Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Syrian Civil War detailed map

Three editors:

• Lists129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pbfreespace3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Coneleir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

keeps re-adding challenged material into the Syrian Civil War detailed map, and refuse to provide an inline citation to a reliable source when they do. It is explained how to add an inline citation on the map here. I have tried to explain that they, according to the verifiability policy, have that burden, but it's like they don't want to listen. See e.g. this diff which is a revert of this edit. Note that Lists129, after several requests, did provide a diff that included a citation for Jubb Hamad, but no one have ever provided any source for Abu Mendil (except from maps which we can't use according to the Rules for Editing the Map), and they never use inline citations. See also this, this and this discussion. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

To clarify a bit:

• On 23 September, I removed Jubb Hamad ash Shallal from the Syrian Civil War map. Ref. diff
• On 27 September, Lists129 readded Jubb Hamad. Ref. diff
• On 28 September, I reverted Lists129, asking for a source. Ref. diff.
• On 10 October, I removed Abu Mendil. Ref. diff. Lists129 restored the material without a citation. Ref. diff. I started a discussion about Restoring unsourced places. Ref. diff. Pbfreespace3 restored Abu Mendil, making a duplicate listing of the village. Ref. diff. Note that none of the sources given are valid (Copying from maps is strictly prohibited.).
• On 11 October, I reverted Lists129 and the duplicated listing of Abu Mendil Pbfreespace3 added. Ref. diff and diff. Coneleir reverted me. Ref. diff and diff.
• On 12 October, I removed Abu Mendil again. Coneleir restored again. Still no source given. Ref. diff.

So. "Jubb Hamad ash Shallal" are now marked as IS-held on our map. That is sourced by this tweet, but you have to find the diff manually to check it. Its here. "Abu Mendil" are now listed twice on the modulpage, and as far as I know, no RS have ever been given. It was added by Pbfreespace3 on 15 July. Ref. diff. The source given in that diff does not even mention the village. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Some questions:

1. Is it vandalism to remove information that lack an inline citation to a reliable source, as they claim here? If not, is it harassment to repeadedly mislabel good-faith edits as vandalism?
2. Does the burden to demonstrate verifiability lie with the editor who restores material as the verifiability policy says?
3. Should challenged material be restored with an inline citation to a reliable source as the verifiability policy says?
4. Is it disruptive editing to repeatedly add and re-add material that does not satisfy the verifiability policy?

Erlbaeko (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please, ping me when this report have been deal with. Thanks. Bumping thread. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that Niele~enwiki have removed Abu Mendil. Ref. diff, so that is ok. However, I would be nice if an admin could clarify if and how the verifiability policy applies to the map. It's largely based on self-published tweets and as a reader you are not even able to check what source it's based on. What's the point of having "Rules for Editing the Map" if nobody enforce them? Erlbaeko (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Erlbaeko: I assume this was never replied to because any edits made to that "module" are difficult as hell to understand or follow for almost anyone. However I've had to involve myself in issues with this map before and I know it can be a source of problems. The overarching "law" is even simpler than the specific module rules though. Deleting contentious unsourced content is not problematic or disruptive, certainly not vandalism. The burden of proof does indeed lie on the claimant, i.e. anyone adding, re-adding or asserting anything is required to provide verification. "Challenged" material should be restored with a reliable source, obviously. Restoring unsourced content after it has been removed is edit warring and disruptive editing that is usually dealt with via blocking. And yes, it is absolutely disruptive editing to repeatedly add any material that does not satisfy WP:V, even if it's "true". Please feel free to contact me personally if any of these problems continue. Swarm ♠ 05:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Swarm. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Felsic2

User:Felsic2 is an agenda driven POV pusher who is desperately trying to add a body count or murder, death, kills to as many pages as possible. He has even created a POV pushers guide to doing so (User:Felsic2/Gun use) in clear violation Wikipedia:Advocacy. In his latest edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms [1] he claims his position is supported when it is in fact heavily opposed (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms). I recommend a permanent firearms topic ban and the deletion of his POV pusher guide (User:Felsic2/Gun use).--RAF910 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Whew. That's a lot of personal attacks without any real support. I suppose that RAF910 could be called "an agenda driven POV pusher" who is desperately trying to prevent some type of information from being added to firearms articles. However he won't find me making a bunch of edits of the type he's describing. I've enaged in discussions anywhere I've made potentially controversial edits. FWIW, the community supported the edit the SIG MCX, in a well-attended RFC, Talk:SIG MCX#‎RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? RAF910 is mistaken when he says I claimed support for the change to the Wikiproject style suggestions. Rather, I noted a lack of opposition for the change and a lack of support for the existing text, which is contradictory to the actual Wikipedia guidelines at WP:ADVICEPAGE. I request that RAF910 stop making personal remarks about myself and other editors on article talk pages. Doing so is disruptive and prohibited by WP:NPA and by specific ArbCom edict. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Mmm. One person's POV-pusher's guide is another person's essay touching on important aspects of policy. It is not a great surprise to see a division such as this, and I doubt it'll be healed anytime soon. But there's no incident here for admins to take action in response to, beyond what seems to be a complete mis-use of this board by RAF910. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't to the level that I see sanctions, but looking briefly at the essay and their actions at the WikiProject, it seems pretty obvious there is a POV in play here. I would remind Felsic2 that we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or shove our ideas against consensus. If that essay was put into meta space as it is currently worded, it wouldn't be long before it was pushed to WP:MFD as political advocacy. It does look like you are focusing purely on an anti-gun agenda, as I sample some diffs. There are plenty of over zealous pro-gun people as well, but that isn't on the table. People who swing from editor to advocate tend to have a short career here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a few cases where I've seen this issue come up (I don't really edit on military equipment or firearms). But when I have seen it, I've always been astonished by the arguments that are willing to trample so blatantly over voluminous and high quality sources. I think the objection, stated or unstated, is that if a weapon's use in shootings is included in the article on that weapon, it casts the weapon in a bad light, and/or promotes gun control legislation. Such an objection looks like pure WP:ADVOCACY. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone is coming in and their goal is to either add the weapon on all crime articles, or remove it from all crime articles regardless of consensus, that is advocacy in equal measure and violates policy. There are times when it is relevant and when it is not, which of course is a talk page issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: @Dennis Brown: - I don't want to violate any rules here. I appreciate the guidance. I looked at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It says:

...we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [and] ...you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses.

The material I've sought to add to articles is all reported in mainstream media and books from reputable publishing houses. It is not original research. Just the opposite - it represents the majoritarian view. With rare exceptions, the only time individual firearms are mentioned in mainstream media or scholarly publications is in relation to a crime. By excluding that information, we're saying that firearms articles can only use sources like hobbyist magazines and manufacturer websites. Some editors associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms have been trying to forestall consensus seeking on article talk pages by inappropriately using a project guidance page to overrule the views of individual editors,[2] and by refusing to seek consensus.[3][4]

What is the best way to address pro-gun advocacy which subverts Wikipedia content policies to exclude what some perceive as negative information? Felsic2 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the entire entirely, and probably will still miss it if you get indef eventually because of it. We don't publish every fact just because there is a source for it. WP:RS is only one policy, like our policies on advocacy are not the only policy on neutrality. And most importantly, you seem to think that the written "rules" are what matters at Wikipedia. You would be wrong. All that matters is consensus. The written version is simply based on the consensus. What matters is practice and how it is enforced, not an individual's interpretation of the written policy. Wikipedia is unique in that. Trust me, if you only spend your time doing what you have done so far, you won't last long. If your focus is to counter pro-gun bias, you won't last long. If you manage to turn it around and instead focus on writing neutral articles, then you will do fine. Countering any perceived bias on a full time basis is advocacy. Think about that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh...I forgot to mention that Felsic like to endlessly badger his fellow editors on the talk pages. Also, if you fail to respond to one of his comments or answer one his questions, he believes that "Silence equals consensus."[5] and will then make whatever edits he sees fit.--RAF910 (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. I have always sought to achieve consensus and have offered compromises based on WP policy. Stating, as you have done, that compromise is impossible and that you intend to prevent consensus by objecting without explaining your reasons is tendentious. Felsic2 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That is an essay and not widely accepted. It would be foolhardy to rely exclusively on an obscure essay, which has no basis in enforcement. You can't just cherry pick parts of policies or essays to justify your actions here, you have to actually learn what real consensus is here, on a global scale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn the ropes here. It's confusing to know which policies, guidelines, and essays have actual authority here, or if none of them do and a vote to determine consensus is all that matters. It's also confusing to know what to do in response to apparent activism - its not allowed but if it's found no one should oppose it? In any case, I'll keep using talk pages to work towards consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Despite Felsic "Aw shucks mister, I'm just learning the ropes" proclamation and a promise to adhere to consensus, he is currently ignoring consensus and edit warring on the AR-15 variant page [6][7][8] and continuing his Wikilawyering on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms.--RAF910 (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for the oddball article title. I've repeatedly raised the issue on the article talk page. No one has provided a source showing it's a common phrase to encompasses the material in the article. If you care about the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms then participate there. Please don't cast asperesions or assume bad faith. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. Felsic2 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic is now forum shopping on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council where he acknowledges that "Members of the project are averse to any changes" to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms page.[9] Yet, he still pushing his agenda and still refuses to accept that he does not have consensus to make the changes he wants to make.--RAF910 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that Wikiproject Firearms is misusing a style advice page as if it was a content guideline. Yes, according to WP:ADVICEPAGE that is an example of WP:OWNERSHIP. And yes, the Wikiproject Council is an appropriate place to raise concerns about Wikiprojects. It'd be great if you were part of the solution. Felsic2 (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The best advice I can give you is to never revert more than once. Just make it a rule you stick to, before the community forces it on you. Then you will use the talk page and seek consensus sooner, before you upset people for edit warring. Many editors do this exact same thing to keep the peace and to make it clear they want to work with others. It is very rare that I will even revert twice, maybe once a year. Instead I post on the talk page, wait a week, and if no one replies, I assume I can revert again without issue as I have given a good faith effort to communicate. If in doubt, don't make the edit and use the talk page. Of course, if you use the talk page to advocate a particular bias, it is still a problem. Worry less about written rules and more about how people actually do things here. That is all the advice I can give you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic is also incompetent on the firearms subject matter. His latest edits to the M16 rifle page[10] indicate that he either still believes that the ArmLite AR-15, Colt AR-15, and the M16 rifle are the same guns or does not care. Despite being repeatedly told by multiple editors, for many months, on many different talk pages that they are different firearms. He also, now seems to believe that the M16 and M4 are completely different firearms. Even though both the M16 and M4 pages make it absolutely clear that the M4 is nothing more than a shorten version M16. As a result he removed a reference,[11] which he clearly made no effort to read, because both the M16 and M4 were mentioned within. He also, seems to believe that AR-15 gas operated piston models are AR-18 variants[12], when they are completely different firearms designs made using different materials and completely different manufacture processes. He also removed a vast amount of referenced materiel from the Automatic rifle page.[13] Because, he apparently does not understand that all Assault rifles are Automatic rifle despite being repeatedly informed of such. This editing style is highly disruptive and forces knowledgeable editors to continuously waste our time and efforts to correct his edits.--RAF910 (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• He hasn't edited at all since my last comment, which is a bit of warning, so I'm likely to wait and see what he does moving forward before taking action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that Felsic finally realizes that his own edits are not helping his case. At this point, he is fairly confident that no action will be taken against him. So, he going to take a few days off. Wait for this ANI to expire and begin again with a vengeance when the spotlight is off.--RAF910 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I see some tirritating edits/commentary at the AR-15 variant talk page, but not all of it from Felsic. It's pretty obvious that we have a couple of experienced editors who can't see eye to eye. I do not approve of Felsic's way of behaving themselves on the talk page or in the article--those CN tag edits to the lead are uncollegial and disruptive. I hope they will listen to Dennis Brown whose advice is, as usual, reasonable and and helpful. Thank you Dennis--and you're right, if they keep this up they will be headed for a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

RAF910 is bringing up content disputes, including edits he's reverted without discussion. I'm trying to be collegial by using the talk pages to seek consensus. I'm not sure which policy I'm being accused of violating or what I've done wrong. @Drmies: and @Dennis Brown:, could you please be more specific about what behavior I need to change? Felsic2 (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not up for digging through diffs again and that isn't always fruitful. I've given you some advice above, Drmies has endorsed it, I suggest reading through that again and simply slowing down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, if it's advice rather than a warning that's fine. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic, the problem I see with your comments on the AR-15 talk page is that especially the tone of some of your comments irritates some of your colleagues there, and I think that your undiscussed move of August 2016 came across as uncollegial and set the tone for the rest of the discussion. As I indicated, that editwarring over the CN tags, that's not helpful either. You've been on that topic for some time now; it is probably time to start a well-advertised RfC. Now which policy? Sorry, but if you want me to wikilawyer in response, I'd say WP:5P4 or something like that, since such lengthy discussions easily become disruptive, and the edit warring easily is. So I don't understand why you made this edit, unless it was to make a point. Your argument is "AR clones are called AR"--start that RfC, and may the best argument win. One of the things that talk page needs is fresh eyes. For the record, I do not (yet) see evidence for the statement that Felsic is a "desperate" "agenda driven POV pusher". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm kind of irritated too, by the constant attacks. As for the "AR-15 variant" issue, we've actually made some progress today, because a couple of the editor have made explicit that their concern is simply with trademark issues. I don't know why they didn't say so weeks ago. I've asked for input about what guidelines apply to aricle naming in this case. You're right - this will probably conclude with an RFC. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2 either can't understand the advice they're being given, or doesn't care what others think, as evidenced by this post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms today where they feel that no explicit objections equals support, in spite of being told in this thread that it isn't so. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I'm using the talk page to work with editors to find a compromise we can all agree on. But a lot of the responses have been stonewalling. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Stonewalling is a way to tell you that they don't see any need for changes, and counts as opposing your proposed changes. And posting walls of text to wear other editors down until you get your way isn't "working with other editors to find a compromise", besides, people there, me included, don't want a compromise, they want the text to be left as it is. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think those comments describe one part of the problem very clearly. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does, but not the way you seem to think, instead it shows that you never, as in never ever, respect that others don't share your opinions, and never drop the stick. Proposing changes does not mean being entitled to at least a compromise, as you seem to think, if a majority of other editors feel that no changes are needed or wanted, then that's the way it's going to be, whether you like it or not. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Felsic is now making edits which appear to serve no purpose, except to provoke his fellow editors and challenge them to revert same.[14] Said edit was indeed reverted by Springee[15] and sparked the following discussion on the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms where his fellow editors do not understand why he would make said edit. Bardbom following statement is telling "To me, your edit looks like you are deliberately trying to increase the prominence of the subject your interested on editing. It looks a bit like POV pushing, to be frank. There was no issue with the way it was before, and there seems to be no reason for it to be moved higher up on the page other than to conform with your particular POV"--RAF910 (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Am I guilty of making personal attacks? @Miguel Escopeta: has twice accused me of personal attacks,[16][17], including once when I asked for an explanation. I don't want to attack anyone and I feel this editor is mislabelling legitimate editing. Am I in the wrong? If so I'll apologize. Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Are you trying to change subject here, and make yourself look like a victim? If you feel Miguel Escopeta has made anything sanctionable (which I, after reading the diffs, don't feel he has) bring it up in a separate thread here or somewhere else, but not here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The subject of this thread is my conduct. I'm not asking for any actions agasint @Miguel Escopeta: - I'm asking for a review of my own behavior. Frankly, I find Wikipedia policies confusing and I'm not sure if I've actually done something wrong. Felsic2 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • You have done a lot of things wrong, so if you haven't done so already (which I doubt you have since you continue doing the exact same things you've being criticised for...) I suggest you read the text above in it's entirety, starting at the header saying "Felsic2", and continuing all the way down to here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk
      • I don't see any violation of core policies. A complaint which starts out with personal attacks and continues with misstatements not a sober assessment of problems. Felsic2 (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what that first diff is supposed to show, but this did not remove anything remotely like a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  I don't see any personal attacks there either, but this is just taking away from the primary issue, Felsic2 cherry picking policy to try to justify edits. I don't think it is all malice, but the previous advice still stands, he needs to worry less about picking out particular sections of policy, and worry more about simply getting along and accepting when a majority disagree with them. That doesn't mean they need more information, sometimes that means you need to accept that you aren't going to get your way, even in a small measure. We are all on the losing side of consensus every now and then, Felsic2 needs to learn to accept this with grace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• True dat. Gore did it, Romney did it. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Sparkie82

Sparkie82 is being/has been very disruptive. Just recently they came to my talk page and accused me of harassment. They put "ass" in their edit summary when they made this edit, but I didn't notice this until a few minutes ago [18]. This kind of behavior is very unconstructive and it's not the first time this user has been disruptive and exhibited WP:BATTLE like behavior. Last month they edited one of my comments on a talk page. And although neither of us violated the WP:1RR, Sparkie82 reported me for edit warring which would have been perfectly fine if they didn't do exactly what they accused me of doing a few days after reporting me. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed the Sparkie at one point was removing disputed content having to do with the infobox on a daily basis as not to break WP:1RR. In his defense though there may have been a prior consensus in August. I had already asked for full protection which was granted for a day or so [19] but this does not seem like it has worked. I urge editors to wait for the RfC on the talkpage to close (Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle), hopefully an admin will put this issue to rest by closing it out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Now Sparkie82 says they are going to ignore me and that they are done with me [20]. There's currently an active RfC we are both involved in and ignoring me could disrupt the consensus building process. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's juvenile and not really conducive to a collaborative effort. Blackmane (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup, and I'm afraid that if the admins don't do anything about it this behavior will just continue. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This user has been removing people from the lead infobox in United States presidential election, 2016, subverting consensus in this discussion. While I re-add them, this user accused me of disruptive behavior while asking me to undo my own edit as to avoid being blocked as per the revert rule. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So far it looks like none of the admins are going to address this issue/tell the user not to call me an "ass" anymore.. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior after this report was made

Sparkie82 reverted a user after they closed an RfC [21]. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this user did this after there was a clear consensus to end the RfC. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with JT Leroy page

JT LeRoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Wikimedia, I've noticed vandalism of the [JT Leroy] page. The quality of the page has been sacrificed because of personal vendettas, and maintaining the scholarship of the page seems to require tedious maintenance. I have spoken to the individuals implicated and would very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to someone regarding this matter. Ideally, a brief in-person discussion in San Francisco would be the most efficient way to clear up and resolve the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:855C:2C00:9822:FACF:A50B:E20B (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for our older readers: is this some gangsta-stylee threat to take it outside?! _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is going to meet you in person. If you could explain the specifics of the problem (and maybe avoid the florid prose), that would help. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think OP is asking to talk with someone at the WMF. Could someone explain to them how to contact the OTRS volunteer team instead? There's an email address for that but I don't remember where to find it. That's the right channel if you need to discuss a problem like this privately. If it doesn't need to be private, it's best to just say here what the issue is. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The OP should read Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and Wikipedia:Contact us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, No this is not a "gangsta style threat," it's someone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and process... I'm not even sure how to reply to this thread. I just want to help figure out a solution to this issues I've seen on this page. Here's an example:

On October 14, NVGDAO13 added this quote (with citation):

She later commented, "I had survived sexual and physical abuse and found a way to turn it into art [...] Having struggled with issues of gender fluidity when there was no language for it, I created a character both on and off the page who modeled this as yet to be named state of being."

Before the day was over, "76.21.32.54", stripped out that quote and the one that followed (also cited):

Writing for The New York Times in 2016, Albert noted, "I meet a lot of young people and they're shocked that it was an issue to even have an avatar. Because they've grown up where you have multiple fully formed avatars."

Today NVGDAO13 undid the deletion and explained,

Laura Albert created JT LeRoy -- eliminating her comments is vandalism.

