Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AQFK (talk | contribs) at 21:55, 25 June 2017 (→‎Edit war on J. Geils Band discography). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Can we start with the remedy proposed by User:Justlettersandnumbers here? Mathglot (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    This statement was not true when it was entered. PamD themselve had expressed lack of disagreement. --Ettrig (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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 [1]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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[a] 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[b] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Notes

    1. ^ Clarification: the rollback/revert should only apply to changes made to articles specifically for the purpose of moving language templates around prior to achieving consensus for such a move.
    2. ^ Giving credit where due: I wasn't the first to suggest the remedy, I believe Justlettersandnumbers was, followed by Calliopejen1.
    • 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)[reply]
      I'm all for coming to the defense of an editor under criticism, but I think you're starting to go a little too far. Mathglot has explicitly stated "I call for no block or ban on this user", so there was no need for your statement that we can't block editors for old edit wars. The RfC, which FWIW is likely to go against Ettig, does not mitigate valid concerns about the user's behavior. I think you are unfairly characterizing Mathglot's motives. There is a difference between being bloodthirsty for revenge and seeking for the admins to address what one perceives as problematic behavior. I think Mathglot is doing the latter. Lepricavark (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From the original post:
    1. Can someone else tell Ettrig to knock it off until he gains consensus?  Done
    2. There is also the question of how to undo Ettrig's changes. Doesn't require administrator tools. The RfC does seem as if its going to end up in favor of top. How to implement that consensus once its clearly and formally settled is a logistical issue, and not one which requires ANI.
    My comment about blocking was in reference to the fact that there's nothing left to do here that requires a mop. I wasn't saying that someone specifically called for a block, but this is ANI, and let's be honest, if the user had continued to make a few hundred of these changes a day with an ongoing RfC and a local consensus against, then that certainly was an option that was on the table. The Village Pump or an enthusiastic bot operator is the place to have the implementation discussion. Other than that, I don't see anything left for this venue. TimothyJosephWood 10:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You say that "there's nothing left to do here that requires a mop", but there is: the OP's original request.
    Regarding your point #1 quoting the OP:
    1. Can someone else tell Ettrig to knock it off until he gains consensus? and you added the "{{done}}" checkmark.
    But, actually, no, it's  Not done.
    It's pretty obvious that when a request is made at ANI to "tell [someone] to knock it off", we don't really mean just "tell them", do we? After all, he's been told already again and again without success. What we really mean, is, to get agreement from them to stop. Despite your claim (23:11, 18 June) that Ettrig had agreed to stop, he has made no such agreement that I have seen. In point of fact, Ettrig has stopped now, as of 06:43, 15 June, but by choice, not by agreement. Ettrig has also stopped various other times by choice, such as from May 5 to May 29 for example, during which no templates were moved. However, despite pleas to stop, he continued to move templates by choice at other times. In particular, during the first week of discussion at WT:MOSLAYOUT to which Ettrig contributed within 15 minutes of its start, for example, Ettrig chose to move another 600 templates while the MOS guideline governing the moves he was making was being discussed and while participating in that discussion. This is truly an egregious lack of respect for consensus seeking, and as strong an indication as one could imagine for contempt of process.
    Regarding your point #2 quoting the OP:
    2. There is also the question of how to undo Ettrig's changes. You added, "Doesn't require administrator tools." But in fact, whether it "requires" them or not, admin tools are available that are appropriate to the task, and ANI is an appropriate venue in which to ask for admin tools to be used.
    So, I would like to formally (re-)request a rollback of all Ettrig's edits involving template positioning since 2016-08-30. This is just repeating what Calliopejen1 already said at the top of this thread, but I feel I have to repeat it in order to counter your comment that "there's nothing left to do here that requires a mop" (by which phrase I assume you mean that administrator tools are either not adequate or not appropriate for remedying the issue). I felt moved to check whether you were correct or not about that, and I see that at Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools, section Reverting, an admin can revert pages quickly with the rollback tool. Reading further, I saw that according to Wikipedia:Rollback section When to use rollback, bullet 5 says to use rollback: To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia. That seems tailor-made for this case: a misguided editor, doing something harmful to the encyclopedia. So, I judge that there is something left to do here that requires a mop, namely, to employ the Admin rollback tool to reverse Ettrig's widespread edits that are harmful to the encyclopedia. The tool is available to Admins, and it's appropriate for the issue raised here; whether it's adequate to the task (of several thousand edits over 10 months) or not, is another question, and I would like to hear from experienced admins here about that.
    And that's what I see is left for this venue.
    P.S. By the way, I think you might be misreading why I think a rollback is important here. It has nothing to do with the Rfc, or which side prevails there, which I don't even feel that strongly about. If the Rfc ends up somehow going the other way, I won't lose a wink of sleep. The reason is what I stated earlier, namely, it's about protecting the encyclopedia against a future lone-wolf who might take heart from the lack of a rollback here, and be encouraged to cause mischief in the future on a grand scale, as Ettrig has done here. Let's not let that happen, by sending the right message now. Mathglot (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What Timothy Joseph Wood said. This isn't even a tempest in a teapot. It's a maelstrom in a thimble. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Yeah that was completely uncalled for and his not dropping the stick is problematic. --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In favor of a one-way IBAN? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    IBan Proposal

    I am unarchiving this because I think ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Since the problematic behavior is one–sided, and since the community will likely not suffer if Wwallacee is deprived of the ability to continuing commenting on Scolaire, I propose a one–way interaction ban on Wwallacee. Lepricavark (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by user

    This is turning into lots of heat with little light. The primary point has already been made and agreed to by Jytdog, that the RFC extends a bit farther than just the infobox and a fresh RFC would need to be had to clarify changing the links in the prose. Let me be clear; there are no saints here, no one is perfect nor as pure as the driven snow. That happens in article building, I get that and you should, too. Everyone needs to remember that we are on the same team with the same goal and that means setting aside personal beliefs sometimes, plus compromising. Closing without any further action. Everyone needs to relax, maybe go edit something else for a day or two and come back with a fresh perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have to report persistent disruptive editing by User:Jytdog. On the article of Alternative for Germany for months disagreements concerning certain content details have occured, however it was basically handled decently by the user community. A recent long lasting RfC on the article talk page concluded yet another question raised by the before mentioned user Jytdog. Nevertheless the user decided (albeit he/she seems to be experienced according to edit history and his/her given edit rights) to edit against the RfC decision even showing utter assertiveness in behaving so and showing to other editors as to be seen in history ([2])with edit comment "don't push it." though the content is against the RfC consensus. Recently another user edited the page, ignoring the RfC. Additionally it needs to be mentioned that the user at the time the RfC was held regarding the correct usage of the term ( German nationalism or Nationalism) he/she started to make massive edits in the main article of German Nationalism, possibly (merely "possibly" since i tend to be cautious with insinuations of such kind; yet taken the circumstances into account) to give somehow a broader ground for his/her case in the RfC in the main article of Alternative of Germany. I do not like to engage into any serious quarrel here, nevertheless as this dispute with the user goes for a log time, and behavior even seem to become more reckless especially by the fact him/her ignoring unambiguous recent consensus, (and also his/her threat to once again make an ANI) i bring this situation up here. I noticed the user at his/her talk page. --Joobo (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I full protected the article for 3 days. Looking at the RFC, Jytdog does seem to be editing against the close at an RFC on the talk page, one that is recent and one that I don't see the close challenged on. Would like to hear their side of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dennis. The RFC was a) about the infobox (which I have not changed) not the body of the article, and b) was badly attended. It was what it was. I didn't bother challenging it because I challenged the last one at AN here and that got little independent feedback (what feedback there was, agreed that that the close was questionable). This close was definitely questionable but again i didn't challenge it and haven't changed the infobox.
    I told "Joobo" here that I would be bringing an ANI case later this week (related to this mess.) and this ANI filing by "Joobo"| is an obvious and weak effort to pre-empt. You will hear more from me anon on this matter. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then I would strongly suggest you simply agree to leave it as "nationalism" until you form a consensus on the talk page at a later time. Right now, info box or not, the best estimation is that "nationalism" is what the community of editors on that article want, info box or not. Per WP:BRD, I think the burden would fall on you here to form a new consensus. If you agreed to that, then I could unprotect the article and we would be done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been "german nationalism" in the body for a long time, until this RfC about the infobox, which the 'team' has tried to push though into the body. It is a contentious article. It does not have enough neutral eyes on it. I have tried to get more independent eyes on it. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose my own feelings on this matter are clear, but the Troll accusing me of vandalism ought to start by assuming good faith. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany or the village pump is where you get more neutral eyes on it. The shortage you speak of is one of editors, not admin. It only takes one admin to block; it takes many editors to form a consensus. Frankly, I don't give a fig which link is used, but when I see what looks like a legitimate and unchallenged RFC on the matter, then as an objective admin with no preferences, I have to support the side that took the time to start an RFC and get a consensus. I've already explained this. I've given you a pretty easy out here, if you are wise enough to take it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice about WP:Germany - I had not thought of that. Ditto the village pump. I had no further intention of changing the body when the page was protected. I of course accept the "out"; there is nothing that I am "in" at this point. "Joobo" has no case here. As I noted their filing was purely pre-emptive and bad faith, and I will be bringing a diff-ful case against "Joobo" and their gang later this week. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed protection so everyone can edit based on your pledge to leave that one area alone for now. Now it is on you to form a new consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User Jytdog has to be kidding. On his User page he states selfconfidently "I believe strongly in Wikipedia's Five Pillars." but then he cannot even accept the outcome of a RfC eventhough he is an, according to his edit history and user rights, highly experienced user? He even says "It has been "german nationalism" in the body for a long time, until this RfC about the infobox, which the 'team' has tried to push though into the body. It is a contentious article. It does not have enough neutral eyes on it" Apparently he has real problems with accepting something he does not like to accept. If one carefully reads the talk page and edit history of the concerned article most likely everyone would notice at one point that Jytdog continuously tried to push subjective views on the mattter on the article risking WP:LBL and neglecting WP:V. I assumed good faith for most of the time in his actions, I reall did not just saying so; even when other users gave up on that long before that as to be seen on the talk page. He it seems did nothing but accused bad faith in mine or other edits-just cause it did not conformed with his views.
    Now he is again stating astounding phrases as "I will be bringing a diff-ful case against "Joobo" and their gang later this week" which are nothing but incredible. What "gang" are you refering to? Do you know what Wikipedia:Civility means? Did you ever hear of WP:CONS when it comes to WP editing (after 100.000 edits)? I have no connection to the other users at all; and mere disagreeing with you does not make us a "gang" or a "team" or whatever you like to vilify any other users as we are. This could actually already count as a personal attack. However, you deliberatly ignored points that were brought up, behaving as by other users claimed like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What does it tell about your editing style if you push the WP guidelines to the edge, and even if you initiate or want a RfC you still seem to blatantly ignore its outcome. This falls absolutely under WP:STONEWALL. And then not even to mention again the at least highly suspicuous, lets say coincidental editing of the article page of German Nationalism while the RfC concerning the inclusion of its exact term was still ongoing on the Alternative for Germany talkpage.
    You can do all you like Jytdog but if someone takes some time and gives the whole thing a genuine look, also combining the parallel edits by you on the Alternative for Germany article site and the edits on the German Nationalism article site, the case outcome most likely does not goes against our "gang" but the kind of editing and behavior you applied over the period of the last couple of months. And quite frankly, i am absolutely flabbergasted that i have such a confrontation with a user of your experience and position of over 100,000 edits here in this project; as one might not expect that at all. But perhaps after such time and such amount of input one starts to believe to neglect certain aspects of this projects guidelines and pillars and gets a "i stand above it all" attitude.--Joobo (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't argue with the jist of this. I've seen Jytdog around plenty, and while they are an assertive editor, I haven't seen this aggressive of behavior before. Still, I don't have the full picture, so trying to reserve judgement and hoping he will cool down and accept the consensus, then work towards a different consensus if that is what he wants. Admin can't get involved in the content sides of these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    and now canvassing of their compadre, Wormwood/Hayek. This is the kind of thing I will be discussing later but if "Joobo" keeps at it they will hang themselves, as Wormwood/Hakek did at AN last month (diff, already provided above) Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes as he was included in the edits today i gave a notice to him that he should not be surprised for what might be going on. That does not prove your point at all and is once again a mere distraction of the way you behaved the last couple of months. But after all the talk you should know best what you want to do.--Joobo (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:CANVASS. Please, continue hanging yourself. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really long entry by L.R. Wormwood
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The WP:CANVASS allegation is ridiculous - this is AN/I, and I am involved. I have set about supplying diffs, so this can be resolved quickly.

    Per User:Dennis Brown's comment above, I have also seen User:Jytdog around a lot, and he’s done a lot of work to keep POV-pushers off medicine and science-related pages, but his recent behaviour on Germany-related articles has not been especially edifying, and has resulted in an enormous amount of wasted time and misdirection of effort. With regard to what has already been said, User:Jytdog's allegation that there is a "tag team" at work here is fairly serious, and he has provided no diffs to support it. This will be impossible, since I have had no involvement with any of these editors outside of this dispute (AfD and German nationalism). User:Jytdog should therefore attempt to provide evidence, or withdraw the comment. I would also be interested to hear why User:Jytdog believes the recent RfC close is "questionable", given that it is 1-6 over several weeks.

    User:Jytdog has been involved with several long-running disputes over the contents of the summary box on the Alternative for Germany article. Here in May 2016, here in March 2017, and here last month, finding himself in the minority, by a substantial margin, on each occasion. I am only bringing this here because I want to improve some of his recent changes to the German nationalism article (and to the Alternative for Germany article where he is ignoring the outcome of a recent RfC), and am currently unable because he keeps leaving threatening messages on my talk page diff, and in edit summaries diffdiff.

    WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

    Context: Specifically with regard to the dispute on the Alternative for Germany page, the argument pursued by at least three users is neatly summarised here, where I point out that the historiography usually takes the term ‘’German nationalism’’ to refer to the process of German unification in the 19th century, and the ideas and contexts that gave rise to that process. This would also be true of Italian nationalism (and the Italian unification).

    This point was first made by several users in the course of this straw poll, and was then repeated - entirely for User:Jytdog’s benefit - here, then here, then here, then here, then here, then here, here, and finally here. This is not an exhaustive list, you may read the full discussion.

    Complaint: User:Jytdog responded to these comments by repeatedly declaring that he didn't understand "the problem". Here, for instance, he simply demands that someone explain: “What exactly is the problem?”. He does the same here with “I do not understand the opposition to this”. This looks very much like WP:IDHT to me. Here, he apparently, and perhaps deliberately, mistakes what others have been saying where he suggests that other users are claiming "that "German nationalism" means only calls for territorial expansion". This is obvious misrepresentation of the comments he "diffs" in support. Other comments consisted mostly of bald assertion, such as here. The only attempt to actually address the substantive argument that myself and others had provided was made by a German IP.

    It is possible that User:Jytdog genuinely does not understand what myself and others have been attempting to explain to him (which would still be problematic), but I very much doubt it, and therefore I would suggest that the wall of incredulity he has put up is consistent with a deliberate refusal to get the point (WP:NOTGETTINGIT).

    The same is also true of User:Jytdog’s behaviour on the German nationalism article, where in the edit summary here, he simply asserts that no one has explained their rationale for removing the comment, when I have clearly done so here, and the reporting user has done so extensively, as a cursory glance at the talk will confirm. I have also requested that he point us to the sources he is using for his WP:SYNTHESIS here, which so far he has not done.

    WP:GAME, WP:POINT, possibly WP:BATTLEGROUND

    I didn’t feel very strongly about the ‘’”German nationalism”’’ dispute – I thought the point being pushed was fairly pedantic, and I didn’t think it would generate much confusion. This is clear from my comments here, here, here, here, and the fact that I didn’t express a strong view in my RfC vote here.

    What I did ‘’’’strongly’’’’ object to was User:Jytdog’s decision to re-write the lede for the German nationalism article in order to support his own position in the content dispute on the Alternative for Germany page, which I think is a clear instance of WP:GAME and WP:POINT.

