't think it was that bad. Something must be done. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, no. Sick and tired of being dragged to drama boards for inconsequential bust-ups that don't impact anyone or anything apart from giving certain individuals ammo to go on the blood lust. Whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • TRM has been becoming very testy at ITN in the last few months. It's not to a point of anything that admins can enforce (it would have been a RFCU issue but that's gone) and the current situation should be a trout, but this is getting very commonplace there that makes it extremely hostile (particularly when it comes to stories with a potential national bias or favoring) and I feel that if this same pattern starts happening, something needs to be done if it should happen again. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an aside, I have pulled the article from ITN and have posted it to RD. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any evidence that the viewing public would actually care about this little tempest? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't seen any viewer pushback, but it's important that we follow policy in these instances so that we can avoid any accusations of impropriety in editorial concerns. Nakon 00:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • More specifically, do you imagine that anyone outside the list of editors on that page really care? And you know what? You could fix this by getting rid of the "blurb" concept altogether and simply link to the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I, as well as the rest of the regular ITN admins, have nothing against the posting of the subject. ITN admins are, by definition, neutral. If they have any stake in the articles, they must recuse all administrative actions regarding the subject. However, the posting to ITN must be submitted in regard to established policies. If a contributor supported the inclusion of the article, they must not include the article into ITN. This is a basic tenet of consensus on the project. I'm not in a position to suggest article view stats. Nakon 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Additionally, the "blurb" content can be reviewed by submitting a request on the ITN talk page. Thanks, Nakon 01:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • It all depends on how badly you would like to curb the bickering, which is usually either about notability, of course; and about whether to "blurb" or not, which serves no useful purpose, unless you think the perpetual arguments about it are useful. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geez, can TRM get along with anybody? Seems like there's a "TRM causing problems" thread every few weeks, each time with a different editor. pbp 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If everybody's having similar problems with TRM, shall we take this to ARBCOM again? He's been the subject of one case before; we can make him the subject of another case again. What do you say? George Ho (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I say that, as one of the two parties involved in this complaint, and as the target of TRM's abusive behavior, you can't be objective here, and therefore not a good person to be making such a suggestion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, as I gather you're multilingual, I'm not saying you're a bad person because you made the suggestion. Sometimes the language is inadequate to the task. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    George - as someone with enormous experience of your behaviour, and history, I just want to say this: No, drop it. It's not important, and if it is someone else will address it. Dropping the stick, remember? You're on a bad path here. Begoon talk 14:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please conclude this, or advance it to the joke forum so I can decide whether I need to retire (permanently, of course) or not? I really can't take the harassment from Ho any longer, I may need to take extra-Wikipedia actions. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're threatening to take "extra-Wikipedia actions", maybe you should retire, or at least cool your jets for awhile. I'm also dismayed that you don't take repeated claims to be more civil more seriously. pbp 19:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the kid from Simple, right? You have an agenda as long as my arm and my leg to get me. I have no time for you. Please stick to the programme (program). I'm utterly dismayed that you (like one of the worms I've mentioned at ITN) turn up out of nowhere to hawk here at ANI, like a drama monger. Good for you, if that's what turns you on. I prefer to keep improving Wikipedia, and sometimes that demands actions that some people dislike. I would say I'm sorry about that, but I'm not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:LeonRaper

    Can we remove his TP access already? He is constantly spamming it with nonsense. TJH2018talk 23:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you notified the editor on their talk page? Check that. Nakon 23:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please list this at WP:RFP. Nakon 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep an eye on this [32] --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking on this. Nakon 23:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @TJH2018: Simply remove the user's talk page from your watch list. Tiderolls 23:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting Two-Way IBAN