I know there is some general media controversy over authors using pseudonyms, avatars, etc. I have a strong personal opinion that for anything published as fiction, the identity of the author isn't something the audience has a right to know or claim, and any avatar or pseudonym offered to represent the author is fair game as association with a fictional work. It's not a court of law, it's literature, entertainment, art. Anyways, my personal opinion aside, I think the editing war on this page is getting out of hand for NVGDA013 to handle, who is trying to maintain the page with credible sources- and it's especially unfair to Laura Albert. No matter whether you like or dislike Laura Albert, or agree with her- her quote in The New York Times is a quote in The New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.35.0 (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Eliminating comments is vandalism? I'm not sure you quite understand how Wikipedia works. Also, IP-hopping doesn't help matters either; you might want to register an account. One thing you are correct about, however—the same users (NVG13DAO and and one more who hasn't been around in over a week) keep edit-warring even after being warned and blocked; not to mention after the article had been protected. Perhaps longer blocks and stronger protection are necessary? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm- A brand-spanking-new IP account with exactly ONE edit and it's at ANI. I wonder whose sock you would be? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloha27 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I protest most strenuously the interference with my October 15 edit of the JT LeRoy page. I replaced properly cited, pertinent information, and for Aloha27 to pull it down claiming "unreliably cited information" is completely unfair -- and suggests a different agenda is at work here, one that seeks to advance the argument of the original vandalism that I undid. Aloha27 needs to explain in what way the original text had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did. Now a brand-new editor -- 2601:646:4000:5076:d464:a479:a51b:ddc6 -- makes their first edit on the page for Laura Albert (the actual author behind the JT LeRoy books), adding something shamelessly judgmental and biased: After a quote of Argento praising Albert in 2013, this editor added the following commentary: "However in July of 2016, Asia Argento came further forward and break her silence on her real thoughts about the scandal." Ignoring the grammatical failings, who on earth is this person to say what Argento's or anyone else's "real thoughts" are? It was quite right that a vandalism warning accompanied that edit. It was totally unacceptable editing and I have repaired it; in the spirit of balance, however, I have not removed the 2016 quote.

The Wikipedia editors have to ask themselves a very simple question about the JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages: Do they want an unbiased article with cited and accurate information, which leaves readers free to make up their own minds -- like we do for everyone else, from Britney Spears to Joseph Stalin -- or do they want a page that continuously seeks to judge and denounce its subject? A page rewritten to legitimize the hate-filled screed "The Cult of JT LeRoy" by Marjorie Sturm. It's no accident that "Msturm 8" and her previous sock puppets -- Itzat94118," "Earthyperson," "Truthlovepeace," "174.119.2.166" -- keep putting up the same judgmental, slanted language that currently distorts the JT LeRoy page.

I urge all the editors I have cited to stop moralizing and slanting information, stop distorting the record. The JT LeRoy and Laura Albert pages have to be as legitimate as all the other Wikipedia pages. I am adding this post to the Talk pages for JT LeRoy, Laura Albert, and all the editors involved in or cited in this thread.NVG13DAO (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A quick update -- a reply from Aloha27: Huon has explained in great detail and much more succinctly here and here than I did here why the edits by NVG13DAO are not satisfactorily cited. Regards, Aloha27 talk 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• IF you're going to quote me, at least have the decency to quote verbatim:

"::(talk page stalker) Huon has explained in great detail and much more succinctly here and here than I did here why the edits by NVG13DAO are not satisfactorily cited. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)"

And my response: Aloha27 is deliberately trying to obfuscate what they have done. The links given above are completely unrelated to what Aloha27 did on October 15. Huon's edits have nothing to do with Aloha27's October 15 undoing of my edit, which was vandalism. Instead of hiding what they're doing, I insist once again that Aloha27 either explain in what way the original text that was on the page had "unreliably cited information", or else undo what they did ASAP.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This kind of dissembling has to stop, and the page has to be repaired -- and protected from further vandalism.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that this topic seems to have become somewhat decentralized and spans the article talk page, as well as a couple user talk pages. (The users were already involved, so WP:CANVAS was not violated.) I've twice advised the editor who did it to keep the discussion here. No further comment further comment on the discussion itself. — Gestrid (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it kind of does constitute canvassing, as it falls under spamming territory. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

NVG13DAO, you need to realise that Aloha27 does not edit in good faith. On 25 September he vandalised Universal Time. An editor removed the non - existent word "timezone" and replaced it with "time zone". Aloha27 added it back. He also changed the reference to "Oxford University Press" to "Oxford Univ Press". At Taurus (astrology) on 9 May an editor corrected the dates during which people are born under the zodiacal sun sign of Taurus to "April 21 to May 21". On 23 May an editor clarified the reference thus:

... the western dates are 21 April to 21 May, the Hindu dates are 14 May to 14 June and the astronomical dates are 14 May to 19 June. (source).

On 31 May Aloha27 commenced an edit war in which he reverted 22 times, stopping only to template another editor claiming he was edit warring. 20 of those reverts were made in the space of 85 minutes. At Hindu calendar on 25 May an editor changed "repeats twice" to "repeats" as there was only one repetition, "name is been given" to "name has been given", "months is equal" to "months are equal", "every 3rd year" to "every 2.71 years", "solar year have" to the singular, "can be deduces" to "can be deduced", and "many south Indian region" to "many south Indian regions". On 29 May an editor changed "names ... remains the same" to "names ... remain the same", "this is been" to "this has been", and "referred as" to "referred to as". The following day Aloha 27 reverted, introducing markup errors for good measure. The same day an editor repaired the article under edit summary Why did Aloha27 revert this and then introduce reference errors which the bot had to fix? 26 minutes later Aloha27 undid the corrections.

His vandalism spree that day included Old Style and New Style dates, where he inserted a claim that in the first half of the eighteenth century Britain was using the Gregorian calendar while her American colonies were using the Julian calendar. On 28 May at Munnuru Kapu an editor removed the phrase "Ex. minister" and replaced it with "Ex-minister". That was changed back during the vandalism spree. Also on 28 May he vandalised Robert Gibbon Johnson, contradicting a reliable source which stated that he did not serve in the New Jersey brigade prior to 1794. 86.151.49.241 (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time that Aloha27 has removed comments critical of himself. In his own words:

I'd be very hesitant about throwing sockpuppet accusations around lest you find yourself WP:BOOMERANGed. Regards,  Aloha27  talk  17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Aloha27 removed the above report and added it back one minute later. As far as I can see, his only objection to it is that it contains criticism of himself. Would that all complaints could be closed so speedily. 86.151.49.241 (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

مصعب (talk · contribs) has moved Category:Palestinian terrorism to Category:Palestinian political violence, and likewise changed all usages in 163 articles and 8 subcategories. By the way, he actually used Category:Palestinian political violence. with a dot, but I moved that. I propose to revert this unilateral move as being highly POV and a non-discussed circumventing of WP:CFD. User:مصعب has argued that the category should be named just like its main article Palestinian political violence, but 1. It remains POV 2. It remains non-discussed and circumventing CFD 3. There is no such rule that we rename categories or articles just so that they should match. 4. WP:EUPHEMISM is clear that we should not whitewash terrorism and call it anything but that. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It just that wikipedia content should be maintained in the same manner that main article name should be combatible with the main category of it. This reflect unified naming crateria. There is no benifit from make the category name defferent from its main article. And before that i contribute in unifying categories like category:nitrogen cycle with their main articles and no one tell me that this is wrong exept now and i fell that there is a bias in this position. That's all. Regards--مصعب (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

From wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here.---مصعب (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

No category should be moved without going via the speedy process or a full discussion, so the change should be reverted. I will do this shortly. Number 57 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

but the rule is very clear: From wp:category it stated that: Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article. Examples: "Law", "France", "George W. Bush". And i think this rule apply here. And it is a conventional rule. Can you give reason for reverting without discussion? At least if i am wrong please explan the policy. And it is more benifecial to discuss the naming befor just moving the category another time without reason. If my move is wrong because there is no discussing then your moving is the same because there is no discussion--مصعب (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@مصعب: It was wrong because editors are not allowed to move categories without using the WP:CfD process above, and if editors do things like this without discussion, then it always reverts back to the status quo – no discussion is needed. By all means request a move via the speedy route if you feel it meets the criteria. Number 57 12:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add that since the move is contested, the speedy rename process is not an option, only a full Cfd discussion. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes -- IP 173.79.122.37‎

This particular IP has been consistently inserting entire movie plots as episodes into this article, despite multiple reversions (all of them on my part, so block me if you must, I apologize for not coming here sooner). I have warned him on his talk page to stop (forgive me again if there was a template I could have used for that purpose). Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 01:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You are definitely way over 3RR. Best is to discuss the issue on the talk page. The plot summaries don't look excessively detailed to me--they're each a couple of paragraphs. Some of the text appears to have originated on Wikia in 2010 or earlier.example If that's where it came from, then it's CC-BY-SA so we can use it with attribution. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not what's happening though -- he's (or, he was) inserting plots from the various direct-to-DVD films (such as Scooby-Doo! Music of the Vampire) into the list as if they were actually episodes of this show. He seems to have stopped now though since I warned him on his talk page. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 12:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Rather than leaving those obnoxious and threatening templates, it's nicer (AGF etc.) to just explain that movies aren't episodes, so the movie summaries should go in the movie articles instead of the episode list. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I did explain that to him via edit summaries; mayhap I should have done so on his talk page as well. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 21:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Another idea is to just move the descriptions to the movie pages yourself and let them know. It also looked to me like some episode descriptions got reverted as well, but I didn't understand the issue at the time that I looked, so I might have misunderstood. I barely remember that show and didn't realize it had such a following. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Straight-to-DVD movies are not the same as episodes of a TV series, so if Black Yoshi is right, then the edits in question are very close to being unambiguous vandalism, to which 3RR doesn't apply. The only reason I say "very close" is because, given the subject matter, it seems likely that the IP is a child making vandalism-like edits in good faith (i.e., no vandalistic intent). Blocking someone for reverting a child making unconstructive edits that don't technically meet the criteria laid out on WP:VANDAL ("a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia") would go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. That said, using the IP's user talk page to explain, politely, why their edits are being reverted, would be preferable. I personally don't like the warning templates, since using them on experienced editors is an insult, and (the way they are worded) using them on new editors is not very welcoming, but Black Yoshi can't be blamed for doing something that I personally disapprove of but which almost everyone does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as anywhere near vandalism. It's likely to be solvable with some friendly discussion if the IP hasn't given up on us. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism, but the exact wording of 3RR assumes that a child making disruptive edits because they don't know any better is not a significant problem. It would definitely be better to engage in friendly discussion than to edit-war, but the same is true for persistent vandalism (technically in the latter case semi-protection is supposed to be sought). What I am saying is that when we have someone making disruptive edits because they apparently don't know any better, we should treat what is technically a 3RR-violation the same way we would if the edits were vandalism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

When I looked earlier there had been no attempt to discuss the issue on either the article talk page or the editor's talk page. Black Yoshi mentioned some edit summaries but that apparently didn't work and maybe wasn't noticed. An even more collaborative approach (as mentioned earlier) would have been to just transfer the movie info to the appropriate articles, and leave a talk message thanking the person for the contributions while explaining that they had been moved. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You are right. That's just not what I was talking about. I was saying that there isn't really any reason to block the OP (despite their own saying "block me if you must"). They technically ran afoul of 3RR, but the vandalism exception to 3RR doesn't make sense unless we also apply it to cases like this one. As you said, the material was copy-pasted from another wiki, so while it is OK to re-add it to a separate article, it shouldn't be a requirement to know about Wikia copyright licensing to remove it. If it had been copy-pasted from a non-free source, it would have been a serious violation to remove from one article and add it somewhere else. So Black Yoshi's not having done that from the start is not a point against them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge they were copy/pasted from the Wikipedia articles on the films. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 14:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Springee and Dennis Bratland (again)

This will be the third ANI thread involving these two in recent weeks (the first two: [22][23]). Both complaints had tl/dr issues and got archived with no action. The situation appears to have snowballed into some very disruptive edit warring at wikiproject automobiles - [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33].

I was sympathetic to Dennis' side of this dispute in the previous ani threads - but at first glance I don't see how Dennis' removal and edit warring of Springee's talk page comments can be justified here. See also the multiple warnings and accusations of harassment on Springee's talk page that start with this diff and subsequent edits. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• 3RR doesn't prohibit removing blatant harassment. Anyone can see that these long posts are intended to draw a long reply, to which Springee adds his own long reply, in which he ignores the previous answers to his questions, and repeats the same questions as if he hadn't heard. He expects me to go on this merry go round indefinitely. Springee edits Wikipedia only to fight battles, nothing else. I know no other editors want to see another thread like that. It's badgering, and policy is to remove it. I did so as a favor to all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm done with this. I'm sorry that I would like Dennis to actually explain his POV and explain why he feels that the RfC on the automotive project page doesn't have a clear consensus etc. I regret restoring the comments he deleted of mine and, though I didn't notice it, I had no right to restore his comments to the talk page if he wished to delete his own comments. I would suggest implementing the remedy suggested in the original ANI, neither Dennis nor I are allowed to initiate complaints about the other anywhere other than ArbCom. I apologize to the editors who have to deal with this issue again. Springee (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:DBrown SPS and User:206.125.47.10

I am at a complete loss here. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Famous Dex is the fifth time the IP placed a deletion notice on an article, one minute later DBrown SPS creates the deletion discussion page with a !vote opposing the deletion, then the IP completes the nomination. I am assuming there is some connection between the two editors, but I can't quite nail it down.

I asked DBrown SPS about it and received a non-explanation here.

The discussions involved are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Dex, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinylz (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javotti Media (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Heartbreak Kid (mixtape), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Famous Dex.

The IP is one of several that have been used to place fake block notices on DBrown SPS's talk page.[34]

It seems clear to me that the IP is a problem, but I can't seem to figure out how DBrown SPS has been immediately on top of the deletion nominations. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for 72 hours. Either the IP is hounding DBrown SPS or they're the same person creating drama. If it's the latter, the hard block will hit DBrown SPS too, given how stable the IP has been over the months. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of France

Disruptive Infobox edits in the Battle of France article by User:KevinNinja reviving an old dispute. Please scrutinise. Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, which should be discussed and resolved on the talk-page. The contested edits do not seem very controversial to me, but both of you need to mind the 3RR-cliff. No admin-tools required, IMHO.Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I don't know. If someone is edit-warring to insert material that consensus had already established to leave out, as the OP implies, that is potentially an issue for ANI. That said, the lack of evidence provided that this is "reviving an old dispute" and the request for "scrutinization" makes me skeptical. @Keith-264: Can you provide details? Preferably in the form of diffs? On the face of it, KevinNinja's version looks like the better one (note that I'm not a scholar of French history -- I took one course in college and watched another on YouTube). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Everybody currently edit-warring on that article is aware of WP:EW. It is, after all, only a month since Dennis Brown fully protected the article after another edit war (also involving Keith-264), stating that 'If it goes back to edit warring after a week, I will hand out week long blocks. Everyone involved is way too experienced here for this kind of silly stuff.'

There are some rather short memories there. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: I see all kinds of bickering on the TP, what I don't see is any consensus. The conflict has been brewing since last spring and bth sides have not reached (or moved towards) any form of compromise. Hence I still think it's an content dispute, with an edit-war as a result. Perfectly happy with the approach Dennis Brown announced. Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not likely to protect again and will just block anyone warring. It isn't fair to other editors to keep locking it. KevinNinja needs to read WP:BRD. If someone removes material you add, it is up to you to take it to the talk page. The default is the status quo, so stop adding it back until something of a discussion can be had. I don't suggest anyone do anymore reverting until a discussion is had on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I came here sooner rather than later to avoid trouble, not cause it. At bottom the dispute is whether contents of the infobox should follow the guidance in Template:Infobox military conflict, which is unambiguous. The details are in the talk page ad nauseam. Despite the clarity of its contents I have compromised by leaving in the asinine "Decisive" German victory (it was anything but, according to the informal and impressionistic RS survey, which was about 15:6 for German victory) and only removing the extraneous bullet points. Other editors appeared to have been willing to settle for that until last night's edits. I asked for scrutiny because by posting here I have created a conflict of interest, something which I took to be obvious. Thank you for your comments Dennis but I am of the opinion now that an outsider should dictate the contents of the Result criterion. regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Then start an RFC on the talk page, that is the best way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I fear that it would be pointless, as some of the comments above demonstrate but thanks for the suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

An RFC, if done properly, would attract outside opinions since it is advertised outside of that talk page. That is the point, to get outside opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Dennis Brown: Re "The default is the status quo": Technically, the default is the shorter version with less information, since WP:BRD is an essay while WP:BURDEN is a policy. I must emphasize that in this case you are right, as the shorter version is also the status quo, but I feel the need to point this out every time someone says something that, on its face, implies that an unsourced claim needs to stay in, as long as someone wants it in, until there is talk page consensus to remove it, solely because it survived unsourced in the article for a certain amount of time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The existing version that has stood for a time is assumed to have WP:consensus. I shouldn't have to explain this, and I'm trying to figure out why you keep commenting on discussions you aren't involved with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: No. Lots of articles have almost no community oversight and the "status quo" was the work of one editor who is ignorant of our content policies. As I said above, this is a general point, and does not appear to apply to Battle of France article. As for your last comment: Umm... why would you wonder about that? ANI is filled with non-admins who comment on a larger number of threads they are not involved with than I do. Many of them aren't even helpful or observant, and look like deliberate trolling. Indeed, in the past you have closed threads I was involved in apparently based on the opinions of such users. At least, unlike several others I could name, I look at the evidence and try to deliver an honest opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But that's a general explanation of why I feel free to comment on threads in which I am not involved. As for my specific motivations for getting especially involved in the past 2-3 weeks, it's a little complicated. I figured if I helped resolve a number of threads that appeared later than mine, someone would take notice and help me out with the Korean grammar-fascist who's been trolling me. This plan didn't wind up working out for me (the hread got archived a few days ago). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I defer to your greater experience but so far it has only multiplied the number of people taking sides. I noted on the BofF talk page that I was going to wait for 24 hours and will think over your suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in taking sides, and given what DB said above, I'm not really inclined to comment on this thread any further. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing with Dennis Brown, my version is a revised one with suggestions made by editors in the past (ie what points should be kept as important), and my version is also an improved version of what has stood FOR YEARS in the past. Keith keeps undoing for no apparent reason, and although I want his feedback, I obtain none. So, please stop wasting my time with this Keith, thanks... (I'll also note that there is no reason for you to undo my stuff, since result sections in multiple other GAs use pointers)

So to summarise, please stop creating conflict out of nothing, especially when you provide no reason for undoing my peer approved edits. KevinNinja (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See what I mean Dennis? KevinNinja ignored your suggestion to read WP:BRD and replied with broken record. Keith-264 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

See my edit on BOF/Talk: "You're just waiting here to create some sort of conflict, aren't you? The issue was never about the pointers, it was about the inclusion of 'decisive' in the result section. And now that you've lost that argument on consensus (and common sense), I suppose you're trying to create an issue out of something that was never an issue in the past, probably in order to assert some sort of weird edit dominance you feel you have."

Keith is just trying to do something that will win over some sort of edit superiority over the article so he can assert his biased and irrational views. Keith, how about instead of undoing all my edits without replying to the thread for reason (and going directly here to complain to the admins), you actually provide reason for why what stood for years in the past and what stands in hundreds of other GA's cannot be used in this article. Maybe you're the one to read WP:BRD, since you keep undoing my stuff without reason. Because, as I remember correctly, you were the one accused of edit warring by the admins last time, not me. And you're doing it again. KevinNinja (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• From reviewing the talk page it seems to me that Keith-264 is unwilling to accept the talk page consensus. Edits like "The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13 am, 21 September 2016, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)") when all of the other editors seem to have come to agreement shows an inability to drops the stick. The reverts today seem to be a follow on of the consensus to come up with Aftermath bullet points established in the same thread this quote was taken from.