    User:Jytdog made some fairly substantial changes to the German nationalism article, many of which were useful (post-1945 content), but in doing so he essentially redefined the term. Whereas the opening used to describe ‘’German nationalism’’ as that relating to the German unification and nationalist movement in the 18th to 20th centuries (which is how the term is used by students of German and European history), having read as follows: 

    “German nationalism is the nationalist idea that Germans are a nation and promotes the unity of Germans into a nation state. The earliest origins of German nationalism began with the birth of Romantic nationalism during the Napoleonic Wars when Pan-Germanism started to rise. Advocacy of a German nation began to become an important political force in response to the invasion of German territories by France under Napoleon.”

    After User:Jytdog’s changes, it now reads as follows: 

    “German nationalism is the nationalist idea that Germans are a nation, promotes the unity of Germans into a nation state, and emphasizes and takes pride in the national identity of Germans; the latter is problematic given the actions of Nazi Germany and ideology of the Nazism.”

    The relevant diff can be found here. The lede was also revised so as to take the focus away from the 19th century German nationalist movement, and direct it towards the latter part of the 20th century, and the history of ‘’nationalism’’ in Germany in general, as is evident here.

    He even claimed that his own re-writing of the opening of the German nationalism article validated later use of “German nationalism” further on in the Alternative for Germany article here (“correct WL in article” in the edit summary). This is despite the fact that the closing decision of the RfC (which can be found here) is very explicit – "Consensus is that the article should describe AfD's ideology as "nationalism" rather than as "German nationalism". 6 people voted, 1 for "German nationalism" and 5 for "nationalism"." Ignoring the outcome of RfC votes is always considered WP:TENDENTIOUS.

    General unpleasantness and WP:BADFAITH

    Besides the threats and unpleasantness I’ve received (diffed at the top of this comment), there is a general pattern by which User:Jytdog interprets every contribution which does not accord with his own views as a cynical attempt to “cleanse” or sanitise the page.

    This is all, ridiculously, a dispute over a summary box, between those who wanted it to look like this, and those who would rather it looked this. The !votes and discussion in the closing RfC summarise the main arguments summarise this dispute (available here).

    User:Jytdog has liberally insinuated that people who believe the summary box should be presented differently are pushing some kind of agenda. Here, for instance, he claims to “revert cleansing”, when he is in fact restoring obvious vandalism. This is an accusation against a user whose username is one letter away from Melanchon, which makes the allegation even more unfair and frustrating.

    Here he accuses the reporting editor of “playing down the positions of this party”, on the basis that the user disagrees with him that listing 9 items in the summary box, each accompanied with a WP:REFBOMB, is unnecessary and detracts from its purpose per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. He does the same thing to another user here, leaving this on the talk. He also accuses the editor who closed the RfC of “cleansing” the article here. Here (admittedly a while ago now), he insinuates that I am an "alt-right troll". You are welcome to check my editing history if you think that is credible.

    There is no conspiracy here. The majority of users in each case sincerely disagreed with Jytdog’s preferred presentation of the information, disagreed that things like Climate change denial were political ideologies, and agreed that his use of German nationalism was inaccurate. In sum, I think it would be best if User:Jytdog took a break from editing these pages, and considers in the meanwhile whether he is actually being fair to other users. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I was given a block for alleged WP:CIR and WP:BLUDGEON several months ago in a related dispute on the Alternative for Germany page. I have not bludgeoned any talks since, and I hope I am more competent now. Before Jytdog attempts his usual well-poisoning, it's worth noting that (a) that particular incident is the only blemish on my behaviour record, and that Jytdog's block log demonstrates that in his case this is not so, and (b) that I had wanted a WP:FRESHSTART, but I was immediately outed by an involved user here and here, by which time there was an RfC on the page, so I thought I might as well continue there. Whatever he means to insinuate with the Wormwood/Hayek stuff is desperate and unfair. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You may have wanted a fresh start, but you were not given one. Your block history on all of your accounts is perfectly applicable. Saying that it was your 'only blemish' is incorrect and deceitful. --Tarage (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarage: It is my "only blemish", I have been blocked once. Please withdraw "incorrect and deceitful" immediately, this is false. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've decided to leave Wikipedia for good in the light of this, and everything is concluded at my end (so User:Jytdog won't have to threaten his ANI report that he's been promising since March that he had no intention or grounds to write). My IP is semi-public (university) for some of the year, and that won't be me. I'm sure I can find more rewarding things to do with my time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As though "competence" issues and one instance of being blocked for bludgeon, without prior warning that this would be a possibility, would make anyone a "very problematic editor". I had wanted Wormwood to be a WP:FRESHSTART, but you immediately and maliciously outed me, which gave me no reason not to return to the RfC you set up. The narrative that I imagined simply setting up a new account would be a fresh-start is not true, as they are both aware. This will be my last reply, and I will request a self-block to avoid being drawn back in.
    As the user below notes, this is not about me, or whether you can dishonestly portray any of my recent actions as "problematic", and you should stop - both of you - attempting to derail the report. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about L.R. Wormwood but about the user Jytdog who, deliberately ignores basic WP guidelines, eventhough he is a long time WP editor and selfproclaimed user who cherishes the five pillars of WP. Fairly detailed history of recent month long dispute now highlighted as above by me and L.R. Wormwood. Please read it and if you need, please also verify it yourself. Links and examples are provided massively. Do not make it about something unrelated about a question if a user is actually retiring from WP or not. That has nothing to do with the issue brought up here initially. --Joobo (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not be aware that when an AN/I report is filed, all involved editors, including the one who opened the report, become fair game for comment and analysis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    "Joobo"

    Here in en-WP, "Joobo" was blocked indefinitely back in January 2016 for harassing other people and personal attacks concerning List of Islamist terrorist attacks and Immigration to Germany, per this ANI thread.

    They went from here to de-wiki, where they were blocked 7 times since Feb 2016 per their block log there for disrupting topics related to politics. Block #7 was in Feb 2017 for 5 days per this report there, related to pro-Trump (including Melania), anti-Obama (including Michelle) POV_pushing, if I am reading the translation correctly. Block #6 was for 3 days for edit warring against 3 other users on the Alternative for Germany article there, per this report - Joobo was trying to remove sourced content about the party being anti-feminist (e.g diff). You get the point.

    They were unblocked on a WP:ROPE basis here in en-WP in mid-March of this year by User:PhilKnight per this thread on their Talk page. It does not appear that PhilKnight looked at their behavior in other projects during the time they were indeffed here (which is an easy thing to omit, and "Joobo" did not mention it either)

    In any case...

    Here in en-WP their overall editing has been of the same piece of cloth, as was noted in the ANI last year. Looking at their edit count, here is what they are up to here:

    And at Talk, ,and this is where I have been most frustrated with this person...

    Please also see:

    • "contribs" to the German nationalism article, which was all edit warring removal in support of the now-vanished Hayek/Wormwood, which somehow stopped when Wormwood vanished a month ago and then restarted when Hayek/Wormwood briefly re-emerged as you can see in the history. Lockstep with Hayek/Wormwood.
    • "contribs" at associated talk page where you will find nothing meaningful from them justifying their removal of content - the individual diffs:
      • diff It is fairly questionable if "german nationalism" is viewed as taboo as put in the introduction.... (oy. just oy)
      • diff -- nothing about content
      • diff -- nothing about content
      • diff -- nothing about content
      • diff -- nothing about content
      • diff series -- nothing about content

    In my view, the lifting of the indef was unwise, as "Joobo" just carried their disruption to our German sister project, and since they have come back they have continued their behavior here in the topics in which they are disruptive - just adding noise and personal attack, and not helping build quality content in those areas. I suggest minimally topic banning them from anything related to contemporary populism, immigration, or terrorism at minimum, or just re-placing the indef at maximum. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It probably is not my place to weigh in here, but i also found Joobo very troubling to deal with during the RfC on the Alternative for Germany talk page. He constantly repeated his oppinion, which of course is fine in itself, but never offered any kind of source for his assertion, yet simply claimed he was right and everyone else worong. I did offer a couple of references, which he claimed to have read thouroughly and judged them to not mention the issue at hand. Yet one of the sources used the specific description in the very first sentence. And don't misunderstand me, i don't want to make this about content but describe a very frustrating experience which made it very hard to assume good faith. So i just let it be and left the talk page alone. I am sorry to not give the exact diff here, i... am not quite sure how to do that... So anyway, very unpleasant to deal with as no real discussion was wanted other than reiterating his assertion over and over. I do apologize if it is not my place to weigh in here but as i had encountered Joobo before, i thought why not. Have a good day anyway and i guess i will keep an eye on this if there are any questions or the like directed at me. 91.49.90.45 (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is talking about this comment (with dead on refs describing AfD as "german nationalist") that they made at the Talk page, and this response from "Joobo", which was frankly flabbergasting, denying the additional sources that had just been provided to them: "Preposterous" is the claim that this party is "german nationalist" when there are no sources indicating that. Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jytdog for all the research you did about me (which is actually also massively flawed, as just to take one example, i never was "adding content about Muslim immigration or islamic terrorism" at all in the city article of London but corrected a graphical position and otherwise included multiple sources: As a template was indicating sources were needed in the contemporary history section until couple of days ago) - and how is this helping your case? Since I was unblocked i abided by all the guidelines and cherished the pillars of WP as well as understood what this project is about. I contributed and am contributing, whereas you deliberately neglected rules, ignoring RfC outcomes and even editing massively in one article to influence another one...what a peculiar coincidence right? All you can do now is pointing out to edits by me or L.R.Wormwood or whoever and somehow try to defame us. Yet, at least to me, I do not see how one will actually find something as again me, unlike you, sticked to the WP rules. I am not the one who assumed bad faith in other editors automatically just cause they did not have my opinion. I am not the one almost completely rewriting a political article just so it fits to my view and automatically getting defensive and aggressive if just any single part of the massive edit is then somehow questioned. I am not the one pushing the WP dispute resolutions to the edge to kill the WP flow. I am not the one recklessly insinuating instant NPOV on others just cause I think my view simply has to be the absolute right one... just cause. All you can do for now Jytdog, and what you are doing is to point out to any number of things, however for the actual issue- how you behaved in the two articles concerned. There is not much going for you.--Joobo (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even here at ANI you are making misrespresentations - again here are two diffs of relevant edits at London - these each emphasize especially arab/muslim immigration: diff, diff - in your organization of the content. Subtle yes but in light of your history, the ongoing interest is clear. The key thing for me is that as I showed above, in your editing and discussion at AFD and German nationalism you have given no valid reasons for changes, denied that the reliable sources presented even existed, and just made personal attacks . You cannot edit effectively in these topics. You were indeffed here on that topic, blocked 7 times at de-WP in the last year, not told the unblocking admin about what happened at de-WP, and have disrupted the 2 articles most focused on it here after you came back, and your city edits consistently touch on immigration. You have edited in lockstep GANG fashion with Hayek/Wormwood. Not to mention coming after me by opening this thread. You have no leg to stand on here. Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this what you are still doing here called, digging your own grave- Maybe. So, my "interest is clear"? In the first diff you present the absolute mere difference to be seen, is the changing of two positions in the chart. This was for enhanced- visual distinction purposes and for style reasons. That was it. The second diff you show is even more disconnected to any NPOV you accuse (Once again, as you appear to see NPOV in quite everything others do who you do not seem to like very much). Did you even checked it? I addeded sources. Sources in a subsection which had a template on for pointing out that the subsection needs more sources for verification since October last year. That was it. Nothing else, at all- What is clear now? I do not get it, same as me and the other users did not get quite most your actions and accusations you applied and stated for at least the last 6 months regarding concerned articles. You Jytdog simply believe that me, L.R. Wormwood and multiple other users were somehow bad spirited, merely based on the feeling that you got when there was a disagreement with you on some points on the AfD talkpage. Maybe someone needs to tell you that (to an editor with over 100k edits...) Just because someone disagrees with you on something does not mean everything he or she is then doing or since then has done, has automatically evil spirited motives or intentions behind. However that is absolutely what you do. You never once, not one single time questioned your own edits, engaged with any of us in a responsible and decent manner, looked for consensus anywhere at any point or had good faith in what others did. You just see couple of users disagreeing with you- and voila- it is a bad "gang" and "oh look he changed some random chart here- look the socalled "interest" is clear... etc.". You vilify, you libel, you threaten other users just because they are not excactly on your line. Now as you hardly can deny anything you did, you go and try to portray actions/edits by me and other users in a bad light, trying to connect dots where no dots are there in the first place. Done with the hope that other admins see the same "clarity" and "gang" etc. PS: What goes on in other language WPs is pretty much unrelated to the english Wikipedia, as criterias, procedures as well as standards in other language Wikipedias to some extent differ massively. So when you get blocked in the Arab WP or Russian WP or any other language WP. there is no relation to what is going on here. (And as you just added this text complaining "Not to mention coming after me by opening this thread" to yours above mine- just to remind you. I added this thread not to come "after you". I opened, and actually had to open, this thread as you repeatedly ignored a RfC outcome.)--Joobo (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my last response here. I did not change the infobox after the RfC. You continue to make broad stroke personal attacks, based on nothing. This is the behavior that got your indeffed in the first place. The more you do this, the more you make things clear. The record of your behavior and the diffs showing it, are clear. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Third-party witness

    Hello; I have witnessed the interactions between Jytdog, Joobo, L.R. Wormwood and others at Talk:Alternative for Germany. What seemed like a benign content dispute degenerated into personal attacks, aspersions and assumption of bad faith. Accusations of "whitewashing", "trolling", being "childish" or "dysfunctional" were thrown around. As I closed an RfC about infobox contents as an uninvolved editor back in April, Jytdog cast doubt on my neutrality in his request for close review. I explained my closing rationale at length but Jytdog would not admit that consensus was simply against him. Later he opened another RfC about AfD ideology, which was closed against his position by another uninvolved editor, Giraffedata.

    The content dispute revolved around the definition of German nationalism, a concept that, in the eyes of most editors, does not fit the ideology of Alternative for Germany, which is more accurately described as simply nationalism. The problematic behaviour is that after seeing his views were not supported on the AfD article, Jytdog went to the German nationalism article and attempted to change the longstanding definition of the term to match his own view.[3] This is disruptive, pointy, non-neutral, sanctionable attitude, no matter whether he is right or wrong. Admittedly, Jytdog's well-researched contributions enriched the article, but they are addressing a totally different historical period, and would perhaps be better placed in a new article about Nationalism in Germany.

