Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Donmust90

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

---

• Donmust90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User:Donmust90 keeps peppering the reference desks with questions, mostly without any indication that he reads the responses. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Might I suggest a warning from an administrator followed by a topic ban if the warning doesn't do the trick? --Guy Macon (talk)

• Support immediate warning per Guy Macon. I'd be tempted to go straight into a Tban as well, notwithstanding that there has been no previous warning. This is because I'd assumed this was a new account that didn't know better. Wrongly- the stats are completely bizarre. 298 edits in total- 291 to the ref desks??? Account active since October 2012?? I think they know very well what the purpose of the encyclopaedia is, by now- and they don't appear to be interested. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• I think Guy is on target here. At the very least, this Don posts questions about very specific but seemingly obscure topics, with a tone that suggests everyone must have heard of what he's talking about. (That is, he doesn't link to any articles.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Further to the above: of the 291/298 edits being to the Ref Desks - a visual scan of the 50 most recent shows the great majority are "new section" - i.e. no participation in follow-up. I recommend these queries be turned around as a question to the OP User:Donmust90 requesting clarification. If User:Donmust90 doesn't respond - hat the query as [some form of RD abuse?]. Otherwise - is there a precedent for limiting a querent to one New section post/day/desk (or all desks)? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• ...and the edits that are not marked "new section are mostly minor edits to questions he has already asked, not reactions to responses and/or answers. It really does look like he mostly posts a question and then never checks back to see if anyone answered.

• I think he is trolling. The sophistication of some of the questions tells me they aren't stupid and are likely just wasting someone's time just to waste it. I'm trying to think of a reason to not just block them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose warning or any other action. Show me the policy that says the questioner has to read responses. Show me how you know the questioner has to read responses. If you think there should be a policy that someone should thank you for a great answer, or limit his questions to N a week, or not register an account mostly to ask questions at the Refdesk, you can propose that policy, and I will most likely vote against it. Sensible questions are a resource that we archive for future use, and which may already be in use by commercial question-answering applications whether we know of them or not. Sensible questions keep volunteers at the Refdesk because it gives them something to do. Do not randomly sanction people, nor admonish them, without a reason. Note that WP:NOTHERE is specifically not a good reason because we apparently believe, as a community, that the Refdesk is useful to have; therefore participating it is a valid reason to be here. That said, I would not oppose for people to speak to this editor and try to persuade him to write better questions (with more context, links to works or ideas being asked about) in order to get better answers. I am not convinced this is a troll; it may just be someone who thinks/acts a little differently than most. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support. A warning is well in order but a ban? I'm sure the people at the Ref Desk are smart enough to recognise Don by now. They could just ignore him and don't feed the troll. Yintan  06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The RefDesks, like their real-world namesakes, have long been interpreted as a service for encyclopedia readers as much as anything else. If "Not here to build an encyclopedia" is really a good argument to topic ban someone from the RefDesk, its entire purpose and mandate needs to be reexamined. ApLundell (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• I do not believe that this is a reader who benefits from any answers he gets. In fact I do not believe that he reads the answers. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: What is your evidence that he does not? Wnt (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC) How can web sure that all the people who post questions read the answers afterwards? Also shouldn't we warn Donmust first before posting at AN/I?Uncle dan is home (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Guy, that's a fair point. I was objecting only to "Not here to build an encyclopedia".

How we gauge if he's "here to use the reference desk legitimately" is a question I'm not personally comfortable answering, but I certainly agree that some users ask a whole bunch of random questions that they seem to have only a passing interest in, while others ask specific questions they seem to have a real desire to know the answer to, more similar to what you might ask an actual reference librarian. And I agree that it would be better if we had less of the former, and more of the latter. ApLundell (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

At what point does asking many, many questions and pretty much never entering into a discussion about the answers become disruptive? Clearly posting one or ten questions is fine, but a hundred? a thousand? a hundred thousand?

Well meaning, but a bit overkill here... Dennis Brown - 2¢
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Scene: A cafe. One table is occupied by a group of Vikings wearing horned helmets. A man and his wife enter. Mr. Bun: Morning. Waitress: Morning. Mr. Bun: What have you got, then? Waitress: Well there's egg and bacon; egg, sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg, bacon and spam; egg, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, bacon, sausage and spam; spam, egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam; spam, spam, spam, egg and spam; spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, spam, spam and spam; Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam. Mrs. Bun: Have you got anything without spam in it? Waitress: Well, there's spam, egg, sausage and spam. That's not got MUCH spam in it. Mrs. Bun: I don't want ANY spam. Mr. Bun: Why can't she have egg, bacon, spam and sausage? Mrs. Bun: That's got spam in it! Mr. Bun: Not as much as spam, egg, sausage and spam. Mrs. Bun: Look, could I have egg, bacon, spam and sausage, without the spam. Waitress: Uuuuuuggggh! Mrs Bun: What d'you mean, uugggh! I don't like spam. Vikings: singing) Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam ... spam, spam, spam, spam ... lovely spam, wonderful spam ... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Well, if he gets to a thousand, maybe you can make some kind of policy. Maybe a seed-to-leech ratio wouldn't be completely out of the question - if you ask >50 questions, try to answer at least 2 for each new one after that? Least that way you'd get to hear if he's as erudite as his questions make him seem. But again -- you make the policy first, then enforce it. I know that's not popular in governance nowadays, but Wikipedia should aspire to be old-fashioned. Wnt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC) (Psssst... Guy Macon... are you sure it's a good idea to post the entire script of a copyrighted work here?) Yintan  06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC) I didn't post the entire script, just an excerpt. The Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) says: "107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use" "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:" "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" "(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;" "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and" "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Further advice from the copyright office is here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Okay, fair point. No need to quote the entire law at me ;-) Yintan  08:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC) I see what you did there. (big smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose He's done nothing wrong. Asking questions at the reference desks is not against the rules, and he's not required to check in afterwards. Demanding a ban because he's done those two things is ridiculous. Leave him alone. --Jayron32 02:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This is trolling, pure and simple, deliberate disruption of the RefDesk. Jayron32: every inquiry in a DOS attack may be legitimate, but the collection of them in mass amounts makes them a problem. The pattern is what's important, not each individual question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Banned editor?

The foot model in Toronto made a very obscure edit at Commons to tag a file that is a variant of a more used one. The thing is that this file isn't used very much and was uploaded by banned editor, Beh-nam aka Le Behnam at Commons. He used one of his Toronto area IPs to dissociate from en.wiki. Also, the other IPs that touched that file are primarily from the Toronto area except a couple from Manitoba and one UK address.

Following his IP led me to this which when I go look up this article here, it leads me back to Beh-nam.

Examination of their questions as DonMus look to be quite inline with the banned editor's topics. I will let others analyze.

The inconclusive bit. I believe that there are likely sock cases that could be tied in here. This Italian ref by DonMus may be significant because there is some crossover with this editor and that sock case (speaks Italian?). I also had to consider the crossovers to this case. I'm leaving this post because I can't work anymore at the present and will let others begin looking to see what they may turn up.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems like you were a bit too successful here. First you link him to one banned editor and one country ... then to another banned editor and another country? I mean, so many long-serving and formerly respected editors from wikipedia have been banned that it is very easy for an editor who modifies files on Commons to end up touching one of their images. Finding a city based on coincidences of several IPs with a number of questions doesn't totally clinch the case in my mind. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If I were sock hunting, I would start with User:Sagittarian Milky Way, and see if he passes the WP:DUCK test compared to Donmust90 --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The editors don't seem particular similar. Donmust90's question suggest to me a immigrant to Canada probably Toronto and probably Muslim and of South Asian descent with imperfect English. SMW is a young editor in the US, just finished middle school a few years ago. In both cases, their questions and comments tend to reflect that. Notably Donmust90's interest seem to often relate to their religion or less commonly other religions, South Asia, Canada, elections, or politics. SMW I'm lazy to pin down but space etc is one area they seem particularly interested in. (Donmust90 has asked a small number of space related questions but AFAIK it isn't much of s focus.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW, AFAIK Donmust90 has been around for many years (at least 2007 if not earlier). In the earlier years, they use to ask a lot of weird demographics related questions, primarily relating to immigrants particularly but not exclusively people from Muslim majority places. I think in the early years these were generally relating to Toronto or at least Canada e.g. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 January 5 (probably), Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 31#Sri Lankans tamil Toronto, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 22#Ethnic breakdown of Toronto, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_February 1#Somali-canadians in toronto, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 11#Toronto demographics but they seemed to branch out to other areas like Indonesians in the Netherlands Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 3#Largest Muslim population in Europe 2 and Central Africans in Belgium Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 25#Africans in Belgium Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 November 6#football teams by cities in Belgium with African population.

As evidenced in those discussions and elsewhere (e.g. the RD talk page such as Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 86#Which cities in (random country) have immigrants from (other random country)) people did get frustrated with this editor at times, especially as their questions got more obscure like football teams or were asking many different populations. And also given the number of different questions, the editor didn't show signs of checking basics sources like wikipedia articles or demographic sources that had been pointed out earlier. Actually I think there was also a concern over whether the editor was even reading the responses given that they often asked very similar questions and as said didn't seem to check basic sources despite repeated requests to do so. They also at least one made the questionable claim that they weren't the same editor who'd been asking all the questions Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 24#Torontonian Enclaves in response to the frustrations.

That said, reading some of these I'm not sure how often they actually asked the same question again or it was mostly a very similar but subtly different question perhaps indicating they had read. (With the number of different questions and the similarity it was easy to get confused.) There was also a thought that even if they were reading, they didn't seem to really understand or were incapable of learning given the lack of searches, source check etc.

But in any case, I'm fairly sure we never came close to sanctioning them probably since they seemed sufficiently sincere and while there were occasional peaks, it generally died down; although I think many of us gave up on trying to help. Perhaps the fact their IP changed a lot (although generally belonging to Bell Canada and geolocating to Ontario usually Toronto IIRC) didn't help.

Anyway I've always been fairly certain and I don't think I'm the only one who believes Donmust90 is the same editor, especially since some of their earlier questions were similar e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]. I thought they had another account too which they abandoned but it may have been the Donmust90 one as they were inactive on it for a lot of 2013 and 2015, and all of 2014.

Note that if you look at the contributions of some of these IPs e.g. some of the earlier links and also Special:Contributions/65.92.154.228, Special:Contributions/65.92.154.112, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 28#UN peacekeepers Bangladesh Sierra Leone, Special:Contributions/76.64.129.222, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 25#Bangladeshi Parliamentary seats (probably) you can also see an interest in areas besides that demographics focus that is similar to Donmust90.