  If this behavior continues I would suggest a BOOMERANG and a break of three months from Battle of France for Keith-264. Jbh^Talk 17:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If you read back a little further, you will invalidate your conclusion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is a specific thread or part of a thread which shows differently, which the later threads do not invalidate, please link to it and I will reconsider. Jbh^Talk 17:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You could look here [35] or [36] (as an example of WP:uncivil that I'm trying to avoid). The facts are that the RS and the infobox criteria are indisputable. The Battle of France was a German victory partly because it was but mostly because most of the RS consulted put it like that. Plenty of editors agree but you'll have to look back to at least Archive four to see it. My and Kevin's historical opinions are irrelevant as I frequently point out. I want the RS view in the infobox according to the Template:Infobox military conflict criterion for result. Quite why anyone made a fuss in the first place I don't know but it has obscured the issue and the editors who are in consensus about German victory and no bullet points. Keith-264 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing there which changes my opinion. Right now consensus is against you. I suggest that you either drop it or start an RfC. The best option, in my opinion, would be drop it - if there are enough people who agree with you the change will be implemented anyway. If you think dropping it guarentees a "wrong version" that is a very strong indicator consensus is against you. Jbh^Talk 20:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Doing a little sampling, KevinNinja's version of [37] does seem to be common if you go back in time, which would indicate the burden is on Keith-264. I would remind Keith-264 that WP:4RR refers to *any* reverts, not just the same revert, and you are at 3RR as I write this. None of this required an admin, just looking at public diffs. As a fellow editor, I would read policy as saying leave the three lines in (which is the current state) and have a discussion or RFC. Even if a consensus decides to leave it out next week, nothing is damaged by it being there for now, as it does have support simply by having been there a while. Now, please move the discussion to the talk page, we are really done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble but the talk page and RFC will be futile; either the Template:Infobox military conflict: Result matters or it doesn't. I suggest you go back a little further in your sampling. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dennis Brown here (if not his opinions near the top of the thread regarding the general applicability of BRD and "implied consensus", and the precedence of BRD over BURDEN), and have gone ahead and opened the RFC. I am neutral on the result, and will probably refrain from further comment on the page. Cheers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

[38] Request a ruling on the propriety of this edit. Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Ruling"? I'm not a judge, I can just give opinions or take action on policy violations and I have no idea what the problem is. If it is just because he said "for fuck's sake", I would say you are being overly sensitive. I've said worse, we all have when frustrated from time to time. Under no circumstances is that a violation of WP:NPA and I don't see it as particularly uncivil. It is just peppered exasperation. We don't censor here, after all. The content seemed to be his opinion regarding your edits and the problem they are causing. And they may be correct in stating you are working towards a topic ban. Was it something else I missed? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a figure of speech "for fuck's sake". I told you an RFC was futile now you're proving my point as well. Please stick to the point, which is that the latest outburst of abuse is the latest in a series, enough is enough. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Keith, you really don't get it. I feel for you, but you really don't understand. Someone saying "for fuck's sake" might not be optimum, but it isn't an attack, it isn't abuse. Sometimes people say words like that here. I think many would find that less offensive than your badgering at the RFC. Even when proof is put in your face, you argue against it, such as the long standing consensus at the article. You really are on the way to a topic ban or block, make no mistake about it, because people are tired of arguing with you when you won't listen to their perspective and simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your opinion. (ie: WP:IDHT) Maybe Wikipedia isn't for you, I don't know, but at the rate you are going, that choice will likely be taken from you before too long. As for the RFC, just glancing over the comments, it seems to be moving along just fine. Whether you think it is a waste of time or not, that is completely meaningless. This is how we do it here, so it is best to get used to it if you want to stick around. I'm a bit weary of this thread and you dragging up new offenses that aren't offenses, so I suggest you ponder the advice given here and just let others give their opinions in the RFC, and stay out of it, as you've already given your opinion more than once there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

In view of you insulting my intelligence, threats, personal abuse, intimidation, failure to WP:AGF and flagrant bias I decline to engage further with you. Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of how summarizing a whole article into a single word, for the sake of filling an infobox' parameter results into an intractable edit war. (1) The Westfeldzug (10 May - 25 June 1940) was decisive for the French Third Republic (who disappeared) ; (2) The same Westfeldzug was not sufficient to decide the issue of WWII, because the issue of a World War is decided at the World scale. Both of these assertions are clear, and unchallenged. Why not trying "result=decisive, but not sufficiently"... or simply avoiding this parameter ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not try not opening another front in the interminable discussion about the BoF infobox here. This is properly a discussion about which Kevin/Keith is doing more to try our patience, not whether the German's victory was decisive or merely a victory (or, according to one Keith, something that is so very far from a victory that it needs to be explained in the aftermath section.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Pldx1: leave me the hell alone already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Tagishsimon. I will not deny that "which Kevin/Keith is doing more to try our patience" is an interesting question. But, in my opinion, a better question would be: "what can be done to contain this kind of mole-hill battle" ? Here Westfeldzug was not one battle, but a whole campaign, i.e. something between a simple battle and the whole World War. In the infobox, "result" is supposed to be a shortcut for "result_of_the_campaign". On the contrary, in 2016, "decisive" is not read as "in 1940, Gamelin has taken a gamelle (=a French bowl)", but as "this decided, at least in part, the issue of WWII". For the bulleted list, one can argue that "allowed the Ostfeldzug" was one of the main results of the Westfeldzug. And so on. Since there cannot exist a single word that summarizes the whole situation, the best fix is to remind all the contributors of this simple fact. Thus, "result=German victory" with the footnote: "for more details, read the article" appears to be the best way to avoid a further re-ignition. Solutions are supposed to be preventive, aren't they ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

False accusation of 'death threat' by User:Signedzzz

First of all, please read the discussions of User:Signedzzz and User:RioHondo about the obvious possible WP:CoI and WP:BIAS. Just recently, I have been accused by User:Signedzzz of the so-called 'death threat' on my post on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Need of tags. This kind of behavior is very unconstructive, because I have followed all instructions from him regarding the use of tags. I have also viewed his revisions and how he delete some sourced contributions and replacing it with the negative ones, that may have violated WP:NPOV and WP:COI.

User:Signedzzz: Huh? Excuse me 'po', but I'm only 15 years old, contributing for WP:NPOV maintenance of Wikipedia, and I think you're an adult already, and you're accusing me "death threat". Seriously, are there no any excuses to remove those tags aside from accussing me of 'death threat'. So childish on your part. Nakakabastos. So scary, because my conscience can't endure that. Okay, back to "false accusations" (read first the WP:BULLYING, WP:NPA):

• First time that I have put those tags on Rodrigo Duterte article, because of your discussions with User:RioHondo on several disputes of content, with mentions of WP:CoI.
• Then, you removed it with a summary of "tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk".
• I've added those tags again and left you message in talk page to tag specific sections, but you have removed those tags, with a summary of 'death threat is no explanation', and removed also the talk page 'need of tags' section, with a summary of 'remove death threat'.

"PS: Just remember that all of our actions here in Wiki is recorded in page history and may be seen by anyone, members of the Wiki or not."

— User:PogingJuan, Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Need of tags

So now, guys, is the quote above a "death threat"? No, It's just a friendly reminder. Like User:Hariboneagle927 said, "it is a reminder for users to be accountable for their edits", because we can be blocked by admins if they found out that our contributions have conflict of interest. It is true that all contributions here in Wikipedia may be seen by both Wiki and non-Wiki members as they can also edit or create an article. Also, I based the quote on the following quote by User:RioHondo:

"Your (User:Signedzzz) September 14 mass deletion of sourced contributions and replacement with biased entries, it's all recorded in the page history."

— User:RioHondo, Talk:Rodrigo Duterte#Death squads

Wait, for Signedzzz to have interpreted it 'to include Davao Death Squad', which is one of the topics of the discussion, is a foul. I have no any affiliation and will never have on those extrajudicial killers. have now explained my side. Now, this bullying made by User:Signedzzz is truly unjustifiable on the rules of Wikipedia. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The user in fact has a problematic behavior and is intent on turning the Rodrigo Duterte article into a WP:COATRACK. He has been engaging in edit wars with anyone who he sees are trying to add or defend "pro-Rodrigo Duterte" edits, in the article on Rodrigo Duterte. It is evident in the tone of several sections, particularly on Crime Rate, Extrajudicial killings, Economic performance, and even the section on his Personal life (really? A viagra comment to introduce his personal life?)

I first called him out after his attempts to delete whole sections of sourced positive content September 14 1,2,3,4. Since then he has been adding his POV sources, most recent of which is his edits on media killings by inserting out-of-nowhere claims saying the country is a dangerous place for journalists where hundreds have been killed since 1970s side-by-side with Duterte comments about media killings as if the media killings of the past are also attributable to him.5.

He also turned our section dispute (of where certain sections must be placed in the article) 9 into an accusation of removing them entirely. 6. In another disruptive edit, he left a note saying "Revert pro-Duterte changes" 7. Really? Anything thats favorable to the person in the BLP is not welcome in his own BLP? But he continues adding his anti-Duterte sources and no one removes them. About his accusation of death threat against the complainant, he was called out in the article's talk page by another user for making that accusation and was told not to delete the post as it was rude, but that ended in another edit war apparently.

The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles.--RioHondo (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a laugh, albeit unintentionally. I was intending to ignore this, but I would just like to point out that I wrote little or none of the article sections linked above. If some admin could block the OP, or failing that explain to them the basics of when, why and how to tag articles, that would be helpful. Cheers zzz (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Also I am out of reverts so could someone remove the offending talk page section right now please, thank you. zzz (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess no editors have heard of the dog-whistle concept (all the rage now in the Philippines, personified by the subject of the article ...) I was discussing this earlier and I was told "Yes it obviously is, and the fucking [geniuses] at Wikipedia won't be able to understand", so I'm not altogether shocked. It's identical to a death threat, it conveys no (other?) useful or valid information, but "you can't prove it" :( zzz (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Signedzzz, you're really going to have to explain how this was a death threat. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is identical to one, but one cannot prove it is one, as I just stated. I don't have any clue what you want explaining, since you didn't say. I really don't see how it helps to continue discussing it. zzz (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is identical to one? You better either retract the accusation or explain in detail real quick - I'm close to blocking you for being incompetent. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I had a full walk-through all typed up, since I want it removed, and it got lost in an edit conflict with Hijiri's simultaneous detailed explanation. Let me know if you are still having difficulty. zzz (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense now, thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

To the OP, please learn how to link to diffs and sections. It's very hard to follow your evidence when you don't know how to do this. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Links were prepared, User:Someguy1221 ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• (Non-administrator comment) The OP is too long, but I did make a sincere attempt to read it anyway. None of it makes much sense, and the English is terrible. I've only once before encountered a user who randomly started writing in another language when their point didn't seem to be coming across in English. I can't see any evidence of a bad-faith death threat accusation (or any death threat accusation for that matter). I "Ctrl+F" the words "death threat" (which the OP placed in quotation marks) on the linked talk page, and they do not appear there now. If they have been removed, then a diff should have been provided. Both PopingJuan and RioHondo may be showing signs of WP:CIR issues. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The death threat accusation is in an edit summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the words were used in an edit summary. I do think the wording PopingJuan used is problematic, and it is not difficult, in-context, to read it the way Signedzzz did, as clarified in their following edit summary. I think the way we should deal with these kind of "borderline death threats" should be similar to how we deal with borderline legal threats. clear statement by the user who posted the offending material tht they did not mean this as a threat should be issued, and if such a statement is forthcoming neither user should be blocked. Since it does not appear any statement was made before this ANI thread was opened, Signedzzz should not be sanctioned for attempting to remove what they, in good faith, interpreted as a threat, but since the opening of this ANI thread counts as a de facto statement that no threat was intended, Signedzzz should refrain from further mass deletions. The specific text about people off-wiki seeing the material about death squads should be removed, however, as it is very likely to be interpreted as a threat and the de facto retraction took place on ANI rather than immediately below. If any more edit-warring to reinsert the offending material takes place after this is done, those who reinserted the material should be blocked; if Signedzzz again removes text that does not look like a death threat, he should be block (although reverting any further attempt to reinsert the implied threat is acceptable). I would also caution PopingJuan to be very careful about their wording in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The death threat accusation is just the most recent of his WP:BADFAITH behavior. As with most of the user's dealings with other users in the page, it started from an edit war on appropriately tagged concerns. 1,2,3. Apparently, the user does not see any issue with his edits despite the multiple concerns i brought up on the talk page. It's this pattern of disruptive editing, edit warring and treating the articles mentioned as a battleground that indicate the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. One only has to look at their page histories to see his WP:POINTY edits and how he's basically WP:OWNed them. I just stopped editing in those articles to avoid getting into trouble with someone who does not intend to collaborate and who has a declared conflict of interest. And I commented here only because I was tagged in the discussion. Thank you.--RioHondo (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: It's not entirely clear what you mean by "conflict of interest" -- this is commonly used to describe users with a personal connction to the subject, who usually want to add positive and remove negative information, but Signedzzz appears to be doing the opposite. Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte? Because that's not a conflict of interest; it's an opinion. This edit definitely looks like coatracking a bunch of material from sources that don't appear to mention Duterte, but if you want to start an ANI thread about that do so -- don't hijack one that is already a poorly-formatted apology for what looked very much like a threat of off-wiki violence. Claiming that Signedzzz has assumed WP:BADFAITH is disruptive, since plenty of users would assume the same thing on reading the comment in question. It looked very much like a threat. If you have legitimate grievances, please summarize them, with diffs, in a userspace draft and then post it when it is ready. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RioHondo have explained about it on the above,

"The problematic editor is also engaged in the same problematic editing in Philippine Drug War, too many that people, including myself, just got tired of fixing them. And then there's the article on Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016 [originally titled "I am sorry for my country") that he wants deleted, saying it's an advocacy article that is biased for the Philippine President's war on drugs. I know why he is doing all of this. In the article on Leila de Lima who is President Duterte's fiercest political opponent and critic, i reverted his deletion of sourced entries that he said were biased against de Lima, including her involvement in controversies and a scandal. In the article's talk page, he denied he had WP:COI with Leila de Lima but that he works in the same office as her. That to me is a clear conflict of interest and it explains why he has been behaving the way he does on these articles."

— User:RioHondo, this very noticeboard section

~Manila's PogingJuan 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

For more information on the subjects tagged, Senator Leila de Lima is the staunchest critic of President Rodrigo Duterte and his administration, especially the declared 'war on drugs'.. 1 2

User:Hijiri88: I've removed Tagalog words and eng translations of it (originally italicized) are the replacements. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@PopingJuan: Yes, I read those already. Posting them again does not answer my question about COI, nor does it explain what that has to do with the death threat issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 Hijack the thread? Where did that come from? I'm pretty sure my comments were directed at the WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:BIAS issues that were brought up by the complainant above against the user. And because i was tagged in this discussion, i just had to explain that. As i said, the user admitted his connection to Leila de Lima, an anti-Duterte politician which explains his anti-Duterte edits and hostile behavior in all the articles i mentioned above. It's this pattern of behavior (edit warring, reverting "pro-Duterte edits", malicious accusation) that has lead to this conflict as far as those articles are concerned. The fact that he continued with this problematic editing for a month in those articles with little resistance means every ounce of WP:AGF was extended to him. But AGF can only go so far. That is why i am not surprised with this death threat accusation coming from the user. And again, I am only explaining the dispute with regards to those WP policies that were brought up. I am not "hijacking" this discussion or whatever you'd like to think.--RioHondo (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The actual subject of this thread is the borderline death threat on the talk page. It's clear-cut and already resolved. If you want to accuse Signedzzz of tendentious editing, you should start your own thread. No one is still reading at this point, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYERING. Only you and your friend see it as a 'death threat'. Everyone else sees it as a pattern of bad behavior from someone who does not want his edits to be questioned or challenged, despite the obvious violations of WP policies. And edit warring to achieve this end.--RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Signedzzz and I are not friends. We have interacted once before, and while we were kinda-sorta technically on the same side in that dispute, the same was true of virtually everyone involved. Also, please read my comments more carefully. I never said I thought it was a death threat. While acknowledging PopingJuan's statement that it was not meant as a death threat, I said I thought it looked like a death threat. You and PopingJuan, both of whom appear to be non-native speakers, seem to be the only ones who don't think it looked like a death threat. The portion of text that looked like a threat has been removed -- why are we still here? Seriously, if you have evidence of tendentious editing on the part of Signedzzz, I would be happy to look through it, but so far you have given me nothing (the diff of him coatracking the article was something I had to go and dig up myself); and even if you present evidence in this thread at this point, chances are I will be the only one to read it, and I'm not an admin. You should draft your evidence off-wiki or in your user space, and open a new ANI thread when it is ready. This thread has already gone way past WP:TLDR with bullshit about whether PopingJuan meant his comment as a death threat or it merely looked like one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88 A classic example of WP:POV RAILROAD. If the user really saw it as a serious death threat, he would have been first to report it here or to emergency@wikipedia.org per WP:CIVILITY and WP:BULLY. But the user made the accusation in the middle of an edit war with the OP and only thru an edit summary, nothing more. If you think only the OP and I think it is not a death threat, check the Talk page history.--RioHondo (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You should check the page history yourself. User:Hariboneagle927 basically agreed[39] with me about the sentence at the end about people off-wiki seeing the commentary being open to interpretation. The only difference is the degree to which we thought it inappropriate -- Hariboneagle interpreted it as PopingJuan apparently intended, while I interpreted it the same way as Signedzzz. Signedzzz's removing the whole thing again[40] was, in my opinion, inappropriate, but he has already essentially agreed to refrain from doing so again (I think he thanked me for one of my posts where I said he should), and I have said that he should be blocked if he does so. PopingJuan's jumping in and reverting Hariboneagle[41] without any explanation was definitely out of line, and his lack of contriteness here indicates to me that he is likely to do it again. Your own choosing to read so much (Signedzzz being insincere) into Signedzzz's not going to the trouble to research normal practice with regard to perceived threats is ... actually pretty disgusting. You should drop that train of thought immediately. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

However you try to justify the user's behavior, it was still done in the middle of an edit war and using that same talk page accusation just to revert the OP's edits--"death threat is no explanation"01 02 03. That accusation itself falls under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars, especially when the user is trying to misrepresent actual edits just to discredit the other editor. He's done that in the past as I have explained in my initial comment.--RioHondo (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, an edit war took place. Yes, accusations were made. Yes, both sides made those accusations. The most recent inappropriate revert was by PogingJuan. Signedzzz has said he will stop reverting. PogingJuan has not, and neither have you. You are now the one trying to claim that Signedzzz was in breach of this or that policy or guideline, and therefore you and PogingJuan must be in the right. It is perfectly obvious that Signedzzz was acting in good faith when he read PogingJuan's edit as a threat. You can say what you want about how he should have emailed emergency services rather than removing the offending text, but that's beside the point. I should clarify that I have not read your initial comment: it was 442 words long and I could tell from the first few words that it had nothing to do with whether or not there was a death threat issued. If you want to sum up your problems with Signedzzz, I suggest you be more concise next time. ANI, like almost everything on Wikipedia, is voluntary: if you are too verbose, no one will read what you write. I went out of my way to read the mess PogingJuan posted at the top of this thread so I could respond, and I didn't feel like expending more effort on the unrelated mess you posted.