    It saddens me to see that Wikipedia has lost an editor (L.R. Wormwood) due to the poisonous WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere that emanated from this incident. I found Jytdog to be a rather polite and articulate editor until he found himself in the minority and started behaving aggressively towards other participants, as if he had a personal axe to grind against the political party being discussed. Many were perplexed by the sudden change of tone, and that didn't help his position. I do not think it's necessary to comment on the counter-attacks regarding Joobo's editing history elsewhere. Finally, I am not advocating for any particular sanction against one party or the other in this dispute; that is the job of our wise admins. — JFG talk 18:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I never like to say this about another editor, but your sadness at the departure of L. R. Wormwood is misplaced. I will not go so far as to say he was a net negative to the project, but the needle was clearly hovering in the middle between negative and positive. His WP:IDHT behavior on talk pages was disruptive and exasperating, and offset whatever good work he did when politics wasn't involved. He left of his own volition, a pure WP:DIVA move, and will almost certainly be back under another name, whether he admits to it or not, so I wouldn't be too upset about his departure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be; I have no other experience about this editor. Neither battleground behaviour nor diva moves are appropriate on Wikipedia. Losing a competent editor is nearly always detrimental to the project, regardless of their personal positions or occasional disputes with others. — JFG talk 12:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not a "third party"; you did not react at all well to your close being challenged, and you never dealt with the overreaching aspect of it.
    Your description of my laying out "Joobo"'s year and a half long pattern of disruption across two projects as a "counter attack" is also problematic, especially since this entire thread was pre-emptive by "Joobo" after I told them that I was going to be filing an ANI against them soon, in which I would have presented exactly this data. There is a third editor I will bring in here as well, to give the whole picture. Probably tomorrow or Sunday.
    Your description of what I did at German nationalism is bizarre at best but falls nicely in with story that Hayek/Wormwood and "Joobo" are spinning about it. The article had not been updated to include the history of German nationalism after WWII and I filled that in. Lots of articles have these kinds of gaps in time. I did not "change it to fit my definition."
    I remain puzzled by the assertion that a party in Germany is not "German nationalist" when that party advocates for Germans to a) take German sovereignty back from the EU; b) take pride in what the Germans have accomplished in the arts, science, philosophy etc; c) specifically walk away from the shame of the holocaust, and d) push out and exclude people who are not "like us" and even return to a Jus sanguinis model of citizenship. Point a) --taking back sovereignty from the EU -- is especially... stark in light of the fact that the EU was created in part to find some way to manage Germany and harness it and its identity to a broader entity. Nationalism has a flavor in every country; Germany's flavor is very informed by Germany's specific history that is described in German nationalism, and that I brought up to date. This is mainstream, common-as-dirt view of German nationalism and claiming that this is my invention or me skewing reality is just kooky at best and dangerously history-denying FRINGE at worst.
    Yeah, you are very far from a "third party" or any kind of neutral commenter here. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    More aspersions, no thanks. I'd be happy to engage with your arguments on the merits if you quit the attitude. — JFG talk 00:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have shown up here and blown smoke, pretending to be objective; calling you on that is neither attitude nor aspersion. Jytdog (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you "pretending to be objective" about JFG's objectivity? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not appear to me that Jytdog is making any pretense of objectivity, but presenting the facts and circumstances as they see them. Nor is Jytdog pretending not to be involved in this dispute. That's a bit different from someone coming in and saying "I have witnessed this" as if they weren't at all involved and are presenting an objective third-party viewpoint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry BMK, I must correct your statement that I am more involved than witness. I was the closer of an earlier RfC on the same article, which was about removing "Climate change denial" from a list of ideologies in the infobox. Prior to my close, I never interacted with any of the editors that participated in discussions of Alternative for Germany, and I never edited that article myself. I was not involved at all in subsequent discussions about German nationalism, which seems to be the focus of the dispute reported here. I may have briefly interacted with Jytdog on some unrelated articles in an unspecified past (the name rings a bell, nothing more.) — JFG talk 18:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing an RfC would not make you involved, but I believe Jytdog's case is that your response to criticisms of that closing moved you out of that category, and they see possible bias created by that dispute. I'm not settling in on one side or the other concerning your overall objectivity, but I do think that Jytdog may have a case that your current observations are possibly not completely unbiased
    In any case, you've made your observations, and Jytdog has countered them, so it doesn't seem as if there's any reason to prolong this particular section of the discussion, which, in any case, is rather in the nature of a side trip off the main road, which concerns Joobo's complaint concerning Jytdog, and Jydog's counter-complaint concerning Joobo and the now-departed L.R. Wormwood.
    I myself have not participated at Alternative for Germany since block !voting there resulted in a perfectly reasonable addition to the list of the party's ideology was removed, and I decided it wasn't worth the effort and energy to continue to fight against a clearly ideologically-based block of editors determined to get their way. (This was after the incident where L.R. Wormwood's WP:BLUDGEONing behavior got him blocked and he changed his screenname to distance himself from the original one.) So from my own experience, I can see the validity of Jytdog's complaint about the group !voting on the article, although I don't have a clue what to do about it, except perhaps for someone to deal out some blocks for meatpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add, while my contribution surely would be less worth than an experienced editors, that the same thing made me give up on any contribution as well. There is no point discussing things when personal ideology and assertions are more important than sources. The talk page is a mess, plain and simple. At least in my humble opinion. 91.49.67.140 (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beyond My Ken: "to fight against a clearly ideologically-based block of editors determined to get their way." Same as Jytdog's attitude. You have a different view on something but a majority sees it differently, and automatically it needs to be ideologically motivated etc. There were reasons presented why to exclude this entry from the infobox, not from the article itself of course, but from the infobox. One major point was, that the entry does not fall under the typical category of "ideology". If really someone would be editing tedentious there, then they would have taken the whole thing out, not only from the infobox. The way you, as well as Jytdog make conclusions about other editors only and merely based on one single disagreement about something is absolutely inappropriate. And the IP here should learn that "sources" does not automatically generate an entry in an article WP:V, in particular if the content of them is highly equivocal.--Joobo (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And you over and over saying your view is correct without any kind of support from anything reliable, other than you droning on about it, makes you right? Look, in the end i dont care if i am right or wrong, win or lose or however you want to put it. I care about reasonable discussion. When i am wrong, i learn something and thats good. And it is less about the actual sources but your responses to them that were more than questionable. First claiming the description was not used in the sources, then after i qouted the passages you did not say anything about it because it did not suit you. I am unwilling to waste more time bringing up more sources when it is obvious they will be dismissed anyway. And there certainly are more. Yet this should not be about content but behaviour. You are completely unwilling to even consider that your aproach is rather abysmal and not conductive to a cooperative environment. Your aproach to dicussion, clearly ideologically driven, is what made me give up on offering more sources or what else i could have done. I rather "lose" an argument than dirty myself winning one like you did. Now, have a good day. 91.49.68.100 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.", perfectly reasonable. Problem is, you did not offer any sources to actually disagree with. You offer nothing, there is no middle ground. And the issue on the AfD talk certainly isn't a fringe view. It is rather ironic however that you tell me that reliable sources are needed and not original research. Yes, i wonder who of us offered sources and who original reasearch... 91.49.68.100 (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Refspam and personal threats by Jesuslord4ever

    Blocked indef by Admin Bbb23 (non-admin closure) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is my first ANI case. Please see [4] and [5]. But also [6] (Jesuslord4ever you can finally reach real admins here). Also of interest is the earlier issue discussed here: WT:MED#A_website_called_chronoleaks_that_seems_not_to_be_about_ineffective_methods_of_waterproofing_timepieces. My involvement: I participated to that WT:MED thread, I think that I rightfully reverted the editor's edits and warned the user using standard templates. I later by courtesy linked this editor to the WT:MED thread such that a better explanation for the blacklist of the site could be available. This site was apparently also reflink-spammed by another account before, prompting the blacklist decision which ensued. These links were also not to reliable sources and some were in a medical context. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 06:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any personal threats. Just the incoherent ranting of someone who thinks they can get away with ignoring community standards of behavior by bullying tactics. Not here to build the encyclopaedia. I think PaleoNeonate's blacklisting of the site was not excessive at it appears to be a blog and not very likely to provide a reliable source for anything, particularly not a medical article. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not the one who blacklisted it (this should be clear by the WT:MED thread), but I agree that it was a good decision. It's possible that I misinterpreted the rant as a threat, here's the quote which appeared to be a threat: Being admin dont give every right. Working at the NSA does give some one the right to delete the every putin email registed. Or making his mails public to your get what i mean ?. You think you acted right ? Noo your didnt, your acted uporn emotion, and an elite admin does not act on emoting. PaleoMeanate you Pseudo yourself right, remember online your never know with who you are dealing, so be kind to everybody because you dont know if its a test or not which I interpreted as: "You hide behind your pseudoname, but beware, ... incoherent threat of espionage, intrusion and/or decoy...". I'm of course neither an administrator, nor was any action "act on emoting", just application of standard practices, with politeness... In any case, I agree about NOTHERE, this part is obvious. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 13:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious troll is obvious. 204.148.13.62 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: the editor was blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 after another attempt to spam the site on Wikipedia by other means. —PaleoNeonate - 23:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor making disruptive edits to Game of Thrones articles

    Withdrawn This was poorly thought out. The majority of the report was originally drafted to be posted on Yunshui's talk page, and was not appropriate for ANI. The content of it is accurate and, if further disruption continues after the present block expires, I might reuse a lot of the diffs at a later date. I originally stuck my entire opening comment to make it clear that I had withdrawn it, but then I realized that doing so could be interpreted as "I was wrong on the substance", which would perhaps encourage more disruption. So I've unstricken it. But someone should close it anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    AffeL (talk · contribs) was blocked for almost a year between 2013 and 2014 before receiving a STANDARDOFFER.[7] He has since continued to engage in disruptive behaviour including, but not limited to, OR, edit-warring, BLP violations, personal attacks, and IDHT (just look at how frequently he blanks his own talk page). His interactions with me go back a little less than a month, but he's been doing essentially the same thing with a lot of editors for a long time, an messing up a lot of articles while doing so.

    The following is a brief summary of his disruption in the past week, the last of which led to a block for 48 hours from User:Yunshui, but this almost certainly won't solve the problem given the number of warnings and last chances he's been given. Yunshui advised me to take this here so the community can discuss the larger problem, although I had been considering ANI for some time.

    Summary of recent behaviour
    • Denial of edit-warring charges based on a wikilawyer-ish "definition" of edit-warring.[8][9][10]
    • Copy-pasting the same IDHT response to a legitimate concern about sourcing seven times in a row.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
    • Engaging in off-topic commentary about how much more popular Game of Thrones is than its source material,[18] then repeatedly attacking me for responding to said off-topic commentary[19][20] and going so far as to directly claim that he wasn't the one who brought it up.[21]
    • Repeatedly collapsing my FAC comments or decontextualizing them by leaving uncollapsed only my first comment and his first (non-)response, but none of my further responses.[22][23][24] I had actually given him permission to collapse everything except my first comment, but he misquoted that[25] and later admitted to having not carefully read it before acting on it.[26] Not reading other editors' comments is a recurring problem with him.
    • Reinserting counter-consensus content with the rationale that there has been no specific consensus not to include it, even though there had been a standing consensus for almost two years[27][28][29] or with no explanation at all.[30][31]
    • Repeatedly claiming to have done a thorough source review of a long article containing at the time some 146 inline citations in roughly two hours,[32][33][34][35] hand-waving evidence to the contrary as "must have missed that one"[36] and dodging requests to clarify whether he means something else when he says he did a source check.[37][38] (Although he did specify what he meant -- I can to the "Sentence X in our article is an accurate summary of the claim made in paragraph Y of this source Z" thing at the talk page. -- before promising to do it, and he very openly did not do that.)
    • A couple or baseless accusations of sockpuppetry against me and User:Curly Turkey.[39][40] (I explained how it is baseless here, although I really shouldn't have to explain myself to someone who created nine sock accounts to evade their indef block.)

    If anyone wants older evidence of disputes with people other than me and Curly Turkey ping me. Another more general problem is his poor sourcing standards. He has a tendency to add sources to articles that don't directly support the content, add "sourced" article content that is at best only partly supported by the sources, and remove maintenance tags by adding sources that don't actually address the issue. This, this and this are particularly glaring examples (note that the latter two are also BLP-violations, engaging in unsourced speculation about the romantic relationships of two actors and the career choices of one other), but the problem is endemic, including in at least one of his successful (!) GA noms. Attempts to broach this issue with him on his talk page have been unsuccessful.[41][42]

    I'm torn on how to deal with this. He is essentially a Game of Thrones SPA, so TBANning might be too harsh. Technically an indefinite block is the appropriate sanction for a formerly indeffed editor who was unblocked on condition that they change their behaviour and then failed to do so. Another option would be indefinite 1RR, which would at least force him to use the talk page. Or, better still, 0RR. Softlavender warned him about edit-warring last time his name came up here,[43] and he's not exactly a stranger to ANEW.[44][45][46][47]

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • For what it's worth, I don't think this is going anywhere. I probably should have said This user is engaged in OR, BLP-violations, persistent edit-warring, wikilawyering, personal attacks and COPYVIO against other Wikipedians, inappropriate removal of maintenance tags, mass-creation of articles on non-notable fictional characters that long-standing consensus held should be redirects to lists, IDHT (regarding multiple warnings and even the unblock-terms of a STANDARDOFFER) and deceptive/misleading practices. He should be TBANned and/or subjected to 1RR. and provided my diffs after each comma, with minimal elaboration. Hindsight is 20/20 (I thought this would play out like the Tristan noir affair on AN a few years back, where for some reason a large number of editors, mostly admins, spontaneously agreed to read a massive wall-of-text I posted and check the background to ensure I wasn't lying). This thread should probably be closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to be honest, your treatment of the FA [48], particularly in the collapsed section is pretty harsh, Hijiri 88. You seem to be a lot more aggressive, and off-topic than needed. I've only been through a few GA/FA processes, but if you treated me like that, I would have just told you to piss off and given up. That doesn't mean he doesn't have some issues, I'm just saying your behavior there isn't up to Wikipedia standards. Your first paragraph is "it's worth noting that when nominated the article contained a very dubious unsourced claim about Dinklage's career choices, which the nominator added to th lead during the course of this RFC.[1][2] The original nominator (whose talk page I have on my watchlist) was the one who added this unsourced claim to the body last fall, and has a history of questionable sourcing issues, and pushing articles with said issues through the GA process; it wouldn't surprise me if, once one scratched beneath the surface, this FA-nominated article revealed similar problems." so you are automatically making claims against the FA nominator after saying (then striking) "I'm neutral on whether the article should be promoted as is". You seem to have enough of a bias/involvedment regarding him that you probably shouldn't be reviewing his FA nominations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: Until I commented, an article with demonstrable sourcing issues (multiple instances of OR based on a questionable interpretation of primary source data, and a few spots of unsourced content) looked like it was going to be promoted to FA. That's not a good thing. Also, you seem to be ignoring the timeline: I chimed in with a neutral comment, simply stating that the nominator had demonstrated sourcing problems on multiple articles in the past few months, including the nominated article. AffeL responded with a series of off-topic comments about me and blatantly lied about having gone through every sentence of the article and confirmed that they were verified by the source in under two hours. Only then did I decide to oppose the nomination, after the nominator had spent three days insulting me, lying to me, and refusing to do any of the heavy lifting necessary to bring the article to FA standard. It should be pretty clear from this if nothing else that I went to more trouble to check the article's sources than the nominator did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rest of the claims are editor issues but I'm not inclined to block for them as I think much of this was brought upon yourself by your aggressive attitude at FA. The SPI claim, I would respectfully disagree with Yunshui on the block, although the block was certainly within admin discretion and the letter of policy. Two offhand comments could have easily just drawn a strong warning. AffeL is certainly wrong when he says 2 reverts aren't edit warring. Once revert can be under the right circumstances, and his grasp of some of Wikipedia's policies is obviously less than optimal, but ignorance alone isn't usually sanctionable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be ignoring all the warnings the same user had already been given, though. He was EW-blocked for a year and was only unblocked when he said he understood what he had done wrong and would not do it anymore. Do you want me to go through his talk page history and dig up all the warnings he blanked without reading? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I want you to stop assuming that because my perspective is different than yours that I've somehow failed to do something right. It's a bit condescending and frankly, unwise. I'm not worried about last year, I'm looking at this FA, and in this FA, I don't think your behavior has been a model for other Wikipedians, which I've already stated. Your further comments have not dissuaded me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown: Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Wikipedia couldn't operate if people didn't agree to disagree from time to time. If you were some random newly-annointed sysop I would probably question your judgement, but knowing you as I do, I am confident that you looked into the matter appropriately and just happen to have come to a different conclusion than I and some others have. I probably could have done a much better job convincing you and whoever else would have read and replied to a more concise report (see above), and for that I apologize.
    We'll see if the problems continue, and if they do ... well, I'm going to, at the very least, run the wording of my report past someone who knows how to write ANI reports a lot better than I do. Even if AffeL's first edit after his current block expires is something atrocious, though, that probably won't be for another few weeks. I've been having a lot more fun away from ANI than on it.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, though, I reject the statement that [I] seem to have enough of a bias/involvedment regarding him that [I] probably shouldn't be reviewing his FA nominations. Having a "bias" against editors for their serially failing to read sources they cite in articles (including the FA-nominated article during the nomination) to check that they verify the content for which they are being cited is not a problem when reviewing FA nominations (in fact it is a requirement), and if editors who have an "involvedment" don't point this out who else would? It would be nice if all FAC commenters were skeptical and engaged in serious critical reading of the nominated articles, but if they don't that's their fault, not the fault of those who do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know its a lot of work, but in the future it would probably be more effective to review the article for sourcing problems if you suspect this, out of respect for other editors who have worked on the nomination, I don't think you should vote oppose without evidence — it is a lot of work, so anyone posting thorough evidence of something like this should probably get a barnstar for bringing it to the community's attention, but accusations like this need evidence. Seraphim System (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seraphim System: I tried. I went through the first several paragraphs, but that just wound up creating more work, because every time I tagged something AffeL came along, removed the tag, and added another source that had little-to-no relation to the content, or simply removed the content (with a misleading edit summary) so that I then had to consider whether said content was important to meet the comprehensiveness criterion. Anyway, reporting someone on ANI for lying and saying that they did a thorough source review that they obviously did not should (among a plethora of other offenses) should not require having done a thorough source check oneself. The article needed a bunch of fixes to meet the FA criteria, and AffeL (who also edit-wars while pretending he doesn't; see the first bullet point) made life extremely difficult for those of us who tried. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you should bear in mind how difficult it is to load the majority of those sources, with their pop-ups and automatically-playing videos on even a fast internet connection. No one should ever be forced to source check an entertainment article unless they are trying to get the article promoted. But if I had done the heavy (and I mean heavy) work to get the article promoted, the result would be AffeL taking credit for my work (work that he made for me with his clumsy reading of sources) on his user page and throwing it in my face next time I try to make an edit to the article he doesn't agree with and he reverts me. That's what he has been doing on the other articles I mentioned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam and copyright violations added to article