Anyway my ultimate point is I've never been convinced Donmust90 is a troll. Whether the RD is the right place for them I don't know but I'm not sure if a sanction is needed. There are also other regular question askers that are probably more frustrating, a certain IP comes to mind. I haven't looked that well at the socking thing but since it's from 2007 it's by now sort of the almost clean start thing. Not a proper clean start since if it is them they are banned and in fact, they were definitely using IPs on the RD before the ban and basically continued until and after they made the account. Also their questions on the RD do seem to have been in similar topic areas. That said what got them banned before looks very different from any problems they may have now which as said I'm not sure are sufficient for sanction by themselves.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I also am having doubts about sanctions, but I am also concerned about a larger issue, which is the reaction on the reference desks to Donmust90 and certain other people who only ask questions. Previously, these editors would end up generating long, pointless threads on the refdesks talk page as other editors complain about them. This has been happening on a weekly basis. Based upon the basic principle that we should discuss user behavior here instead of on the refdesk talk page, I raised the issue here. I thought about asking about an IP I have in mind (much worse offender), but was concerned about the fact that we already have admins actively trying to deal with the IP troll, and I doubted that an ANI report would be helpful.

So what is the answer? Looking at how the discussion is going here, I think we can wait until an admin closes this (please don't let it time out and be archived; we really need admin help here!) and then if anyone start a thread complaining about Donmust90 on the refdesk talk pages, ask them to stop because it has already been decided. Repeat for any new editors that a lot of people on the refdesks think are problems, with some of the ANI threads ending in sanctions and others ending up with a consensus to drop the stick. Eventually we will run out of people to complain about. The alternative is more long pointless threads on refdesk talk forever. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

But Donmust90 has been here for over 10 years now in some form. The longest discussion I could find about them is the one above from 2011. There were some brief mentions elsewhere but nothing substanial. So bluntly I think you are wrong. Also I fail to see how this thread is any better than anything on the RD talk page anyway and frankly most of the other ANI threads about the RD seem to have similarly achieved nothing, not surprising given how poorly structured they were.

Which is not to say WT:RD pages have always achieved much but they have sometimes achieved more and other times ended a merciless death and at the very least they don't mess up ANI with something pointless and worse, make non RD regulars avoid ANI RD threads like the plague. (One big issue of course is that it's generally easy to ignore an WT:RD thread but if you do so with an ANI thread there's always the risk something will happen which you don't want.)

In those cases where it became clear sanction was warranted, this has been brought to AN or ANI or wherever appropriate (e.g. WP:SPI) with a much more likely effective outcome because necessary evidence was presented from the getgo and there weren't long discussions which put lots of people off. (I'm not saying this always happens, or it always needs to happen but rather WT:RD threads are always as harmful as you seem to think.)

Other times, the person discussed has taken the feedback on board and improved the behaviour. Ideally this should have happened at their talk page but there are reasons why it often does not. It's perhaps true that to some extent WT:RD threads can sometimes head towards the direction of the rejected WP:RFC/U but not always, they actually often do have a different characteristic (i.e. seeking feedback on whether you're wrong to feel there is a problem with the editor rather than listing all the faults of an editor).

Having had this thread here is not going to stop a WT:RD discussion about Donmust90 in the future should someone feel the need since consensus can change and almost no one not involved at the RD has contributed anyway and those that have have tended to support sanctions. In other words, this thread has just wasted time which you are supposed to be avoiding and it hasn't helped the RD in any way. Nor is it going to change anything about what goes on there. While there's nothing wrong with proposing sanctions when you are serious about them, if you are unfamiliar with the history you really need to do some better basic research before doing so which you failed to do.

Unfortunately as I indicated it's a common trend (not just from you) that ANI threads on the RD are doomed to fail due to a lack of research; and insufficient evidence presented to actually support the proposal (which doesn't always mean it doesn't exist, I've long been of the opinion that some specific sanctions would have got support if someone could be bothered to do the necessary legwork but I don't blame them since it is a difficult and thankless task). And often too because the originating example is not a great example of a problem but rather one where actually a fair few people support the editor concerned. (People say there is a wider problem and not to focus too much on the example which started the complaint but it's always difficult to tell people to do so when then first thing they come across is not something they are concerned about.)

I mean even ignoring this case the last ANI thread I remember i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic behavior by User:Medeis at the reference desk was one where it was obvious nothing was going to happen from early on as me and others pointed out. (I would have done so even earlier if I had seen it and could be bothered.) Yet it continued long after that and achieved nothing. As mentioned by others it wasn't even the right place for a lot of what was proposed anyway, rather an RFC or similar. (Although I'd caution against hasty RfCs, they've also similar spectacularly failed.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

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

User:JohnWilkinson (re-opening case)

This is a continuation of a previous case from December 2016 / January 2017 (although I think may be getting my noticeboards confused; am I in the right place?) Either way, long-term unconstructive editing dating back to October 2015. Today, User:JohnWilkinson is back to his old tricks at Gennady Golovkin, loudly spouting his nonsensical agenda against the IBO and presenting himself as some all-knowing authority on boxing. When it comes to utter nonsense like this, the phrase I'm looking for is "I cannot". Again, I dread interacting with him in any way, but please do something. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

He rarely if ever used talkpages, refuses to engage... a short block seems necessary. --Tarage (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

He's been making these edits for almost two years, but only returning every few months to do so. A short block won't ward those off. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban? --Tarage (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Since he has no existing block log, a short block is the obvious next step. I'm prepared to do it if this recurs. Deb (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• I think we need to be a bit more strict here. The user is clearly NOTTHERE- he wasn't on this last username nor the one before that. The user has been given chance after chance- the first ANI thread got derailed after unintentional OUTING and the second ANI thread (ironically enough opened by himself) raised serious CIR issues- a 'last chance' if you like. At this point, I can only conclude that this user has serious CIR issues between the anti-IBO agenda and nonsensical edit summaries and is just NOTTHERE to build an encyclopedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. This might be low-level and intersperesed by months of inactivity, but it's no less trolling for that- or disruptive. Frankly they should probably be indef'd and get it over with. They narrowly escaped sanction in (two) previous ANIs, as a result of doing their usual M.O. disappearing act. At the last one, NinjaRobotPirate was pretty clear as to the consequences of any continuation. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's true my talk page message was supposed to be a final warning, but maybe I wasn't clear enough about that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No issue with another admin blocking now but I'll be alerted whenever JohnWilkinson edits and will block if they don't heed my clear, final warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Should that happen, do I come back here yet again or just let one of you know? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: I'll be alerted whenever JohnWilkinson edits and will monitor them so there's no need to notify me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Here he goes again.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Already indefinitely blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

After doing a little bit of poking about on the net, this block is as much for his sake as it is ours. Blackmane (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User refuses to gain consensus for major changes

User:Tvx1 recently (about two weeks ago) began making major changes to the way race schedule tables are laid out in IndyCar season articles (e.g. 2017 IndyCar Series). He did so without opening discussion on any talk pages or project pages. He unilaterally reversed a long-standing practice of color-coding different types of tracks in these tables. I am simply asking that these tables be reverted to their prior appearance and a discussion opened with other editors regarding this change. I am absolutely fine with supporting his changes IF he achieves consensus, but he absolutely needs to do so before making such major changes. Furthermore, he has accused me of edit warring and violating WP:OWN, despite the fact that I am only suggesting that he follow the norms of editing on Wikipedia and actually interact with others. I believe this behavior is shameful and insulting and he should be warned against doing it in the future. Eightball (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, you are at 3 reverts over the same edit. Under 24 hours? I don't know. My math is off today. I've had like 6 hours of sleep. Secondly, this is a content dispute. It doesn't belong on ANI. Thirdly, there are no rules that require seeking consensus over WP:COLOR guidelines and such. You don't own the article, it doesn't require consensus. Nothing in Tvx1 suggests "shameful and insulting" behaviour. I propose this thread be closed. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I will also add that Eightball has also been launching personal attacks at me on my talk page. Additionally to the actions of Eightball, JoeyofthePriuses has been blanket reverting my edits on numerous IndyCar Series season articles (e.g. 2016 IndyCar Series, 2015 IndyCar Series over the last 24 hours. That user does not provide any explanation in their edit summaries as to why thy revert to a less accessible version of these articles. Prior to starting to make these articles compliant with guidelines and policies, I had a discussion on my talk page with Mark McWire supporting my actions. I even keep track there which articles are done and which still remain to be done. Lastly Drdisque also reverted Eighball's actions earlier today, so I'm certainly not acting against everybody else.Tvx1 19:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Eightball's edits and comments on Tvx1's talk page are extremely concerning here [5]. This is quite alarming "This isn't a debate, this isn't an argument, this is what you're going to do. You're going to post on the talk page of that article and you are going to SUGGEST the changes you made. And if people agree those changes are good, we will make them. You do not get to unilaterally decide to make those changes. You know full well that's how this website works. I do not care one bit about wiki guidelines. They are non-binding and I will ignore them as such. They are almost universally poorly thought out. You will explain why you think your changes are for the better, you will support your arguments with real evidence, or you will move a long. Act like an adult. " Canterbury Tail talk 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm most worried about the "I do not care one bit about wiki guidelines. They are non-binding and I will ignore them as such. They are almost universally poorly thought out" in that quote and the blatant personal attacks launched at me in this subsequent post on my talk page. WP:COLOR isn't poorly thought out. Quite on the contrary, it's carefully thought out to make our content as readable as possible and it also takes into account that there are wikipedia readers who don't have the ability to see color at all. Moreover, entire row coloring, like the ones contested, is not accessible to people using assistive software like screenreaders. That's why I can't see a good reason to blatantly ignore that guideline.Tvx1 20:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

JoeyofthePriuses has now posted a message similar to Eightball's on my talk page.Tvx1 20:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