    I am requesting that a two-way IBAN be enacted for User:ScrapIronIV and myself. In the past few months, there has been a significant amount of conflict on both ends, and though I do not get along with ScrapIron or even like him, I do acknowledge that he, like myself, is very useful to the Wikipedian community in several ways. So, rather than asking that he be blocked, or asking that I be blocked (which would be a little ridiculous), I feel an interaction ban is necessary to stop the conflict between us. I consider the main problem to be that he has recently (and remotely) reverted my edits without a clear reason why, other than that I made them. He also made this change[33] in my userspace earlier today, which I found to be highly contentious, unnecessary, and ridiculous. Since when do users need to source personal information about themselves or where they live? As if I would cite a source revealing my home address on a public level... So, in summary, I ask for this not to win a conflict or defeat an enemy, in fact, I cite peace as my main reason. I no longer want to be involved in conflicts while trying to edit my userspace or the mainspace with any users, and I feel that this action, originally recommended by User:Ian.thomson, is necessary. Thank you, and happy editing. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say I suggested rather than recommended. I will note that both of them could spend all day trying to dig up dirt on each other but I haven't really seen enough to go "ok, that's it, I'm blocking one of you" (though I have not cared to sift through the mounds that both could dig up). I'm not really gonna discuss this much more than what I just said because of exams (starting another one right now). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored this from the archive because the situation was not yet resolved. I ask that nobody tries to archive it again until a response is given. Thank you, and happy editing! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lord Laitinen: You know, the admin corps are extremely bad at enforcing mutual IBANs. Many IBAN-violations are so blurry that if ScrapIronIV violated it and you reported them, you would potentially face sanctions for the action of reporting them. If one were imposed, chances are that either (a) neither of you is being intentionally disruptive, and all you needed was to be sternly told to go your separate ways, so the IBAN was unnecessary, or (b) whichever one of you is intentionally antagonizing the other will find some way to game the system and violate the IBAN without actually doing so in a manner that will bring sanctions down on them, at least in the short term. Unless the dispute between the two of you has caused the community an unbelievable amount of hassle, I think imposing an IBAN would be a bad idea in general, and requesting one for yourself is not going to end well. If ScrapIronIV and you are both amenable to staying the hell away from each other, then you should just do that; if one of you wants an IBAN and the other does not, then in my experience this means that the one who wants the IBAN intends to use the IBAN as protection against sanctions for disruptive editing. I am not implying that the latter is the case, mind you; I would need to hear your response to the advice I am giving you, and ScrapIronIV's opinion on the matter, first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was acting as if one was imposed already. I did not mention or "stalk" the editor in question, until I did the former here on this page. The user reverted an edit I made in my userspace, which bothered me, but as long as I am able to keep reverting him myself, I suppose an IBAN is unnecessary. I hope the IBAN policy can be re-written in the future to make it more effective. Thanks, anyway. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should wait for this thread, which is already too bloated for any serious outside input, to get archived, see if the problem continues, and if it does then request a one-way sanction against them. Please always bear in mind this simple rule: IBANs suck, and unless you have a really, really good reason for doing so, never request that one be placed on you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, don't wait. Just re-archive it yourself, since you removed it from the archive and the only one to respond since was me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed on MfD

    (non-admin closure) Never mind. BMK (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would someone please create for me the proper pages to nominate User:Stemoc's user page for MfD? The instructions there aren't working for me, as I seem to be stuck in a loop. The reasons are that I believe the Trump banner on the page violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:UP#Promo. Thanks, BMK (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, I managed to figure it out, but those instructions really need to be fixed. Why don't we have a script that does all that stuff for you? Commons has one to nominate images for deletion. BMK (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:SwagLlama420

    NeilN deleted that nazi's userpage, and the image has been removed from Makeamericagr8again's userpage. The MfD for User:Stemoc can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Stemoc. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone please block User:SwagLlama420 and remove his userpage. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beyond My Ken: You should see User:SwagLlama420... The MFD you started seems to be broken. And you forgot about User:Makeamericagr8again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted SwagLlama420's user page as the references to Nazism were clearly out of line. Makeamericagr8again's page probably falls afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST but I'd like to see discussion/a second opinion on that. --NeilN talk to me 03:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest deletion of User:Makeamericagr8again. We generally allow limited expressions of political affiliation to be included on a userpage, unless the information is highly offensive. However, this entire userpage is a political polemic, which is not at all permissible. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, not sure if relevant or not, but the account has made extremely limited contributions since its inception. Not counting the ones made to their own userpage I think I counted 2-3 minor contributions total. It actually appears that the account was made simply for political purposes. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bizarre happenings at Marcus & Martinus