    IP 80.44.141.33 added copyvio/spam content on June 6 to Wyke Farms. Later, user Palomalacy did the same thing and an admin hid the revisions for both the IP and editor. Just today, IP 80.44.141.33 came back to remove the sourced controversy section as inaccurate. I'm not sure of the best place to report this so I'm posting here. SL93 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sourced controversy section failed verification; dead link - Listed as published November 2016, but accessed April 2016. Simply an unencyclopedic local article consisting of "He said, she said." I have removed the section. Scr★pIronIV 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the website for several newspapers in Somerset but recently redesigned its site and appears to have deleted everything that was there before. The Western Daily Press tweeted it (https://twitter.com/WesternDaily/status/795694816633954304) on the date it was published; the access date was clearly a typo for 2017. It could probably be found in a newspaper, but I agree it isn't important enough to be mentioned in the article. Peter James (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CodeEditor123

    CodeEditor123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Seems to be NOTHERE, but has been here for awhile, regardless recent edits are unacceptable. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @FlightTime: Blocked 31 hours for vandalism, pretty sure it's just going to be a case of not being here but I'm happy to keep an eye out and reel in the rope when the block expires -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @There'sNoTime: Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 20:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    dispute over speedy deletions

    i jonnymoon96 have been accused of making way to many mistakes which if i have you are welcome to reverse my work the dispute is with my latest contributions with speedy deletion Special:Contributions/Jonnymoon96 i have a dispute with MrX here is his quote on my talk page User_talk:Jonnymoon96 Please don't nominate any more article for G11 deletion until you fully understand WP:CSD#G11. You are making too may mistakes and creating a lot of unnecessary extra work for others. Please get a second opinion from an admin or one of the regulars at [WP:NPP]] if you think a particular article should be speedily deleted. Thank you.- MrX 21:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC) to be fair i have made mistakes before also here is MrX Talk Page User_talk:MrX here is our conversion on his talk page "thank you for your work and thank you for letting me know about your contesting Speedy Deletion i appreciate your work Jonnymoon96 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)" "Thank you Jonnymoon96. You should be careful about nominating articles for deletion because you consider them too promotional, including The Trevor Project and Graphiq. These deletion nominations are not in accord with policy or practice. I suggest getting a second opinion from an admin or experienced editor before doing any more nominations like this. I hope that makes sense.- MrX 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)" i have complied with his requests--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's an opinion from an admin. You should stop tagging articles for deletion completely - and you're tagging quite a few. At least some of your nominations (I didn't look at all) for AfD are also inappropriate. You don't nominate an article because it's overly promotional as that's not a basis for deleting an article at AfD. I suggest you work on improving articles rather than trying to get them deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure why you brought this here. If you are complying with his request, then that should be the end of it. --Tarage (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and restored them as I disagree they were proper G11's. If they are to be deleted, there should be a discussion first. -- Tavix (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: I restored the talk pages for the articles for you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Nihonjoe! That part slipped my mind. -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. It's easy to overlook. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    How is an article that is overly promotional not a grounds for deletion as I have read Wikipedia policy and have read at articles for deletion and the Wikipedia rules do i make mistakes absolutely but my interpretation seems to be completely different a lot of articles I have sent to XFD have gotten deleted because they were overly promotional the exact reason that people are saying why I should not send them to XFD I am not an admin so I don't have the power to delete articles some articles I have sent to XFD have been kept while others I have sent have not been kept I have helped contribute to articles also is not the point of XFD for people to debate whether people should keep a certain article based on Wikipedia rules and policies so in conclusion while I disagree with the admins on this point I very much appreciate thier feedback--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let other people tend to the deleting and you perhaps might focus on your writing skills, being that this is a writing project. That sentence/paragraph is nearly incomprehensible.- MrX 03:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! That was one complete run-on sentence, with nary a comma, semi-colon or dash to slow down the reader; not even a period at the end! I shudder to think that the person who wrote that is actually editing the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why also would you nominate an article for speedy deletion [49] and then contest your own nomination eight minutes later [50] ? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Two editors writing autobiographies and not communicating

    We have a couple of editors plus an IP writing autobiographies at Peter Coleman (sailor) and Paul Coleman (sailor), adding subjective POV material such as this. There has been some attempt at communication (see Wikipedia:Teahouse#References and sources., Wikipedia:Teahouse#haven't heard back... and Wikipedia:Teahouse#Are "in good order" ?), but competence issues seem to be impeding communication. I'm posting here in the hope that we might get Peter and Paul's attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone familiar with competitive sailing needs to look these over and decide whether they qualify for notability. I certainly can't tell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume good faith of inexperienced editors here, one of them contributiong whilst logged out. Having found some sources and made a contribution, I would like to suggest there should be one article “Team Coleman (Sailing)” with the Peter and Paul Coleman pages being redirects.CV9933 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a competence/inexperience issue too, but the POV edits continue. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would sooner call it COI and autobiographical. Whether they deserve an article is not totally relevant, it's just the fact that they have a COI and have shown they are unable to act reasonably when it comes to their own articles. And all their edits have been to their own articles or tangentially related ones. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now we have PeterColemanUSA making POV additions with an edit summary of "correcting spelling / grammar". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And the same from Paul. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that it's not two editors, but one person using two accounts, most probably someone associated with the team. Comparison of time stamps on the contributions shows continuous edting between the two accounts, with no overlaps. "Peter" appears to be the maion account, with "Paul" an afterthought. I would suggest a username block until this is straightened out.Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted a comment on the talk page of "Peter", suggesting that the two accounts be linked, and that they begin to communicate. I note that they did post on the Teahouse, which is encouraging. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Guessing again, based on my examination of their edits, that there's a good probability that the editor isn't either Peter or Paul Coleman, but someone connected with them (younger relative, perhaps?). The absence of an article on the thrid brother, Gerard, is also interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some of my guesses appear to be wrong, as PeterColemanUSA said on their talk page that he and PaulColemanUSA are brothers and not the same person (and he signed as "Peter"). I've asked him explicitly if they are the brothers the articles are about, so we'll see what the response is. In the meantime I've pointed PeterColemanUSA to WP:Autobiography and WP:COI and cautioned him to be as neutral as possible in his editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Técnico (moved from WP:AN)

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

    A single-page editor is continually making the same argument on Talk:Breitbart News in a disruptive manner. He's been making the same argument roughly once a day for several weeks, and has been warned multiple times to make more constructive contributions, both on his talk page ([51]) and on the Breitbart News page ([52]). He's also discussed this topic on WP:NPOV/N; he is aware of [53] and refuses to listen to the consensus there.

    I request he be banned from editing the Talk:Breitbart News page for at least 1 week.

    Power~enwiki (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Power~enwiki, I am not a single-page editor. I am not re-hashing an old argument; The archives do not discuss the question of whether leaning contradicts far. There is no consensus about the answer to that question. Técnico (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the User contributions log, you made your first edit on May 28, 2017. (to Talk:Breitbart News) Your first edit not related to that page was yesterday, after a consensus developed against your proposals on WP:NPOV/N. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Power~enwiki, now I am editing more pages. Anyway, there is not a consensus on WP:NPOV/N on whether leaning contradicts far. If leaning contradicts far, then the current Wikipedia article on Breitbart News is clearly violating WP:BALANCE. If you have something constructive to contribute to the question about whether leaning contradicts far, please contribute at WP:NPOV/N. Técnico (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tecnico, no one is obligated to respond directly to your arguments. A consensus was established a few months ago on the content issue and you refuse to abide by it. Realistically, there is zero chance you will change that consensus. I have humored your arguments long enough; it is time for you to drop the stick before you are sanctioned. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr. Fleischman, yes, no one is obligated, but some have responded to NPOVN. A few editors even concur that leaning is not a superset of far. However, there is no consensus about that point there or in the archives. Thus, it is false to say there is. Will you help me to find a consensus about point 6? Técnico (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I request a full ban for 1 week. He's clearly either trolling, or not competent to participate on Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Power~enwiki, please read WP:PERSONAL and please stop attacking me. Técnico (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Técnico: Although discussing editor behavior rather than articles and content should generally be avoided, it is different at administrator noticeboards or on personal user talk pages, when done civilly. Casting aspersions should however also be supported by evidence if the claims are questionable (see the WP:ASPERSIONS information page). These are not personal attacks. —PaleoNeonate - 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Técnico says he's not a single-purpose editor, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and see it. But the re-hashing at Breitbart is a consistent pattern. I support a topic ban of up to one month. If he moves on to similar behavior in a related topic, we can expand the topic ban or consider a full ban. —Guanaco 04:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Guanaco, I am not re-hashing. The archives do not address the question of whether leaning contradicts 'far'. Técnico (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)These new edits seem to me as:

    • Hitting the "random article" button
    • Making pointless formatting changes (such as adding &nsbp-tags)

    SPA is an abbreviation of single purpose account, not single-page account — hence these edits do not change the singular purpose of the account. Instead, to me they indicate WP:BADFAITH and WP:NOTHERE. They might even be enough to indicate WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, as this technique is often not exhibited among newer users.

    These issues are in my book more than sufficient for a topic-ban. A 1-week ban will be entirely ineffective and only result in a new report here in 2 weeks time.