To say "Act like an adult" is seriously uncalled for. His behaviour is alarming. I withdraw my previous proposal and move on to a WP:BOOMERANG. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I have now reverted JoeyofthePriuses' edits. If they continue to revert, I think RPP is appropriate until we can get this resolved. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, assuming they aren't the same person, this edit summary is very own-y. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, there's now some major stalking going on by Eightball and JoeyofthePriuses of Tvx1's edits. Tvx1's edits seem quite reasonable and stood for over a week before Eightball (a very infrequent editor often warned for edit warring and attacks/harassment who incidentally has never edited these Nascar article's before) decided he didn't like the edits and seems to have claimed some kind of ownership on them. I say that TVX1's edits were good, made in good faith and were not challenged at the time. The disruptive editing is coming from Eightball and JoeyofthePriuses who are engaging in an edit war over something they've decided they don't like. Quite telling that Joey edited the main article at the start of this dispute after Tvx1's original edits and seemed to have no issue with them until Eightball came in with the disruptive editing. They should be the ones taking to talk, not edit warring and insisting Tvx1 should take to talk. I think a huge boomerang is due to Eightball and Joey here. That being said, Tvx1 stop reverting constantly. Canterbury Tail talk 21:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I've done a skim through all of Eightball's edits and their talk page. It seems every single time they edit a page they get warnings for edit warring or harassment. They're WP:NOTHERE and I suggest we just block them indefinitely. Canterbury Tail talk 21:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully protected 2017 IndyCar Series before I saw these last few messages. Maybe an indefinite block would be a better solution. Otherwise, it seems like we're going to fully protect a dozen articles just because of ownership issues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I will not revert on any of the articles involved as long as the issue has not been resolved here. I have no intention whatsoever to cause disruption. I'm just trying to make the articles which fall under the scope of WP:AOWR friendly to read for all (or as close as I can get) of our readers. To clarify on my actions, I have not started doing this recently, contrary to Eightball's claims. The first time I made such an article compliant with accessibility guidelines was in in August of 2015 and these edits stood until an IP returned the excessive colors roughly six months later. I also made the articles on the 1986-1993 IndyCar season compliant with the guidelines in February and those edits still stand. Thus this is not a spur of moment, but merely a daunting tasks which I have been executing over an extended period. I then had a friendly discussion on my talk page with Mark McWire and have been gradually tackling the articles since. I takes time though. I try to do at least two article every day (in the evening) but unfortunately I don't always find the necessary time. Nevertheless I'm already over halfway.Tvx1 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

So where do we stand with this? What sort of resolution should we go for?Tvx1 19:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

While the MOS can in some cases can be ignored, WP:COLOR is an accessibility issue which affects lots of our readers, which means it should be followed unless there is a very very good reason not to. And I have yet to see one presented. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. As far as I'm concerned your edits in this area have been around for a while and as a result have an unspoken consensus, and some of the earlier talk has written consensus from other editors. It seems it's only two editors piling on each other that have issues. If Eightball and JoeyofthePriuses take issue with these changes then they need to take it to talk instead of throwing around threats and harassment. If they start reverting again without discussion as to why these changes shouldn't be implemented and going against WP:COLOR they'll be treated as disruptive edits. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I think there's also the question of OWN. The two editors' main concerns revolve around getting consensus for major changes. There is no policy or guideline for such. We don't have to reach consensus for all edits. It's called WP:BOLD unless you're unsure of the content you want to add. COLOR is a guideline to help readers with contrast issues. I don't see how that requires consensus? It doesn't. When Tvx1 made a bold edit, Eightball just quickly reverted insisting on getting consensus when it wasn't necessary in this case. While I do agree that Tvx1's behaviour was a little too much, Eightball's was worse. With various edit summaries from yelling, OWN behaviour, not citing actual policy, demanding a policy be cited, etc. It's problematic. This is all the same for JoeyofthePriuses. None of the users have been activate since their last revert and have been silent. I think their method is to let it slide and avoid consequences. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually Tvx1's edits weren't that bold, they've been making these kind of changes in this area of articles for months. And Eightball had never even edited the article in question before deciding they didn't like it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid that at least Eightball won't let this slide. On one of the rare occasions I have crossed paths with them I have been involved in another case were where they posted to a noticeboard with the request of "tell the other guys I'm right", only not to edit Wikipedia at all for nearly two weeks before returning and reacting with this when they found out that the discussion hadn't gone their way.Tvx1 21:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about Eightball. If there are any issues let me know and I'll look into it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I find it quite bizarre that neither involved editors have edited wikipedia at all since roughly the same time after the initiation of this discussion.Tvx1 15:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Ettrig

User:Ettrig has a minority view of where templates like Template:Expand French and Template:Expand German (as well other maintenance templates, e.g. Template:Alphabetize, but he hasn't acted on non-translation maintenance tags). A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Position_of_.7B.7BExpand_French.7D.7D_etc but Ettrig's view has attracted no support. Nonetheless, he has repositioned tags on well over a thousand articles, and he continues to do this despite numerous warnings (see User_talk:Ettrig#Please_stop_repositioning_language_templates_immediately). I'm involved in this dispute and cannot take administrative action here. Can someone else tell Ettrig to knock it off until he gains consensus? There is also the question of how to undo Ettrig's changes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, the discussion died out almost immediately. Last entry was 2017-06-07, more than a week ago. --Ettrig (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we start with the remedy proposed by User:Justlettersandnumbers here? Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. What is needed is a real discussion about the best placement of this template. Maybe it also needs another form. My argument in condensed form: This template, when placed at the top, is a significant disturbance for the reader. It does not provide important information to the reader, almost no information relevant to the reader. The information provided to the editors is almost always obvious anyway and in a large minority of cases it is erroneous (the french article pointed to is a stub). --Ettrig (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• No-one except Ettrig appears to have expressed any agreement with the idea of moving these templates from their long-standing position at the top, along with other maintenance templates, to the bottom of the article. S/he appears determined to impose their view on the encyclopedia, by modifying the template documentation and then moving the templates. The order of elements of an article is set out in the MOS at WP:ORDER, but there was no discussion of this major change at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout until I raised it there on 5 June. In discussion there, Ettrig appears to be a minority of one - if "the discussion died out almost immediately" it was because of such strong consensus. I would encourage reversion of all these moves, which do not have the community's support. PamD 08:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This statement was not true when it was entered. PamD themselve had expressed lack of disagreement. --Ettrig (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find user Ettrig's attitude less than collaborative, even if he/she has a very valid point that the tag is often misused (and could usefully be removed in those cases). There's been discussion, as linked above, and there has been no support for Ettrig's position. Nevertheless, he/she has continued to make the same edits. It's one thing to be bold, another to to edit when you know that consensus is against you. I did previously suggest a mass revert of the user's edits, but had not at that time realised just how many of them there were, nor how far back they go. This would seem to be a task for a bot – if there's consensus that it should be done? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration and consensus means that when there is conflict the subject matter is to be discussed. I have tried to discuss, but met no substantive arguments. It has been as above, mentioning of supposed consensus. MOS:ORDER says that elements typically appear in the following order. This is clearly not a definitive instruction. Template:Expand French is not a typical maintenance tag. It does not point at a problem. It points at a perfectly natural state of affairs (when used correctly, which is often not the case), namely that the editors on the French Wikipedia have put more effort into phenomena that are near to them, such as French communes and Quebec. The beginning of an article is very precious space. This is where the reader starts. When this tag is put there, it stands in the way of the reader finding the information she is searching for. This may be warranted when the article has a problem that needs to be fixed quickly or that the reader needs to be warned about. But this is not a problem. It might also be warranted if it stimulates good activities. It does not. I have now seen a lot of these articles (about 2000). The vast majority of them (about 80%) have had this template in more than 8 years. Obviously, a person who can translate from French to English does not need this template to find suitable articles to translate. And if she looked at this article and found it lacking, with that language knowledge it would be the obvious thing to do to look at the French article for material and inspiration. I have now seen a lot of the articles that are tagged with this template. And beleive me, they are not the most important articles to translate. The typical such article is a French commune with 100 inhabitants that has a French article that is a stub. This template harms the reader. It provides no value that counterweighs this. This should be discussed. Voting is not collaboration. --Ettrig (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ettrig, that you have "met no substantive arguments" is demonstrably false. You may not agree with the arguments that others have presented, but that does not mean they are not substantive. Regardless, there is no need to hash out the actual issue about placement on this page -- WT:MOSLAYOUT is the place for that. The only question is whether it is appropriate for you to be moving them en masse without gaining consensus first. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I will also note that you moved around 50 additional templates after being informed of this discussion here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• So, this is the way this should go: Ettrig should agree to stop moving templates until there is some consensus. Everyone involved should probably put together an RfC on the issue, and work out/agree to wording for that RfC, and then everyone should respect the outcome. Too easy. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI is about incidents involving user behavior, not content disputes. Ettrig should stop moving templates around, now, period, whether or not there is or will be an Rfc. They are entirely independent of each other and should remain so.

Anyone who wishes to may, of course create an Rfc at any time, and they don't need a green light from anybody else about the wording or anything else in order to do so. Creating an Rfc is a proper subject for the MOS talk page, not ANI.

Pending an Rfc that may or may not happen, and may or may not support Ettrig's position if it does, the templates moved thus far should be rolled back, in order to avoid sending the signal to future editors that a unilateral change to an instruction or guideline without consensus along with an accompanying, massive unilateral effort to alter articles to their own PoV would be allowed to remain standing, and that there is thus no downside in attempting it. This impression would be detrimental to the encyclopedia, and could be wasteful of the time of many editors to fix the concomitant damage. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

1. ANI is supposed to be about user behavior, but as often as not is about content disputes.
2. Calm down. This is not Lake Pontchartrain flooding into the encyclopedia. It's template placement, and it's not really going to make an iota of practical difference to our readers where the things are at anyway. You all act like this is some serious material damage to content, when it's an overall exceedingly minor MoS dispute. It is pretty much hysteric pedantry at its finest.
3. There's this accusation floating around that the user themselves added the language to the article, there have been no diffs I've seen of that, and from what I can tell it's been present for nearly ten years.
4. The current language seems to indicate that the correct placement is at the bottom of the article, and I've seen no rebuttal to that other than the idea that people seem to have simply ignored that guidance, and the accusation that behavior in apparent accord with that guidance is somehow disruptive falls flat. You can't claim no opposition when you've made no effort to open the issue to a wider audience other than the user in question and everyone who happens to disagree with them and is therefore aware of the discussion, and do so on an page with 70 watchers, most of which are probably inactive.

Overall, someone should have opened an RfC on this a long time ago, and because they haven't, we've apparently driven an editor with 13k mainspace edits into retirement. Good job. TimothyJosephWood 22:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Huh? I only raised a user behavior issue here; there is no need to resolve the content dispute on this page (discussions are ongoing elsewhere). (2) I agree that it is not a grave emergency; that is why no one brought this here until Ettrig made over 1000 (and possibly over 2000 edits) along these lines. (3)/(4) The current language was changed by User:Ettrig himself, see [6]. It was left in this condition while discussion occurred, but only Ettrig has expressed agreement with this view. And how can you claim that Ettrig has been driven into retirement? He made 50 of these edits yesterday. Also, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout has 505 watchers, and Wikipedia_talk:Translation has 263 watchers. It is Ettrig's burden to get wider attention on this issue if every other person participating in the discussion opposes his view. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: I first alluded to User:Abrahamic Faiths being the first to challenge Ettrig's actions back in September. For whatever reason, AF has recently retired. Mathglot (talk)|

As far as I can tell, the majority of what the user did was copy/paste the guidance that was on the templates basically since they we're invented and transferred it verbatim to a related page. I'm fairly surprised that this has made it to ANI and no one seems to have realized that, and everyone seems to think that this user in particular decided this by fiat some time in the last few weeks.