    For the last 24 hours this article has been repeatedly vandalised by a series of IPs and red-linked SPAs to produce this nonsense, which is arguably also a serious BLP violation in addition to being a blatant hoax. It needs more eyes. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Or semi protection. That should work equally well, don't you think? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Tom! I wasn't sure how long the vandalism had to go on for to list it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and thought this might be faster. And... it was :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voceditenore: Your welcome. Also, as an FYI, you can post at the request for page protection page as soon as it becomes obvious that this is not a case of drive by vandalism. Alternatively, you can post here as well to get a quicker reaction if its warranted. Since this is a biography articles the rules are a little different owing to the need to protect the article from potentially damaging information, so we admins have a somewhat free-er hand when playing to protect these articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive edits by 104.56.23.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    This IP has, amongst other disruptive behaviors, persistently recreated articles that have been deleted by Afd (most of which were replaced by Redirects). The most recent 10 examples (excluding repeats/edit warring): [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. This editor is an SPA in the field of Longevity which is subject to AE and has been warned as such. The editor has also been previously blocked for evading a previous block. It is possible that they are a topic-banned editor. Apologies to Admins if this should be more appropriately dealt with under AE but the specific behavior of mass restoration of redirected articles seemed to me to be better dealt with here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored the majority of them because they DIDN'T go to AfD. --104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, that makes it perfectly acceptable then! WP:SISTER must apply eh ;) Muffled Pocketed 10:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't apply here, though. I am indeed a separate person from DN-boards1 - and a female, at that, not a male...104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you now? I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry and Wikipedia:PROXYING. Paging Bbb23 who did the most recent checkuser and block. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I thought that had quietened down a lot for a while. Let's hope that this isn't the start of yet another one of those shitfights. Blackmane (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It never dies. EEng 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can check out any time you like, but... Muffled Pocketed 15:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    For any of these articles that haven't gotten a keep vote at AfD I'd support reverting them to redirects and speedy closing the AfDs as needed. For any that do have a vote there's no harm in letting the process run, but maximum efficiency in tamping down one one of the fanboys in the horde of longevity acolytes leads to less wasted time for everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

    Blocked by NeilN as the editor is WP:NOTHERE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Alif kha has been making personal attacks at CAPTAIN RAJU's page. Please block. Special:Contributions/Alif_kha. I don't know if Revdel is needed in this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN talk to me 16:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Kvng

    I had prodded an article here, and literally three hours before it was due to expire, it was deprodded by User:Kvng. Normally, I wouldn't care too much, but he has a series of edits that are nothing but last-minute deprods or removals of expired prods contrary to policy. Articles are unnecessarily having to go to AfD because of the actions of this editor (who maintains a running list of articles on his page that he has deprodded). I think the user's zeal is coming ahead of adherence to policy and adequate review of the articles prior to deprod. I went through only the June deprods and found the following situations:

    • Deprod. 4.5 hours to go. Not that the nom matters, but DGG prodded this, and he's generally very lenient (in my view) about retaining content, and certainly has a grasp of notability policy.
    • Deprod, five hours to go, went to AfD.
    • This prod was removed 5 hours after expiration.
    • As was this one, 3 hours after.
    • Five hours remaining, unsourced since October of 2012.
    • Prod expired, said it should be merged in edit comment, didn't execute the redirect.
    • Expired prod removed, article sent to AfD.
    • Removed prod, five hours to go]. Claimed "controversial due to sources" when there were all of two, and the band certainly didn't meet WP:NBAND.
    • Removed prod, five hours to go. Prodder indicated that there was heavy COI, and whether or not that is the case, perusal of the sources shows a lot of reliance on WP:SPS and non-independent sources.
    • Removed expired prod, article unsourced since 2011.
    • Removed prod, four hours left, claimed notability, but it's actually a really good case of WP:NOTINHERITED, as the subject is Marissa Mayer's husband, and all the sources are from articles about her.
    • One day left, no explanation given, sent ot AfD by Lemongirl, another editor who has a good grasp of policy.
    • Removed expired PROD, article has been unsourced since 2007.
    • Removed expired PROD, said to consider merge in edit comment, did nothing.

