Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Ettrig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Huh? I only raised a user behavior issue here; there is no need to resolve the content dispute on this page (discussions are ongoing elsewhere). (2) I agree that it is not a grave emergency; that is why no one brought this here until Ettrig made over 1000 (and possibly over 2000 edits) along these lines. (3)/(4) The current language was changed by User:Ettrig himself, see [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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wwallacee continuing unprovoked personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

• Support. All I'm asking is that he not periodically attack me. Scolaire (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Pinging editors who were involved in the previous ANI discussions: Wwallacee, Thewolfchild, JzG, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, OpenFuture, Serialjoepsycho, Onel5969, Edmund Patrick, Hohenloh, Blackmane, TU-nor, Tarage, Power~enwiki. --Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a bit dubious about a one way iban. They tend not to have the intended effect and my experience as a fairly regular passerby on ANI has tended to find that one way ibans escalate more than they de-escalate. I'd be more inclined towards a final warning and escalating blocks. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not really au fait with this dispute, but certainly we all know (or should know) that there is no excuse for personal attacks.Hohenloh ⁺ 11:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support and would add that if the iban is broken it should lead to a block of Wwallacee. It is unacceptable that the kind of harassment displayed towards Scolaire should be allowed to run unchecked, and it is deeply saddening that constructive and productive editors should be driven into retirement through fear of being attacked. --bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Uni-directional interaction bans are only imposed in exceedingly rare circumstances. I don't pretend to know the details of this situation, but a single comment, a full year after any previous incidents, is not grounds for a one-way interaction ban. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

AffeL (talk · contribs) was blocked for almost a year between 2013 and 2014 before receiving a STANDARDOFFER.[2] 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.[3][4][5] Copy-pasting the same IDHT response to a legitimate concern about sourcing seven times in a row.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Engaging in off-topic commentary about how much more popular Game of Thrones is than its source material,[13] then repeatedly attacking me for responding to said off-topic commentary[14][15] and going so far as to directly claim that he wasn't the one who brought it up.[16] 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.[17][18][19] I had actually given him permission to collapse everything except my first comment, but he misquoted that[20] and later admitted to having not carefully read it before acting on it.[21] 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[22][23][24] or with no explanation at all.[25][26] 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,[27][28][29][30] hand-waving evidence to the contrary as "must have missed that one"[31] and dodging requests to clarify whether he means something else when he says he did a source check.[32][33] (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.[34][35] (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.[36][37]

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,[38] and he's not exactly a stranger to ANEW.[39][40][41][42]

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

• 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)

• I have to be honest, your treatment of the FA [43], 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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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★pIron^IV 19:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

@There'sNoTime: Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 20:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• A look over your deleted contributions is troubling. I'm not sure how POPLINE or Daiya got deleted, for example. They both seem fine to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Thanks, Nihonjoe! That part slipped my mind. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. It's easy to overlook. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Why also would you nominate an article for speedy deletion [44] and then contest your own nomination eight minutes later [45] ? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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 ([46]) and on the Breitbart News page ([47]). He's also discussed this topic on WP:NPOV/N; he is aware of [48] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Power~enwiki, please read WP:PERSONAL and please stop attacking me. Técnico (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

• 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)

Johnuniq, there is no consensus on whether leaning contradicts far. Go to NPOVN and constructively contribute. Técnico (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• support TBANsite ban and indefinite block from Post-1932 politics of the United States. Here to campaign; WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC) (NB - update per behavior here and MrX's remarks. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [49]

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)

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)

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)

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?" [50]

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)

• 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)

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)

It is increasingly impossible if one defines "reasonable, rational, and objective" as "agrees with me". Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Carl Fredrik, please read WP:PERSONAL and please stop attacking me. Técnico (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, please go to NPOVN and let me know what you think about point 6. Técnico (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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 [51]. Perhaps they will listen after responsibility is given, perhaps not. Let them decide. DN (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per WP:SPA, WP:NPOV, WP:IDHT, WP:CIR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

• • 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)
  • '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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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[52], and has failed to gain consensus for any of his propositions.- MrX 17:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think the better past RFC to point to is this one [53] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• As nominator, I request this be closed. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• To be clear, I'm requesting it be closed because t is obvious nothing will happen as a result of this thread the discussion is done. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Two admins do not get to override a unanimous community consensus. Softlavender (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

WP:CBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support TBAN Holy mother of WP:IDHT. I almost NAC'd this one, but for the fact that it involves a sanction (the consensus scope of which has to be tailored from several subtly different proposed variations--better left to an admin). Hopefully a close is eminent though. I come into any WP:BAN discussion needing and expecting a lot of convincing, and I can't remember the last time the contributor in question did such an efficient job of convincing me all on their own, consistently more and more with each repetitive battleground post.

That said, I'm not sure a TBAN as broad as some of those described above is warranted on the basis of behaviour on this one issue. Tendetious as Técnico's conduct may have been up until this point, bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and thus I tend to believe they should be narrowly tailored to areas of proven problematic bebahviour. It seems to me that we might start with a page ban or consider a TBAN relating to political news media; post-1932 political topics is just way too broad (touching on too large a fraction of the encyclopedia's total content) to be considered for more than the absolute worst offenders in this area, imo.