    A topic-ban solves these issues, and the risk of being WP:OVERSIGHTed and permanently blocked if the behavior persists on a new account should be enough to dissuade the creation of sockpuppets. Carl Fredrik talk 04:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Carl, you seem to committing the ad hominem fallacy. If you think that far is a subset of leaning, please explain why at NPOVN. Técnico (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a topic ban although Wikipedia is generally weak when trying to deal with agenda-driven accounts who have learned the art of civil POV pushing, and this noticeboard may want to see a lot more wasted time before sanctions are imposed. I noticed a report at NPOVN. After investigation I left some pointy comments but talk is easily deflected. Técnico is here to counter the consensus position regarding a particular topic, and talk will not stand in the way. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far. Go to NPOVN and constructively contribute. Técnico (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What should the topic ban cover? Post-1932 politics of the United States, as per the Arbitration rulings? —Guanaco 04:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Guanaco, there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far. I haved checked the archives. If there is a rational, reasonable, discussion allowed, then I think we can reach consensus. If you would like to constructively participate in reaching a consensus, please contribute at NPOVN. Técnico (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Technico, enough. We get your point, now move on. Do something constructive, per your own advice. You are advising long-standing users to edit constructively when so far all you have done is refuse to drop the stick and shove your POV into other users' faces. Enough. Move on. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Callmemirela 🍁, I am not shoving my POV. I am asking for an objective resolution to the question of whether leaning contradicts far. Do you think that leaning contradicts far? Share your analysis of whether or not far is a subset of leaning at NPOVN Técnico (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is not part of building this encyclopedia ensuring that it adheres to WP:BALANCE? You seem to be committing the the ad hominem fallacy. If you would like to help us reach consensus about whether leaning contradicts far, please visit NPOVN Técnico (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all talking about your behavior. NPOV means that you set aside what you believe, read the strongest reliable sources you can find, and summarize them in WP, giving WEIGHT to what they say. You are not coming even close to doing that - you arrived with a very strong and very clear POV and have been bludgeoing talk pages and discussion boards trying to force it into WP. This is unacceptable behavior here. Read WP:SOAPBOX (policy), WP:YESPOV (policy), WP:ADVOCACY (helpful essay), WP:TENDENTIOUS (helpful essay). You are not the first person to abuse Wikipedia this way, and you will not be the last. Jytdog (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, what is a good way to have a reasonable, rational, objective discussion about whether or not an article is violating WP:BALANCE? I apologize if I am doing something wrong. I am just trying to do what is correct. There is no consensus about the question of whether something that is leaning can also be far. Técnico (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are starting backwards. You are starting with the assumption that Breitbart is X. You have been arguing from the stance. You have not been engaging with the strongest, independent, reliable sources. They are where everything starts here. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, where am I going wrong in the following line of reasoning?
    1. WP:BALANCE says, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."
    2. CNN is a reputable source.
    3. CNN calls Breitbart far-right.
    4. The New York Times is a reputable source.
    5. The New York Times calls Breitbart conservative-leaning. [54]
    6. Leaning contradicts far.
    7. Therefore, reputable sources contradict.
    8. The New York Times is relatively equal in prominence to CNN. (It can be argued that NYT is much more.)
    9. Hence, by WP:BALANCE, we need to describe both points of view and work for balance. -- Técnico (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is not yet another place for you to argue this issue. You need to listen to other experienced editors and understand why your arguments are being rejected. More to the point, the issue is settled and it's time for you to drop the stick. If you can't accept that a decision has been made that you disagree with, then you need to find something else to do with your time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody can cherry pick two sources and play them off each other in this way; it is not compelling. Working in WP especially on contentious topics means doing actual work. Do your homework - find every reference to Breitbart in non-opinion pieces in the NYT and in CNN in the last year, actually read them, and find some way to note what they say with some nuance, honestly. Then try to summarize it, honestly. Presenting the data and the results of that work and inviting others to review it and then discussing, would be both compelling and consensus-building. What you have been doing, even here, is tedious and trivial. I am not responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, thank you for the guidance; I need to do more work. I agree. For example, I should have emphasized that The New York Times article is the Times' premeir encylopedic article about Breitbart. The Times article is entitled "What Is Breitbart News?" [55]
    I should have also made very clear that I was not rehashing an old argument. The old argument was about whether right-wing also meant far-right. My question is about whether leaning is a superset of far. Thank you. Técnico (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from post-1932 US politics — Técnico, if you're truly here to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively, you'll find some other, hopefully less contentious, topics to edit for awhile, you'll gain a better understanding of our policies, you'll develop skills in discussing and negotiating consensus with other editors, and you'll learn why, exactly, your proposed edits have been rejected (hint: it has to do with WP:RS and WP:DUE). If you really are here only for the single purpose of beating this dead Breitbart horse, then you're not here to build a collaborative Internet encyclopedia and you should find something else to do with your time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog, do you see what I mean? It seems very difficult to have a reasonable, rational, objective discussion. I think it is clear that you can answer at NPOVN my question about point 6. Técnico (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is increasingly impossible if one defines "reasonable, rational, and objective" as "agrees with me". Carl Fredrik talk 06:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Carl Fredrik, please read WP:PERSONAL and please stop attacking me. Técnico (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NorthBySouthBaranof, please go to NPOVN and let me know what you think about point 6. Técnico (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban — Although I didn't participate I have been following this discussion. All along, it seemed clear to me that the consensus was to not reopen the RfC and that most reliable sources describe it as far-right. All along, this editor was WP:LAWYERING others like if they were the ones not building consensus or following policy. I think that a topic ban is a good first alternative to a complete WP:NOTHERE block and would allow the opportunity to learn and edit in less contentious areas. —PaleoNeonate - 07:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:PaleoNeonate, you are mistaken about the RfC It was about a different question. That RfC was about right-wing vs far-right. My issue is about conservative-leaning vs far-right. Since those two questions seem to be easily confused, my discussions about WP:BALANCE have been getting cut-off. Thus, please base your decision on the truth. Técnico (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • SUPPORT (TEMP) - While I somewhat empathize with new users (I was one once), it seems that from the start, they have failed to recognize the importance (and methods) of building a WP:Consensus. A competent editor on Wikipedia requires things like nuance and the ability to interact, perhaps even tenacity in certain regards, but Técnico has yet to understand the importance of such vital tools. I must support, although, I think things might have been different if they had chosen to try to find compromise and connection, rather than demand and disengagement. Their page does not say much, but it is all they have earned, unfortunately [56]. Perhaps they will listen after responsibility is given, perhaps not. Let them decide. DN (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per WP:SPA, WP:NPOV, WP:IDHT, WP:CIR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, why ban me for WP:NPOV when I am trying to promote WP:BALANCE? Técnico (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment My interactions with Técnico were minimal, and I will refer to wiser editors, and or, those that have dealt with them on a more consistent basis. DN (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Comment I also have only dealt with him over the one issue of Breibart being far right or not. But the issue is whether "Conservative leaning" excludes or contradicts "far fight", not about the meaning of the words "lean" and "far" (except in the sense of saying that one does not contradict (based on context) the other).Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from post-1932 US politics broadly construed. Técnico is indistinguishable from a troll. He disruptively demands that editors continue to argue about content matters that were settled months ago. He shops the same arguments at multiple fora, just as he has done here. He demands consensus against straw man arguments ("there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far."). I strongly suspect that he is a sock of a previously blocked or banned editor. I would also support a site ban as I see no evidence that he is here to help build an encyclopedia and the disruption-to-constructive-contribution ratio is too high. The unfortunate reality is that other socks will soon appear on scene to continue to disrupt talk:Breitbart News and well-intentioned editors will continue to feed these trolls.- MrX 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from post-1932 US politics - I've been half way watching the discussion on the BB talk page for a while now. I appreciate their... enthusiasm, but they need to learn that this is a damned big place with a lot to be done, and that arguing ad infinitum about comparatively minor word choice is not a strategy for doing that. Hopefully editing in non-controversial areas is a route to learning that, because eight mainspace edits into ANI is not a promising sign that the user is here to build an encyclopedia. If they can show that they are an asset to the project, then they can always appeal the TBAN in a few months and maybe try again. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's no question that Tecnico is showing WP:TE behavior, and that can be problematic, but at the same time, they have not engaged in anything that looks like edit warring (all of 2 edits to the Breitbart article), and while they have opened several threads at the Breitbart talk page, the only venture of the topic outside that was NPOV/N, which definitely isn't forum shopping (that's exactly where dispute on neutrality should get more eyes). This seems like using talk pages for their designed purpose, though I certainly would caution them to avoid rehashing arguments. But separately, I'm finding the people speaking against Tecnico are editors that have shown little love towards Breitbart or other topics in this area in the past, and are operating in a group mindset, most likely unintentionally, circling the wagons around the result of the survey and not allowing it to be challenged, and then turning the tables to call out Tecnico as an SPA and disruptive, and possible a banned sock without evidence. This was all behavior seen from GG that lead to the ArbCom case (which I was at the center of it, so I'm very well aware of the issues with WP:TE), and the trend is all mirroring that. Even with the NPOV/N posting there's some question of the validity of how the selective nature of sources was done, and I think Tecnico needs to use the advice there along the lines of surveying the sources per Jytdog's comment above (06:13, 22 June 2017) to come at challenging the result with strong statistical evidence that supports their point. (Using one or two sources against 38 is not going to cut it, but there's seemingly 1000s more out there to do just that). To that end, I do think Tecnico needs at least an enforceable, if not voluntary, short break from the Breitbart page (even the whole post-1932 US politics) for perhaps 30 days, which would allow them time to develop a stronger argument to present. But trouts around to those refusing to have any reasonable discussion of the point of the matter about the debate. Talk pages can't be walled gardens, and when editors work unintentionally to make them like that, they create these types of editing behavior problems, rather than being more accommodating as we're supposed to be. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is well said. Except that Tecnico's reply is a perfect example of the problem - they give a head fake toward the advice, and then keep right on at what they were doing before. And on that note, especially on emotionally laden topics (like alt med or politics) we get people who show up here driven by clear agendas, and when people treat WP like a nail that needs to be hammered (and Technico's actions here are mind-numbingly hammerlike) they need to restricted. This is even more true of alt-right topics where there is an army of online trolls who will just suck of oceans of volunteer time; volunteer time is the lifeblood of this place. "Bite" takes on a whole different meaning when you are dealing in a topic full of vampires. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know we (WP as a whole) are fighting alt-/far-right outside brigading, a mix of trolls and emotionally invested people. There's no question that the DSes in post-1932 US politics are needed. But you have to ask, why are they doing this in these areas? Personally, I would argue it is because of instead of adopting a more central/middle-ground view, WP presents a more leftist view due to a combination of what are considered reliable sources, and a combination of experienced editors on the site editing in these areas that average out to a leftist view, which has all the potential of creating an echo chamber - we have all the possible elements in place that we could end up as being similar to the walled garden of Conservapedia but on the left side, if we are not careful. That's going to draw trolls and emotionally-charged editors to hassle existing editors, no question, but its also going to draw earnest editors that are trying to break through the echo chamber but can't. That's why I'm not thrilled with the idea of silencing an editor that is asking policy-based questions about a past consensus, particularly since they haven't engaged in any other typical behavior that SPA/IPs that are trolling and not here to build the work typically do. Hence my suggestion of a voluntary time out from post-1932 Politics. Give them time to learn the ropes elsewhere and establish a better argument over a month or so. It they break that time out, or come back without any change in their TE behavior, or requestion without new arguments, then we can talk hard blocks/bans. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem: I would say your analysis is off. The problem is that the so-called "liberal media" is biased towards reality, and the alt-right is biased towards anything that supports their ideology, which is, generally speaking, not reality-based. We are an encyclopedia, therefore we reflect reality, not any ideology. The right sees this and says "Ah, see, Wikipedia is supporting what the liberal media says, therefore Wikipedia is biased towards the left," but that's only because they see things through the filter of their POV, while we do our very best not to be biased towards anything except what is real and verifiable. The alt-right media are not, for the most part, reliable sources, since they have been shown to have been wrong again and again and again, and have an overall tendency to report whatever they believe, regardless of its relationship to reality. Thus we are forced to use reality-based media, which the alt-right sees as liberal or "leftist", which is actually ridiculous, since no mainstream American media outlet is anywhere near being left-wing -- but, then, the alt-right makes no differentiation between "liberal" and "leftist".
    In short, it is wrong to point the finger at Wikipedia as being the genesis of the problem, which originates in the minds of the ideologues of the right. There is no "leftist view" to Wikipedia, that's an artifact totally created in the perceptions of rightists. Our viewpoint is centrist, just as that of the "liberal media" is. The fault is not in us, it is in those who cannot differentiate their ideology from reality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I side with BMK in this particular (very interesting) discussion. Having focused most of my recent editing on alt-right articles, I can say for certain that most alt-right POV-pushers are angered/motivated much more by what they see as systemic media bias being baked into our articles than by editor stonewalling, wagon-circling, or any other editor conduct. And I think it would be wholly inappropriate for the community to somehow adjust how we apply bedrock policies like WP:V and WP:NPV to reflect the fact that some folks on one end of the political spectrum believe that the libtard media is biased against them. That would not only blatantly violate WP:BIASED, but it would go a huge step further by saying, "Well, this source might not actually be biased, but some people think it's biased so we're going to call it unreliable or give it less weight." Bullshit. It is not creating a walled garden to apply our standard policies and guidelines (such as WP:CONSENSUS) to politics articles. All we can do is to patiently explain our community standards to these people, and if they don't like them they can go elsewhere. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no knowledge about Breibart for various reasons, but what bothers me the most from this ANI thread is Tecnico's behaviour here. They are always replying to user who either agrees to the ban or makes a comment about his behaviour with "Why don't your participate in the discussion at [[WP:LINK]]?", which really bothers me. It's unnecessary and excessive. We're not here about a content dispute; we're here about their behaviour. They don't get it, but they still go at it with the same messages. They also keep using the same arguments such as "There is no consensus" and whatnot. It doesn't matter if there is consensus or not, we're here about the behaviour not whether the edit was valid or not. It's not a case of IDHT, it's more like IDGAF. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tecnico is annoying, at least here, but I agree with Masem that this topic ban is a bit much in a short period of time. They don't fit the mold for who we normally topic ban. I also agree that if Tecnico was smart, they would volunteer to stay away for 30 days and brush up a bit on policy here, so this would be less likely a problem in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We routinely indef or restrict users who are a net negative to the project. This user has wasted a huge amount of other editor's time by obsessing on a single issue that has already been thoroughly discussed over a seven month period. He has refused to drop the stick, repeats the same weak arguments over and over, trolls[57], and has failed to gain consensus for any of his propositions.- MrX 17:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that their behavior here seems to be partially created by trying to break through the walled garden that that talk page is. I read those diffs and their talk page contributions, and that seems like someone frustrated that no one has honestly answered their question, only mass refusal to even discuss their questions. If their questions were answered fairly or at least some attempt of compromise, we'd not be here. Yes, they need to learn not to be tendentious, but that seems to be only issue of their behavior in question based on the Breitbart talk page, while a large number of editors are engaging in stonewalling. This is exactly the behavior that led to the GG case. Again, the best solution is for Tecnico to voluntarily step back for a good period, work outside the politics area, and get a feel for how WP works and come back with a stronger argument (if possible) for that specific page, and trouts for everyone else on that talk page for creating a closed, hostile atmosphere. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey now Masem, I take exception to being included among the troutees. I have devoted a sickening amount of time to listening and responding to Tecnico's campaign. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Troutbackatcha Masem. If you would quit leaping to the defense of trolls, SPAs, socks, and POV pushers that happen to share your own political perspective, it would go a long way toward dissipating the disruption. The content issue was resolved months ago by us following dispute resolution. We are not required to keep giving up our volunteer time for every random person on the internet who gives not one shit about this project and who wants to WP:REHASH settled disputes!- MrX 19:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't share their POV in any way, I consider myself left of center, nor am I trying to support them in trying to push POV. What I am worried about is the growing tendency of groups of editors with the same ideological mindset in a topic area to push subjective language as fact or at least present it in a way that violates neutrality and WP:IMPARTIAL, and not let that result be challenged. Are there sources that call Breitbart far-right? Absolutely, no question, it should be included at some point. Do all sources call Breitbart far-right? Not from the quick-and-dirty GHIT analysis I did, and certainly nowhere close to a majority. Thus we should be taking WP:YESPOV and simply assigning attribution to the statement, which is not that difficult to ask for. This is where Tecnico I think is trying to go with their line of editing, but they're new to WP, and tangling with established editors. So instead of getting answers, they're met with a wall of replies that block them out of discussion and feed into Tecnico's WP:TE. POV-pushers and SPAs and IPs are bad, but this type of behavior is just as bad. These walled gardens are becoming more common across WP and they do need to be dismantled and prevent that type of behavior. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But the thing is, your exact line of reasoning was fought for and rejected by the consensus in an RfC. As was explained to Tecnico. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the better past RFC to point to is this one [58] 7 months ago (and I would strongly suggest a FAQ on that talk page). I agree that barring any new evidence or different argument, that that RFC should stand, but that does mean that editors have to be open to discussing new evidence or a different argument. Instead, like with Tecnico here, they're being shut down and refusing to allow a challenge. That's the same behavior prior the GamerGate case. But in terms of GG, at least there was some reason to be defensive due to offsite brigading trying to influence the page. While there are IPs and SPAs and all that on those talk pages, many are actually trying to bring some element of valid points that should be discussed, but just like with Tecnico here, they're shut down and chastised, rather that worked with. I'm not saying that Tecnico's own behavior is beyond reproach - the TE-ness absolutely needs to stop, but that's not the only problem in behavior alone going on here. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tecnico's most recent argument argument is strikingly similar to the one squarely addressed the second RfC, which was about whether we should include a full analysis of the different ways various RSs have labeled Breitbart News. Not every slight variation on raised arguments previously rejected by consensus merits discussion, let alone a reopening of the consensus. Realistically there was (and is) zero chance that Tecnico's argument would disturb the consensus. Moreover, you might not have dug this far back through the discussion, but before raising the NYT "conservative-leaning" argument, Tecnico presented a grab-bag of much weaker arguments, including contending that we shouldn't describe Breitbart as "far right" because (1) a far-right blogger said, "I suspect we are seeing the end of Breitbart," and (2) far-right politics are associated with anti-Semitism, and anti-Seminitism is evil and Breitbart has objected to being called anti-Semitic. So no, an editor who is resisting the consensus should not get to take a kitchen sink approach and force extended discussion on each and every point that could have been raised in a previous RfC but wasn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor that had not been involved in an RFC completed some time prior has every right to ask questions about it. An RFC is not a binding contract, as consensus can change. I do agree things have come to a head with Tecnico's tendentious editing, and between their talk page and this ANI they should get the message to stop that or potentially face enforceable topic bans, but the rush to enforce the topic ban now on a new editor that is not otherwise causing editing disruption on mainspace is very very BITEY given, on good faith, this is a new editor frustrated with trying to make their point in a hostile environment. Having them back off voluntarily, now that the matter has been discussed more openly, and come back after learning the ropes is hopefully the best solution for all. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he had a right to ask questions — but no one has the right to ignore answers are they see fit, only accepting what is in line with a certain political conviction. This isn't about asking questions, this is about dropping the stick, and asking the exact same question over and over again, demanding answers every time. It is disingenuous to make it out to be anything but WP:DISRUPTIVE, and even newbies get banned if they show that they cannot participate in the collaborative process. Carl Fredrik talk 07:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is "stonewalling." The fact of the matter is that the subject was discussed to death, a clear consensus was reached and everyone now needs to accept that consensus, whether they agree with it or not. What's disruptive here is endlessly attempting to relitigate closed issues; while consensus can change, editors are not required to re-argue every single issue each time a single editor (particularly a single-purpose editor) questions it. We are not running a debate club here, we're trying to write an encyclopedia. The consensus has been extensively explained to this user, but they refuse to accept it. That is textbook tendentious editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof here. Some editors have been quick to silence challenges to the consensus, and in some cases that is unwarranted and creates a backlash among the challengers. But this is not one of those cases. By and large editors treated Tecnico with respect and carefully and thoroughly explained to Tecnico how the consensus-building process worked. It was only after that that Tecnico's continued pressing and failure to listen became disruptive. Different editors have different, reasonable levels of tolerance for such disruption, but I think we are way past the point where editors can be accused of stonewalling in this particular case. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I request the topic-ban mainly for disruptive incompetence; note the sheer number of times he's said "far-right v. leaning" in this thread alone, often in response to a completely unrelated comment. 7 days should allow discussion of the outstanding topics on the board; right now every thread on Talk:Breitbart News is derailed by him and it's impossible to discuss anything. I would also note that, while Breitbart News is under the post-1932 discretionary sanctions, he's only edited the Talk page and I believe the sanctions only apply to article pages. Consensus from the admins appears to be that an indef topic-ban is too much, I see no argument against a single-page ban though. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the DS is not article-based, it's edit- and page-based. WP:AC/DS says: "All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. (American Politics 2), so Tecnico's behavior is definitely covered by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, are you asking for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion based on the commentary, or are you withdrawing the complaint? If the former, I concur, if the latter, I disagree - the extent of the commentary has been such that I don't believe it can reasonable be withdrawn at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you open a thread on a noticeboard, if it has substantial participation and polling, you cannot simply request a close because you think "it is obvious nothing will happen as a result of this thread." See WP:PRAM. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's not at all obvious. It seems like there's a clear consensus for some sort of topic ban. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment updated. While several uninvolved admins have suggested this isn't action-worthy, after further inspection I agree it isn't unanimous. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Two admins do not get to override a unanimous community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And consensus does not need to be unanimous to result in a topic-ban. Admins have no more power to influence the discussion than anyone else — however they may act upon it. For now no one has, but that does not mean no one will. And in fact, neither are you able to retract/request closing of this thread — it will run its course now, and as I see it everything points to an indefinite T-ban being placed. A 1 week ban is pointless for a WP:SPA, as we've seen over and over again. WP:COOLDOWN does not work. Carl Fredrik talk 07:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unaware as to whether the consensus assessed on this page is supposed to be of all editors, or of un-involved admins. Is there a formal page discussing this? Power~enwiki (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD abuse/disruptive editing/compromised account?