This is precisely why users like me have been adding it to the bottom: because we looked at the template, read the guidance, and did what it told us to do. TimothyJosephWood 00:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Since your points 2 and 4 are about content issues I'm not going to respond to them here.

Regarding your point #3, the template language in question has only been around since August. It was added unilaterally without discussion by User:Ettrig, presumably to justify his subsequent or concurrent mass changes. Your impression of its being older than that is due to misreading or not seeing the transclusion, which picks up the 2017 (current) version even when the file you are looking at is from 2009.

The diffs you requested are available and will prove the point; they can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Expand language diffs. This behavior is not okay, regardless whether the content change is an improvement . Mathglot (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Rereading the above, I'm not sure if that was clear, as I didn't really respond to your specific comments. So, I will now.

• As far as I can tell, the majority of what the user did was copy/paste the guidance that was on the templates basically since they were invented and transferred it verbatim to a related page.
  1. No, that never happened.
  2. The guidance has only been on the templates since August.
• I'm fairly surprised that this has made it to ANI and no one seems to have realized that,
  • That's because there's nothing there to notice.
• ...and everyone seems to think that this user in particular decided this by fiat some time in the last few weeks.
  • August 30, to be exact. Yes, this particular user. Witthout consultation, and edit-warring when anyone challenged. I'd say that's a fair definition of "By fiat."

Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• An RfC has been started here, and the user has agreed here to stop making changes pending the result of the RfC. So I think we're done here probably. TimothyJosephWood 23:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This is now—what?—the fourth time you have conflated an Rfc concerning a pretty minor MOS content dispute, with an ANI discussion about a user's remarkably diligent and months-long massive alteration of hundreds (now, thousands) of articles to suit the user's PoV against consensus, following a unilateral change to a doc page which Ettrig edit-warred to enforce. Your repeated attempts to link the two either represents a misunderstanding about what a guideline talk page is for, or what ANI is for, or an attempt to obfuscate the issue here at ANI and dismiss a serious violation of user behavior concerning consensus and dispute resolution. So, no: we are not done here.

We will be done here, when the community has had its say about whether such behavior is acceptable, or not. The guideline on consensus says, Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. The behavior of this user is one of the more persistent and flamboyant examples of flouting this core guideline that I have seen in my years at Wikipedia. (I don't doubt that the experienced admins and editors here have seen much worse; but I haven't, as this is my first one.)

I followed your link above, and there is no statement there by the user. Perhaps you meant, this link? I don't see that the user has agreed to stop making changes, what I see is a nebulous comment that makes no such promise but can be interpreted however you like. But if you are right about the user's intent, then let them make an unequivocal statement about that here in plain English. Stopping the unacceptable behavior is the first step.

However, acquiring such an unequivocal statement is not the end of the story, but merely the beginning. My chief concern about this whole issue is the very bad precedent that might be set if we do nothing in the face of such user behavior. I fear that this would send a message in Wikipedia's voice that unilateral doc alteration and massive article change by a lone-wolf editor against consensus may be engaged in with impunity, thus encouraging such behavior in the future.

For a remedy, I call for no block or ban on this user; rather, I call for a rollback (revert, undo, I'm uncertain of the proper terminology) of all changes to articles made by Ettrig since the beginning of this campaign (approximately 2016-08-30, I believe). For this remedy to have any teeth and mitigate future hazard it must be fully decoupled from the ongoing Rfc at the risk of encouraging rogue editors in the future; if we "wait and see how the Rfc comes out" it will only encourage the rogue-on-the-fence to take a shot at it. So that is precisely what we must not do here.

As I said, this is my first ANI, and I'm not quite sure how to proceed, or what happens next. I've stated what I see to be the main issue, I've described the risk I see of damage to the encyclopedia due to Ettrig's behavior, and I've formulated a remedy which I would like to see discussed among interested editors.

Oh, I almost forgot: the rules call for diffs. Well, these aren't quite diffs (I'd have to supply 5,000 of them) but two rev history links should suffice to illustrate the point. Ettrig is a knowledgeable editor of many years' standing, having contributed to innumerable articles^{[Warning: long page]} in any number of topic areas. Somewhere around a year ago, they started on this large-scale campaign of article changes^{[Warning: long page]} to the exclusion of almost any useful improvement to the encyclopedia.

Now what? Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I suppose these two links would be useful here: these represent two attempts to discuss with Ettrig about achieving consensus first and stopping their unilateral actions. One is from last September initiated by User:Abrahamic Faiths, and the other from this May by Mathglot, when I first realized what was happening. Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes

• What happens now is that you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You can't block an editor for an edit war that happened ten months ago, and you can't block an editor for changes that they're no longer making and that can just as easily probably be reversed by a bot. You can't make mass changes the consensus for which is still underway. What you do is take your thirst for vengeance and retribution, put it in a box and throw it in the nearest river because the things that should have been put in place months or years ago are now in place, and if those involved don't respect that, then you come here. TimothyJosephWood 02:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is a clear consensus that the templates have been placed at the top. I would suggest that Ettrig make no article-space edits until he returns the templates to the top. If consensus were found that the templates belong at the bottom, that could be done by a bot. Moving them to the top would be more complicated, and probably could not be done by a bot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host by PantherLoop

PantherLoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using their user page as a web host, adding results tables for non-existent seasons of America's Next Top Model [7]. I warned them twice on their talk page about this [8][9] after removing the material [10][11], but they reverted me [12][13] before leaving the message "Dont do that again!!! This is my page not yours and I can do what I want with that!!!" on my talk page [14]. They've made few edits to other pages recently, and this behaviour seems problematic. What should be done? Linguist^talk|contribs 14:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Right now the page is at your version, Linguist111, i. e. it's blank. I'll watchlist it and delete per WP:U5 if they put back the material. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you. Linguist^talk|contribs 07:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Update

PantherLoop re-inserted the material after being warned not to, and their userpage was deleted by Bishonen. We've discussed this here now as well. Linguist¹1¹ 19:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And now PantherLoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made this comment on Bishonen's talk page. Calling one of our most respected colleagues "sick in the brain" is completely beyond the pale. As you can see from his contributions, he's not here to build an encyclopedia. Would some kind admin please take appropriate action to ensure that he causes no more problems here until he's grown up. --RexxS (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I've made a try to get through to them with a handwritten message on their talk page. I hope they will be able to better their conduct, but I feel they're perhaps just not ready to contribute to Wikipedia. They say on their user page that they are from Germany, and their messages aren't written very coherently, so I'm assuming there is also a language barrier. Because of this, I think they're not on equal footing with other contributors, and if they continue, I'd be in favour of having them blocked until they are more ready. Linguist¹1¹ 17:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Are they active on de.wp? If not it may be a good idea to point them there. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ja, das stimmt.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Asileb

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

---

This user is constantly edit warring with me whenever I contribute something to article page CeCe Peniston discography. In my edits, I try to make it easier for readers to understand an abbreviation "DCS" by changing to "Dan." or "Dance" since it doesn't affect any of the chart perimeters. Also, a confusing edit that says the song "Keep Givin' Me Your Love" peaked at number 1 on the Hot 100, which is false information. However the song went to number 1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100, so I tried to change the number 1 to number 101 or simply just have " — " there under that column. All of those edits were reverted by User:Asileb. After a series of reverts by this user, I left a message on their talk page and have yet to receive a reply but they continue to show ownership of content behavior by not letting anyone else contribute to the article. I also opened up a discussion about the other issues on the page, but I know if I were to edit, it would just be reverted the mentioned user. In closing, I want to be clear that I'm not hoping this user to be blocked or banned, but to let someone else contribute to the article too. Horizonlove (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Horizonlove, you can keep telling yourself what ever makes you happy, the history of your desperate actions speak for itself. End of the story. Asileb (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asileb: This shouldn't be news to you. I've saying this since the first edit and the summary that said "False info. And I replaced the chart initials to make it easier for readers." Yes, the history does speak for itself because 3 days later (to date), you still haven't replied the message I left on your talk page. In a reverted edit and edit summary by you, you said "The legend is clear as said, whether you like or not. And once you post a message, you wait for a reply first", which also displays WP:OWN. No user is bound to have to consult with you before they can edit the page, I just left you a message so we could talk it out. Horizonlove (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Well both of you are into territory where you could potentially be blocked for edit warring, and both of you have barely used the talk page, if at all. This is typically the order things go in, and if you're not going in that order, you're typically wrong: Edits → reverts → talk → RfC/other WP:DR → sometimes "lower tier" notice boards like WP:BLPN, WP:RSN and WP:ORN → nuclear noticeboards like WP:ANEW and WP:ANI. It seems you've both basically skipped the talk part altogether, opened an RfC with no discussion, and before a single person could comment, opened an ANI thread. If this wasn't already here, and I'd come across the article, I'd have been tempted to report you both to WP:ANEW, or just take the page to WP:RFPP as a content dispute. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Actually I'm not in the territory of being blocked as per Wikipedia:Edit warring, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I do not fall under the violation as I have only reverted a total of 4 times throughout a period of 3 days, but never 3 or more within a 24-hour period. I have opened up a discussion on the article's talk page whereas I talked about the issues and requested that another user comments. Also as stated above, I have also opened up a discussion on the user's talk page. Horizonlove (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring does not equal 3RR, and plenty of editors have been blocked for slow moving edit wards that don't cross 3RR. You opened an RfC. You should have opened a run-of-the-mill discussion prior to that, and you should have waited for the RfC to conclude, or at least get some feedback before coming here. TimothyJosephWood 21:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: It was made clear to me Asileb saw the message I left him on his talk page. And my edits weren't just a plain-out "edit war" if that's what you're calling it, I was removing false information from the page. That was consistent throughout the time I edit the page and I talked about it on talk pages and in the edit summaries of my edits. Those edits were however reverted by the user. Horizonlove (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"False information" or some variant thereof, is the rationale given by probably 65% of editors who get blocked for edit warring. There are very few instances where "fixing the article now" is really that important, and those are exceptions to edit warring, like copyright violations and violations of our biographies of living persons standards. Other than that, if you're right, and it's controversial, then get consensus to back up how right you are. Most articles go through spurts of intense editing and then lay dormant for months or years without any substantial changes. So if it takes a few extra days to establish a firm consensus, it's not gonna kill anyone. TimothyJosephWood 21:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Very respectfully, regarding how many users may use that as an excuse is a little irrelevant especially when it proven to be true. I wouldn't call the need to remove it from the page urgent or high-priority, if that were the case, we wouldn't have been 3 days ago. But I definitely wouldn't want it constantly sitting on that page while readers are believing something that isn't true. One of the two things I removed from the article was under Singles, the song "Keep Givin' Me Your Love" did not peak at #1 on the Hot 100 as they claim. Anyway, the proof is here on this link as there is no mention of the song on the page. Furthermore, I read the link] given it said "the song was #1 on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles", and there is still no mention of the song in that article link. But let's assume in good faith if that "references" said that "the song was #1 on Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles", wouldn't be more appropriate to change the "1" → "101" or just put a " — " under that column? Again respectfully, I've waited 3 days "to establish a firm consensus", so how much longer are we going to wait while false information sits on the page? Horizonlove (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no deadlines. You WILL wait for consensus. If you have a problem with that, Wikipedia is not for you. --Tarage (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: There is no false information, it is obvious and you were told so a number of times. The article has a clear legend whether you ignoring it on purpose or else. Simple as that. Asileb (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak to the edit-warring, but based on the article, Asileb's edits are deliberately misleading. Being number 1 on "Bubbling Under" should be considered as #101 on the "Hot 100" column. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Being right is not an excuse to edit war, plain and simple. This page gets viewed by an average of 23 people a day and a good chunk/most of that is probably you two. Get over it, and go to the talk page. TimothyJosephWood 22:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage: Calm down, I never said it had deadline. Also respectfully, please read the entire discussion as this has partly about meeting a consensus. Part of this about allowing someone else to edit the page and not display ownership of the page. The page CeCe Peniston discography is just an example of how this user asserted ownership of it by constantly reverting it back to the misleading content after I have removed the false information. @Power~enwiki: I agree. And that is one of things I tried to change it to until I realized that the song wasn't even #101 on that chart too. So that was another false statement on the page. @Timothyjosephwood: Respectfully, I can't speak who about the 23 people who read the page on average as I do not know who they are specifically. If I help make up that 23 average, that's fine. I just happened to come across the page and notice the problem whereas I then tried to correct it. And that lead to a series of reverts. Horizonlove (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Nope, you are not right. The Hot 100 chart includes 100 positions, not 101 positions or more. And that would be the "false information" in Horizonlove's vocabulary. Asileb (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the discussion that should have been had on the article's talk page. Use it.TimothyJosephWood 23:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asileb: The "Bubbling Under Hot 100" has often considered an extension of the "Hot 100". So many Wikipedia users will often add 100 to the value of the chart position. For example, if a song charted #34 on the "Bubbling Under Hot 100", some users will put #134 on under Hot 100 chart column. Other of course will just put a dash ( — ) there with a foot-note that says something similar to "'Song title' did not enter the Billboard Hot 100, but peaked at number ## on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart." Originally I was not opposed to having any of those suggestions on the page, as I tried to add that there myself and it was reverted repeatedly. But where it currently stands suggest misleading info, especially because there is no source that says it charted on either of those charts. Now if Asileb can WP:PROVEIT, then I'll stop calling misleading or false. Horizonlove (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