And there is also the problem of what on earth you are trying to accomplish here. Do you want an admin to block Signedzzz but not PogingJuan or Hariboneagle for the already-concluded edit war? Blocks are preventative -- if two parties in a three-way edit war (Hariboneagle and Signedzzz) have already agreed to a compromise, then the only preventative block would be one of the third party (PogingJuan). Blocking Signedzzz because you think he was wrong to make the initial revert is not preventative, because he has already agreed that this was wrong and only removing the text that looked like a threat was the way to go.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I am questioning the user's intentions given this string of disruptive and tendentious edits and this pattern of repeated ill behavior which i laid down here with diffs. It has been going on for a while (all these false accusations to discredit editors and to keep them from challenging his POV edits) so I thank the OP for bringing this up here. It has to stop and the article on Rodrigo Duterte must be reviewed by disinterested editors to address the BLP violations (COATRACK, UNDUE, NPOV, COI) entered by the problematic user.--RioHondo (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"the article must be reviewed to address BLP violations" is not an issue for ANI. I have posted on BLPN for. You don't need to thank me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to at least say Arrigato. :) But WP:AAEW and WP:NOTHERE, particularly disruptive behavior pattern and battleground, still fall under this ANI thread I think.--RioHondo (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said on BLPN, no one is reading this, but you're welcome. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: First, the one who accused me of 'death threat' is Signedzzz. He removed the section I've placed and wrote on the summary as 'remove death threat'. You may want to visit this one. By the way, I saw your contributions on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte, also stating of the summary that "removed pointless borderline death threat threats". I'm not going to revert it back as I'm tired. I've explained on the OP that this one is not a death threat, and just a friendly reminder that we may be blocked by admins if they found out that our contribs has a conflict of interest or it's written in a non-neutral PoV. Now, about CoI. You said in a question, "Is the conflict of interest that he doesn't like Duterte?" He doesn't like Duterte and like the critic De Lima? Well, I don't care, it's his/her business. But if it's affecting on how he write articles about the said subjects, and when he starts writing within a PoV, deleting other sourced contributions and replacing it with anti-Duterte contribution that's pretty much wrong as it is violating rules. And he has been deleting the tag of Template:POV, asking me what's the basis, and now I've answered and I just reminded, then now I am being accused of 'death threat'ing a Wikipedian. That's it after all. I hope you understand my sentiments of writing with neutral point of view, with User:RioHondo. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You did post a death threat on the talk page. Whether you meant it as a death threat is irrelevant, because that is how it was interpreted, and this interpretation had merit. The portion of your comment that constituted the threat has been removed now. You should be more careful going forward. Can we close this thread now? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Move to close PopingJuan posted what looked like a death threat, and Signedzzz attempted to remove it several times. PopingJuan has clarified that they did not mean it as a threat. The offending text has been removed. There seems to be an ongoing (good-faith) content dispute, but that is not something ANI can or should resolve, at least until evidence is provided that it is anything more than a content dispute. Both RioHondo and PopingJuan have insisted that this is more than a content dispute, but have not provided any evidence. They have been advised to regroup, organize what evidence they have, and open a new thread later, if they so choose. The "death threat" issue discussed at length in the top half of this thread has been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I and Riohondo have given you links on Signedzzz's edit, showing the most possible non-neutral POV. why should we close this ANI, if there were issues like the most possible POV-edits of Signedzzz? Do you really think, it's only the WP:BULLYING that I am continuing this fight for, despite of busy schedules outside Wiki? No, this started once and for all, because of POV edits of Signedzzz, proved by me and RioHondo using links we have posted on ANI. I think we need other contributors' opinion regarding the issue. ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:: Another thing, if that the alleged 'death threat' was his problem, Signedzzz should have rather deleted it than deleting the whole section, including on why the article should be tagged, especially of POV tags. This time, you really have to answer this, @Signedzzz:. ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Or else, I have to tag Signedzzz as incompetent as since the time this ANI has started, I haven't see any explanations of Signedzzz about his non-NPOV edits on Duterte and related topics. And wait, what is his rationale on, my humble opinion, this non-sense reply of him: "If some admin could block the OP,"? ~Manila's PogingJuan 12:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Give it a fucking break already. Signedzzz was wrong to remove your whole post rather than just the bit that looked like a threat. You were wrong to reinsert the bit that looked like a threat. Signedzzz has said he will no longer attempt to remove your whole post now that the bit that looked like a threat is gone. Why the hell are we still here, apart from your stubbornly wanting to continue discussing a content dispute on ANI? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

While I understand the frustration of being accused of making a death threat, (it is the lowest form of 'argument' in an edit war that borders on harassment if you ask me), we can still discuss these issues in a civil and polite way and not have to resort to shouting (bold letters) or saying the f word as User:Signedzzz did above. Having said that, is this 'death threat accusation' really just an isolated incident that stemmed from misunderstanding? Or is it part of a growing pattern of abusive or hostile behavior on the part of the accuser? I have laid down my own observation of the user and i say here: i saw it coming. Remember this started with a simple POV tag to the article. It wasn't like deleting any of the user's numerous questionable contributions to the article.01. The user reverted the OP saying it was unexplained 02. As the user continued editing the article, the OP then restored the tags saying discussions on talk page enough for declaring the article with 'NON-NPOV' and has a 'systematic bias03. Again, none of his edits were being reverted but just the tags which IMO, are reasonable given our disputes in the talk page. The user again rejected it and asked the OP to tag specific sections and state what the "systemic bias" issue is on article talk04 When the OP did and provided a link to the talk page discussion as requested by the user05, the user then out of nowhere accused the OP and reverted him with a casual note: death threat is no explanation06. Was the accusation then a legitimate grievance? or an argument in an edit war meant meant to silence the OP? Even without context, the accusation was still made in the midst of an edit war which puts the accusation in question. And then when you consider the history of the user's behavior in the article, this pattern of disruptive behavior, it tells us it is false and a harassment against the newbie OP, as I myself have experienced with the user.--RioHondo (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Rodrigo Duterte is a seriously badly written tabloid-like (over written trivia, under written hard content) article on a vile individual, a true monster. I can imagine that in that environment/on that topic the merest implied hint of a death threat could have serious inplications, and even something unimplied can be easily misinterpreted as being one. And people actually worry about a few offhand words said by Donald Trump! Compared to Duterte, he is a saint. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your observation. User:Hijiri88 already posted those article concerns on WP:BLPN which I hope will really clean up or straighten out those neutrality and coatracking issues raised. The anti-Duterte user has been editing that article more than any of us here so he knows what he was doing and what he was getting himself into. Despite the controversial nature of the person in the BLP, it hadn't been this hostile an environment and in fact people have been editing the article freely with both pros and cons being accepted in good faith. It all changed when those mass deletions of pro content and replacement with all negative trivia took place. Since then, edit wars became frequent with the user now questioning every pro edit. He continued editing at his will though. Neither the OP nor I deleted any of his edits except the time i reverted his deletions. The article talk page is proof of this long standing neutrality dispute so the user has no reason to edit war on simple tags. Or cry foul and make baseless accusations in doing so. I hope your article on Donald Trump is not as hostile though :).--RioHondo (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Edit warring anew Ok. This is too much. User:Signedzzz has been engaging in edit war again today, after deleting a sourced content calling it WP:SYNTH or WP:OR when that text has been there long and is clearly supported by ref. He has taken ownership of the article, wouldn't even reply to my msg in his talk to explain his Synth and OR claims. 123. I dont care if he hates Rodrigo Duterte, but this hostility towards users trying to put balance and objectivity to the article has got to stop.--RioHondo (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: (1) Your pun on WP:ANEW was delightful, and gave me a good chuckle. Thank you. (2) Your wording is clearly not supported by the source. The Ombudsman's office said they had not been gathering evidencd against Duterte, not that no such evidence existed. The quotation about Not finding evidence (presumably having searched) comes from the Senate justice committee, which is clearly not the same as the Office of the Ombudsman. (3) You say he "wouldn't even reply to [you on] his talk", but his last edit was eight minutes before you posted on his talk page. (4) I highly doubt anyone other than me is reading your continued commentary in this thread. (5) Your behaviour here is bordering on WP:HARASSMENT. You have a content dispute wih Signedzzz, and virtually every thirs pary so far has taken his side in this dispute because he seems to have the better position. You have been tying to get around the proper dispute resolution avenues by painting this as a one-sided user conduct issue and wikilawyer your way into getting some kind of undefined sanction against Sinedzzz. You clearly do not have a leg to stand on. If you continue in this behaviour rather than opening an RFC or DRN discussion on your content dispute, I will request that you be blocked or TBANned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why the above user keep speaking on behalf of Signedzzz, and "interpreting" the user's actions and intentions as if he was his designated spokesperson, but where is the Senate committee on justice in this Rappler source cited? This was a January 2016 Ombudsman decision when Duterte was not yet president. The senate justice committee is an entirely different matter and came much later when he was already president. Btw, can the above user get his friend to do the explaining here instead of providing his alibi all the time? And why is he even more angry than the accused? He claims to have only interacted with the user on one occasion, but he talks like he knows all the issues of the user and even the article where he is not even an active contributor.--RioHondo (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? Ban proposed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am really calling the administrators to put sanctions and block on:

• User:Signedzzz for disruptive behavior and POV in editing Duterte article (with evidences provided by me and RioHondo above), accusing me of death threat as part of his disruptive behavior, removing POV tags even with rationale that there is a discussion on talk page about POV editing of Signedzzz, proposing to block me without even rationale, not almost present in the discussion to discuss his side with even saying that he even intends to join this discussion where he is involved.
• User:Hijiri88 for speaking in behalf of Signedzzz (WP:LAWYERING). He even say that Signedzzz will stop on his disruptive behavior and the removal of POV tags was wrong, without really coming from Signedzzz. He even wants this discussion to be concluded, but sorry, it's not enough. Also, he is altering the discussion. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: PBAN User:RioHondo from the Duterte article and its talk page

I don't know if some of Signedzzz's oher edits have been disruptive, but clearly the basis of this thread is flawed (the death threat accusation was not in bad faith -- it really looked like one) and in the recent "edit-warring" he was trying to keep unsourced material out of the article that RioHondo was insisting on including. RioHondo's above refusal to drop he WP:STICK indicates that he isn't interested in civil discussion of their content dispute, and is engaged in harassment of Signedzzz. Therefore, I think banning RioHondo from the page would be a reasonable solution to the current disruption.

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Do not alter the discussion. It's Signedzzz and you that should be banned and blocked. You said Signedzzz would not be disruptive again. One more thing, speaking for another user is not right, even without presenting evidences that he really said that. Let Signedzzz explain in this ANI. And why I have raised this ANI? It's because I believe that it is a part of his strategies so I would stop tagging the POV tags on Duterte article. And he was in so-called good faith in removing the whole need of tags section because of only one sentence reminder that he said is a death threat? He could remove that sentence only, but he instead removed all, even the POV tags on Duterte article that is needed due to discussions in the talk page. Well, I did raise this ANI in good faith. RioHondo and I have presented evidences of disruptive behavior and POV edits of Signedzzz above with good faith and with accordance of Wikipedia policy. While you have been lawyering Signedzzz and Signedzzz have not presented his rationale on why he should be absolved. We are not even in a judicial court for a need of lawyering. Also, Signedzzz proposing that admins should block me without rationale and I should be taught on how to tag, while I have tagged it correctly. It's not even right. ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Why did you even want to ban RioHondo in Duterte article and talk? Ah I know why, you've been lawyering Signedzzz since discussion was opened. Therefore, so no one can stop Signedzzz on his, sorry for the word, shit POV editing of the article. But I'm sorry, I'm back on the track. I'll still fight for neutral point of view editing and still looking for admin's sanctions on Signedzzz for his accusation of so-called 'death threat' that he said I have placed, just to stop me on putting NPOV tags. I'm still for the improvement of Rodrigo Duterte article and I'm ready to put sourced contribution, even it is a positive or negative one. Stop biased editing here. I really don't care if you like or hate Rodrigo Duterte. On Wikipedia, we must be neutral. And to Hijiri88, stop lawyering Signedzzz like we are in a judicial court. Let him explain. Do not be his same user. ~Manila's PogingJuan 11:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am really calling the administrators to put sanctions and block on:

• User:Signedzzz for disruptive behavior and POV in editing Duterte article (with evidences provided by me and RioHondo above), accusing me of death threat as part of his disruptive behavior, removing POV tags even with rationale that there is a discussion on talk page about POV editing of Signedzzz, proposing to block me without even rationale, not almost present in the discussion to discuss his side with even saying that he even intends to join this discussion where he is involved.
• User:Hijiri88 for speaking in behalf of Signedzzz (WP:LAWYERING). He even say that Signedzzz will stop on his disruptive behavior and the removal of POV tags was wrong, without really coming from Signedzzz. He even wants this discussion to be concluded, but sorry, it's not enough.~Manila's PogingJuan 11:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@PogingJuan: "It's ... you that should be banned and blocked" That's pretty ridiculous. What would blocking me do? Or banning me? What kind of ban? A page ban? I've only edited the page once, an innocuous edit several weeks ago. And what did I do either here or on BLPN that would merit a block? I have been consistently trying to calm the situation and get the three of you to discuss your content dispute in a civil manner. I proposed a reasonable solution to the perceived death threat and edit-warring that Signedzzz accepted and you appear to have tacitly accepted, but you have continued arguing that something should be done to "punish" Signedzzz for having edit-warred and overreacted to your comment even though the problem abated. Signedzzz has indicated he is amenable to dispute resolution, whereas the two of you have just continued making outlandish claims and insisting that the admins indefinitely block Signedzzz (I think?) without any evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: What reasonable solution? The deletion of that sentence reminder? Not bringing it back does not mean I did agree. Do you think it's not hard to be accused of something you didn't really do, while you only did something in good faith and without malice? To remind you, the discussion is not only opened because of the accusation of death threat, but also because of its roots, like POV editing of Signedzzz and his continuous removal of POV. It's a chain reaction, bro! The fact that this discussion is not yet closed, Signedzzz is still continuously being engaged in edit wars and still with Duterte article, as RioHondo have explained with evidences. Isn't it enough for Signedzzz to be blocked indefinitely? He will not stop unless he'll be blocked. And the fact you have been lawyering Signedzzz since discussion opened with Signedzzz himself do not present rationale, instead, say that I must be blocked because of no reason and say I must be taught by admins when to put tags, while I have put it properly and rationally. Let him explain in this ANI. One more thing, why proposing ban to RioHondo, while he have acted properly? He did contribute to the article and Signedzzz is keeping on removing it while the contribution was sourced. On the logic, why proposing ban to RioHondo, while both of them, RioHondo and Signedzzz, are involved? It will be biased if you only want RioHondo be blocked, while Signedzzz you don't want, just for the dispute be stopped, and Signedzzz will continue his disruptive behavior because no one will oppose him even his activities are against Wikipedia policies. ~Manila's PogingJuan 14:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The reasonable solution was that (1) the portion of your post that resembled a death threat be removed (a concession on your part), (2) Signedzzz stops trying to remove the rest of your post (a concession of Signedzzz's part), and (3) both of you stop edit-warring over the post (a mutual concession). It is obvious that the edit-warring on the article has continued, but it takes two to edit-war and (in the most recent instance regarding what the Ombudsman has said) Signedzzz appears to be right with regard the substance and Signedzzz has not tried to wikilawyer his way to a "victory". "because of no reason" is incorrect -- anyone who examines any of your posts in this thread, or on the talk page, can see how the project may be better off without you. I say "may" because I myself think that you are acting in good faith and, if your dispute with Signedzzz were properly mediated, there would be no problem, and this is why I have not proposed that you be blocked. If you continue to make accusations about how I am acting as a "lawyer" for Signedzzz I will reconsider this opinion. I have not been paid, nor have Signedzzz and I entered into any kind of agreement, and I have actually been rather critical of him if you go through everything I have posted in this thread. The only reason it seems like I am taking sides is because, by and large, Signedzzz has politely accepted my criticism and acted in accordance with my advice, while you and RioHondo have been refusing any form of compromise and aggressively attacking me as being in some way partisan. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Constant harassment by User:The_Banner

I made an edit to Sean Connery, delinking his nationality in accordance with WP:OVERLINKING due to Scottish being a major nationality. User:The_Banner reverted me with no explanation, and then proceeded to stalk my edit history and revert eight other edits of mine (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), even though all of them followed the MOS. I informed him that his behavior constituted wikihounding and harassment, to which he responded, "Get over it." He has continued to stalk and harass me on my talk page, and is now trying to accuse me of personally attacking him, even though I never did so. I suspect he is doing this because he is aware of his own uncivil behavior, and is now trying to lie and paint himself as the victim in order to distract from his uncivil conduct. User:The_Banner has twice been blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment", with two different admins noting his "battleground mentality", and one admin noting his "absolute refusal to engage in discussion". It is clear that his behavior has not changed in the slightest. —Wash whites separately (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is true that i came across this overly aggressive user through this edit on Sean Connery. To my opinion that is no overlinking as User:Wash whites separately claims (For easy of use, I will shorten his name to WWS). So I reverted the edit. A short time later he again unlinked [[Scottish people|Scottish]] ([42]) this time with as comment major nationalities are not linked in opening sentence. As it constitutes no nationality nor overlinking, I reverted again. Again, reverted by WWS. So, I started a discussion on Talk:Sean Connery#Overlinking before reverting and pointing to the talkpage here. When pointed on the fact the "Scottish" is not a nationality, he just came up with another link to a guideline. Effectively, there was no discussion.

It is also true that I did look at a few other articles. Most of them did not bother me, but the use op "WP:PEACOCK" to my attention and after checking the edits, I reverted at F. R. Leavis, Lillian Hayman, Sadie Gray and J. J. Cale. In all cases WWS reverted those articles with a summary of reverted unhelpful wikihounding. I took issue about that and complaint on his talkpage. As a replay, he called my criticism harassment. Personal attack followed personal attack, while I tried to stay cool and calm. (see the talkpage)

At no time WWS tried to start a serious discussion but he continued in a very aggressive and bullying matter. I warned him multiple times about his behaviours, but to no avail. In the cases of F. R. Leavis and Lillian Hayman I opened a discussion on the talkpage. (The other two I did let go) And as you can see, it is now WWS who is going to my history to get extra info to hide his own aggressive behaviour. The Banner talk 21:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In a rather short time WWS accused me of wikihounding, harassment, being hilarious ([43]), stalking ([44]), playing innocent ([45]), stalking and harassing ([46]), lying and playing the victim ([47]), more lying ([48]), actively harassing and attacking ([49]), lying ([50]). Only about Margaret Sanger was a tiny bit of a normal discussion, although at that time he acted in a way that showed that he had no clue what he was doing, just policy-waving and accusing of censoring the article ([51]). The section he added is completely irrelevant and highly contentious, By the time of this writing, the info is already removed twice. The Banner talk 09:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You were accused of harassment and lying because you literally were committing harassment and lying. Your wikihounding, harassment, threat-making, and absolute refusal to remain civil are what started all of this, and now, like I said, you are trying to lie and play the victim in order to wiggle your way out of the consequences of your own actions. There was never a point in any of our interactions where you even remotely attempted to engage in a reasonable, civil discussion. Even when I clearly explained MOS policies to you, you ignored them and continued to harass me (as evidenced by your attempt to call legitimate use of the MOS "policy-waving", lol). —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And this is a perfect example of his aggressive and bullying behaviour. The Banner talk 08:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And this is a perfect example of his phony self-victimization and dishonest behavior. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So let me get one thing straight: looking up and reverting some of your edits is wikihouding and stalking but you going through my history is perfectly okay? The Banner talk 22:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Going through eight different edits and reverting them with no explanation, then telling me to "get over it", then continuing to attack me on my talk page, then falsely accusing me of bullying you when I defend myself from your harassment, all constitutes uncivil behavior. So it makes perfect sense for me to check and see if this was a pattern of behavior for you. Me checking your block log is not even remotely equal to you stalking my edits. You looked through my edits in order to harass me; I looked through your logs in order to see if you had a history of harassing people, and you do. —Wash whites separately (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

For a further example I have also seen Wash Whites Separately remove wikilinks for the same reason at Terry Wogan. I think the complainant needs to examine their own edits and the reasons stated for the reversion. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not just Terry Wogan; WWS's last five hundred edits are almost exclusively the same edit (removal of linked nationality). And in no case ever with an edit-summary; I make no judgement as to whether this is an attempt to avoid cursory scrutiny for these edits, but policy is pretty plain on the need to use summaries. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I used to list WP:OVERLINKING in all of those types of edits (which clearly justified the edits on the basis of major nationalities being unlinked) and I still routinely got attacked and harassed for it, so I ultimately stopped bothering with the edit summary. I get attacked for using edit summaries, and I get attacked for not using edit summaries, so what's the point anymore? I explained to Richhoncho multiple times what the policy stated, and he still was bitter enough to find this thread in order to comment against me. I explained the policies to Banner numerous times as well, and he refused to listen. Even if I were to use the edit summaries, some editors simply refuse to listen. —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Explaining? The Banner talk 08:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. I cited a policy that easily answered your question, and you just ignored it. —Wash whites separately (talk) 11:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sheesh, cleaning up overlinking is some of the most thankless work on this website... —Wash whites separately (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