    In the space of 24 minutes, Coder m applied a spate of CSD tags to 9 pages, most of which patently did not meet those criteria (A3, for instance, refers to empty articles; none of the tagged pages were empty). Suspecting disruptive intent and/or a compromised account, I performed an emergency block, and then used rollback to remove the templates.

    Since all of the tagged pages related to Indian political parties, an area in which I am involved, I am first of all asking for a review of these actions. The situation seems clear cut to me, but if my actions are considered improper, I will self-revert, unblock, and tender an apology.

    Second, what is to be done with Coder m? These edits seem totally out of character: they have not, as far as I can tell, used twinkle for CSD tagging before; and seem to have shown constructive intent, at the very least. My current block is for 31 hours, but if this account has in fact been hacked by a vandal, then indefinite would be appropriate. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't be sure of what's happening here, but it's likely that Coder m, an occasional editor with not much understanding of policy and deletion, thought they were legitimately CSD. Your reverts were definitely appropriate, and the block was a good emergency measure. CheckUser could give some indication whether the account's compromised, but I'm not sure it's necessary. My recommendation is to ask them to read the CSD policy and unblock once they've acknowledged that. —Guanaco 09:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've posted an explanatory message at User talk:Coder m. —Guanaco 10:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Valid use of the tools. Unusual situation, I would have done the exact same thing. The question of why they did this still remains. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's possibly the most bizarre CSD rampage I've seen - we even had an actress tagged as a non-notable musical recording! It's either a compromised account, deliberate disruption, or serious incompetence. Whichever it is, the block was an appropriate response - I might even have gone for indef myself, requiring an explanation before they're allowed back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back, we've had excessive tag-bombing from this account in the past, eg this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Boeing720

    WITHDRAWN
    Expired at the request of filer. Since, no consensus has been formed yet, this can be treated as if there was no proposed case. --QEDK (愛) 19:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On Talk:Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film), the behavior of User:Boeing720 has, I think, reached a place where sanctions should be considered. Despite being warned not to continue to do so, Boeing has relentlessly attacked User:TheOldJacobite for what he claims is his "ownership" of the article: this because TOJ is upholding our standard practice on film articles to determine who is or isn't a "star" for the purposes of listing them in the article's infobox. (For those unfamiliar with that process, it's generally that if they are listed on the film's poster, they go into the field.) Boeing continues to object that a single actor, who is not listed on the poster, be included, despite several editors (including myself) explaining the normal criteria. Boeing, however, continues to push the issue, as well as to attempt to put into the article his own WP:OR analyses concerning the film's music, with no source to support it.

    Boeing's behavior is straightforward WP:IDHT, his continued badgering of TOJ borders on WP:NPA, and he's cluttering up the talk page with his theories about the film. What's worse, he actually had the temerity to post a comment that suggested that the actor was being kept off the star list because the actor is Jewish and that there may be a concerted effort to block him from appearing because of that.

    This combination appears to me to be sufficient to warrant, at the very least, a firm warning from an administrator, and possibly something more substantial.

    Diffs: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]

    (Note: All these diffs came after the AN/I complaint he filed about TheOldJacobite's supposed "ownership" of the article was closed.)

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply - I have attempted to improve the article Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film). User OldJackobite reverted all, and referred to the talk-page. When I did reply to him at the talk-page, he then began to bombard my personal page. The second time he did so, did I leave a message here - and I was, and still am, concerned about his behavior. Now also about Beyond My Ken - and possibly the so called "task force". The main issue has been the question of David Dencik's casted role in this film. According to OldJacobite, did Dencik not star a role, and should not be mentioned among the other main actors. The reason for omitting Dencik was due to a poster for the film ! When I showed them another poster - with a slightly different casting (David Dencik's name is not written on what appears to be a British poster for this film, but well at a Danish one); they just goes on and on and on and on. Initially both on my talk-page and at the article's. This causes nothing good, and if (that's IF) anything was meant different from disturbing me, it becomes impossible to take to heart, among all the rubbish. I have only defended myself from untrue allegations, including disproving and proving things. And my conclusion about posters are that they are not up to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - standard, since they for commercial reasons might differ also in between English speaking countries. OldJackobite & BeyondMyKen (consciously ?) confuse this with who might be a "movie star" or not. And don't differ between article and talk-page , but keep on with absurd allegations.
    They also appear/(or might) to use dirty tricks, Beyond My Ken wrote this:
    I'd also like to point out that in the poster in our infobox, Gary Oldman's name appears above the title, so an argument could be made (and normally I would make it, except for the mishegas that's been going on here) that only Oldman's name should appear in the infobox as a star, since above-the-title billing is a significant indication of who the film's stars are. The other actors, who appear below the title, would then be featured actors. As I said, I'm not going to press that argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Which I of course replied to). But he then removed it. At the very least did it cause me an hour or more. I'm certain they give each other barnstars if this complaint gives them fuel. But I have not vandalized (as TheOldJacobite began with) nor broken any guidelines in the article. And only defended myself at the talk-page.
    I have never during 5½ years experienced anything close to this horrible experience. (please follow the history files) And the plot is written totally without sources, my efforts there included, as well as all other contributors'. But the OR in plot-parts of film articles is a far wider issue, I don't think I ever have read a plot which is based on other sources than the film/motion picture itself. I suggest the noticeboard, if possibly, keep an eye on this "task force" Boeing720 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So Boeing720 continues slagging off other editors (this time including me) right here on AN/I, where I am asking for consideration of sanctions for them because of their slagging off other editors. That's pretty ballsy.
    As for my comment about Gary Oldman, yes, I did post it, and yes I did remove it shortly after, because I felt it would simply confuse matters, throwing a unnecessary monkey wrench into the discussion, since I had no plan to advocate for that position any further. There was no response from Boeing when I removed my post -- at least I didn't see one -- or else I would have struck it out instead of removing it.
    Regarding Boeing's apparent insinuation that TheOldJacobite and I are somehow in cahoots -- well, I recognize his name just from being around for as long as I have (and him, too), and I think we had some interplay way back, but I can't recall whether we were at odds with each other or in agreement. (It may have had something to do with Tolkien? - but I'm really pulling that out of my nether regions.) In any case, while TOJ thanked me on my talk page for a comment I directed at Boeing720 (about his ludicrous idea that an anti-Jewish cabal was stopping an actor from being listed as a star, when there was a perfectly reasonable explanation for it which he refuses to accept), we are not in cahoots, we do not communicate via back channels to coordinate our anti-Boeing720 strategies, or whatever else Boeing is insinuating that our antisemitic "task force" does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So Boeing720 says below that he has been trying to "end this mess", which is strange because he keeps replying, and keep disparaging TOJ in every reply. If Boeing720 really wants to "end this mess", I suggest he not mention TheOldJacobite again in any way; if he follows through on that, I will withdraw this complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add, that my reply was to Beyond My Ken. When I saved it, there was a conflict. Many appear to use this page. I had to put it directly below. Softlander, You can also read my reply. Oddly... Boeing720 (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender , actually I'm glad for your contribution here, especially for this link [69]. If you intended well, as I think perhaps you really did - can you understand how it , after following your advice (I had already tried to get the alleged vandalism from JOC explained), feels, when other users then just invent allegation after allegation of OR and other madness ? And if you study my endings of my two or three last comments to Beyond My Ken - can't you agree with me, that I really am trying to end this ... mess. First nicely then by "over and out" ? But as the responses only gets worse, and after "over and out" does he make this formal complaint and want's me to stop contributing. Isn't "over and out" clear enough ? And IF you meant well later, can you understand how difficult it is to be wrongfully accused, without having the last word ? Sincerely Boeing720 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boeing720: It's because you keep making false accusations and keep harping on your own ideas of what the article content should be, regardless of policies or guidelines. No one has ever accused you of vandalism, yet you continue to repeat that falsehood. You've never actually said "over and out" and fully meant it; instead you've posted long screeds that make continued accusations against people and continued assertions of how the article should be according to your own personal preferences. Softlavender (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think "Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film)" is very much the same accusation ? Especially as TOJ briefly appeared to wanting to discuss matters at the talk-page, but instead just put an ANI-warning at my talk-page (twice), without any intention of wanting to discuss any thing. (Aside of "please look at the poster"). His reverts included matters as well-referenced statements from Colin Firth, about how he got the role as Hayden and what he thought about the role. I even forgot about the fact that "Karla" isn't mentioned at all in the plot (shouldn't he be ?). And if he disliked all my contributions about the end of the film, could he just have taken that up at the talk-page. Etc. Nothing of what later has happened , had occured - if TOJ only had been constructive himself. When you say "I keep harping on your own ideas of what the article content should be" - I must reply the totally rabid deletion of David Dencik from the other actors with equal significance in the film - Toby Jones as Alleline, Ciarán Hinds as Bland and Colin Firth as Hayden these three are together with Dencik as Esterhase at level of each other, within the scope of this film. (OK as Hayden/Colin Firth is revealed as the mull in the end, perhaps makes his role a bit larger, but still) But that cannot explain the strange omission of Dencik. But that has been solved. And I pointed that out for Ken. Clearly indicating that I'm finished hopefully. But then followed new accusations etc. What else harping have I started ?
    And I'm not used to suddenly become bombarded like this. That made me feel I was under crossfire and simply had to defend myself. To be absolutely clear - I have not done any "disruptive edits" nor any OR in the article. I was prepared to discuss anything about this film. While TOJ behaved as if he owned the article, and began "the bomardment". I have ever since been forced to defend my self at the talk-page. And sometimes defense can include countermeasures. But I've tried to be constructive with them. This included proving (which I believe I have done) that posters are not up to our WP:RS standards. And if we indeed have a guidline about posters as reliable sources, why did no one just direct me to it, as I asked for it ? I guess You are constructive however, I hope. And I just want this matter gone. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief adding, Softlavender. I think you are explaining yours and others perspectives. And perhaps also listens to me. But I'm humbly greatful for not reinforcing any allegations while explaining, even though I stand by what I else have written. Boeing720 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass (agree totally) Boeing720 (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not. Accusing someone of vandalism must include the word "vandalism", "vandalize", or "vandal". And you've proved my other point by posting yet another long screed that makes continued accusations against people and continued assertions of how the article should be according to your own personal preferences. Softlavender (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume this is meant for me. And I'm sad to read it. Do you now say I have accused someone of vandalism ? Please read what I wrote again (I felt I was accused of vandalism, and tries to explain why I felt so. It's not quite the same thing)Boeing720 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You missed the boat entirely. Softlavender is referring to the fact that you have complained on numerous occasions that TheOldJacobite accused you of vandalism, when, in point of fact, that never happened. To have been accused of vandalism, TOJ would have had to use the words "vandalism", "vandalize", or "vandal", which he never did. That you keep harping on this falsity is, in itself, a continuing unwarranted disparagement of TOJ, and is of a piece with the fact that you also keep harping on how you think the article should be, despite being informed of the normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines which preclude that.
    In other words, just like your bald misinterpretation of Softlavender's comment to mean the he was accusing you of having accused someone else of vandalism -- which he never said or intimated in any way -- you just aren't getting it, and you keep on just not getting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Without any intended allegation, I think he is strait forward "Accusing someone of vandalism must include..." etc, is formal enough language. If I now would reply yet again to you, then you might continue with for instance "you brought him up again... etc". I do get it. WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Boeing720 (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Boeing720, the community has wasted enough time on you. Are you saying that you do understand and that you are now dropping the stick? Because if not, the extent of your disruption, and your level of competence (or lack thereof), would indicate that sanctions need to be imposed to prevent further disruption and further waste of the community's time. (Speaking of competence, you need to learn to correctly nest your posts under the post you are specifically replying to, by using one more colon than the post you are replying to. I am now fixing your post above accordingly, and this is the second time I've had to do that in this thread.) Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to ANI. Some just continue. I will not go in any more traps. I honnestly agreed with Ken to quit. To drop the stick. Boeing720 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On the assumption that Boeing720 will be true to his word, I'll withdraw the complaint, and, in my opinion, this can be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Disneylandlover2006

    I've questioned at least some of their edits, particularly those that go against a MOS:TV guideline known as WP:TVCAST. The user has been repeatedly adding unsourced tallies of absences of actors in season articles of at least two TV series - specifically, Boy Meets World and Wizards of Waverly Place. (A number of sample diffs: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]) I have warned the user about the TVCAST guideline disallowing cast absences or episode counts on their talk page [88], and it was reiterated by another editor [89]. But they continued to re-add the absence tallies to the Boy Meets World season articles after being told not to on their talk page. They have made some other significant edits to those articles, but I haven't evaluated them for further disruption, aside from episode summaries they added content to being too long.

    While I'm saying they have added absence counts in groups of articles for two TV series, I can't seem to explain their taking them out in others (which shouldn't be there per the aforementioned TVCAST guideline) [90][91]. Their pattern of editing, judging from what I've seen in their contributions, suggests enough of a disruptive nature to them - especially with the recent warnings on their talk page. Plus, a lack of edit summaries with their more significant edits isn't helping. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to their continued disruptive editing, and their ignoring of all attempts to communicate with them, I am also concerned about their apparent propensity to post WP:COPYVIOs, as per [92] (which they were warned about by another editor [93]). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And they continue to be disruptive by adding the same content they have been warned not to add (cast absence counts, going against WP:TVCAST, which I mentioned in my original post): [94][95][96]. And Amaury gave them a final warning for one of those edits [97]. User simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be accurate by technicality, but at this point, I'm just labeling them as a vandal. On top of what was mentioned above, it's also a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't really been involved with this editor so unfortunately I can't give much insight, but since it's likely relevant, I just reverted another edit just a minute ago where they reinstated the content which they have been reverted on countless times. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Still making problematic edits, as of yesterday – see Talk page: Disneylandlover2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    Koala15

    Koala15 (talk · contribs) is changing sourced content and blanking citations when he disagrees with them. For example: blanking citation and changing sourced content; mass blanking; blanking and changing sourced content; blanking and changing sourced content.