...seriously... Post this on the talk page, and if needed, use WP:DR. If you do all that and the other party is still unwilling to discuss, then come here. TimothyJosephWood 23:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Revrant and BLP issue

The initial edit was this unsourced contentious claim about a living person, claiming the person was " cheering death squads and bombs cutting down 1,400 Palestinian civilians."[15]

I reverted the edit, citing BLP[16] and warned Revrant.[17]

Revrant restored the claim with a source that has the BLP stating, "I am sending my love and prayers to my fellow Israeli citizens,” she wrote. “Especially to all the boys and girls who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas, who are hiding like cowards behind women and children...We shall overcome!!! Shabbat Shalom! #weareright #freegazafromhamas #stopterror #coexistance #loveidf" The BLP does not directly state (and the source does not otherwise say she did) that she supports "death squads and bombs cutting down 1,400 Palestinian civilians."[18]

A similar statement with reverts and BLP warnings on Revrant's talk page followed, always with the same source. I asked that they discuss the issue on the BLP noticeboard and not restore the comment until that had taken place. After a posting to ANV (and Revrant's counterpost), Revrant has not restored the material thus far, but clearly does not agree that there is a problem with the claim. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Left message on their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade

There is a long history of persistent disruptive editing at Talk:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Please see the page's history. This is long term abuse by a vandal described at here: User:Salvidrim!/Macy_VG_IP_vandal. It is clear that this problem is not going to go away for a long time. Is semi-protection or pending changes for this talk page and other targeted talk pages reasonable in this situation? Is there maybe a way that an edit filter could help? Deli nk (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

While any action would be helpful, their range of disruption is rather large. They litter the site with bogus video game announcements and hoax games. It's cleaned up almost immediately by the video game community though, at least, as their attempts are blatantly stupid if you know anything about the industry. Still, it's been an irritating thing to cleanup for years now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, pretty sure technical restrictions or something prevent pending changes on talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

So semi-protect it already. How often does the Macy's parade require real discussion anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, though as I mentioned, this guy does this across hundreds of articles, so it doesn't really deter things as much as you'd think. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone with experience with edit filters advise on whether an edit filter would be more helpful or more deterent? The one month semi-protection of one page will help a bit, but as Sergecross73 says, this is a much wider problem. It's been going on for at least four years as far as I can tell. Deli nk (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I range blocked 70.214.64.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which should help some. He also seems to be using 2600:1:f410::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2600:1017:b400::/44 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), but I can't get Wikipedia to show the contribs for these IPv6 ranges. Normally, if you enable wildcard searches and do a search for 2600:1017:b40* (talk · contribs · WHOIS), it'll spit out the contribs, but not this time; I get an error message instead ("No changes were found for this wildcard/CIDR range"). If someone tells me the range blocks are OK to perform, I could do them. I'm not really familiar with the edit filter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:: It works if you use capital letters: 2600:1017:B40* (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks for the range blocks. Deli nk (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, what a pain. Alright, I'll check that out and see if I can do more range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It turned out there weren't all that many contributions on the ranges and was easy to look through. I range blocked them all for a month. There's some Donald Trump troll active on here, too. It looks like a 2-for-1 range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Wwallacee continuing unprovoked personal attacks

Summary: Over a year after I last interacted with him, Wwallacee today used the opportunity of an unprovoked attack on Apollo The Logician to label him and me as a certain highly political but loutish element in the Irish Wikipedia editing force". I asked him to withdraw the attack, but he posted to the same page without responding.
Background: In April last year, Wwallacee took exception to an innocuous edit of mine to an article he was editing, and posted to the talk pages of over twenty articles on which he was not previously involved (apparently by going through my contributions), warning them of my "political bias" and asking users to "monitor me". This discussion at ANI followed which led to him being blocked. Far from being deterred, two weeks later he opened this thread at ANI with a 4,000-word essay in which he went through a huge number of my edits on articles and talk pages that had nothing to do with him, claiming that they were disruptive. In both discussions, every one of the responses from neutral editors said that my editing was and always had been unproblematic. The failure to close that second discussion without any admonition to Wwallaccee led me to withdraw from Wikipedia for several months. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that I didn't interact in any way with him again, he continued with his attacks: this, after the second ANI discussion had been archived and I had retired (notice that comments at ANI were "attacks against me by Scolaire's supporters, whom he must have contacted outside of Wikipedia somehow"), this in November ("Scolaire's disruptive and coercive behavior"), and now the "highly political but loutish element" comment today.
Just to re-iterate, apart from a couple of edits on "his" article – which were in no way intended to provoke him – and the ensuing drama, Wwallacee and I have no history whatever. The reasoning behind this persistant campaign baffles me.
I am asking for Wwallacee to be indefinitely blocked unless or until he acknowledges that what he is doing is contrary to WP:NPA, and promises never to do it again. Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Having reviewed the threads linked above, I really don't think Wwallacee is ever going to comprehend that his conduct needs to change. His strategy is to attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with him, all while accusing Scolaire of doing precisely the same thing. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that was completely uncalled for and his not dropping the stick is problematic. --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

In favor of a one-way IBAN? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This complaint appears to be resulting from an edit by User:Wwallacee on his own talk page. i think User:Scolaire probably needs tougher skin. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at the evidence presented in the complaint? Wwallacee has some very problematic editing habits and it is time to address them. Lepricavark (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea of the case history, but this has already been on ANI according to the complaint, and the only new edits discussed are on WWallacee's talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know about the case history, you probably shouldn't be so dismissive of Scolaire's complaint. It's not a good look for an inexperienced editor to tell an experienced editor to grow tougher skin, especially when you haven't really reviewed the matter. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I can handle my own look. Do you agree or disagree with my statement that the only action Wwallacee is accused of that hasn't previously been adjudicated here is editing his own talk page? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You didn't review the case, but you did give a far more experienced editor some condescending advice. And let's not use a strawman to distort Scolaire's complaint. It's not a simple matter of Wwallacee editing his own talk page. It's a matter of Wwallacee using his own talk page as a device for attacking another editor. Lepricavark (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

To put it even more bluntly, this board is for editors to seek assistance from admins and experienced editors, which you are obviously not. Blackmane (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Incivility in edit summary by Swaggum13

Swaggum13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the edit summary of this edit, the editor refers to another editor (an IP) as "nigga" (albeit with emoticons replacing the "g"s). While the editor's other edit summaries don't reflect this kind of incivility (most include no edit summary at all), the editor should be mindful of the extremely offensive and provocative nature of that term in English. The editor does not appear to have edited this article before and does not appear to be engaged in a dispute. General Ization ^Talk 00:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the edit in question was removing "Dio Brando" from a list of Marlon Brando's children. Apparently "Dio" is a fictional character in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure. I'm not at all familiar with the source material, but I'm guessing it was an in-universe reference of some kind. The editor might not be familiar with the full nature of the word. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect you're right in that both the edit being reverted and the edit summary are in-universe references; information here tends to support that. Nevertheless, the editor should be aware that Wikipedia (and the article they were editing) are not in-universe, and a reference that could be considered harmless by devotees of that genre could well be considered harmful and disruptive here (as this particular term would if, for example, shouted on a street corner). General Ization ^Talk 03:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs

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

---

My closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs needs to be restored. WP:NACD states "If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale–." and "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review." My close was clearly appropriate and lacking controversy. I commonly close discussions there under similar circumstances, e.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amcskillet and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abuse of dominant position (Competition Law). Legacypac is neither uninvolved or an administrator (their revert). Warning them not to revert others' closures in the future may also be due. Courtesy ping to Spinningspark who deleted the page. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely any other editor is welcome to close any of my MfDs, just not my personal WP:HOUND. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sometimes you get what you ask for. Newimpartial (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes you get what you ask for. Which means...? --Calton | Talk 04:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacy said that "absolutely any other editor is welcome to close any of my MfDs", so I closed the MfD in question as Godsy had also asked. And yet, for some reason, Legacy withdrew his welcome and reverted again. Is this edit warring? Newimpartial (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You did not close the MfD you restored Godsy's out of order close. See below - his close violated WP:NACD Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

At the time I restored it, nobody had indicated that it was out of order. You had only referred to hounding. Newimpartial (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

By "commonly", it appears to mean "once a week" -- at least until recently. The timing, I'm sure, is a coincidence. But I think Wikipedia will survive you missing your weekly task. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

By my estimate, I've closed about 150 deletion discussions this year, which averages to about one per day. When the work becomes available (i.e. a page listed at a deletion venue gets speedily deleted; that type of close constitutes the majority of my closures) is irregular. I've probably personally closed at the least the majority (i.e. over 50%) of miscellany for deletion discussions where a page listed there is speedily deleted during the discussion this year. Other editors sometimes close them before I notice or get to them or I may choose not to close one for various reasons. Every contributor is replaceable, but there was nothing wrong with my closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Medieval jobs, hence the reversion of it was improper and there is no need to double the work by making someone else close it. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Improper closing of an MfD by Godsy

WP:NACD also says "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion" Tagging that page for speedy deletion is clearly an "opinion" making the MfD NAC improper. I recall your tag coming across my Watchlist, followed soon after by the NAC. Please activate User:Godsy/CSD_log for transparency. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale." (emphasis added by me) WP:NACD. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should anyone care?