As is cleaning up BLP violations such as this which you have repeatedly inserted into the Jimmy Page article. You will *not* accuse/imply or otherwise intimate living people have committed a crime where they have neither been arrested, charged or even questioned on it. Multiple editors have attempted to keep that material to a neutral description given the sources involved, and your editorialising is a blatant BLP violation. BLP's are under discretionary sanctions, so if you continue to edit in that way, the next stop will be arbitration enforcement where I will request a blanket ban from BLP's. Then you can find something better to do than making suspiciously bot-like edits. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As is dealing with needlessly hostile editors like yourself who make disgusting threats upon the slightest editorial opposition. It's the unstable hotheads like yourself that make this community feel so unwelcome. Funny how you're so passionate about combating intimation, but then you baselessly intimate that my edits are bots. *None* of my edits are bots, thank you very much. —Wash whites separately (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression I made a threat. I said you will not editorialise on BLP's and accuse living people of a crime or you will end up at arbitration enforcement. It was not a 'threat'. It was a description of the consequences of you continuing to violate WP:BLP You will follow the BLP or you will find your editing of biographies restricted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And you seem to be under the impression that I gleefully run around habitually violating WP:BLP, when all I did was mention that he committed statutory rape because the source said he committed statutory rape. I thought it was within boundaries since the source stated it, but I made this thing called a mistake. You're not even using the word "editorialise" correctly because I never included my opinions; I only included what was sourced. Anyway, I made the appropriate corrections, so my editing of biographies will continue. :) —Wash whites separately (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Just as a side-note. A trawl through the archives of a Talk page would have shown a large amount of discussion on this specific issue. It has attracted a large amount of discussion and vandalism of the article, which would explain the revert. Karst (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Without condoning the edit warring by either side, I think that the edits by Wash whites separately that were linked to above were generally helpful and should not have been reverted. Wash whites separately comments that, "I used to list WP:OVERLINKING in all of those types of edits (which clearly justified the edits on the basis of major nationalities being unlinked) and I still routinely got attacked and harassed for it, so I ultimately stopped bothering with the edit summary." I consider that an inappropriate attitude. An informative edit summary and a link to a relevant policy or guideline is always appropriate when making an edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If we're done discussing the (alledged) shortcomings of the OP, can anyone comment on the actual complaint? Kleuske (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I think the complaint is reasonable, and that it would be appropriate to politely suggest to The Banner that he leave Wash whites separately alone, and to warn both users against edit warring too, of course. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not accuse him of wikihounding, stalking, harassing etc. what he did to me. But I do take issue to his aggressive attitude towards me. The Banner talk 00:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND, anyone? Kleuske (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You can find the attacks and accusations here: User talk:Wash whites separately. I am unwilling to go down the same line as the OP. The Banner talk 00:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You're unwilling to make accusations against me, but you are willing to do all of the things I accused you of doing. —Wash whites separately (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a classic deception tactic. The Banner goes out of his way to harass me, and when I defend myself from his harassment, he accuses me of having an "aggressive attitude". Thus, he can be the aggressor and paint himself as the victim at the same time. Given his two prior blocks for harassment and battleground mentality, it's not unreasonable to suspect that this tactic is what he has done to other editors in the past as well. —Wash whites separately (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What is to be done here? I do not think at this stage there is any point in calling for sanctions against a specific editor. Rather, both editors should be advised to avoid edit warring and to stay out of each other's way as much as possible. If that suggestion does not help resolve matters, then further action may be required, but at this stage there is nothing else that can be done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no edit warring involved, because I started a discussion in a number of cases (and left the rest flow). And I have nobody accused of wikihouding, lying, playing the victim, harassing and so on. But I do accuse WWS of bullying and an overly aggressive attitude to avoid scrutiny of his edits. The Banner talk 16:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the initial exchange, I humbly submit it was you, doing the bullying. If conversations are started that way, all hopes of a fruitful collaboration go down the drain. Kleuske (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Read it properly, and you can see that by that time I was already accused of wikihounding and harassing. The Banner talk 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

And instead of addressing the reason for your reverts, to reach some consensus, you chose to advice WWS he does not take criticism well. Criticism, at least the constructive kind, entails some elements of "here's what you did wrong, and this is what it should be, because reasons". These all seem absent. Instead you escalated the situation, using some platitude that would annoy anyone, almost guaranteed to offend. Kleuske (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

THANK you! —Wash whites separately (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Kleuske, by that time I was already accused of wikihounding here, here, here and here. But see also my attempts to discuss the edits on Talk:F. R. Leavis#Peacock?? and Talk:Lillian Hayman#Peacock??. As you see, I started discussions on two articles. From the rest I disengaged after a WWS-revert. Not exactly escalating the situation... The Banner talk 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You revert multiple edits with no explanation (and no "unhelpful" is not an explanation), each of which results in an alert for the user you just reverted. Any such alert results in a WTF?!-moment for any good faith editor, "what the *** did I do wrong?". If it's one revert, and there's an explanation, it's not that bad. Live and learn. If there are several reverts, all from the same editor, one may begin to suspect something. If there's eight reverts, all from the same editor, for no apparent reason, one may be forgiven for thinking it's harassment. Kleuske (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So you think that 8 reverts is a perfect excuse to throw all civility overboard and go into attack mode? Poor Wikipedia... The Banner talk 07:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Banner, I'm afraid I must agree with Kleuske here: "get over it" is a phrase that can never be expected to produce a constructive result; it's entire purpose as an idiom in the English language is to demonstrate one's disdain for the complaint of another. Perhaps it has a place in personal life, but it is per se inappropriate for a collaborative project based on civil discussion. This is true no matter how hyperbolic you find another's complaints, because (again) it serves no purpose other than to allow you to vent and show your low regard for the other person. Nobody ever "got over it" by being told to "get over it". There are always better ways to express disagreement.

Likewise, I have a hard time understanding how you would fail to realize the potential for disruption in going through the edit history of another editor you had a content disagreement with and reverting eight unrelated edits, especially when accompanied by the common edit summary of "revert unhelpful edit", which in no way addresses the disparate policy issues of these varied changes. That certainly gives every impression that you are personalizing matters--and yes, it arguably qualifies as WP:HOUNDING, even if you had been correct about each and every edit being flawed (and I don't think you were). Even if it was not your intent to harass, there was enough going on here that a reasonable editor, being on the receiving end of those actions, could understandably perceive them as goading, provocative behaviour. Even had there been a more universal theme to the edits you reverted, in terms of a single unifying article subject matter or a highly specific edit type, the appropriate thing to do would be to broach the issue with the editor, and, if that failed, take the matter to an appropriate community forum. Stalking another user across numerous namespaces, reverting random edits as you go, is never going to have productive result, but can be counted upon to incense the other user and set you both on a course for complaints that are going to consume community time and effort---and you are experienced enough that you must know that. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Except for the 8 revert-articles and Margaret Sanger I had no run ins with WWS nor did I follow him around in other namespaces. I did not even go through his history, as he did with mine. And the irritated "get over it" was only after being accused of wikihounding and harassing. A content disagreement should not be shot down with an accusation of wikihounding. A protest against an accusation of wikihouding should not be met woth an accusation of harassment, shutting down every attempt to come on speaking terms. At that time, I would have accepted an apology for the accusation wikihounding, closing down the case. But much to my dislike, it was only escalated. The Banner talk 08:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, let me be clear--I think you both missed the train on this one. Looking at the timing of the edits, it seems that you began your chain of reverts on those eight articles before he re-reverted you on Sean Connery; so it's not like he would have had cause to see retaliation as a motive for your edits. On the other hand, you did follow him to eight separate and unrelated articles to revert his work with absolutely zero policy rationale in the edit summaries for any of those reverts, other than a blanket criticism of his contributions as "unhelpful". That's a behaviour that is fairly described as disruptive even if we assume full good faith in your motives. There are few editors indeed who wouldn't feel like they were being forced into a confrontational situation by that. So even by the point that he referenced your behaviour as hounding in his own re-reverts, you were still at least as responsible for the developing ill will as he.

You then went to his talk page. At this point, you could have opted for explaining that there was nothing personal in your edits and provided your policy rationale for them (since, again, you had failed to do so at all for ANY of the reverts you made to on the eight separate articles you followed him to). Instead, you chose to essentially tell him that he "just doesn't know how to take criticism"; so at this point you're once again far behind in the civility and best practice departments. When he (rather predictably) responded by reiterating that he felt harassed, you told him to "get over it"...

So, I'm not saying that in his place I would have characterized your behaviour as hounding right out of the gate--I don't think I would have. But I'm still having a hard time seeing him as the instigator of this battle of personalities. I think you took far too much umbrage to how he worded his responding edit summaries, given how much you had already contributed to setting this mess in motion. I take it as a given that asking either party to be the first to apologize here is pointless, but what I will do is suggest that the best thing for each of you (and for the project you both are here to improve) would be to admit that neither party's behaviour was exactly ideal, then make your best approximation of a grudging handshake and let yourselves get back to editing. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks from JoetheMoe25

• JoetheMoe25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Racism in Israel (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I don't believe I've ever encountered JoetheMoe25 before yesterday, when he added original research to the lead of Racism in Israel, violating WP:LEAD in the process. I reverted his edit, saying in my edit summary that I was assuming good faith. He undid my reversion with the edit summary "Your name gives away your bias." He also started a discussion at Talk:Racism in Israel, although it addressed neither WP:NOR nor WP:LEAD.

I left a message on JoetheMoe25's talk page, cautioning him against making personal attacks. His reply was to tell me:

"Do not question a judgement I made from observation. Your pathetic Black Power bitching will also get you nowhere fast. I've dealt with editors like you in the past and I am certainly not intimidated by your threats."

He also replied at Talk:Racism in Israel (where I had replied to his message, explaining my concerns about OR and LEAD):

"Malik Shabazz, I suggest you be a man and keep your child-like ranting to yourself. The American Constitution did not guarantee freedom from slavery until 1865 and legislation was passed to abolish the African slave trade in 1808. Not to be prejudice at all, but even your username hints at anti-Israel bias."

"After reading that message you sent to my user page, I now laugh at how much of a hypocrite you are. Apparently, you can't keep cool either. The text clearly states protection based on race, sex and religion. Though I can't prove this claim, maybe protection of religion was the reason why godless Moshe Dayan didn't tear down the Rock of the Dome when he captured it during the Six-Day War. The Black Power movement is lost. Grow up."

I have asked him again to stop, and he keeps digging a deeper hole.

Will somebody please explain to JoetheMoe25 that personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem adept at giving even better (or worse) than you get as shown here: What the fuck are you ranting about, JoetheShmoe? I'm talking about a Wikipedia policy called WP:No original research, which you violated by your addition of material sourced to a primary text. You also violated our WP:LEAD guideline. Would you care to address the substance of my message instead of making personal attacks? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)]] Motsebboh (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That came after three attacks from him. I still asked him to try to reply to my concerns about Wikipedia policy. Nowhere has he addressed them, or even explained why he reverted me in the first place. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Still, it's a good idea when when entering the halls of justice to do so with clean hands. Motsebboh (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sensing WP:COMPETENCE issues here. See the discussion they opened on my talk page. It's very odd. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not being called a liar but JoetheMoe. Possible NPA? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Now reported at WP:AN3#User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ) after making four reverts in little more than two hours.
• The editor has prior warnings on his talk pages for personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Which Talk page, Malik? You probably already know this, but JoetheMoe25 = 75.72.35.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and has edited from this public library: 204.169.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and according to this Sockpuppet investigation, Joe is likely several other colorful characters. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to User talk:JoetheMoe25, where he's got warnings about making personal attacks from March 2011, June 2014, and August 2016. And warnings about edit-warring from March 2011, October 2011, September 2014, November 2014 (blocked for 48 hours), August 2016 (blocked for 1 week), October 2016, and a 3RR violation within the past 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked for a week for the personal attacks. (I note that the "What the fuck are you ranting about..." response was suboptimal, but was under significant provocation). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, I did not think I would see JoetheMoe25, after all these years. Yes, he is most certainly the account created after utilizing the IP address 75.72.35.253 for disruptive, unilateral behavior. Back in 2012, most of his dealings were with the banned user Zhoban, who I'd describe as being his frienemy and the most toxic individual I have come across throughout my last decade on this site. Malik Shabazz's civility has been dubious, but it pales in comparison to JoetheMoe25's conduct. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats at Nova Science Publishers

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

---

See [52]. This is a long term IP edit warrior with an axe to grind, but now we've got legal threats made. They have been warned before too ([53])Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Does not appear to be a legal threat but a person reporting another party is going to initiate legal action. John from Idegon (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I would take that to be a legal threat, of a sort. However, there doesn't seem any point in blocking a very dynamic IP so I've semi-protected the article for 3 months instead (it's been protected for the same reason twice before). Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a legal threat. I note Black Kite's observation regarding the IP being dynamic, and agree that blocking will ultimately serve no purpose and protection was the right action to take. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

multiple stub pages mirror main article

User:Dallyripple has created multiple pages naming individual Virginia Conventions that are merely copy-pastes of sections in the article Virginia Conventions without discussion or consensus, then systematically vandalized related pages by removing links to the main article. They take the form of "Virginia Constitutional Convention of (date)", such as 1829-30, 1850, 1868, 1902, or Virginia Secession Convention of 1861 I have begun reverting some of the vandalism, but he seems prolifically more adept at using wikipedia conventions than I can be. Any assistance would be appreciated, as it seems to me that unless additional research is conducted to justify a separate article, the article sections at Virginia Conventions should not be mirrored in separate stubs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that Dallyripple is acting in good faith, and I don't see any evidence of vandalism. However, I can't see the value of copying the content from one article to create multiple smaller articles and to also add copied content to other existing articles. It certainly makes it hard to follow the chain of attribution for licensing purposes.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. This isn't vandalism, but it's not helpful either, especially as the sub-articles give no new information at all in some cases. I suggest that the new stubs be deleted and a mass rollback of Dailyripple's changes be applied. I would do this myself, but for some reason the mass rollback script does not work for me. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  I will observe here that it would probably be better to do this all by hand anyway. However, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js is working fine if you need a script. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems that all the conventions have been broken apart, see Virginia Convention recently expanded by Dallyripple, a disambiguation page of some seventeen conventions, mostly unassessed, but most are stubs. The writer seems to be locked into the Revolutionary Era of historiography, since the lead says, “Virginia Convention generally refers to one of the five sessions of the Patriot legislature of Virginia, which is anachronistic to the other historical eras of Virginia’s history. The disambiguation page created by “Dallyripple" is also claimed on the user page of Bkwillwm, an early contributor to Virginia Conventions before its expansion.

@Mojo Hand, Black Kite, and The Voidwalker: Isn't the simultaneous posting of two editors for the same edit some sort of sock pupating? The article Virginia Conventions has been internally linked to a disambiguation page, Virginia Convention which lists articles that mirror the main article's subsections broken down into seventeen stubs by Dallyripple, whose contributions are automatically posted to Bkwillwm's user page as his contributions. There was no discussion or consensus to hide the main article Virginia Conventions. How is this change in article righted?

Okay, Dallyripple may be acting in good faith. Whenever the article becomes too lengthy, the Convention subsections could be broken out as separate articles, reverting to the summary list-like article of a couple months ago. The Virginia Convention of 1788 written much earlier and remaining a stand alone article, suggests the possible pathway. The first five, Revolutionary Conventions, could be their own article as they were before my expansion, rather than the recently innovated one-per-convention which results in a series of stubs, if pride of prior authorship becomes governing here -- but the unsourced puffery really had to go. In the meantime, there is no consensus for exploding the Virginia Conventions into seventeen stubs. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of sock puppetry, and I don't think anything else needs to be done via ANI at this point. I do think we need additional discussion regarding the derivative articles, but that conversation belongs elsewhere and hopefully with DallyRipple's input.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated addition of blacklisted website

The website YuppTV.com is on the Wikipedia's black list for spam.

User:Kpintu keeps adding the site to the YuppTV article inspite of requests on his talkpage not to do so.

Diffs: 1 2 3

Request administrator assistance to deal with this case. Thanks. KhaasBanda (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Kpintu - Why are we repeatedly reverting edits to YuppTV and continuing to do so after being asked to stop? Also, I'm not sure of the reason behind the URL being added to the spam blacklist; it looks like an official site homepage of the company to me... (or at least one of them, given the different top level domain)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's being repeatedly added to other places where it doesn't belong then it probably belongs on the spam blacklist. However I'm fairly confused here. If it is on the spam blacklist, then it isn't possible to add it to the YuppTV article unless it's whitelisted there. If it's whitelisted there, which makes sense if it's an article on the site, then it being on the spam blacklist isn't relevant. If there are 2 or more official domain names for the site, I'm assuming there must be some guideline on which one to choose, but in any case it's surely a WP:Content dispute which shouldn't need to come to ANI. I don't see how either domain is more promotional than the other. The number of links to the site in the article should also be kept to those that are needed, but this applies spam blacklist or not. If one of the links isn't an official domain but something else, then this most likely doesn't belong, especially given the possible confusion. If this is the site which is blacklisted, then it probably should be removed fom thie whitelist. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The spamblacklist only blocks explicit links, which these links weren't thus they weren't hold up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean - Jo-Jo Eumerus. (forget that, I see now that "explicit link" means a coded link). It is currently not possible to add yupptv.com into the article as an active (coded) url. So I imagine it needs to be taken off the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, at least for this article. Is there no record of the reasoning why sites are placed on this blacklist? I don't think there can be anything wrong in making YuppTV.com a non-active link until it is removed from the blacklist. If so this ANI is a non-issue, as is the content issue (custom dictates that the .com one will be the main web address). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This user's not trying to add spam links, they're simply changing ".in" to ".com" on the website's article, with an edit summary, explaining that they're making a correction. As the company claims to be an American-based company that has expanded into India, it would seem to be nothing more than a good faith edit that makes sense. The .com variant should probably just be de-blacklisted. Swarm ♠ 23:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

comment: I located the addition in the blacklist log; the site was added to the blacklist in April 2008 due to additions onto multiple other articles (see: See WikiProject Spam report). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• The link is clearly blacklisted, but I'm not actually seeing it on any of the blacklists...anyone know how to remove it? Swarm ♠ 05:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Swarm: \byupptv\.com\b on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is the item that is triggering the blacklist. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah sorry I didn't notice that. Since it seems there's a good reason for the site to be in the article it should be whitelisted, unless it's felt it's not needed to be in the blacklist anymore and it can be removed completely. Either way I agree including it as a nonactive link in the meantime is acceptable, and as said before its presence on the blacklist isn't germane as to whether it belongs in the article. Edit: Seems I was slightly confused. I was under the impression sites could be whitelisted for certain pages, but this isn't possible. You will need to find some specific page to whitelist, perhaps http://www.yupptv.com/about.aspx Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are the two relevant pages for submitting blacklist/whitelist requests:

• Proposed removals from the blacklist can be submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals
• Proposed additions to the whitelist can be submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Iwachiw2001, block evasion, unblock requests

@Someguy1221: blocked Iwachiw2001 (talk · contribs) back in 2013-03-27. Today, within a very short period of time, the following users all requested unblocking due to the autoblock: Alexcia.haikalis (talk · contribs), Marlene12266 (talk · contribs), Mshuaib9 (talk · contribs), Nadiana19 (talk · contribs), Natiliaa (talk · contribs), PhantomTheifAlice (talk · contribs), Richard.Lopez (talk · contribs), Tahseenalam (talk · contribs), Vonp3dia (talk · contribs). I find this deeply suspicious, though I suppose it's not impossible that all of these users are unrelated. I'm not quite sure the best course of action here. Someone with checkuser access could do a quick check, though I imagine the Iwachiw2001 is largely stale at this point. --Yamla (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The original autoblock would have expired long since. I rather don't think it's a coincidence that, when Ponyo worked at cross-purposes with me and lifted the relevant autoblock while I directly blocked Richard.Lopez, Alexcia.haikalis promptly ran into the new autoblock. In general, all those accounts popping up at the same tame and acting in parallel does not seem like random chance to me. I'd advocate directly blocking them all for sockpuppetry. Huon (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Huon:, @Pharos:, @Mozucat:, @Doctorxgc: Now that I, an experienced user and trainer, am unblocked, I can actually comment here. Yay. There was no "random chance" because the accounts were coming from a very active Wikipedia college campus: LaGuardia CC-CUNY. So, it was not random: it is just IS and will happen. All of us here are experienced wikipedians running training sessions (and/or courses) with ambassador support. Many of us are in labs at the same time that run through the same servers. We all have presented at Wikipedia conferences (please feel free to check my User Page for links including a video of a few of us giving talks). None of the trainees or students are actively editing live content. Blocking new accounts from their own sandboxes is an aggressive move that stops training and frustrates new users to no end. Say goodbye to the next generation of Wikipedians. This actions is honestly making them hate it and I have to come up with on the spot work-arounds that in the long run will be more annoying to the admins. Why block sandboxes? That makes no sense. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 21:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And before anyone asks, yes, I can batch enroll. But A) I ask my trainees to get an account before a session, and B) that does not solve the problem of the Autoblock (which is clearly not working properly since this is a new problem). HullIntegrity^\ talk / 21:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Add Amy_0515 (talk · contribs). I'll place the unblock requests on hold. --Yamla (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Add HullIntegrity (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Following Ponyo's comments at User talk:PhantomTheifAlice and the explanation at User talk:HullIntegrity I'm going to undo my blocks and lift the relevant autoblocks (if I can find them). I'd still like to know how they happened to run into an autoblock for Iwachiw2001 if that account wasn't recently active - it's my understanding that autoblocks are meant to expire. If someone else thinks they should be blocked I won't object, but this does look like some class project. Huon (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Weird. I have no objection, but I kind of suspect the person behind Iwachiw2001 is involved. That's not remotely the same as saying these other accounts are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, mind you. It could easily be that Iwachiw2001 is in the same classroom and just causing collateral damage. --Yamla (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