    This is the same problem as outlined above with another editor, who apparently got off with several "final" warnings. I am sick and tired of editors who blank citations when they disagree with them, then change sourced content to values not found in the citations because their original research tells them the citation is wrong. Koala15 has been given a final warning for disruption and was told that consensus is that we go by the sources for this content, yet he persists in changing reliably sourced content. Can someone block him please? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am now involved. I have undone an edit. I am just too lazy to check the other edits. I've been involved with Koala15 ages ago over removing a template tag. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of the last people who left the final warning template on Koala15's page a few days ago- since then, there have been several warnings given. I keep seeing their name popping up on the change logs for film pages and I'm puzzled, as I don't believe it's vandalism-related, but there is a complete disregard for consensus. I don't know what to say, really. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, OK, I'm starting to see the problem here. Take for example their recent creation Thieves (TV series), which I'm presently looking over. In the lede, Koala15 has "The series aired from September 28, 2001, to December 14, 2001, on ABC." with Variety and The Washington Post sources attached to that. The problem – the two sources only verify the premiere date, not the "last aired date". Indeed, the airdates included in the episodes table for the last two episodes are apparently fraudulent – in fact, Brooks & Marsh (and in a more roundabout way Epguides) show that the show aired its last episode on November 23, which means the last two episodes certainly did not air on the dates indicated in the article (at the very least, they did not on ABC, and there would need to be sources showing that they aired elsewhere on those dates). So, at the least, we have a misuse of sources here, and potentially we have a more serious problem with fraudulent content. And that is just the first Koala15 created article I looked at. Unfortunately, I see something very similar at Local Heroes (TV series). Koala15 is a very prolific content creator. But I'm concerned if this is level of oversight going into the creation of their articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    They're an amazing content creator and very productive. I just am puzzled as to why they've been bulldozing over edits over the recent past. If they could just communicate, this would probably be an entirely different picture. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not out of place for me to comment, I don't think this is a "recent" problem. Koala15 edits a bunch of articles on my watchlist, and seeing edits that are obviously not vandalism, especially by IPs, get reverted without even a brief explanation has long been a common occurrence. Many editors (including myself) have requested Koala15 start using edit summaries, but without much luck. I just scanned their contributions, and at a quick glance, I only saw 1 edit in the last 500 that had a non-auto-generated summaries (I'm sure I missed a couple). Communication would be a good start. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Koala15 is still removing sourcing because he disagrees with them, but now he's replacing them with other sources. The problem is that there's consensus at WT:MOSFILM#Sourcing for production companies that we should use sources that explicitly label content like production companies. He's replacing the sources with ones that don't explicitly label them. This consensus was established to avoid original research. Since Ad Orientem has just recently dealt with an editor who was doing the same thing, I've asked him to take action here, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hrs. This does look like a case of persistent disruptive editing. And I also have to take note that well over 24 hrs into this discussion that have not chosen to make any response. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Contacting an Administrator

    Huffyypuffyy is free to read WP:Your first article, and if he feels it appropriate, to start a Userspace draft. He is advised to maintain WP:CIVILITY and avoid personal attacks if he wishes to remain on Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    this is a post that is a copy of one i made on C.Fred's talk page here

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Huffyypuffyy (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Since all you have to say to my requests at discussion, im starting an discussion with an Admin. Have a great day and stay cool :)

    C.Fred has deleted my "Tatum Jane Brooks" Wikipedia page with "speedy delete" and did not even give me a warning. He did this because he says that the person who the article was written about was not important and i didnt have links to show it. I didnt even have the time to edit my article, since it was only an hour old i couldnt have possibly written the whole thing in that time, including all my links and things, to prove that my person was relevant and deserving of a page. My page was deleted in like 30 minutes, and i left a message on C.Freds talk. He deleted this several times, so i cannot provide a link but im sure its in his talk page history. He then left a message on my talk saying to not attack the editors, and didnt even lightly touch on my concerns. to make a long story short, i do not think he should have the right, and i dont think its fair, to delete a page without even a warning ahead of time to ask a person to change it or improve upon it. I know that my artical followed all of the rules, but i did not physically have the time to write an entire article without saving it to make sure my work wouldnt get deleted periodically. thank you for your help!

    (edit conflict) Huffyypuffyy received a speedy delete notice at 01:00 UTC; the article was not deleted until 02:22 after no significant changes were made. As far as the original message ([98]) and reposts ([99] [100]) on my talk page, I read the message. However, since 3/4 of it was a personal attack, I removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Softlavender are you the admin whos settling this? if so i dont see why youre picking his side, i have the right to be angry because this guy didnt even give a warning. look, i get that im new at this but i dont feel like i should be ganged up against because of this, this guy is literally a collage graduate and he thinks he can walk all over me because he has some badges. isnt wikipedia supposed to be for everyone?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huffyypuffyy (talk • contribs) 03:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Huffyypuffyy, you were given a notice regarding the deletion of your article. You are always allowed to recreate the article and add the links. However, I highly suggest you create a draft first and then publish your article. Now, back to another issue. You have got to stop attacking editors. I don't see how a man with an education degree has anything to do with your article. Please see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. It was unnecessary. Wikipedia editors aren't taking sides. Policy and guidelines are what makes us lean toward a position. And what if somebody agrees with C.Fred? That's not C.Fred's problem. It's yours. It shows that you need to improve your article whether it be the published one, the draft or your draft in the sandbox. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Callmemirela alright, thank you! im new to creating articles on here and i didnt know you could create a draft and then publish it, ill look for that function when i go to make my article again. I can understand how what i said was unprofessional, but then again how cfred handled it was not professional either. id expect a certain level of professionalism when im contacted by a member of a encyclopedia cite, as well as a grown adult with a degree, that i immediately was not greeted with. im sorry if thats just the way editors are in this community

    @Boing! said Zebedee thanks for that. in the context of that comment, i meant in the slot of time that i was given, because when my article is threatened to be taken down for "speedy deletion" i am aloud to think that it will be taken down immediately. as i said earlier, i did not know that there was a draft function. i saved my work periodically as one does in case my computer were to blow up spontaneously. i was notified by wikipedia that i cant save without it publishing, so that was a risk i had to take. i was immediately put down when i couldnt even begin to write an article safely without said article being deleted, and when it was threatened to be deleted, for all i knew immediately, i didnt see a point to try to fix it because for all i knew it could have been deleted the very next minute and all my work would have been for nothing. thank you for adding to this thread though, because since i am new to wiki editing on this cite, all comments directed towards me i will use as constructive criticism :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huffyypuffyy (talk • contribs) 08:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Before writing an article, you should read Wikipedia:Your first article for guidelines and information about our baseline standards for inclusion. Not everything or every person qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia. You should not take the deletion of an article personally — it is not a comment on you as an editor or on the person in question, it's simply a decision by an experienced editor/administrator that the article isn't suitable for the encyclopedia.
    I see absolutely nothing from C.Fred that qualifies as "unprofessional" — they left you a standard notice that the article was nominated for speedy deletion and then a standard notice that your personal attacks were unacceptable. We welcome new editors, but as a new editor, you have a responsibility to learn our policies and it is generally a good idea to listen to experienced editors when they make efforts to educate you about those policies. It is not a good idea to aggressively attack those experienced editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another possible approach would have been to approach C.Fred (who seems to be a friendly and helpful sort) in a civil manner and ask for help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you are using the same argument. A user with an education degree has nothing to do with this. You mention "lack of professionalism", well that goes both ways as well. Your personal attacks lack professionalism and they're inappropriate. C.Fred was well within his Wikipedia rights and per policies and guidelines to notify the article of deletion, notify you of it, delete it when no improvements were made and warn you about your behaviour, which was unacceptable. Like NorthBySourthBaranof said, you have to take the responsibility to read upon the criterias it didn't meet and listen to experienced editors. And per Boing! said Zebedee, you should have communicated with civility and proper conduct. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP genre warrior

    (non-admin closure) A handful of /64 IPv6 ranges have been blocked for 6 months each.

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

    This is getting really old. About once or twice a week an IP come along and changes genre's across Eagles related pages the latest IP is 2600:8805:AA03:2100:31A3:2735:13F8:F51D (talk · contribs · WHOIS), each time it's a different IP, I can go through and compile a list if needed. The pages are pretty much the same each time. I don't know much about these types of IP's but is a range block possible ? should I go through and request page protection for all pages involved, IDK so here we are :) Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 04:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like they're IP socks of 158.123.154.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who's blocked for six months. I'll range block 2600:8805:AA03:3600::/64 and 2600:8805:AA03:2100::/64 each for six months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Geez, I found another one, 2600:8805:AA03:2700::/64. For the record, I range blocked that for six months, too. You can contact me on my talk page or ping me if another one shows up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. Thanks again, - FlightTime (open channel) 04:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would 2600:8805:AA03:/48 be appropriate? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured I'd block the /48 if any more showed up, but I don't have any objection to someone doing that now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    72.184.130.118

    (non-admin closure) Both IPs blocked by User:JamesBWatson.

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

    For more than a year now, this IP address has been performing large scale test(?) edits to a number articles, them being:

    I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, and what they're trying to accomplish. Can someone take a look into this? Thanks. 94.194.139.90 (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know exactly what's going on. Maybe test edits. Could be crapflooding. Instead of just blanking pages, some vandals will repeatedly blank and restore pages. This fills up the article history with dozens of useless edits and annoys everyone who has the article watchlisted. This isn't quite as bad, but it's still disruptive. Since it's been going on for a while, and there's a page full of warnings at User talk:72.184.130.118, I gave a final warning. Hopefully that will get the IP to stop doing these test edits or whatever they are. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for the final warning. Actually, I also just found another IP: 62.28.232.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) making very similar edits (though this is unrelated to the other IP, but it is still "crapflooding", nonetheless); though their edits are entirely in Spanish... I honestly don't understand what people try to accomplish with adding nonsense to articles like this... 2601:1C0:102:29D8:CC06:F9E1:52DD:1E95 (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    JamesBWatson blocked both IPs. In case anyone is interested, MusikAnimal is testing an edit filter that may help alleviate some of these nonsense edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Smatrah -- wants to eat the cake and still have it

    Smatrah has added original research based upon primary religious sources (Muslim) and has removed original research based upon primary religious sources (Judaeo-Christian). He/she obviously cannot eat his/her cake and still have it, as I have explained at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Religion and sexuality and notified him/her about the discussion. So he/she is knowing that he/she is editing in bad faith. Gone past level 4 warning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree remove both of them. I am not doing in bad faith. Are you scoring when you say I am doing in bad faith. It is original research so remove both of them. I can say that you are doing with bad faith when you remove one and leave other.Smatrah (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am taking the liberty of unclosing this thread, since there has been no evidence provided yet as to what article(s) is/are being referred to, and no diffs of evidence have been provided; therefore there is no way of determining whether this is a WP:CONTENTDISPUTE or a WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Tgeorgescu, you will need to provide details in terms of article(s) (link them, please) and WP:DIFFs. I am also pinging Smatrah to let them know this has been re-opened. Note to SoWhy: WP:DRN is not the ideal link to refer content disputes to; WP:DR is the appropriate comprehensive link.) Softlavender (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic was about edit warring at Religion and sexuality. WP:NORN copy/paste:
    This is about an editor crying WP:OR at [101] while himself/herself doing at [102] and [103] the very thing he/she claims to abhor. Please chime in. He/she cannot eat his/her cake and still have it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources because original research is prohibited inside Wikipedia. It is prohibited any use of the Bible, as a WP:PRIMARY source, in order to make points which are not immediately obvious, but rely instead upon interpretation (exegesis). E.g. "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold" can safely be verified to the Bible. But "according to the Bible, Solomon earned 666 talents of gold, which is bad, because 666 is Devil's number" is not allowed to be verified to the Bible, but its inclusion could only be based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. See WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    End of copy/paste.
    Other diffs are [104], [105] and [106]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As extra remarks: edit warring has now stopped, so a block would be moot. But I would like to have a formal confirmation that verifying uncontroversial statements (with attribution) to the Bible/Quran is allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tgeorgescu: If this is only about one single article, and only FOUR edits, do not ever bring it to a noticeboard. Go directly to the article's talk page and open a discussion there. ANI is for longterm behavioral issues, not for an edit-war which you have failed to even discuss on the article's talk page. Do not ever attempt any kind of report until you have discussed matters civilly on article talk (not usertalk or any other venue). If there is continued edit-warring despite attempts to discuss on article talk, then file at WP:ANEW, not elsewhere. Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for telling that uncontroversial statements can be attributed to primary sources. Smatrah (talk) 09:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FabioGMinero

    (non-admin closure) FabioGminero blocked for 31 hours by User:There'sNoTime.