It's a WP:G2, an admin considered the G2 tag and deleted it, it needed closing, it's closed, precisely who closed it seems entirely irrelevant. This seems extremely WP:POINTy and crossing the WP:BURO line. I strongly suggest that everyone should just move on from it, before something unnecessary happens. Nit picking and wikilawyering the precise wording of policies and guidelines in a situation like this serves absolutely no purpose, it does not move the project in any useful direction, and goes against all good common sense. Murph9000 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. I reverted an out of process close by my personal WP:HOUND who brings it to ANi. He selectively quotes policy to justify every stupid action. Another block of Godsy for hounding may stop the drama as least as long as the block lasts. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

But if it isn't out of process, though, why the drama? It seems that the close was, in fact, in-process.Newimpartial (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Legacy, you're missing the point of my message. Regardless of past history, reverting an obvious close of a G2 (twice) that has been deleted by an admin seems extremely POINTy and across the BURO line. Who closed it seems entirely irrelevant. It should have been a simple close that everyone could just easily move on from, to do something productive. It seems to me that continuing to push the issue may not be in your best interests. G2 seems like a particularly silly hill to battle on, when the G2 status seems entirely undisputed. I really think you should reconsider your position, and perhaps take steps to reach a peaceful conclusion. Murph9000 (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regardless of whether the closure was appropriate or not (it was appropriate), your reversion of the closure was unambigously inappropriate; "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review." WP:NACD. I have never hounded anyone; your repeated false allegations along those lines have failed to convince the community above. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Infact, 'Pac has helped to convince the community that he has little or no understanding about BLPs, notability and copyvios. The irony is that he's complaining about being hounded, now there's a lot more editors taking a very close look at his contributions. Careful, 'Pac, those boomerangs can hurt when they smack you in the chops. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that 'Pac thought he could remove this post. All the evidence to back up what I've said are clearly shown in the massive thread he started at the top of this page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm loving the new nicknames 'Nuts. Perfect for you. Please read WP:NPA Legacypac (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it's not a very bright idea to mockingly shorten someone else's name in a manner that could reasonably be considered a PA if you're going to also cite WP:NPA in the same post. And your removal of Lugnuts' post was a very foolish action. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not an "attack", as it's been proven that you do not understand BLPs, notabilty or copvios. It's in that massive thread at the top if this page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

'Pac is somewhat gung-ho, not up to speed with the fine text before doing things, a lot of things, mostly good things. 'Pac is keeping logs, and I like his ratio. Godsy is versed in the fine text. BLP fine text. How-to-indent fine text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is a much ado about nothing but I find fault all around. Legacypac should have just let this be. Once the page had been deleted there was zero point continuing the discussion, and zero point making a big deal over hounding or involved closure, especially since AFAICT, Legacypac doesn't dispute that it was pointless continuing with the discussion when the page had been deleted. Further they need to make clear whether they consider this Hounding, involved close violation or both. They can't say it's one then when someone does something suddenly bring up involved closure. Also when someone reverts to a closure like that, they are taking ownership of the close so NAC doesn't really apply anyway. Making a big deal over this damages any claim for hounding.

Still I'm not letting Godsy off the hook. I WP:AGF on their claim that they regularly close XfDs of this sort where the page is already deleted and that they just came across this when checking out XfDs. But did they not notice Legacypac was involved? If they say they did not then I'll AGF on that and let it be. But if they did notice Legacypac was involved it was silly to close. Yes it may be something they do all the time and they didn't come across it by following Legacypac, but considering the history of concern here, including from other parties, Godsy should stay away from Legacypac for unimportant stuff. There was no reason this was important. Yes it wastes a small amount of time for people to check it out, but people should notice the redlink and probably that the page is gone when they visit it. If they don't I don't think they should be commenting but in any case it's their own fault. So the time wasted is only in briefly looking through the XfD not in actually comments. In other words, the negative effect from leaving this open is minor and since Godsy themselves have acknowledges others regularly do this work, they could have simply left it for someone else to close rather then yet again involving themselves with Legacypac.

Finally while as I said earlier, nominally when you revert to a closure you are taking ownership of it, it would have been good if Newimpartial had made this clearer. More to the point, while Newimpartial hasn't been accused of hounding Legacypac AFAIK< they seem to be awfully involved in supporting Godsy and opposing Legacypac in recent discussions. Considering this, again it would have been far better if they simply left it for someone with less of a history. Again while this whole fuss is silly and the closure needed, there was nothing urgent so just let others deal with it rather than strongly risking aggravating the situation.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have never been involved in "supporting Godsy". The only reason I've been on ANI at all is because Legacy and Nyttend sent me here, and the only reason I noticed Godsy is that Legacy and Nyttend accused me of being their/them of being my "proxy" - otherwise I wouldn't know who Godsy even was. But as a result of those interactions, I have had to observe Legacy's actions in order to protect myself, which has resulted in the occasional non-admin comment on my part.

I closed the AfD because 1) it needed to be closed 2) they both apparently agreed that it needed to be closed and 3) resolving the issue was one click away. I wasn't WP:INVOLVED in the discussion there in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This is probably the first time I have ever seen someone get mad that an XfD they initiated was closed as speedy delete. The page had already been deleted, so Legacypac's reversion of Godsy's closure was an utterly unnecessary escalation. Godsy hasn't been IBANNed, so there is no reason why he can't close the discussion in question. This disruptive, time-wasting, wikilawyering by Legacypac verges on being a blockable offense. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Anonymous socks edit warring. BLP issue

At Ion Cuțelaba, "two" anonymous IP users keeps (re-)adding unreferenced information in violation of BLP policy.

Diffs: [19][20][21][22]

Based on the latest two edit summaries, seems that they are familiar with WP customs & policies, and as they are ignoring the BLP policy and are "warning" other users, this looks to me like some kind of wiki-trolling. XXN, 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this for three days. Please discuss the issues on the talk page and leave posts on the IP talk pages inviting them to the discussion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive I.P. editor on Talk:Spacetime

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

---

Hello.

An I.P. editor, 47.32.217.164, (Special:Contributions/47.32.217.164) has been in violation of WP:LISTEN on Talk:Spacetime for weeks now and is beyond tenacious. The underlying reason for the dispute is the I.P. disagrees with the consensus view that the article should limit itself to the widely accepted principles of Einstein's view of relativity. The I.P. wants to broaden the article so that it can apply to space with other than three spatial dimensions and time with more than one dimension. No one else agrees with the I.P.

This is no longer a content dispute. The I.P. continues to harangue on the talk page, uses wikilawyering terms like “being shouted down” and “personal attacks”, “railroading” and “fake consensus,” in addition to doozies like this comment: I feel it would be best if you stayed out of this discussion until my concerns have been addressed adequately.

The I.P. refuses to register, consistently fails to sign posts, sometimes comes in under a different I.P. address, has no interest in working on a broader-version (Non-relativistic spacetime) of the article the lead contributor there (User:Stigmatella_aurantiaca) created for the I.P., and recently wrote (∆ edit here) as follows: My concerns have been raised, but not addressed. Unless you're volunteering to address them, I'll think I'll stick around a while longer. The lead editor, I, and, and others have discussed the I.P.'s concerns ad nauseam but are unanimous that his idea is a poor one. His last post amounted to “If I you don’t get what I want, I’ll continue to badger everyone on this.”

I think the proper remedy is an I.P. block on this user. I’ve notified the I.P. on his talk page that I’ve started this thread.

Greg L (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If anyone here cares to hear my thoughts, I'll check my talk page periodically. I've responded to most of these accusations before, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to use the talk page for constructive discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good lord that talk page is a tremendous tl;dr. Suggesting a block for our IP editor here, as he is wasting everyone's time. --Tarage (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read, and just take everything at face value, you'll miss the rampant hypocrisy and abuse. He may talk the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Says the editor with "Retired from Wikipedia" on their talk page. You don't seem very retired to me. --Tarage (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried contributing again. I can remove that message, if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I.P. 47.32.217.164 is a clear-cut case of a single-purpose account who refuses to accept the community consensus. The other editors leaned over backwards for the I.P. far more than they should have had to endure, just to ensure they weren’t biting the newcomer.

Unfortunately, the I.P. steadfastly refuses to "get the point" and repeatedly complains that ‘discussion is being shut down’, he’s perpetually being ‘shouted down’, that he’s being ‘railroaded’, that ‘no consensus exists’, it’s a ‘fake consensus’, and ‘more discussion is needed’ until his “concerns have been addressed adequately.”