First, the CU data fits with HullIntegrity's explanation, so that bit seems to be settled. As for the autoblock, Iwachiw2001g (talk · contribs) was created last month, so perhaps they tried to log on to their blocked account by mistake, thus triggering the autoblock. Based on the username alone, I'd guess that Iwachiw2001g is evading the block on Iwachiw2001 (talk · contribs). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

To add another spanner in the works, it appears the new Iwachiw2001g account was created for legitimate use in a college course as opposed to created for disruption or purposeful evasion. Given that Iwachiw2001 was blocked after attempting to add himself to New York City mayoral election, 2013 over three years ago, wold it be worth extending WP:ROPE to allow them to proceed with their course? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm, obviously, not the blocking admin. Given the length of time which has passed, I'd be okay with that. It would have been better if the user had requested an unblock on their original account, but a fair amount of time has passed since the problems in 2013. --Yamla (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with giving rope here. If we turn a vandal into an editor, all the better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Given the blatant amount of bad faith displayed by Iwachiw2001 towards other editors, I would advise against an unblock. I do not think that attitude is well-suited for a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello all. User:Iwachiw2001g is my student at LaGuardia, as it should be obvious from the content of his sandbox and the fact that he is enrolled in https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/LaGuardia_Community_College/ENG103_Octavia_Butler's_Bloodchild_and_Other_Stories,_Part_II_(Fall_2016)/students. I have only know him for a few weeks, but he seems a pretty amenable and decent guy, unlike the infamous Iwachiw2001. I would appreciate if Huon would unblock his sandbox, as he has homework due this Friday. Thank you. DrX (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Three out of four admins commenting here endorse an unblock. It seems overly-punitive to me to keep an editor who made some misguided edits over three years ago blocked. I strongly advocate for an unblock of the User:Iwachiw2001g account in order to let them participate in the supervised wikiedu project. The encyclopedia would certainly benefit.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not an admin, but if I may chime in, I believe giving a 2nd chance to someone who appears to be using the site for an academic pursuit. Of course, if they start with their actions all over a block may be again necessary, but in good faith it's worth it to give a 2nd chance. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Based on the consensus here, I've unblocked the "new" account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

On blocking User:Muhd FUad and his other accounts

• Muhd FUad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhd FUad/Archive

I am not sure this is the right place to report but it seems to me that the blocking of User:Muhd FUad and his other accounts was not duly justified as the only reason was using several accounts but there is no evidence of abusing or illegitimate behavior. Andres (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• User creates multiple poorly-sourced (or unsourced) stubs - and sometimes articles with no information at all apart from an infobox! - on various sportspeople of dubious notability. They are asked to stop (or improve the articles to show notability). They completely ignore this and carry on. Eventually, they are blocked. They then use sockpuppets not only to continue their disruption but also, in many cases, to re-create articles that had been deleted. If that's not an issue, I'm not sure what is. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia wants to have all articles sourced from the beginning. But for a newcomer (whose first language probably isn't English) it is difficult to realize at once what is expected from him. As far as I can see no personal message was sent to him, only unpersonal universal messages he needn't understand. And commonsensically it is difficult to understand why using several accounts is bad behaviour.

Wikipedia has a regular deletion procedure for cases of dubious notability. All articles that were noted on User talk:Muhd FUad are still there, they have been turned out to be notable and other uses have edited them.

I came across this via the article Getter Saar. Look at [54]. Yes, it is poorly written and contains unimportant information but it is sourced (though not referenced according to the rules) and it is not obvious it should be deleted. The only reason why it was deleted (even after substantial revisions by other wikipedists) is that the author has (or is thought to have) several accounts. And the only ever reproach (as far as I know) was that notability had not been established by the original author, not even bad writing.

I think we should try to contact newcomers personally and explain them how to improve their contributions. I think blocking and massive deletion is counterproductive in cases like this. Andres (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is very probable that the author didn't understand the messages (maybe even that he had been blocked and his articles had been deleted) and just kept trying again. I am not sure his behaviour wasn't bona fide. But the main thing is that he hasn't done so much harm as it has been done by deleting his articles and blocking him. Sorry if I am wrong. For me these procedures were surprising. If the others think it's normal then let it be. Andres (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand Andres' concerns and I sympathize. However, if an editor does not understand messages posted to his talkpage at all then unfortunately he is unlikely to be able to contribute constructively to the English Wikipedia. It may still be that his contributions were made with good intentions. But, long term, his continuing to edit here would likely be disruptive if he cannot understand messages from other editors. MPS1992 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that I applaud Andres raising this here, because it is only through such requests for review that we can understand when the English language Wikipedia might not be handling such matters as well as it should. The English language Wikipedia needs as many editors as it can get, so if there are problems with how new or problematic editors are handled, then all information and viewpoints are valuable and well worth reading. MPS1992 (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• endorse block - what I am seeing is an editor who made around 2000 edits and used a talk page ... 5 times - see edit count. 4 of those talk edits were to their own talk page, blanking things (see history search); the other edit was blanking another editor's talk page. plenty of people who speak little english are ready to ~try~ to communicate. Muhd FUad is anti-communicative; ignoring and even blanking efforts to communicate, creating socks, and blanking SPIs (diff and diff through one of their socks) which are all signs of someone who doesn't want to be responsive to the editing community, and that is a requirement, not an option, of retaining one's editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I see, it's really hard to defend or justify his behavior.

The reasons cited for blocking didn't specify this. Andres (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia wants get rid of deceptive or otherwise malicious users. (Though it's probable that unfriendly and unpersonal treatment provokes them to exhibit their worst character traits.) But I see no point in mass deletion of articles. I think dubious notability, poor writing or imperfect referencing cannot justify this. If we delete the articles then the appearance of the topics will be delayed indefinitely and we don't use the contribution of a (though deceptive) user. Andres (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• My question is where all the things started. All the above mentioned things are follow ups to one (right or wrong) starting point. And I cannot find the point, where the blocking penalty started and if it was the right measure - especially because due to this were already deleted around 50 (correct) articles, into which also other authors invested a lot of time. And by the way: I also want to keep my discussion percentage close to zero - this here is a very seldom case where I feel it is necessary to communicate. Florentyna (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

people create articles, other people delete them. happens all the time here. there are ways to respond if you object. but you have to engage with other users. you have to talk. this is not social media, but it is a working community and people have to talk each other; that is the foundation of this whole project. not liking deletions so repeatedly recreating them is not an option; recreating them through socks is even less of an option. The only person to blame for Muad's being blocked, is Muad. It is clear as day in what Muad chose to do (and not do) here. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue is mass deletion solely because of authorship. The articles themselves don't deserve mass deletion. Andres (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and other behavior by IP User:64.85.253.62

On the FIFA Club World Cup page he made six reverts in a few hours. He received several warnings on his talk page. He responded by launching this obscene personal attack. CUA 27 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I've given a short block for the personal attack - feel free to contact me if it happens again after the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Any admins around with email enabled for an urgent spot of protection?

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

---

Resolved

 – Marvellous. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A page needs move-protecting urgently. Asking on WP:RFPP or here will be a major case of BEANS. I can't log into my admin account while at work, otherwise I'd do it myself. If you say here that you're ready to check your email I'll give you the details that way. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Drop me a line if you like. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've caught Dank but if that doesn't work I'll buzz you instead. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I got it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Repeated insertion of multiple copyrighted imaged

Lukesahota has repeatedly re-inserted multiple copyrighted images into Tuck Muntarbhorn after being warned of Wikipedia copyright policies.

• Insert [55] copyvio of [56] [57]
• Re-insert copyvio [58] of [] after it was removed.
• Re Insert [59] copyvio of [60] after it was removed.
• There are a couple more inserte/re-inserts in the history of the page but these should make the point.
• And they have done another one [61] copyvio of [62].

They show no indication of stopping and have now tried at least 4 different copyvio images. I think a block is needed here. Jbh^Talk 17:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• All these warnings have come within a day of each other, so I don't want to block him quite yet. I've left a personalized message explaining the issue, perhaps better than a template does. If he does it again, then yes, a block would be in order as now he has been given plenty of notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like he has finally stopped. For a bit there it was like playing whack-a-mole with different copyvio images. Jbh^Talk 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved admin please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion Consulting?

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

---

I think that User:GreenMountainGate is a fairly obvious sock of User:Newtonslaw40 and is attempting to (ham-fistedly) game the system at this AFD. Note the striking similarities between these diffs: List of sources A, List of sources B.

I'd perform the block myself but I've been involved in the discussion at the AFD and want to avoid using the admin tools here as a result.

Danke, A Train^talk 20:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE user

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

---

Not all of the edits made by Geckonian.Rhydlr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) can be strictly described as vandalism, but the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This attempted edit alone is grounds for indef. agtx 20:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Now indeffed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Refrence hatting and reverts

I have started hatting references on long pages when User:The1337gamer started to revert me. I brought the issue to his talk page but he posted a warning to my talk page. I also got a message from User:C.Fred. I reverted them and posted to the village pump but they reverted me again. Marfyman (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm monitoring Marfyman's contributions due to his hatting (more on that in a second); that's how I saw this before/without being notified. Marfyman is using the {{hat}} template to collapse the references, which leaves a message about the discussion being closed. This is inappropriate for a reference section. It was bold the first time he did it, but he's now on his third attempt on several articles. That's starting to turn the corner to intentional disruption, not to mention that WP:3RR is looming around the corner. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Marfyman has made a third revert on Paul LePage (diff) and has been 3RR-warned. —C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That said, would somebody else like to explain WP:BRD to this new user? He doesn't seem to be willing to listen to The1337gamer or me. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, how does an account which has been used for only one hour know about hatting, VPR, and ANI? See also WP:OWB#7. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocking for disruptive editing; this isn't an innocent newbie. I'll let the SPI run for the socking allegation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter which templates are used. Putting the refs inside a collapsible or scrollable box goes against MOS:COLLAPSE. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Very odd, Good block.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Given that sockmaster's long and infamous history, looking for sleeper accounts would be a good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Cape Verde banner

I'm requesting assistance in dealing with the WikiProject banner for WikiProject Cape Verde. A few days ago User:Dthomsen8 edited several pages marked with the banner, assessing them but changing the banner for the WikiProject Africa one. I sent him the following message:

Hi there, Dthomsen8. I noticed you did a bunch of recent edits replacing the {{WikiProject Cape Verde}} with the {{WikiProject Africa}} one. Thanks for the assessment, but please fix them like this, because WikiProject Cape Verde relies on features of its banner that aren't implemented in WikiProject Africa's banner. Thanks, Waldir talk 09:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get a response yet, and I was considering doing the changes myself once I could find the time, but then I noticed that User:Wizardman had just deleted the {{WPCV}} shortcut and the {{Wikiproject Cape Verde}} convenience redirect as G6 (uncontroversial housecleaning). Now, I can can agree with the rationale, even though I would prefer keeping them, but following that action, he went on to replace pretty much all instances of {{WikiProject Cape Verde}} with the WikiProject Africa one, even after I attempted to explain why that's undesirable for the WikiProject. Meanwhile, he also marked the WikiProject Cape Verde banner template as deprecated, which I undid requesting such a change not to be made without prior discussion agreement, but he repeated the action anyway (page history). This is against the principles of WP:BRD, but I don't want to engage in a wheel war or any conflict for that matter. Any advice on how to proceed?

Thanks in advance, Waldir ^talk 01:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't an ANI issue. You need to talk to Wizardman on his talk page first. ANI is a last resort and is focused on behavior of individuals, not content or format. There is probably a good reason why he has done this (he did give a summary) and there are probably venues to discuss whether or not it should exist, but it isn't a problem that needs to go before an administrative board that focuses on editor behavior at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dispute about page Expulsion of Cham Albanians

• @SilentResident: I volunteered to mediate in a dispute that arose about points in the article Expulsion of Cham Albanians. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians (if it is read right through) for the result and the details of the dispute. User:SilentResident agrees with me that a block or other serious sanction is needed against User:DevilWearsBrioni. User:DevilWearsBrioni has ignored two ARBMAC warnings already on the matter and likely would ignore a third. Before resorting to the extreme of blocking DevilWearsBrioni, I prefer to see what consensus there is on the matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: In addition to me and Mediator Anthony Appleyard, also Mediator User:Iazyges agrees with us on a block: [63] -- SILENTRESIDENT 10:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue won't go away. This issue, with User:DevilWearsBrioni constantly arguing that any post that he doesn't agree with is original research, seemed to be one that needed to go to formal mediation. If they continue to filibuster after the mediator has reminded them to stay on the subject, it is time for sanctions. A topic-ban from Expulsion of Cham Albanians and any related topics as a arbitration enforcement sanction may be preferable to a block, since one simply sits out a block and comes back. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zefr removing sourced content, claims that a newspaper is not WP:RS in the Young Living article

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

---

Zefr has reverted an edit I made two times already. He claims that an article published in a local newspaper is not a reliable source and not a secondary source either. The latest diff: [64] He keeps arguing (in a tone not unlike to that of wikilawyering) that the reason why the source is not reliable is because the newspaper has published the company's official announcement. The fault in this line of argument is that half of Wikipedia could be deleted if newspaper content would be deemed "unreliable" based on the newspaper's source (the same could be said about books). I however feel that his arguments are not only nonsensical, but outright wrong as well. I don't think that removing sourced content is right. -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If newspapers just repeat what is in a company handout, then they are not independent sources. There should be some evidence of fact-checking, in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Peter. The source you provided is to an article (perhaps better described as a column or a bulletin board) listing three business blurbs, all of them promotional on some level. This is common in smaller newspapers. If all three of those stories are not just regurgitated press releases I'll eat my hat.

In any case, if this were a valid complaint, it would belong at WP:RSN, not here. John from Idegon (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

here is the edit that CoolKoon made and Zefr reverted, which CoolKoon made again and Zefr reverted again:

The Daily Herald (Utah) reported that the company had surpassed $1 billion in it's 2015 sales.

References

That ref is a lightly-edited version of this press release. Great example of WP:Churnalism (about which, fwiw, I am trying to get discussion added to WP:RS - See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Churnalism_-_bold_edit). The problem with the ref, is that it is not actually independent; the problem with the content is that it is basically a misrepresentation. The paper did zero reporting - but look what the content says. I recommend that OP think more carefully about how they use sources and avoid WP:PROMO.

But this is a content dispute, and doesn't belong here at this point. The editors should work this out at the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article's talk page is a better place for discussing this. Unfortunately I've been reverted right at my first attempt at adding some referenced content (without any attempt at discussing things; the new entry has been added only this afternoon, after the replies above). Also, the content itself was about numbers pertaining to the company's performance. He could've changed "The Daily Herald (Utah) reported that the company had surpassed" to "The company has reported surpassing" if it's based on a company's press release, but no, he just removed the whole thing. OTOH how else is one supposed to verify a company's claim about his own performance? If a company is not publicly traded (which Young Living doesn't seem to be), its financial/performance data is not public. Thus IMHO requesting a "more reliable" source for something like this is a moot point, simply because there's no way to gain access to such information "independently". -- CoolKoon (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Glad you agree that this is not a matter for ANI. This is done here. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Level 2 content dispute article due to fact of WP:Block like Hellocopter

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

---

Hello. May I suggest to tell me that article Hellocopter it was been made by FZKSleapfrog pending which formerly Sockpuppeteer of Synthelabobabe21. User talk:Caneoffire 12:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caneoffire (talk • contribs)

Caneoffire Hello. Thanks for the suggestions; however, it seems that Hellocopter was deleteted in June, and User:FZKSleapfrog pending was blocked at the same time. So I don't know what you are asking. Unless that is your previous account?

Can I also ask that as per WP:SIGLINK you adjust your signature to includea link to your user / talk / or contributions page? Many thanks. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

As I thought. Blocked as a sock by DoRD  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I blocked this user and confirmed two more suspected socks (SPI). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:Wwikix and categories

The user User:Wwikix has basically re-arranged the whole of wikipedia category structure and processes without consultation or any form of sign of checking against standard established procedures of reaching consensus in project or talk space.

When challenged the general responses have never referred to general policy or established procedures, simply referring to common sense, I think and similar phrases.

I believe a reasonable level of WP:AGF here on english wikipedia, has allowed this user to exploit the general disinterest in large scale re-arrangement of category structure and unfortunately a number of editors who have worked in the area are not currently active or editing.

My concern is that the discussions at project Category, the users talk page, and the general responses require a closer look, as the editors who have challenged the changes, are responded to in a way that I believe requires a more critical look at what exactly is going on. JarrahTree 14:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, very exaggerated. Wwikix (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Show me where you consulted first before changing category strucuture on english wikipedia, and could you be kind enough to explain to english speakers what [[65] means, and what was all that about? JarrahTree 14:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that needs much translating, actually! -although what the actual offences were might be relevant. Think I saw Drmies around recently...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't speak Dutch, but a Google Translate of [66] shows a very similar pattern to what we see at User talk: Wwikix. Evidence of a great number of changes not based on policy but based solely on the user's view of what is good and what isn't. agtx 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that, to be fair to Wwikix, this is very different to the one at nl~wp and is, on consideration, the one we should probably be concerned with. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a fairly spot-on explanation of your activities and your responses when questioned. And I was also, earlier today, considering registering my concerns here. Largoplazo (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: to whom are you replying? _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to be as WP:AGF as possible (was wp en meant to be a fresh start? or a continuation of the same on nl?), but the responses from the editor to date, as to why and how he is implementing changes to categories and category structure, and the explanations at his talk and the category project talk, suggest that regardless of the context of the blocks there at NL, the problem here, is something that needs to be considered carefully, and not dismissed without careful examination of what exactly is going on.

To Wwikix, where he states that JarrahTree's complaint is an exaggeration, but the outdent is obscuring the hierarchy of responses.

Something is weird an edit has removedJarrahTree 15:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

A claim was made that Wwikix is changing "the whole of category structure on Wikipedia". That indeeds sounds like an exxageration. I have quite a few categories and Cfd-related pages on my watchlist, but haven't noticed his activities yet. @JarrahTree, what are you referring to? Debresser (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it is an exageration - by creep through the whole range of edits - by implication and possible precedence - have a look at his edit history, you will see... the having parent and child cats on the same cat has created a fundamental change to structure and specific conventions by editing, and only responding after being discovered on smaller items - no attempt to consult or check before it was all happening - the admins who have visited have been either argued with, or ignored, or simply deflected by claiming that it is something he likes to do rather than indicating a policy or procedure we have here on wp en JarrahTree 15:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I do speak Dutch. The Dutch ArbCom noticed that Wwikix often edits against broad consensus, and decided that whenever an objection was raised against an edit of his, he would have to establish consensus first, and can not further edit that article till he does so. For the course of one year. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation JarrahTree 15:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconded, thanks for the gloss. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Debresser, I just spent ten minutes looking for the 2010 Dutch ArbCom case, which I (finally!) was hoping to find here--but to no avail. Do you know where it is? Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Isn't that Agtx's link? Or maybe that one links to it ... Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes--thanks. There was a name change, I suppose.