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

    FabioGMinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Continued unsourced date changes after multiple warnings. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @FlightTime: Reports such as this are probably better suited at WP:AIV for future reference - regardless, I've blocked for 31 hours -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @There'sNoTime: Well, I've learned that, by multiple denials (and some STOP's) that ignorant editing is NOT vandalism, so I just come here instead. Reports to AIV that are not pure vandalism can be meet with harsh administrative backlash, much safer here. I will mention that your conduct is very refreshing and I respect your judgment and enjoy our interactions :) - FlightTime (open channel) 12:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @FlightTime: Can't disagree that sometimes people can be less than helpful with reports to AIV which aren't 100% vandalism, but in my opinion what you've reported above is actionable at AIV. Either way, thank you for the report :) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @There'sNoTime: I agree, but patrolling admins at AIV need to be told this. Thanx for what you do :) - FlightTime (open channel) 12:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    IP 91.90.13.192 blocked for 1 week by Admin Bbb23. I also recommend that the IP be monitored after the block expires. (non-admin closure) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Legal threat "Irresponsible editors risk having their IP addresses subpoenaed and risk spending a fortune fighting law suits for their irresponsible action."It is related to the section following it. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a clear case of legal threat. Capitals00 (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this at AIV, and would appreciate feedback from admins on this page. This appears to be a static IP. On the one hand, we have WP:NLT, for which an editor can be blocked. But I also see ownership issues with that IP, and not just the legal puffery on their user page. Toss in edit warring. You've left a note on their talk page also about this being a possible SPI. Multiple issues at play, and I'd like to see what other admins see as a resolution on this. — Maile (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a legal threat. I don't think the editor is implying that they could or would subpoena or sue, they are merely attempting to to warn (though not very accurately) others against the risks of editing anonymously. This is akin to warning that you can be blocked for vandalizing and being accused of pretending to be an admin. -- John Reaves 17:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While not a direct legal threat, there are problems in that the IP does seem to be trying to chill discussion or preempt actions, what you might consider "a lesser included offense of making a legal threat". I would say they need to remove portions that relate to this. He is free to point to the actual TOS and policies, but interpreting them in a way that is threatening isn't kosher. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Dennis, but I disagree. The litmus test for legal threats (and the like) are whether they are designed to have a chilling effect on editing, and I believe this one fits that criteria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Preparing to give a rouge editor the brush-off
    I'm usually the one saying that this or that isn't a legal threat, but this is. It's meant to scare people. Worst of all, he's called out rouge editors specifically. EEng 17:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng I realize that you have a great sense of humor without peer. But did you possibly mean Rogue, like when a elephant goes nuts? — Maile (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    No, Maile66, I really meant rouge as in WP:ROUGE. Look for it in the diff linked at the top of this thread. EEng 02:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    How dare he go after rouge editors?? They're an important part of the makeup of Wikipedia! -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
    Good one! And to think some people want noticeboards purged of humor. Can you imagine how insufferable this place would be? EEng 04:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've hesitated to mention this, because I can't provide a diff. Somewhere on all those admin pages we patrol, I've seen this exact warning before. Identical, complete with the bare urls. And one thing I remember clearly from that, is "If you do not believe me, take some time to read the following examples" Absolutely the same. Mostly, I patrol AIV RFPP and the admin Dashboard. So, it was likely on one of those, and I believe sometime in 2017. I just can't remember where it was. The original poster here may not be far off suspecting SP.— Maile (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The only edits in article space by 91.90.13.192 (talk · contribs) are to Gross National Happiness, a term used mostly in Bhutan. It's mostly a content dispute over what should be in Gross National Happiness vs. Gross National Well-being. The anon is way too wound up over this minor issue. This looks like an inexperienced editor problem, not a real threat. Possibly trolling for attention. No visible COI issue. Suggest that WP:DNFTT applies here. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maile66: Quite sure it was at RfP, as this is my usual haunt, and I remember it too. I, on the other hand, see indeed a legal threat...especially because of the wording "irresponsible editors", which makes it someone who at least knows or has read legalese. So it was intended to imply a threat. Still, for now I would deny, but keep an SPI in mind. Lectonar (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I skimmed over this posting before being drawn to 91.90.13.192's novel that they wrote down below and it is a doozy. Yes, I see a legal threat in their posting, as POLEMIC content littered so much that I can hardly parse through their page. So far as I can see, Toddst1 behaved appropriately, with no personal attacks and proper warnings before taking this to AN/I. I myself would be rather suspicious of AnimaNova if I were in Toddst1's shoes. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Toddst1 has been targeting and bullying me with false accusations on my talk page. This is an example where he selectively chose a text out of context to gain the sympathy of other editors. If you read the full talk page and my response to him, you will see the page clearly says "This is not a legal threat against any specific person. This warning is not to discourage legitimate debates. This warning is to rouge editors, bullies, and trolls who abuse the openness of Wikipedia." On the same page it says: I love an intellectual debate. If you disagree, feel free to express your point of view, but always provide independent and reliable supporting evidence. One or both of us will learn something new and that is a good thing. However, do not delete my contribution without first discussing with me or providing a supporting evidence, or you risk being reported to an administrator. I will be courteous to all, but I will not let BS slide. If your contribution violate copyrights and other publishing laws, I will warn you, before I report you to Wikipedia and to the victim. This also applies to any defamatory comments. Bullies and trolls will be held responsible." This is actually inline with Wikipedia guidelines. On the same page, "From a legal perspective, I see many liability issues related to copyright, defamatory and business interference. Kudos to Wikipedia administrators who are able keep up with preventing the abuse by some of its editors. Its mind boggling how they can manage so many users. Now and then, I will study and monitor such issues and hopefully will use my experience to publish a legal article about Wikipedia publishing." As you can see, it is unfair to take one sentence out of context. He engages in similar unfair tactics and abuse the trust of other editors and admins who might be busy and quickly scan the complaint instead of reading the full thing. This is all started with insidious motive to block me because I disagreed with him on an article. To see how he operates and see who is violating the Wikipedia Civility policy. Please also read my complaint on the same notice board section (Toddst1 False accusations, bullying and other violations). I hope you will reconsider your position in the light of new information. Also in the light of fairness and unbiased commenting, if you see that he made mistakes, please speak out. 91.90.13.192 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm so surprised to see some comments here by other editor who are using sarcastic language and are quick to agree with Toddst1. In the spirit of neutrality, I ask you to disclose if you have made any other supporting edits of Toddst1 on Wikipedia before. I think a senior independent Admin maybe required to ensure this complaint is resolved fairly. I see user Toddst1 has been very active and he might have built support in the editing community and this might cause a systemic bias towards new users like me. 91.90.13.192 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked and saw my comments on Toddst1 talk page were reverted by Bbb23 without an explanation. This resulted in hiding my response to Toddst1 false accusations and hurt my complaint by showing only one side of the story. This is so strange. Is Toddst1 coordinating with other editors to protect him. Can an Admin, please, investigate this group behavior 91.90.13.192 (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm an admin, and I investigated my behavior and found it exemplary. I'm just waiting to see if another administrator blocks you because it's likely to happen one way or the other.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are hurting me by removing my response to his accusations. It is unfair to keep only one side of the story and in my opinion is not exemplary. Do you have any connection to, or have you supported him or he supported you on Wikipedia before? 91.90.13.192 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, 91.90.13.192, the warnings were fair, but you came out the gate swinging and litigious, I am unfamiliar with Toddst1, but it would not matter even if I were. That being said, you have definitely explained that you are seeing this as a legal conflict, so I am in support of you being blocked now. I hope you will take the time to learn how things operate around here. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not say anywhere this a legal conflict, on contrary, I clearly stated this was not a threat towards anyone on my talk page and on in this section. Please do not put words in my mouth. 91.90.13.192 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you are mistaken. Amidst your warnings towards Toddst1, you also posted all over your talk page about legal problems that could arise. And, here you're only pressing your rationale further. Whether it was your intention or not, you're giving the impression that you're trying to intimidate others with litigation. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked my complaint on Toddst1 on this noticeboard and saw it was reverted by Black Kite. This user agreed with Toddst1 in his complaint against me and then reverted my complaint against Toddst1 on the ground that it can be posted under this complaint, in concert with DarthBotto But after reverting, he did not post it here. Essentially deleting it, thereby misleading other editors by showing only his complaint, and not my complaint or the way I see this going, resulting in blocking me before I make my complaint against him. Another disturbing issue is that I did not make any legal threat against Toddst1 and I responded to his complaint in this section, BUT to include my separate complaint of bullying here will mislead others to think that I made a legal threat against him in response to bullying. My complaint against Toddst1 is separate and I would like it to be addressed independently. Black Kite, please do not delete my complaint, you are hurting my side of the story. Again, to me, this is a disturbing repetition of group behavior that I believe an Senior Admins and higher ups in Wikipedia should look at. 91.90.13.192 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just block him and stop him from wasting any more of our time. --Tarage (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind. Looks like he was an hour ago. --Tarage (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that it's a checkuser block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Addition of unsourced content by Jeanpierre1844

    Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing by Admin NinjaRobotPirate (non-admin closure) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Jeanpierre1844 seems to have a history of changing content on articles without Wikipedia and has been repeatedly warned not to do so on their talk page. The user made another addition of unsourced content on Billboard Top Latin Albums after receiving a final warning. Erick (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    69.116.155.79

    IP User has been blocked for 1 month by Admin Widr after 331dot reported the IP user to WP:AIV for harassment. I strongly suggest that the IP user be monitored after the block expires. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP user 69.116.155.79 has broken the 3RR on three different occasions on the 2 (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, and revert 4), 3 (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 and revert 4 and 5 articles revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 and revert 4. In his edit summaries you can see that he calls me "dummy", tells me to "bring it on, police officer", and if you can see on the talk page User talk:LRG5784#Edits, that he shows no remorse for his actions, hence the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. I have since mentioned that I will not engage in any further conversation with him seeing that he does not fear consequences for his actions, nor does he wish to be a team player, even after another user 331dot got involved and tried to help. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    now this... —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP user is now temporarily blocked, but they have stated an intention to continue to be disruptive; a longer block may be needed. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Block was extended to a month. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Survey

    Moved to WP:AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by Govindaharihari

    Closing this; Govindaharihari has been given final warnings by more than one admin; there is nothing more to do here. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – Warnings given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To my knowledge, I had never met this editor before, but I talked to Govindaharihari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) today a few times at the talkpage of Kas42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), where s/he appeared suddenly to criticise Sundayclose regarding an NPA warning Sundayclose left at Kas42's talkpage about a PA against FlightTime. I saw that conversation and I commented a few times, to correct the record and to tell Govindaharihari that s/he should not defend PAs. After some more conversation with Sundayclose and FlightTime, Govinda had to have the last word, and replied to FlightTime, calling all three of us "youall", stating: ow welcome Flightime, the three of youall has attacked me personally now, more so imho that Kas attacked youall. I don't mind the swearing and the attacks though, it shows me something about youall.. I let this go and did not reply to that comment, although I am certain, at no time, did I personally attack Govindaharihari.

    I thought that was the end of it, but I was proven wrong. A few hours later, Govinda left this trolling message on my talkpage: Hi - Do you know that in five years you have never even attempted to improve the Eastwood article with even a single minor content addition, not even a format improvement or a comma or a full stop? I reverted this edit and gave this user a level-2 harassment warning. In response, the user vandalised my talkpage by adding a link of wmf labs at the top of my talkpage. I subsequently gave the user a level 3 vandalism warning. In response, the user vandalised my talkpage again by copying and pasting my own warning to him/her at the top of my talkpage, destroying part of the code of my talkpage. I followed up with a final harassment warning on the user's talkpage, only for to get this user to vandalise my talkpage again, in exactly the same manner as before. I am not sure what the problem is with that editor, but I would like this aggression to be stopped and, more importantly, an admin to warn this editor about any repetition of such behaviour in the future, either against me, or against another editor. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Youall is just Southern US English. It sounds like you both got in a template throwing match. The other editor will need to do a lot more harassing and you will need a very sympathetic Admin. Bringing this to ANi will not solve your problem and may raise more problems. Type 'Withdraw' here and ignore the other editor. Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) I know what "Youall" means. The point is I did not personally attack this editor when s/he said that I did. It's in my report. And I disagree about withdrawing this report. Trolling harassment is worthy of an ANI report. But having seen Nihonjoe's warning to Govindaharihari, I am ok with closing it. Dr. K. 01:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Govindaharihari: You've been given a final warning regarding your harassment. Please stop now or you will be blocked. Additionally, I recommend following Legacypac's advice. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you be clear and post the harrasment edit, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 3) Removing the warning will not prevent blocking if you continue on this path. Anyone who looks at your edits on User talk:Dr.K. can clearly see the pattern of harassment. Playing dumb is not going to help you, either. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Govindaharihari, the childish edit warring on his talk page needs to stop. I say youall sometimes, being a native Texan, so I take nothing from that. The edit warring is block worthy. Just because it is their talk page and not an article, that doesn't prevent us from blocking for you for warring and disruptive editing. I don't care what justification you think you have, knock it off of you will be blocked. What you are doing isn't vandalism, but it is still disruptive. It doesn't take 4 reverts to block you for edit warring. Grow up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My perception is that Govindaharihari has been engaging in fairly widespread disruption, harrassment, and trolling or borderline trolling for many months. Unless there is some sort of major attitude adjustment, I think s/he is heading for a block sooner or later. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Softlavender is correct, again. I noticed Govindaharihari's unhelpful posturing here and was thinking of adding a comment to the effect that such commentary would be interpreted as support by the editor whose talk page was used for the discussion. That support would encourage the editor to continue their efforts to add nonsense to a BLP (see AN3), and that would lead to a block. I decided my comments would just excite further unhelpful commentary and moved on, however, the predicted block has occurred. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender's always right. It's most tiresome. EEng 04:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree with basically all of the above, I do have a serious question for the OP - Dr K; precisely what wisdom moved you to post a template warning to the user talk page of someone who has demonstrated, very clearly, in a recent discussion that you were a part of, that they have a problem with template warnings? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mr rnddude: I disagree with the premise of your question. Govindaharihari did not dispute the act of giving a template warning. Please see Govinda's first message: Hi there {{ping|User:Sundayclose}} - when we post such a threatening warning notice on a users talkpage it is usual and helps if you would please post the edit you feel is worthy of this warning template, please could you do that or remove the template, thanks. Plus, I think leaving a nasty message in two parts, the second part with the edit-summary "nada", in which they obsessively enumerate all the things they think that I missed in adding to the article: not even a format improvement or a comma or a full stop? is a clear attempt at trolling/harassment and is hardly an invitation to reasoned discussion. Even so, I initially responded with a measured level 2 harassment template. Dr. K. 17:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mr rnddude: is right - I despise your worthless attacking templates , labelling me a vandal when I am a good faith user with thousands of positive edits that is why I removed them immediately and dumped them on your own userpage, have the worthless attacking templates yourself, too many users go around dumping aggressive templates on good faith users talkpages. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you despise messages concerning your behaviour, templated or not, then heed the advice you received from the editors and admins who commented in this thread and modify your behaviour accordingly. Dr. K. 19:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suspected multiple account edit war

    Funkinwolf blocked indefinitely as a sock; Erzan blocked for three days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I suspect Funkinwolf (talk · contribs) and Erzan (talk · contribs) may be one and the same person. This edit was made by Funkinwolf today, with the argument there is consensus for the change. I then reverted it, only to have it restored again moments later. As the change is controversial, I then opened a discussion on the talk page, which can be found here. it was then partially restored by Erzan, who was making their first edit on here since December. Erzan then reverted my revert, with a strikingly similar argument to Funkinwolf. Erzan then posted this comment on my talk page. Both have a history of edit warring, and I suspect they may be connected. It is my belief that when the Funkinwolf account was challenged, he/she logged out of that one and logged in as Erzan. Funkinwolf is a relatively new account, but has already been repremanded for edit warring. Do I need to go to the trouble of filing an SPI report, or can this be dealt with here? This is Paul (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My edits on Wikipedia have constantly be edited by a regular user and this This is Paul. I believe this user is stalking my edits, for whatever reason and trying to enforce his/her will. I wanted to complain but find the process intimidating. But after being accused of this and the feeling of stalking, I have changed my mind. Erzan (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested full protection for the article so that the content dispute can be resolved on the talk page. If you suspect users of sock puppetry, you can report it here: WP:SPI. - MrX 13:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, I'll file a report. Since I'm out of reverts on that page, can I request the temporary removal of the word terror from the background section as there are WP:BLPCRIME issues involved with calling it that when the matter is under sub judice. Either that, or it should be amended to say "suspected terror attack". This is Paul (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Report now filed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erzan. This is Paul (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tiruchirappalli International Airport

    Could I please get a couple more pairs of eyes on this page? It's not entirely clear what's going on there, but it looks... messy. Thanks, GABgab 13:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    May have something to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itskumudhk. GABgab 13:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a short term solution, I full protected for 3 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:118 alex

    Closed as has been dealt with, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi, would someone block 118 alex for racist personal attacks[107][108][109][110][111] as well as edit warring[112][113][114][115][116],
    Obviously I'm not African but regardless it's a still a racist personal attack and is something that shouldn't ever be tolerated here,
    Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User's been notified[117], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Such behavior is obviously unacceptable. I have indefinitely blocked this user and used revdel to remove the racist attacks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ed - Much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 14:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:185.59.158.22

    User:185.59.158.22 has made over 5,000 edits in a short time, none of them with edit summaries apart from the automatic section heading. User:Arjayay questioned some of these at User talk:185.59.158.22#Defaultsort but their advice was rejected.

    The IP seems to have some previous knowledge of en.wikipedia but a shaky grasp of English. Several RMs they have raised ignore WP:AT and simply cite personal opinion.

    I considered a short block to have a better look at this activity but I'm not sure whether policy allows this, or whether it would be effective anyway. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hello. Basically I have worked with correct categorizations of the pages. Any problems with my edits? Show wrong diffs please and we will discuss it. Or number of edits is a wrongdoing per your opinion, yes? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for replying. Please see wp:mixed indents for the problem with the way in which you have! (But please don't fix it now I've replied.)
    It's the volume of edits, coupled with a certain attitude (this diff and the notice on your talk page for examples, many other talk page diffs could be cited) that concern me. Taken together with the fact that you are displaying a very patchy knowledge of policies and guidelines, this may represent an enormous amount of work to repair. In the two RMs which you have raised and which I saw in the ellapsed listings section and considered closing, you have completely ignored the article title policy. Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In the article about Diego Maradona, my edit was absolutely correct: [118] Yes, Maradona is a manager of Fujairah as of now. The warning from that user was wrong. Simply he didn't read the last news. Another wrong diffs please? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not answered that one. Interested in other views on all of this, that's of course why I raised it here. Andrewa (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor do you understand the talk page guidelines obviously. But more important, you seem to be making no effort to do so. It would be good to discuss this and many other things on your user talk page, but you do not seem to be archiving it, instead just deleting the many previous attempts to discuss things there.
    And it is somewhat ironic that you request others to type on your talk page rather than using templates, but do not use edit summaries yourself. Andrewa (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • First or all, my talk page is for me, ok? Non-actual discussion were removed, any problem? You have attacked me without any reason, without trying to talk on the talk pages. Second, I use the edit summaries where it's really nessessary, today's diff for example [119] And third, show the wrong diffs or good bye, don't waste my time. And I will check all your edits tomorrow also. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, 185.59.158.22, your Talk Page isn't just for you. It's where any other editor can discuss your edits with you. If you insist on just deleting questions raised on that page by other editors, they will eventually have no option but to raise the questions on a noticeboard like this one. You see how that sequence works, don't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on J. Geils Band discography

    @Piriczki: is saying that the footnote on J. Geils Band discography should say "104 on the Bubbling Under" because the actual chart said so, even though WP:USCHARTS says not to use 1xx for Bubbling Under peaks. Even though the chart he linked here says "104" for the Bubbling Under peak, this is patently wrong because there is no such position. "104" means "4 on Bubbling Under". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is there no discussion on the talk page?[120] AQFK (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=787523696"