The I.P.’s penultimate post on the talk page was an outright threat (or “pledge” to be milder) that he fully intends to badger editors on the talk page to flog the same dead horse. For the last few days his message and tone has been a crystal-clear one of “If I don’t get my way, then I’ll be disruptive for revenge and sport.” The I.P. is purely disruptive and an I.P. block is clearly the proper remedy here. Greg L (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence for the leaning over backwards; I haven't seen it. I think it's fair game to ask for discussion to address concerns; that's not the same as getting my way, which it continues to be painted as. Telling me to listen and "get the point" might be reasonable, had there been prior discussion of my concerns. My intention is/was to improve the article, and has been consistently. Greg's characterization to the contrary is simply his opinion, and he has repeatedly decided to put words in my mouth (certainly makes it easier to make me a bad guy). Since he brings up flogging a dead horse, I will note that he is in fact repeating himself here. I think he does that to help him attempt to reframe things back to his POV (again, makes it easier to paint me as he chooses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:Stigmatella aurantiaca

• On 23 March 2017, User:Greg L and I (mostly me) began a major rewrite of the article Spacetime.
• I was out of the country with no access to the internet for a week between 14 May 2017 to 21 May 2017. The state of the article at the time of my departure was this.
• From 16 May 2017 onwards, IP 47.32.217.164 took my absence as an opportunity to completely rearrange the article. Greg and I were not happy. In talk discussions, IP 47.32.217.164 was extremely uncooperative, not willing to concede any points to either of us.
• On 29 May 2017‎ I made a BOLD Revert for discussion.
• On 12:28, 30 May 2017, Sławomir Biały gave his support for the version of the article that Greg and I had created. Greg and I considered this clear evidence of consensus.
• Since then, IP 47.32.217.164 has used extremely strong language to express his opinion that he does not consider a 3-to-1 consensus real. The consensus ratio is actually higher, but it is probably not fit to quote strong words written by another contributor to Spacetime that were not shared on the Article Talk page, but were rather made on my personal talk page.
• Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As an admin, I've looked into the history of Spacetime and the talk page and do see a few disagreements involving the IP 47.32.217.164 (talk · contribs). At present I don't think there is a case for a block or semiprotection. The IP made a set of edits in late May that appear to be well-intentioned and reasonably competent, though I don't know if the changes enjoy consensus. I suggest that the participants try to follow the ordinary steps of WP:Dispute resolution and see how far they can get. One possibiity is a WP:Request for comment. If you think you are stuck, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is far from what I want to consider ordinary. I'm assuming that would be a large time investment on my part (and that of others). I don't normally edit like that (as I tend to prefer the low-risk, high reward route), and I've already invested a lot of time in this, with next to nothing to show for it.

I don't solve most of my problems in real life with referees or lawyers, and I'm rather disheartened that should be required in this case. I was also rather disheartened to read the talk page of Tarage, after his out-of-the-blue appearance into this discussion (am guessing it's an alternate attack account for one of my abusers). While this is the worst abuse I've seen in over a decade here, it became apparent in reading his page that even worse abuse is routine, and largely unchecked. That's really not a community I want to be a part of, and it makes me question how I will ever feel comfortable being here again.

Thanks for looking into this, and not assuming I'm the antichrist. It's probably time for me to disengage for a while, and see if there's any reason to return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.217.164 (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Motion to close: Judging from Tarage’s talk page, he/she appears to be a bonafide editor and not a sock puppet (or, as I.P. guesses, “an alternate attack account” from one of I.P.’s “abusers”). I certainly know it's not a sock of mine; I don’t operate socks and wouldn’t know what to write about German nationalism.

I would have thought that the record of I.P.’s tendentious railing against consensus would merit an I.P. block. But if that isn’t in the cards, then at least ‘thanks’ for looking into this.

I would propose, for future reference, that if the I.P. ever returns, we not waste so much time falling into the trap of circuitous arguments and instead just perform a quick RFC on the Talk:Spacetime page, identify the consensus view, and move on. It seems we’re done here. Greg L (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Further observations by Stigmatella aurantiaca

• Neither Greg nor I know Tarage. Tarage's contribution to this discussion represents an opinion by a totally uninvolved editor.
• The IP's rants against Tarage, accusing him/her of being nothing more than a sockpuppet of Greg or myself, represent a disconnect from reality.
• Prior to his current address, IP 47... was 75.139.254.117 (talk). In the talk page history of his previous account, he displayed a contentious editing history.

1. Evidence that IP 47... and IP 75... are one and the same person is clear.
2. With this edit, IP 47... identified himself as being "One of the editors who happened to agree with the redo sentiment".
3. The only IP editor contributing to the referenced discussion was IP 75...

• I was reluctant to post this edit by YohanN7 on my talk page, but it is too relevant to the current discussion to ignore.
• IP 47... believes that he is a persecuted individual beset upon by bullies who refuse to acknowledge his many positive and insightful contributions.
• Wikipedia needs to be protected against earnest, well-meaning editors of his sort.
• Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The IP's response above is not encouraging. If the IP editor won't give assurances of good-faith participation on the talk page of Spacetime I think it's logical to consider semiprotecting the talk for a period, such as two months. I assume the registered editors who are now working to improve the article would take advantage of his absence to work further on it. A block wouldn't work because he jumps IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

My good faith on the talk page has been met with nothing but hostility. I don't intend to continue to subject myself to that hostility. My IP has changed, yes, but not due to anything under my control.

Comment by Greg L

All: It might be good for everyone to step back and take a 37,000-foot view and short history lesson.

The article greatly benefits from the contributions of Stigmatella aurantiaca
Some number of months ago, the Spacetime article was an utter mess; about the worst I’d seen on Wikipedia. I left a note on the talk page stating as much. The lede in particular was nothing more than bucket-full of buzzwords thrown at a wall, so it was inaccessible to a general interest readership from the start.

The project now benefits from a rare instance of having a knowledgeable editor who backchannels with Ph.D.s to ask them to review his work. I’d done the same thing when working on our Kilogram article; I back-channeled with a Ph.D. who was working at the NIST. Accordingly, I am keenly aware of the dedication it takes to invest that time while maintaining so much rigor and attentiveness.

Moreover, in most of the articles I labored on, I created animations and illustrations. Those take a lot of time but add immeasurably to articles, particularly highly technical ones. Stigmatella aurantiaca created 20 of the 26 illustrations on the Spacetime article.

Importantly, Stigmatella aurantiaca takes feedback from the community. More than that; he solicits feedback from the community. Having seen my post on the Spacetime talk page criticizing the abysmal state of the article (it was a subject matter beyond my ability to fix it), he reached out to me and asked me what I thought of his recent edits. Thus began a true collaboration, with me writing most of the lede (I am a professional technical writer and know how to make complex simple). I (as well as others) have helped Stigmatella aurantiaca throughout the rest of the article.

The essential take-away at this point: The project greatly benefits from Stigmatella aurantiaca’ involvement in the Spacetime article at this juncture. Now…

What the I.P. wants (broaden the scope outside of widely accepted physics like Special Relativity) is completely against consensus
The article is grounded in the fundamental principles laid down by scientific greats such as Lorentz and Einstein. They, and the vast majority of those who build upon their work accept that space has three dimensions (X, Y, and Z) and that time adds an additional dimension—the result is a 4-D “timespace.” The Spacetime article is built upon a foundation that is in perfect harmony with Special relativity. Though there are alternative theories where space has other than three dimensions, the unanimous consensus (except for the I.P.) is that the article should not be revised to broaden it so it is compatible with timespaces other than four dimensions; doing so would make it an unfocused mess. The I.P. doesn’t like that consensus and has one, persistent message that no one agrees with: This article is hugely biased towards special relativity (∆ edit).

I.P is disruptive and his arguments imagine non-falsifiable conspiracies against him
The I.P. is single-purpose account who steadfastly refuses to accept the community consensus and is a classic and extreme case of failure to WP:LISTEN. Every single attempt at reasoning with the I.P. goes nowhere because the I.P. employs wikilawyering-lingo where ‘I'm not getting my way’ equals he’s being shouted down (∆ edit) or he is the victim of lining up "friendly" editors for a false consensus (∆ edit).

The I.P. invokes non-falsafiable theories; either the I.P. gets his way, or any and all who oppose him are part of a hostile conspiracy. He’s constantly tilting at windmills whenever he’s not getting his way, which is always.

The proper remedy is clear
All the other editors shouldn’t have to deal with any more of this. Far too much valuable time has been wasted dealing with I.P. A single-purpose account that tendentiously rails against against the consensus view is the very definition of disruptive. I’ve seen the I.P. only at 47.32.217.164 and 75.139.254.117. Let's just block those two I.P. addresses and move on with less drama so Stigmatella aurantiaca and others can move on with improving the article. If the I.P. comes back after having been blocked, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Greg L (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected by Dlohcierekim for 2 days. TheDragonFire (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There is repeated vandalism on the Vanita Gupta article by IP's. Mitchumch (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested temporary Semi protection at WP:RFPP. No point discussing here. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Beast Donald

I've tagged a large number of images uploaded by Beast Donald (talk · contribs) for speedy deletion as they are unused in article space nor would their use comply with WP:NFCC#8. The large major of these uploads feature the character Shizuka (a minor) from the anime series Doraemon including panty shots, nudity, or in other sexually provocative situations. On top of that, the editor only uses the account to upload the images or create new articles, but uses IPs to include some of their images in articles.[23][24][25][26][27] —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked and nuked most of his uploads. One of them may have been illegal in the US, showing cartoon children in explicit positions. Feel free to mark any of the others for CSD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Soumyabratabhat8974 - Exploration Mission 2, Orion (spacecraft)...

Hi. For about 3 weeks, the user Soumyabratabhat8974 frequently edit the "Exploration Mission 2" (and lot of other pages like "Orion (spacecraft)"") with fantasist or irrelevant assertions, that are always reverted by me or other editors. Is it possible to block him on this page ? Thanks. --FlyAkwa (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• He was already blocked two days ago and obviously hasn't edited since. You didn't notify him that you bought a case against him here, something that is required and noted at the top of this page. I have provided notification but you need to do this yourself in the future. Since they were already blocked for 48 hours, there isn't anything else for us to do. BTW, you would be expected to provide that information in your complaint. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • My mistake : I put the notification in his "user page" rather than his "talk page". Thanks for your answer. --FlyAkwa (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Request block of User:Henia Perlman

• Henia Perlman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user, who says that she has been a teacher for more than 20 years, has been making edits to The Holocaust and related articles, but has not followed Wikipedia guidelines, had ignored advice of people that have adopted her and sought to mentor her.

She had been given warnings about not adding unhelpful or uncited content and continues to make edits after a final warning. The last edit was this edit after receving comments from here and here.

I am sure that there is not an intention to be disruptive, but there is also not an intention to try to work with others on the content to ensure that it is appropropriate and follows Wikipedia guidelines, such as being properly cited.