OK--the ArbCom case said nothing about categories, as I thought it might from the enormous amount of category-related complaints on their Dutch talk page; it's rather a more general case, where it was decided that the editor did not handle criticism well and regularly edits against consensus. That case is not of much help in this particular thread. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it this one? Note that on his Dutch block page, he has been barred since June as per this reason. Case of WP:NOTHERE? Notified the Dutch admin that the case is being discussed here as a courtesy. Karst (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ha, I was about to look into this matter--the conversations on the editor's talk page concern me. (And now, Debresser, I see where your comment came from.) "The whole of the category structure", that's hard to do by oneself; I would like to see a more detailed charge. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The NL sys-op commented here in English. Karst (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• He is here at last - you are most welcome sir - but I have to return in about 7+ hours, who know what might happen here in that time - fundamentally the cat editing is massive and there may well be massive ok edits in the 40k + , the assumptions of explaining after changing a slather which might not 'fit' into general practice - it was a good idea at the time responses - seem to never actually refer to any conventions we have here on wp en - having the parent and child cat on the same page was of concern - (and it has an echo of another editor who was challenged some months ago about gross category overlap - nothing happened and it still continues) - not a very coherent explanation, but about to sign off for the night, hope there is something to get a hint from JarrahTree 16:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about or what you are asking us (admins) to do. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• Wwikix, you are making huge amounts of unexplained edits which we should be discussing here. That the plaintiff made a lousy case doesn't mean there is no case--please stop making those category edits right now so we can figure this out. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• The issues with this user on the NLWiki were mostly with not following nl:WP:BTNI. I don't know if there is a local policy like it, but in general it says, "don't change things that are not wrong". For example changing the spelling from Dutch to Flemish, changing titles if they're not wrong, reordering a list on a page or things like that. Other issues were over categorising. It looks like the user has an own view of the way the encyclopedia should be ordered, and doesn't want to accept anything that's not according to that view. The arbcom case on the NLWiki has the following rules in play for Wwikix: When an objection is lodged about an edit on a page, it's not allowed to edit that page, until the issue is resolved with the user that lodged the objection. When an objection is lodged about a certain type of action, it's not allowed to do such an edit until the issue is resolved with the user that lodged the objection. Wwikix can ask an moderator of his choice to lift the objection and edit restriction when he feels the objection is invalid. A year after the objection, the restriction is lifted as well. There have been over 20 cases involving Wwikix for the NLwiki arbcom, but these restrictions have been in place since 2010. Unfortunately, Wwikix does not show any progress in following the community guidelines it seems. Iooryz (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC) I've lodged various complains about the edits of Wwikix on the dutch talkpage, so the explanation above might have been coloured by it

Due to RW issues I will not be back on to explain and clarify the reason for the complaint for some hours. JarrahTree 23:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not enough context provided in this or any related discussion for me to figure out or judge anything. However, what distinguishes this from Hmains making a huge number of category-related edits and offering only "refine category structure" in the edit summary, but when you actually look at those edits, you see that Hmains is massively reverting the good-faith efforts of other editors who themselves are trying to refine the category structure? I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who has pointed this out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iooryz It is called WP:AINT here. RW = real world (let's not use jargon too much here, shall we). Debresser (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

response to various editors above. If I have misread any editors intentions or general mission, or the differences, my apologies, I would rather editors made any judgement other than myself. As an observor of the editors activity for some time, and the responses to queries on the talk page, I had come to the belief that editors who deal with massive category shifts need to be accountable, and need to be able to explain against general policy/rule conditions. I repeatedly asked on the talk page - where's the policy that allows you to do so and so - and always got a response that suggests no knowledge whatsoever of generally accepted practices. So what does one do, walk away from such activity and responses ? I noted that other eds has concerns as well.

The claim that I have exaggerated the claim that a large number of categories have been re-configured, or the problem that not enough context is given, I have not seen where the multiple or parallel category system that has been initiated by the editor has been discussed before the changes.

In WP:AGF I had not wanted to include links the activity on other wikis, but it is possible that the issues there might have shed some light on activity here, however the similarity of complaints might be considered by others I have no idea.

The one diff that I offer up to illustrate my concerns, and which might shed light on the larger pattern is: [67] I take responsibility for a poor edit summary, but I would like to offer this, as my area of editing is in relation to Indonesia at times:

• Category:Indonesia
• Category:Indonesia - Geography
• Category:Geography by country -Indonesia
• Category:Geography by country
• Category:Geography of Southeast Asia - Indonesia
• Category:Geography of Asia by country
• Category:Geography of Oceania by country
• Category:Geography of Melanesia by country
• Category:Geography of Southeast Asia by country

I offer to anyone who has worked with categories and the issues that arise from the mix/overlap/cat-subcat events that have occurred on wp en over the years, as to whether this mix is acceptable and exists within the current written policies and generally accepted wikipedia community standards. I have chosen one example, and I believe that such edits are widespread within the users edit history. My query to admins/watchers/commentators - is it acceptable editing ? If so could we have somewhere guidelines/policies where the reasons are given, as just getting I like it responses from the editor in my mind is not what I thought wikipedia community consensus grew from.

I have very serious doubts as to whether the structures created by the editor are viable, however there is a stray comment at the category project page that is coherent as to what the editor might be up to [68] and also the editor has suggested category surfing and visibility are of importance. I would appreciate others comments on this as I have no idea where the visibility of category contents are anything to do with their construction.

Once again, if I have misunderstood the editors intentions, my apologies, or confused readers here, my apologies again, I do hope this explanation goes somewhere to clarify things. If it hasnt please let me know as I would rather hope this particular item is cleared up and not prolonged. JarrahTree 03:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal. Despite a lull in activity after this item was filed, Wwikix has resumed his large-scale re-categorizations, doing them now at a pace of better than one per minute, as shown here. And this is being done despite the fact that extended discussions about his activity have taken place on both his talk page and a WikiProject talk page. And also despite the fact that adminstrator Drmies asked him here to stop doing it until the matter was resolved. I therefore propose that Wwikix be blocked banned, for two months, from making any edits to the categorizations of articles or categories. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (nitpick) I suspect you mean ban instead of block. Kleuske (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for Wwikix, two three months, from any edits to any categories or to any article's categories, as widely construed as necessary. Actually, I think the fact that they have recomenced the same behaviour that brought them here in the first place indicates a degree of WP:IDHT that necessitates a longer absence from that area of the project. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - having brought the issue here, I leave it to admins and others to pass judgement, what concerns me is who where and how the creations of the editor are adequately reviewed - and how and when a system can be created to ascertain valid edits against those deemed unsuitable. There are the ones like the one above that I used as an example of multiple child/parent combinations in the one setting. It would be very good for anyone who has a good handle on the resolution of problems created - rather than just reverting edits - but reviewing where the editing is ok, and identifying the problematic settings somewhere. I believe if done properly, it could be a good lesson for all, to see where the 'hitches' are. JarrahTree 14:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oh dear. I have blocked, and will leave a note there before I come back here. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• OK, this was ridiculous. Wwikix finds the time to make hundreds more unexplained edits (against consensus, if I read the porject page for categories correctly), but can't be bothered to say anything here beyond "exaggerated". ("Wrong".) Please see User talk:Wwikix for a rationale for the block. I encourage you all to keep an eye on their talk page and copy their comments, if they have any, to this ANI thread. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Wwikix's response to the block notification by Drmies (who has been rolling back edits made by Wwikix after he was asked to desist), in full: "Undo the rolling back of my recent edits, they are constructive edits." Largoplazo (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies. That has certainly allowed the dust to settle for the time being. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, but I am very unhappy with this. Next up, I am afraid they'll start digging in. All that was required was a little bit of cooperation and a brief pause, at least to stave of an immediate block. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It was the only thing to be done: this way, we have the time to examine and repair any damage, whilst at the same time talking to W. and seeing if he is salvageable as an editor (which I don't [think I] doubt for a minute, but some of his TP remarks are rather opaque to me at this point). Plenty of time though. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I left a message on their talk page as well. They appear to have blinders on, all I can do is try to provide some guidance moving forward. I have no idea how this ends, but blocking was the only logical reaction, so I endorse that action by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

AndrewOne

AndrewOne continues restoring parts of his preferred, contested revision to Terrence Malick, where I had opened an RfC days ago to avoid his kind of edit warring. AndrewOne refuses to abstain from restoring his bold edit and adhere to WP:BRD, continuing to remove portions of the content his revision had originally removed. Another editor has already voiced disagreement with AndrewOne's revision at the RfC. His revision is plagued by poorly sourced original research and puffery, which multiple editors at the RfC have acknowledged. The RfC is open, AndrewOne knows full well it is, I've warned him several times, at the RfC and at his talk page, but he continues behaving this way, reverting in lieu of getting consensus, discussing, etc. I warned him I would report him if he continued and that the article might end up being page-protected from everyone; he did not care. Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• 00:02, 18 October 2016
• 13:55, 18 October 2016‎
• 10:35, 19 October 2016
• 00:07, 20 October 2016
• 10:03, 20 October 2016
• 12:32, 20 October 2016

In the latter two revisions, his removal of the same material is explained first that the source wasn't referring to critics, and then in the second, explained that the source was referring to critics but was wrong in doing so. Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I prevented the lead section from misleadingly telling readers that three of Malick's films initially polarized critics. Dan56 supposedly provided two sources for the argument that The Tree of Life did, but those two sources turned out to center (as I have told him), on audience responses rather than on critical responses, and are thus inapplicable. He has also used as a source a sentence from an author of a book about war films. I have attempted to explain why review aggregators such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are far better sources for determining critical reception. AndrewOne (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So along with being a poor contributor of original research, you're also a liar ([69], [70]) Also, the book by the film scholar about war films (since Malick's The Thin Red Line was a war film) actually verifies this "to be engaging and unique, while others consider it pretentious and gratuitous" bit, which you decided to pick and leave in your butchering of the lead. Pick and choose what works for us, right? Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

When a film is "Certified Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes and receives an 85/100 on Metacritic, one's choice to dispute the statement that it polarized critics is not an instance of picking and choosing whatever works. Review aggregators are called review aggregators for a reason.

Also, please refrain from name calling (e.g. "windbag") on "Talk:Terrence Malick", as well as on all other talk pages. It is unhelpful and rude. AndrewOne (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Review aggregators are useful, but they have weaknesses and limitations. You can't simply ignore the this and synthesize from them that a film was critically acclaimed. For example, see this discussion at WikiProject Film, where there was a consensus not to use Metacritic to authoritatively describe a film's reception. Still, this is mostly a rehash of the RFC debate, which I already contributed to. Two editors on the talk page (Dan56 and me) have identified the changes as original research, and this should be respected – let the RFC play out and don't change the text until you can get a consensus to do so. AndrewOne has a point about Dan56's incivility, so maybe Dan56 can try a little harder to stay calm during discussions he finds frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

AFD started by ineligible editor in WP:ARBPIA area

First thing that user Good_times_charlie,_he_walks_like_this (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does it open an AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force_(3rd_nomination). That is not normal behavior for new users but what more according WP:ARBPIA3 new users are not allowed to edit such articles at all and certainly not start AFD discussions.So this discussion should be closed probably.--Shrike (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that the discussion has already started, I see no harm in letting it continue. This editor does not have the ultimate say over the result of the detabe. Number 57 17:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. If someone is not eligible to edit an article, then they can't go to AFD with it without violating policy. It is suspicious that a new user would start in AFD, so my sockpuppet radar is going off, but regardless, this is clearly a violation of Arbitration restrictions. This is more of an AE issue than ANI, but there, I would say block and delete AFD, and ask for a CU to take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Should I take it to WP:AE then?--Shrike (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

What more I see three users votes that not allowed to edit there. --Shrike (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think yes, AE, mention all the voters and let them hash it out there, and notify them of course. ANI is not well suited for this, as it is an administrative decision to interpret Arb's rulings, not so much community's. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Smells like dirty socks to me. Might be worth running by WP:SPI. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC).

More so the reason to move it to AE, you will find more CU bits around there and it is easier to get a binding solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Good times charlie, he walks like this has been indef blocked as a sock by User:DeltaQuad, describing it as "Someone's obvious sock behind a proxy". The AfD discussion does not look bad as discussions go, but there are a number of participants who are not extended-confirmed. The least stressful option might be to let the AfD run to a normal conclusion but then have the admin closer not include the opinions of those unqualified under ARBPIA3. Anyone who wants to warn the non-qualified voters not to continue could do so. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I left a note in the AfD pointing to the WP:ARBPIA3 restriction. I hope that others agree that the AfD should run normally but the ineligible votes should not be counted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Close the AfD Allowing an AfD begun by an editor not permitted to do so effectively undermines the rule. For the same reason we normally revert edits, even non-controversial ones, added by banned editors. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:MidasHotel20 mass moving pages without consensus, against naming conventions

MidasHotel20 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been on a spree, mass moving nearly 500 pages during the last year without any discussion or explanation, making incorrect page moves that against the naming conventions in WP:PLACE, MOS:JAPAN#Place_names, WP:NAME, and WikiProject Japan's guidelines. For example, he has removed the prefecture names from article titles, making them ambiguous, he has changed WP:BLP people's names, fiddled with capitalisations, category names, etc.

For example, MidasHotel20 moved Mamushi to "Japanese pit viper" without any discussion or explanation. The move is without consensus and inconsistent with the naming conventions in WP:NAME as discussed on the talk page Talk:Mamushi.

Could there please be a mass revert of these moves?

I am notifying MidasHotel20 of this ANI discussion.

85.255.234.37 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy it. MOS:JAPAN#Place_names seems to talk of 'when disambiguation is needed', which it is not in the case of all those for which the prefecture name has gone. Japanese pit viper sounds like WP:EN. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

   The point is that MidasHotel20 is moving hundreds of articles without saying anything. It is difficult to understand his reasons because he does not use edit summaries, he does not participate in WikiProject discussions, and he does not seem to reply to comments on his talk page or on article talk pages. User:DAJF made a previous criticism of his page moves on his talk page, but he has never replied and he has carried on mass moving hundreds of pages.

   Those Japan articles have all been assessed by WikiProject Japan as per MOS:JAPAN. Removing the prefecture names from articles is clearly without consensus. It seems to me that MidasHotel20 should be trying to build consensus first to show there is a need to do mass moves of hundreds of pages. The user, however, does not seek consensus. He never replies to comments and ignores previous criticism of his page moving.

   In the case of "Japanese pit viper", it is an ambiguous title because it includes all species of Japanese pit vipers, and all except one of them are irrelevant to the article. "Mamushi" is the better title because it refers uniquely to the species G. blomhoffii which is the subject of the article. "Mamushi" is also the WP:EN term used in the English literature, as shown in the citations to WP:EN peer-reviewed WP:RS. Therefore, it seems to me from WP:TITLE that the best title is Mamushi. This is discussed in more detail on the talk page Talk:Mamushi.

85.255.234.34 (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

An editor who will not communicate can be problematic, I agree. I have not looked at the history or lack thereof of his/her communications. And you may well be right about vipers. You have yet to make anything approaching a case on the much larger matter of place names. The standing consensus that I understand on wikipedia is to use the common name of the thing being described in the article. I see nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Article titles nor MOS:JAPAN that mandates or even suggests that prefecture names should be used, in situations in which disambiguation is not required. And it is unavoidably the case that disambiguation was not requred for all of those which were successfully moved back to their settlement name sans disambiguator. So I suppose the possibility exists that if you're getting on the editors case about a consensus breach in a situation in which consensus is not being broken, your overtures are being spurned. Certainly, right now, I find myself more concerned about your insistance that another editor is doing something wrong in a situation in which the editor appears to be doing a perfectly consensual thing, than I am about the viper business or the alleged lack of communication. Where *exactly* is your evidence that there is consensus for the inclusion of prefecture names in articles titles of Japanese settlements for which disambiguation is not required? What should we make of this ANI listing if you are unable to point to such evidence? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

   The issue is a total lack of communication when his edits are challenged. This is not a future problem; it is having a current impact on the quality of Wikipedia as well as taking up other editors' time needlessly. He never replies to comments. He is ignoring this ANI despite its having been mentioned on his talk page and he has continued editing afterwards. I see the same editor was the subject of another similar recent ANI thread ANI only a few days ago regarding one of his many page moves (it was reverted). He ignored the ANI.

• Here is an example of a bad title resulting from one of his page moves moved Nago, Okinawa to Nago which is ambiguous because there are at least 13 completely different "Nago":

南居 (Nago), 南瑚 (Nago), 名古 (Nago), 名呉 (Nago), 名子 (Nago), 名護 (Nago), 名郷 (Nago), 奈古 (Nago), 奈呉 (Nago), 奈胡 (Nago), 姓護 (Nago), 那古 (Nago), 長尾 (Nago)

• Another example: moved Uruma, Okinawa to Uruma which is ambiguous because there are at least 13 completely different Uruma:

売間 (Uruma), 宇流麻 (Uruma), 宇瑠間 (Uruma), 宇留間 (Uruma), 宇留麻 (Uruma), 漆間 (Uruma), 潤間 (Uruma), 爪間 (Uruma), 粉間 (Uruma), 粳間 (Uruma), 賣間 (Uruma), 閏間 (Uruma), 閠間 (Uruma)

• The same problem affects more of his page moves but I have not checked all of them; there are far too many of them. Japanese place names are ambiguous in English. Keeping the prefecture in the title helps to make it clearer which place is meant. Unfortunately it is not easy to know because if you do not know Japanese, you will not know when a name that is transliterated into English is ambiguous.

Looking at his page moves in more detail, I see this is about much more than place names. His incorrect page moves include Category:People from Fukuoka (city) (reverted), capitalisation changes ("Kōri no ue ni Tatsu yō ni" → "Kōri no Ue ni Tatsu Yō ni" reverted), wrong changes to people's names (WP:BLP applies to Mai Satoda (reverted), Mikiyo Ohno (not yet reverted), Chieko Nohno (not yet reverted), Maki Ohguro reverted), erroneous place names Gotemba, Shizuoka (reverted), wrong names Sumitomo Masatomo (not yet reverted). Editing [71] while logged in and also editing [72] while logged out via an IP address in Makati city, the Philippines (Seiko Hashimoto). I could go on. This pattern of disruptive edits needs to stop. He needs to listen and communicate. 85.255.234.4 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• No comment on the place names, but I've moved the pit viper article back to its original name. There does appear to be enough evidence that COMMONNAME uses "Mamushi" and that the pit viper name is ambiguous. This should now be discussed.

And looking through the contribution history, there are moves that concern me - specifically the amendments to romanised names and changes of some people names. I would not wish to give the impression that I think there is nothing to discuss. I see the single instance when someone has informed the user of romanisation issue - but not in a way demanding a response. I see no other engagement with the user on their talk page. ANI is not a substitute for talking to the user first. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've left a link to WP:COMMUNICATE and informed him that he needs to use summaries when moving, which seems like WP:COMMONSENSE, if he keeps it up and refuses to explain, we might not have a choice but to block until he communicates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I hope it leads to an improvement. We will probably not have long to wait to see whether it does. 85.255.234.4 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

XPanettaa and copyright (again)

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

---

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

The previous discussion on this matter ended without any action under the assumption that XPanettaa has heard and understood the problems that were occurring and would stop messing around in the file namespace (no actual agreement was made on XPanettaa's part but it was assumed that that was what happened). That obviously has not occurred. As I was cleaning up some files I noticed that XPanettaa has illegitimately changed non-free logos to free licenses [73][74][75]. This is an enormous problem. Images must be licensed correctly to ensure that we are following relevant copyright laws. Obviously the previous attempt to get them to stop has failed. For that reason, I must ask that XPanettaa be blocked or topic banned from the file namespace entirely. Their copyright violations continue unabated and their actions show that there is little chance of that stopping voluntarily. --Majora (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There is also an issue with the use of multiple accounts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XPanettaa. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: I just saw my friend using my account at home while I was not home and therefore enjoying in the amusement park, shopping at the mall, having a party with someone in the penthouse, and so on. I have spoken with him and my friend, who used my account at home while I was not home, has gotten a lot of past. This makes me predictably disappointed when my friend used my account to illegitimately change non-free logos to free licenses and/or state that images were free when they aren't free at all. I think he made a huge mistake for what he did with my account while I'm not home. XPanettaa (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

My little brother did it. Same issue on nl.wiki here, and oddly enough the same excuse. Karst (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Karst: Okay, I think that my friend is acting like a little brother of the one, who is a Wikipedia user, who did it with his account. XPanettaa (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal - Wait for the sock puppet investigation to be completed. If confirmed, one year ban, similar to nl.wiki. Karst (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oh God, XPanettaa again? They now have more than one account turning Wikipedia into a forum to plug Beatport and various artists? It takes a village, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Indefinite block: I think that the fact that XPanetta is indefinitely blocked on Wikimedia Commons says something; they have incredible distinction of being blocked 5 times for copyright violations- normally people tend to understand copyright policies after one or two blocks, or they have a language barrier, but this isn't the case with XPanetta. They seem to revolve in a pattern of 1) ignore copyright rules 2) get blocked 3) pester admins with walls of text until they get unblocked (they seem to have only used the standard unblock template on Commons once) 4) ignore copyright rules again and get blocked again 5) pester the admin that unblocked them to unblock them again until the admin tells them to go away 6) deny reality with more walls of text, gets unblocked, repeat. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely. The Commons issues and the ones here are one thing, but the latest comment on the SPI that an IP which is obviously XPanetta is "my friend" editing logged out are something else. We simply don't need - as Commons obviously agreed - someone who is such an obvious timesink for other editors. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Copyvios

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

---

Admin intervention is needed for continues copyvios by Rvijayarajvijay (talk · contribs) --AntanO 06:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@AntanO: FYI, I declined your PROD  ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You were right. --AntanO 06:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, as final warning was issued a week ago. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

This IP address is located at City Hall, London, Ontario, Canada

Just a note to Admins as I see other contribs from this IP range, this is a governmental office bldg that has edited City of London in the past as an example. It may be in the interest of neutrality to give this user an editnotice or some other means of conflict of interest deterrence. Thanks and regards, 198.20.47.158 (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Categories recreated after deletion

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

---

I nominated some categories for deletion because they were created by a sock of a banned user. These categories were recreated today; see Special:Contributions/Helloladiesandgentlemen! for the activity. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Obvious sock blocked and categories speedied.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

PS Also blocked the sleeper account AntitheistAtheist888.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Quick! Right on. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and accusations

Mztourist (talk) is repeatedly issuing personal attacks and false accusations about me here despite my best efforts to keep the discussion constructive. This is disrupting the progress of the discussion and resolution of the issue. Could you please intervene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.120 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

While I know it runs afoul of WP:AGF, I'm curious about something that's probably also going to be on the nearest passing admin's mind: how are you this well versed in how Wikipedia works? Other than two edits from May of this year and June 2007, your first edits were just over two days ago. Have you ever edited under a different identity? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Z07x10, and a quick look at the talk page in question (Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon) shows that there are valid reasons for believing that the IP is a sock of site banned User:Z07x10. It's not just Mztourist who believes that, BTW, but other editors too, even though the IP chose to report only Mztourist... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:DUCK to me..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The edit pattern as well as the behavior on the articles and talk pages is identical to Z07x10. --McSly (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

My thanks to the previous users who have pointed out the absurdity of this complaint, which is an obvious counterattack by a suspected sock (who supposedly has only been active on WP for 2 days!) to my SPI. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Rajasekharan Parameswaran

User:Rajasekharan Parameswaran is an undisclosed COI editor, who has extensively edited his own page, Rajasekharan Parameswaran. Unfortunately, there are a number of issues at hand.