    Discussions have been had several times on his talk page, all instigated by different editors:

    and in every case those editors have taken issue with the indiscriminate deprodding going on. So it isn't just me, and it isn't a new or small issue.

    My list above was limited to deprods in the first 12 days of June - I didn't go back further, but this should be enough to indicate the extent of the issue. There were 15 articles on the list, but only 2 were unambiguously good removals (and were deprodded well in advance of the PROD deadline). Personal views aside, the role of a deprod patroller is to act in accordance with policy, not execute drive-by removals on every article he looks at, which is exactly what is happening here. The extent of the patrol contribs shows there is not a single article which the user actually patrolled that did not have its prod removed. Policy states that when a PROD has expired, the article should be deleted, not kept. Therefore, I would like this user removed from PROD patrolling, and his deprods reviewed, because he clearly cannot edit within the confines of policy. MSJapan (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the policy: Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting. What part is being broken? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The instances where no explanation was given contravenes #1. Also, don't minimize the problem by claiming it's restricted to a subsection of policy. There is no reason to de-tag a completed PROD - at that point it is in the administrators' court. Moreover, a lot of the issue is timing; this is not being done on day 1, 2, 3 or even 4; it's being done at T minus 5 hours or less, or after the prod has expired, in addition to the poor rationales. MSJapan (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My WP:PRODPATROLLING has been discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_criticisms. What specific policy is it that you believe I have violated? I was not aware that there was anything prohibiting or discouraging deprodding after 7 days. ~Kvng (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, can you explain why you de-prodded Malayan Hymn with no rationale for doing so - an article that was not only unsourced but had been for nine years? Or DXJR - still unsourced. There are other examples above. De-prodding unsourced articles with no reason just creates work for everyone else. I would at least expect a detailed rationale for doing so, "probably notable" and similar is not enough. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added my reason to the talk page. There is actually no obligation to provide a reason when deprodding though it is my personal policy to always do so. Sorry about the omission. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or contribute to the discussion I linked to above with any other concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there's no obligation to - but if you're de-prodding something that is very possibly non-notable, or is unsourced, it's a really good idea. Here's another example - Pokemon Plush Community. Obviously non-notable, unsourced web forum. Your rationale was "potentially controversial immediate prod of new article not meeting speedy deletion criteria". It actually could have been speedy deleted, and it should have been. I appreciate that a lot of your deprods are redirects of non-notable music articles (quite correct too) but it does appear you need to be more careful. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to Pokemon Plush Community, you might find useful background at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Prompt_prods_of_new_pages_by_new_editors. I felt it potentially controversial to WP:BITE with a PROD within minutes of article creation. To my surprise, I've since learned that there is a clear consensus at WP:NPP this is routine and accepted practice. You won't see me doing any more deprodding using that rationale. ~Kvng (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fairly standard for people to look at Prods at the last minute: for one thing, the obvious place to start is the top of the list, & for another, that's when it's urgent to contest anything that one wishes to contest. It would however be nice if we had an automatic way of notify people their Prod has been removed, so they can decide if they want to go the AfD. The individual Prod logs are helpful, but if one does a lot, that makes another place to check -- I know I rarely have a chance to check mine. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) .[reply]
    Why not watchlist your proposed deletions? ~Kvng (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Or PROD log related changes (prod-specific watchlist, basically) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If I decided to remove all prod tags as soon as they were added to articles, I don't think saying "but WP:PROD doesn't require an explanation" would be sufficient to protect me from sanction. So it's not true that there cannot be any objection to problematic deprodding. After all, for prod to do what it was intended to do, it has to be a functional process. Now, I'm not saying at all that Kvng's behavior is even close to such an extreme, but the many complaints/objections/concerns should beg the question of at what point intervention makes sense? If Kvng is the only time this has come up, it might make sense to hash out here at ANI, but it might also make sense to take this as an impetus to add something to WP:PROD including a line about e.g. "community confidence in an editor's judgment with regard to [proposed] deletion" or "a pattern of deprods the community finds to be excessive or indiscriminate" or the like. There seems to be strong consensus for a low bar to deprodding (myself included), so it would have to be very careful wording indeed, but would need to allow for intervention, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=724980299"