The warnings are posted on User talk:Henia Perlman. I don't remember asking for someone to be blocked before. Is there anything that I am missing?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but let's see if we can avoid a block here. I've posted a couple of observations at Talk:Holocaust. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that. I hope some headway can be made.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I hope so, too. There are certainly enough people trying to help her, both here, and at French wikipedia. I see your frustration, and that of others, and understand why you would call for a block. I can also see the sincere desire to help on the part of this new user, also, but I also see the disruption in the face of repeated attempts to instruct. I wouldn't be opposed to a short, narrow, topic-based block as a wake-up call given the situation but I just wanted to echo Yngvadottir to see if we can avoid it. My approach has been on Henia's talk page, here. Let's hope something works. Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathglot.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, maybe an article ban for the Holocaust article, that can be lifted when Henia shows that she is able to make edits that are policy compliant. I think this article is particularly challenging for a new editor, who may not understand why large rapid changes to the article are being reverted. Editing very broad and lengthy articles like this can be challenging and sometimes more specialized articles are a better experience. Several editors have suggested expanding more specialized articles and I'm inclined to agree that Henia should take a break from this article until she is more experienced.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia would like to have time to present her own version

Thank you so much for trying to consider. I am a new comer, retired from teaching the Holocaust for 20 years (not mentioned in Carole’s message), considered an expert in Holocaust research and education, experienced with how the average reader can understand the wikipedia Holocaust article (thousands of my students read it) with personal Holocaust background, an old lady mentally challenged in some aspects, would like to use her time to constructively contribute to the Holocaust article and other history articles.

From the beginning, as a newcomer my good faith contributions have been immediately reverted, many times, without attempt to talk to me, and using all kind of wiki terms, subjected to rollback, warnings, accusation of being disruptive (I checked wiki: and it does not seem that my conduct was disruptive as a new comer, and threats. It is only lately, that I felt a more truthful attempt to help me out, but because of the past, I didn’t know how much it was genuine. I was let to understand that there is a group of people, carefully watching contributions to the Holocaust article. I understand, I think the reasons. But, it was very clear to all, that I am not a Holocaust denier, as I posted some material about me in the user talk.

The whole wiki experience has been very stressful, especially with the death of my husband, and almost pushed me to give up being involved in Wikipedia. I did ask my previous mentor to help, but I didn't hear from him, after I asked a specific question. So, I just asked all editors, to help me with technology (some have been doing that without my request), as we all want to improve the content of the articles. andI am crying writing all that! I would like to present my own version, in more details.

One can also read the history in my user talk and talk of the article. I am ready to actively listen. I have to go now as I am flying to visit my grandchildren out of town. Thank you for your kind attention. Henia Perlman (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

the only thing I want to point out is that I have no idea where the the idea that anyone was at all thinking that this editor had anything to do with Holocaust denial. That statement is totally out of left field and I'm not really happy with the veiled insinuation that those trying to work with Henia have ever implied, much less said she might be associated with such things. Other than that, I'll let the various talk page and user talk page posts speak for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am at a loss what to do at this point. It has been quite a unique experience, but hopefully those who have stepped forward might have better luck.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Henia Perlman:, please take a few deep breaths, and don't cry. You can become a good editor at Wikipedia, but there are some things to learn around here, just like when you learn a new language or move to a different country. Lots of people are trying to help you, and I've left you a message at your talk page, here. Enjoy your grandchildren, and write to me on your talk page, if you've a mind to. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't want to second-guess anyone here, especially since I'm no longer actively watching The Holocaust, but since I had several interactions with User:CaroleHenson/User:Rachelle Perlman last month and have followed the situation off and on from a distance, I feel moved to make a brief comment and a proposal. I'm 99.9% sure she's not only editing in good faith but also trying to work within expectations that, for whatever reasons, she doesn't seem quite able to grasp. She said to me, "It is very difficult for me to behave as a digital native" (permalink). I offered advice in that thread, as did others elsewhere, and she has taken some of it. For instance, she visited the Teahouse, began using edit summaries, and stopped marking substantive edits as minor. So it's not that she's been unwilling to change, but clearly she hasn't been willing or able to change enough, and I don't blame the editors who've been working so hard to improve the article for feeling fed up.
  Proposal: in lieu of being blocked, Ms. Perlman agrees not to edit the article The Holocaust directly for a predetermined interval (at least the remainder of this month but preferably longer), instead proposing all of her changes on the talk page. In this way, she'd still be welcome to contribute but would leave matters of formatting, style, and policy compliance up to more experienced editors. If she's willing to agree to that—and stick to it absolutely—then there would no longer be any preventive purpose in blocking her. If she's not willing to agree or proves unable to follow through, then I guess it's a CIR thing and a ban of some sort may be necessary. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree - I think that's a good idea.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Support - I think this is a good solution. Paul August ☎ 11:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Agreed, this would be a good solution. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Mass harassment

Please have a look at the abuse log here. This appears to be some type of off-wiki-organized mass harassment. The abuse log seems to be stopping most of it. I've blocked a bunch of accounts and protected the page, but I'll be offline shortly, so more admin eyes might be needed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on request apparently. Salt the page in question? It has already been deleted. Kleuske (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There's also another target mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• I protected Nudah after one edit there; not quite in the same vein as deleted posts above, so not blocking anyone. It was kind of an IAR WP:CSD#A7, anyone is free to unprotect if they disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:DE by Taopaipaisama (talk · contribs)

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

---

This user is repeatedly switching names in a specific order after being warned multiple times. When warned the first time, and a MOS page linked, they edited the page to get their way (it was reverted). The second time, the user is now moving pages to a "surname" format after being told that it was not allowed. Could someone please block this user and revert their page moves? Thanks. -- 1989 21:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't usually involve myself at ANI, but I've reverted their page moves and have given them a warning. Other administrators are free to pick up the torch from here. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours for disruptive behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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

WP:DE by 1989 (talk · contribs)

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

---

This user could be said to be disrupting progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. I thought my explanations concerning Japanese naming conventions, along with common knowledge towards respecting the original work/intent would be enough. I certainly wouldn't want to see this encyclopedia regress into an inferior state. Taopaipaisama (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the next step should be a block of User:Taopaipaisama for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Just did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG -- 1989 22:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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

It won't let me log in

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

---

Moved to WP:VPT

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this...

This is The Transhumanist.

I've been trying to log in, and I keep getting this message:

"There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Go back to the previous page, reload that page and then try again."

I followed those instructions, but I keep getting the same message.

Please help!

The Transhumanist (Talk page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.219.175 (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with anything naughty going on. Try a different computer, or try using the browser in private mode. If that doesn't work, ask at WP:HELPDESK. EEng 03:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• This may be a caching issue, try to delete your cookies related to anything WMF and try again. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That too. But this is not an ANI matter. EEng 03:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Crazybob2014 and unsourced content

Crazybob2014 (talk · contribs) is an infrequent contributor, but when he's around, it's usually to add unsourced content. Recently, I've been trying to clean up the massive amounts of unsourced content and original research in film articles. This has been an uphill battle in some quarters, because some people aren't used to having to source their edits. After becoming frustrated with this, I raised the issue here, where a consensus found that production companies need to be explicitly sourced. Yesterday, in List of Columbia Pictures films, CrazyBob2014 added unsourced content. I reverted it, only for Crazybob2014 to wordlessly revert me back in this edit. When I pointed out I'd already given him a level 4 warning for adding unsourced content, his response was that content doesn't need to be sourced, and my "unsourced rule" is "stupid". I honestly don't think Crazybob2014 is going to stop adding unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well considering a consensus exists, they've been warned against their actions, they've responded to (and thus read) the warning the next step here would be a block. @Crazybob2014: I'd be keen to hear from you regarding this -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've left a clear warning on his page. We will see how he reacts to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Rape in India

some people keep on not letting me add information from the Times of India report on India's Rajya Sabha - which is indian parliament upper house - being told about India having third highest number of rapes in the world. On the page Rape in India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_in_India&action=history

i used correct good sources. that can be checked on my version. but still one user said its not reliable source (actually times of india is of india's top newspapers). and when i add with another Google books source someone else deletes my contribution again and uses reason of 'last stable version' and other people keep on helping each other to delete my paragraph with no good reason. wikipedia allows everyone to contribute. 169.149.0.79 (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. What you should do when you have a content dispute with other editors is go to the talk page at Talk:Rape in India, discuss the disagreement and try to reach a consensus. The others, like User:Capitals00 and User:El C should probably join in the discussion, and explain why they disagree on which version of the article is the better one. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: thanks for pinging. Certainly, what IP says is actually disputed by our better article Rape statistics#By country which shows that there are enough reliable sources that estimate other countries having huge amount of rapes and they are not appeared in the list that IP user is talking about. While there would be almost no argument against "no.1" candidate, dispute starts with "no.2", "no.3" and anything after that. Capitals00 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Wouldn't hurt to post that on the talk page, for the sake of WP:BITE and all. You know, some people end up on ANI when they meant to click on the Teahouse. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair idea. Done. Capitals00 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

User:DonitzLiebt

Could somebody have a look at this user's recent contributions please. Edit-warring on at Lochtegate and Otto Warmbier, and some very aggressive recent edit summaries. (I have not checked the contributions of whoever s/he is arguing with, so make no claim about whether they are or are not problematic.) Many thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I reported the user DonitzLiebt's edits at AIV, but I believe more attention is needed. This user repeatedly added Ryan Lochte and Lochtegate, which have been reverted by mostly Yoshiman6464 and others. I reverted one of the user's edits, but look at this and that. There are too many diffs to offer, but [28][29] should suffice. --George Ho (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that the user in question mentions "white privilege" in the Loche article, but denies it in the Warmbier article. Plus, if you try reminding of the user of the contradictions in the Warmbier, DonitzLiebt will claim that you are delusional, like here, here and here. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, the user added in the unneeded article, Ugly American (pejorative), in both Otto Warmbier and Lochtegate. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This user is also in edit war with me. I warned him 3 times, but he continues. I support this report. -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In raising it here, I had in mind mainly this edit summary and this one. (I haven't checked whether these are the same diffs already mentioned above or different ones.) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite banned by User:John Reaves -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion and move request

Could an admin please delete the article currently at OnePlus 5 and replace it with the version at Draft:OnePlus 5. Please ping me on here when it is completed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• The draft version is just a fraction of the size of the current version, why aren't you just adding/subtracting the text? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown: Well, I tried to fix this, but before I could finish the round robin move the draft was recreated. I've redirect the draft to the article, and marked OnePlus 5 Placeholder, round robin for G6. So someone should come through and clean it up soon. Or if you feel like it, you can do us the honors. The placeholder apparently had copyvio issues too, so two birds one stone I guess. TimothyJosephWood 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I just had figured that out. I was looking to hist merge the two articles actually. Done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you two for your help. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... good luck with that hist merge. It looks like they were created in parallel. BTW Emir, you may want to consider applying for Wikipedia:Page mover rights. This allows you to suppress redirects and IMO is pretty essential if you are involved in moving things between main and draft spaces. Otherwise you end up leaving a bit of a mess that has to be cleaned up. It also allows you to do round robin moves so you can (usually) take care of things like this yourself. You've got almost 20k edits and a clean block log, so I don't see anyone turning you down. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)