• Firstly, the undisclosed COI- despite a notice on his talk page and on the article's talk page, he has not disclosed it as required.

• This is problematic as he is making very promotional edits- see the state of the article before I mass-removed a lot of promotional cruft.

• There is also a second problem- as he hasn't disclosed his COI; in not doing so he has not actually proved that he is Rajasekharan Parmeswaran. This is problematic because he's now started to upload his own artwork- see his contrib history. Despite one of his files being listed at FfD (and duly deleted), he still failed to provide proof that he was Mr Parameswaran.

• This is problematic because a section of his page is copied and pasted from his own biography- the section entitled "Early life" can be found in its entirety here- an article published in 2009, predating the Wikipedia source.

I opened a COIN thread in September, but rather embarrassingly no one responded. He has continued with these edits and uploading of his own artwork, hence I have taken it to ANI, as he has not responded on any talk pages, or noticeboards, or FfD. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

He has now replied on my talk page, but has taken away completely the wrong message, saying that he won't upload his own artworks, which was not the point at all. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass blanking of Top Model articles again

The IP range of 2604:2d80:c029::/48 was previously blocked for repeatedly blanking Top Model articles. They have since returned, this time as 134.161.28.0/23. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorted 4 IPv4 addresses:

134.161.28.131

134.161.28.162

134.161.29.58

134.161.29.91

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
512	512	4	134.161.28.0/23	contribs
192	64	2	134.161.28.128/26	contribs
	128	2	134.161.29.0/25	contribs
4	1	1	134.161.28.131	contribs
	1	1	134.161.28.162	contribs
	1	1	134.161.29.58	contribs
	1	1	134.161.29.91	contribs

User:Objective3000 acting in an intentionally disruptive manner

In a dispute on The Pirate Bay (TPB) Objective3000 is being intentionally disruptive and ignoring a source in favor of personal opinion. He has also interpreted it as illegitimate because he believes it to be an unreliable quote despite no evidence that it is (and more importantly giving no sources that it is). He also alludes to a comment warning in the page, a practice that is not allowed per MOS:COMMENT.

The dispute relates to whether or not TPB should be listed as non-profit, and the source in question: [76], listing it as transferred to a non-profit. No sources given stating anything else. Distrait cognizance (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The source you give links to a "403 Not allowed" site. Do you have an actual link? Moriori (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? It works for me, could this be related to the internet outages today? Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am still getting the following message "403 Not allowed. The page you've requested is not accessible - yet. If you're looking for something on PCMag.com, please use the search engine!". Oh joy, if I knew what I was searching for I'd do a search. Moriori (talk)

Wow. Can’t believe he actually brought this here. Long ago, there were long discussions on whether The Pirate Bay (TPB) is or is not non-profit. The consensus was that the claim by TPB was disputed and controversial – particularly since the judge at the TPB trial said that they were not. The consensus was that the claim of non-profit status could not be placed in the infobox as it was disputed and controversial, and an infobox should not include disputed info. To stop edit-warring, a note was added to the infobox not to change the status and why. Editor distrait cognizance removed the warning and the long-standing text, replacing it with a previously rejected claim of non-profit status multiple times. He bases this on a puff piece that merely copied, word for word, text from the TPB site, which is run by anonymous people who have been on the run from country to country for years. It’s uncertain as to what country they are located and their names are still unknown. He refused to gain consensus and issued a threat to take this to ANI twelve minutes after I reverted. I really think that bothering ANI after 12 minutes is a tad disruptive.

Incidentally, he also failed to mention this ANI incident on my talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• The claim of "non-profit" in that page doesn't appear to have the same meaning as the legal definition of a non-profit, and was a weak claim based on a weak claim, so I wouldn't make any edit based on that singular mention, particularly since a court of law has deemed them non-eligible as a non-profit. "Non-profit" isn't just a claim, it is a legal status, a type of corporation or organization that is recognized in law. Saying this is well sourced is false. More to the point, if there is a long standing consensus, and the bold change is reverted, then the burden is clearly on Distrait cognizance to leave it alone until they can form a consensus on the talk page. Continuing to add it back is edit warring, against the principles in WP:BRD, and is clearly disruptive. Stop it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Distrait cognizance, you skipped all of the dispute resolution options. ANI is not a suitable place to resolve content disputes. Please go back to the talk page, make your arguments for including this content, and if you're not able to persuade the article's regular editors, you can seek a third opinion, or start an RfC.- MrX 21:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is not about the content dispute, but one about ignoring sources in favor of personal opinion. As that violates policy it is an AN/I issue. If a single source, or even a link to the alleged consensus was brought forth this wouldn't need to be here. MOS:COMMENT does not allow such comments if they try to forbid users from making an edit, it might be appropriate to link to a discussion, but there was no such link. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

1.) It was not personal opinion. It was long-standing consensus. 2.) You threatened another editor for a single revert and brought this to ANI after 12 minutes with no attempt at resolution or in gaining consensus yourself. Objective3000 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• • What Objective said. And MOS or no MOS, we often use hidden comments when there is a consensus and there is problem with people changing it against that consensus. It is for their benefit. See also: WP:IAR. MOS is a set of important guidelines, but it isn't chiseled into stone. Take it to the talk page of the article and have a discussion there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

There is discussion on the talk page, and progressing better now with more voices present. However, the issue at hand surrounds the "shoot-first, ask questions later" attitude behind the multiple reverts without so much as an attempt to bring forth sources. Distrait cognizance (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Once you have been told there is an existing consensus, the burden is on you. The "source" you brought is not adequate and falls very far short of what would be expected to change consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• After Mr X. reverted to consensus, Destrait cognizance once again, just now, changed it to non-profit -- disputed. He is edit-warring even during an ANI. Objective3000 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

May I request that a sysop revert to consensus during discussion? Objective3000 (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Admin can't do that, that would have us getting involved in content. As "admin", our role is maintenance and behavioral. Doing so would mean we can no longer act as admin on that page during this dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that. But, I don't want to bother ANI with an edit-warring complaint -- obvious as it may be. Was hoping an uninvolved admin could just revert to consensus for now. It's kinda weird now. It says non-profit, and as a ref, provides an article stating that it isn't. Even if this made some kind of sense, it should be reverted for WP:EW. Objective3000 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone else did it, which keeps me free to use the admin tools if needed, which is the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright vio again

A recent edit of Mahussain06 has the sentence "This would be the first time Golovkin fails to fight three times in a calender year since 2012" which is very similar to the sentence "This will be the first time Golovkin has not boxed three times in a calendar year since 2012" from [77] The user has already been blocked for doing this before. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is a limited number of ways you can paraphrase that, and it is just one sentence. You have to say "calendar" to differentiate types of year, same for "first time", "since 2012". If this one sentence is the only problem, I don't see it as problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there are more in their recent edits but that was just one I picked up at a glance. You would think to give them the benefit of the doubt if they had not consistently done it before and been blocked for it. See some examples at WP:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. (The user changed their name from Ruthless-paki) 80.235.147.186 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Also here is the rest of the sentence "when he first came to the United States and teamed up with HBO" and from the same source "when he first came to the United States to fight and linked up with HBO." That would be easy to paraphrase and could at least have the entire sentence rearranged. I would say copyright violations are problematic. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thos aren't compelling examples, meaning I'm not going to block for those, they are paraphrasing and isolated sentences that again, can only be said so many ways. I'm not going on a fishing expedition through his contribs. If you file the report, you need to provide enough evidence to show infringement. More than two isolated sentences that individually and taken alone, are not copyright infringement. The burden in on you to provide clear and convincing evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's actually one sentence and can be said in many ways. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is it being said? Sounds WP:CRYSTAL to me. Is there something special about fighting three times in a year? Even when the year ends and it presumably becomes a true statement, so what?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the passage and warned the user before coming here, because it looks like a pretty clear-cut case of copyvio/too-close paraphrasing to me. The source is the ESPN article, which also says that the fighter prides himself on being in a lot of fights. That's the crux of why it's an important detail. I have gone ahead and re-written the material to demonstrate an example of how this passage could be worded. "Golovkin prides himself on being an extremely active fighter, and this is the first time since 2012 that he has been in fewer than four three fights." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing sources and then accusing others of dishonesty

I got into a discussion with LuckyLag360 (talk · contribs) at Talk:Libertarianism#Centrist Libertarianism. In the context of that discussion I linked to this article which at that time was entitled "Trump a puppet for Clinton!" Seventeen minutes later LuckyLag360 pointed out that it had a question mark at the end and accused me of dishonesty for misrepresenting it. When I showed that Google Cache confirmed there had indeed been an exclamation mark, LuckyLag360 doubled down, said the age of the cache confirmed that there had been a question mark for several days, and that they had always seen a question mark. Now check out the Twitter feed linked at the top of the page in question (cached version in case something suddenly changes). It contains this tweet (screenshot in case something suddenly gets deleted). So the source page was announced to the Twitter world at large (including the exclamation mark) by someone using the Twitter name "LuckyLag360". I don't believe in that much coincidence.

To me this looks like LuckyLag360 trying to pass off his own website as a reliable source, to change its content when challenged, to accuse someone else of dishonesty on Wikipedia because of the change, and to double down when evidence is provided that the other person was actually right. I know I'm skirting WP:OUTING here, but I do not think such conduct - effectively changing a source and lying about it to smear others' on-wiki reputation - should be tolerated in Wikipedia editors. Huon (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This is you're attempt to discredit me. First off this source has nothing to do with the discussion you brought up in the talk page. You quickly try to discredit the source and attempt to appeal to people who are biased against media not friendly to Clinton. Its a political opinion piece obviously not everyone will be happy with it. Its not sourced in the article that we where suppose to be discussing and its a attempting bring up a pointless discussion and when I call you on it you get mad and go to the noticeboard. Also I said clearly that im not disputing had a ! on and before October 17th. Thats never something I disputed. I clearly stated that today when you linked it on October 21st it had a ? and you said it had a !. Honestly this has all to do about nothing. Please stop harassing me actually reach a consensus with me. LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm. That's less exciting than I hoped it would be, Huon. That this website is not a reliable source, however, seems pretty clear to me--hiring a copy editor would be a good first move, but the second, third, and so on moves are even more important. LuckyLag, I don't see the harassment, although I don't think this is worth an ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay I'll agree with that and I'd like to add this is a big waste of time for everyone. LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, to be blunt, I don't think someone who promotes his personal website as a reliable source, changes its content and uses this change to accuse others of dishonesty, and then bluntly and transparently lies about their actions should be editing Wikipedia. For obvious reasons I can't block LuckyLag360 myself, thus this thread. Huon (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but where do they use it as a source? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Huon the site itself is sourced but the article you claim is not. Regardless please just stop with this and reach a consensus with me. LuckyLag360 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Another page from the same website was used in the article's section that was being discussed. They used this particular page on the talk page to engage in accusations of dishonesty. Basically, I linked to the page, they modified it, accused me of being dishonest because my quote did not disagree with the article title after they changed it, and then continued to lie about it. I don't really care about whether the article has an exclamation mark or a question mark, I do care that LuckyLag360 used it and lied about it in an attempt to undermine my credibility. If LuckyLag360 changes that exclamation mark and lies about it in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a talk page discussion, how can we trust them in anything else they say? Huon (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thats not what happened though. We've been over this, your attempting to discredit me simply because you disagree with me and Im not about to let that happen. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• All I know is, under no circumstance should that website be considered a reliable source for anything here. Clearly fails WP:RS, so punctuation (even if deceptively changed) is moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The website is not even a source anymore and that specific article was never a source. So everything he is saying is a moot point. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Which doesn't change my point. I took the liberty of removing it as a source at Center-libertarianism as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay perfect, thank you for doing that. LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• I see Lucky has been edit warring to get some stuff in the Libertarianism article for weeks. Pity I cleaned it up just now; I didn't realize how disruptive they had been. Lucky, if you run a blog and want to edit Wikipedia, you should really start by proofreading. If you stick something in a half a dozen times it shouldn't be riddled with mistakes anymore. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I dont run a blog but yes I am working on fixing my grammar. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Retired but not retired

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

---

What if someone says they are retired on their page but they're still editing? That shouldn't be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.253.131.187 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there should be a checkuser on this edit. Objective3000 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Objective3000, please explain. You may well be right, but we can do very little without any reason. IP editor, no. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I could well be wrong. It just appears that I may have attracted a troll that is trying to get me blocked instead of engaging in discussion. I suppose I can wait and see. But, it's not as though I, as most volunteers, don't have other things to do. If a checkuser requires a larger rational, nevermind. Objective3000 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

And why shouldn't it 'be allowed'. User pages can say whatever the hell they want within reason. If I want to claim that I am the King of the Moon on mine, why does it matter? --Tarage (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Retired people sometimes engage in working activity for a while. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly Template:Retired says it should only be used for editors who "plan to completely and permanently stop editing". But there are different levels of retirement, as indicated by Template:Semi-retired, etc. StAnselm (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Note to add: This is an IP from the range that was trolling SwisterTwister yesterday, reverting their edits (mainly) at AFDs with the rationale that "they are retired so shouldn't be editing". User seems to be able to IP hop pretty much anywhere in 162.253.131.0/24 but so far not outside that range. See User talk:Widr#IP Hopping troll in the 162.253.131.0/24 range for more. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/85.195.75.206, particularly this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Attack page reinstatement

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

---

Hi all, it looks like User:Dhagan1986 created multiple pages, including his userpage, strictly for attacking another person. The main page has been tagged accordingly, but if an administrator can clean up the mess that would be great. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Damien Walter

Legal threat issued at Damien Walter by this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Walter&oldid=745607114 the legal threat being contained in a delete template. User issuing legal threat was User talk:171.100.99.12 Special:Contributions/171.100.99.12. I am not sure if it is a dynamic or static IP. I reverted the edit. Safiel (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you handled it about right. The edit was reverted and a level 4 warning dropped on the IPs talk page. If there is any repetition I'd support a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-involved party: The IP has now been disruptive past the level 4 warning. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-involved party: And are continuing to do so, reverted again... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is case of WP:DOLT. You weren't the only one adding contentious unreferenced BLP material, granted, but it is contentious unreferenced BLP material nonetheless. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have placed a request for a temporary semi-protect at WP:RPP to stop the back and forth so an uninvolved party or parties can step in and sort BLP matter out. Safiel (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Request 3 Month Rangeblock on Disruptive IPv6 Range: 2605:e000:6201:1300::/65

• 2605:e000:6201:1300::/65 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Over the past couple of months, the person behind this IP range has been disruptively removing sourced content into various airport articles, and replacing it with purposefully incorrect and unsourced content. Here are a list of the disruptive IP's that I was able to find:

• 2605:e000:6201:1300:2052:7563:a626:bbee (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Only 1 minor test edit, but still part of the same IP range, never warned or blocked

• 2605:e000:6201:1300:28f8:2917:e05e:560e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Edit warring, unsourced content, vandalism, warned – Blocked for 31 hours by Materialscientist (08:03, 12 October 2016)

• 2605:e000:6201:1300:390f:d5c7:701d:656e (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Blatantly childish vandalism, warned, persisted past level 3 warning, never blocked (Note: I'm counting the welcome message as the level 1 warning on this one...)

• 2605:e000:6201:1300:79e6:3550:a1a9:5c57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Edit warring, removing sourced content/replaced with unsourced, obviously incorrect content, rapidly reverting other editor's contributions w/o any explanation, warned, never blocked.

There may be more IP's that I have not been able to uncover, but according to this IP range calculator, making a block on the /65 subnet range will not have too much collateral damage – which is why I imposed the block to be lengthy in duration, with my proposal being a 3 month block, but an admin who looks into this case of course, may choose to perform a different block duration if they choose to... :-)

Because of the disruption from this IP range, the following articles have had to be recently protected:

• Portland International Airport (twice, each for 1 month by KrakatoaKatie & Oshwah)
• Seattle–Tacoma International Airport (once, for 1 month by Vanamonde93)

With the evidence/information that I have given here, would an admin that knows how to perform rangeblocks be able to perform this block? Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. Please stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Declined. I don't question the fact that disruption is taking place from these IP addresses at all. It's definitely happening, but it is not happening at a frequent enough rate for me to justify that a range block is needed. This also includes an individual block of the IPs reported; all of them are stale to the point that blocking them would be pointless and yield no benefit. Neither reported articles appear to be under enough disruptive edits at a high enough rate to justify protection. I think we just need to keep an eye on things, and report problems to AIV to be dealt with on an individual basis, and the articles re-evaluated for protection needs during the time that disruption is actively occurring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Creation of new WP:ARBPIA article but not eligible user

And again trouble in WP:ARBPIA area a "new" user HumanRightsUnderstanding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an I/P conflict article(with perfect wiki syntax) Issa Amro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that he is not allowed to create per WP:ARBPIA3.This article should be speedy deleted.I think its clear cut case so I didn't take to WP:AE but if something there is maybe broader issue here I will be happy to do it.--Shrike (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I am a new user, and this is the first wikipedia article that I've ever written. If you're questioning the article because of the syntax, I need to say that I researched wikipedia tutorial pages a lot and experimented with the preview button until it seemed right, since I wanted to present a good result, and saved the text every so often on a google doc. If you are in doubt about the context, I would suggest that you follow some of the references, especially the statement issued by the UN special rapporters, or simply google "Issa Amro." If it is about the article not being relevant enough, then I don't see why there is an article on activist Bassem Al-Tamimi and there are already at least three other wikipedia articles mentioning the subject of this article. Is there a way to keep the article but have a contribution from an eligible author, if eligibility is the issue here? --HumanRightsUnderstanding

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HumanRightsUnderstanding (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC) 

Issues with User:TheMagnificentist

I cut down this article, created by TheMagnificentist, as the page had over 100 "sources" which were in fact itunes links, soundcloud links, facebook posts and routine song announcements only - nothing from anything in any way reliable. This was since reverted by this user, who has now proceeded to claim sabotage and vandalism (templating me a few times also) and also opening a rather misguided SPI investiagtion on me also. I'd like some uninvolved editor to comment on whether these edits are justified as I'm at my third revert. See My talk page also. Cheers Nikthestunned 14:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now we have this also. Nikthestunned 14:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That should have been reported to WP:ANEW, if anywhere. You're both at 3 reverts, and you both may get in trouble if you persist. The SPI is probably not long for this world.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently he intends to retire? Karst (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Which was immediately followed by another round of reverts, breaking 3RR also. Do I need to report this elsewhere also or am I OK leaving this here? Nikthestunned 15:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nikthestunned if you discuss the behaviour of another editor on a noticeboard, you must inform the editor you are doing so. Unless I am missing something, you do not appear to have done that. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)