On a side note, looking at that talk page, I see that Técnico is not the only editor to have made needlessly aggressive and inappropriate comments in the relevant discussions. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well reasoned. I agree that a page ban is more appropriate. Tecnico has been laser-focused from their first edit one issue--namely, getting rid of the two words "far right" in Breitbart News. A long-term or permanent page ban would push them off that issue and accomplish the goal (well stated by NorthBySouthBaranof) of seeing whether they can edit productively in other areas. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Disneylandlover2006

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

---

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: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]) I have warned the user about the TVCAST guideline disallowing cast absences or episode counts on their talk page [72], and it was reiterated by another editor [73]. 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) [74][75]. 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)

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 [76] (which they were warned about by another editor [77]). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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): [78][79][80]. And Amaury gave them a final warning for one of those edits [81]. User simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

And here's more evidence of clear disruption, adding back the cast absence tallies at the season articles for the Disney Channel series Shake It Up [82][83][84], where I clearly removed them within the last couple of days [85][86][87]. I recently went thru a handful of articles for Disney Channel TV series to remove the cast absence tallies, which again contravenes the WP:TVCAST guideline, and they have already attempted to restore them in episode articles for at least two other series [88][89]. Additional disruptive behavior in the edits includes WP:OVERLINKING, like [90], when they removed these overlinks prior to that [91]. Their edits are testing the patience of a number of editors at this point, including mine, and I'd appreciate some action being taken. Disneylandlover2006 has already been informed of this discussion, yet refuses so far to participate in it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. I agree with Amaury's proposition that this is effectively a WP:NOTHERE (or, at a minimum, a WP:CIR) case – but they've been warned multiple times, have ignored the warnings, and have refused to communicate (see WP:Communication is required) now for days. Based on all of this, some kind of block is in order. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I blocked Disneylandlover2006 for 31 hours. Let me know if this continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Koala15

• Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Ad Orientem: I am confused; they immediately resumed the behavior that resulted in the 24-hour block. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... thanks for the heads up. Looking into it now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: & NinjaRobotPirate Ok. I have dropped a note/warning on their talk page inviting them here to discuss this. If the disruptive editing continues w/o any response here let me know and I will reblock them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

What did I do? I didn't do anything to deserve the block in the first place. If your talking about me reverting stuff its hard for me to give a reason for everything I revert. Its mostly vandalism and nonsensical edits etc. I only reverted @DarthBotto: once because he didn't use a source but he seems to be holding it against me. Koala15 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Koala15. Thanks for joining the discussion. I would encourage you to read the above comments. You can also take a look at the comment left by NinjaRobotPirate on my talk page which expands on some of those concerns. I think one thing I would note, setting aside for the moment the specifics of what a number of editors saw as problematic editing, is that you got warnings posted on your talk, including by an admin, followed by an ANI notice that you ignored and you went on doing what multiple editors on two different pages were expressing serious concerns about. In my experience when I have a bunch of really experienced editors telling me that I'm wrong, there's a better than even chance they are right. But even if I am really convinced that I'm right, and they are all wrong, I'm gonna at least stop doing whatever it is they are getting spun up over until we get it sorted out. Disengaging form the discussion and just ignoring everyone is a really bad choice 99% of the time. Anyways, you are here now and that's a good start. Hopefully we can sort this out and avoid any further unpleasantness. I will let Ninja speak for himself, which might not happen until tomorrow (Monday) given the late hour. Speaking of which I am off to bed myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little concerned that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior, including blanking and restoring unsourced content, but at least he stopped doing that. Koala15, the problem is that there's consensus that production companies require explicit sourcing. This means they need to be labeled as such by the source. This is to prevent original research, such as what you've been doing. When the American Film Institute says that Sony produced and distributed a film, but the billing block has Columbia's name and/or logo on it, we go by what AFI says. There's consensus that the billing block (which Variety reproduces in their reviews) is not good enough. Variety maintains a database, Variety Insight, which does label the companies involved. I've put in a request at WP:TWL to have this opened up to Wikipedia's use, but it could take a while to get an answer from Variety. If you don't understand any of this, just stop screwing around with sourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

The topic was about edit warring at Religion and sexuality. WP:NORN copy/paste:

This is about an editor crying WP:OR at [92] while himself/herself doing at [93] and [94] 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)

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)

End of copy/paste.

Other diffs are [95], [96] and [97]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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

General legal threat

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)

Seems like a clear case of legal threat. Capitals00 (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• Don't forget that the IP addresses of registered users have previously been released by the WMF upon receipt of a subpoena, so a threat of doing that may well be a solid legal threat. What do others think? Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

Just block him and stop him from wasting any more of our time. --Tarage (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like he was an hour ago. --Tarage (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I also note that it's a checkuser block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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

69.116.155.79

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)

now this... —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

Block was extended to a month. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Survey

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

---

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

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

Harassment by Govindaharihari

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)

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)

• I am available at this time to respond to any queries about this report. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

(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)

• Just to note , the user has also made a failed vandalism report https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=787366653 Govindaharihari (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not a "failed" report. It was just removed as "unactionable". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

(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)

Can you be clear and post the harrasment edit, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

(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)

• • (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)
    • Thank you Nihonjoe and Dennis for your intervention. I am ok with closing this report now. Dr. K. 01:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

Softlavender's always right. It's most tiresome. EEng 04:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• @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)

• @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)

• 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)

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

Suspected multiple account edit war

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)

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)

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)

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)

Report now filed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erzan. This is Paul (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• I guess it would be a stretch to argue that this falls under WP:ARB911. TimothyJosephWood 17:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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, GAB^gab 13:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

May have something to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itskumudhk. GAB^gab 13:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As a short term solution, I full protected for 3 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• • • Good catch, GAB. Comparing a few dozen contribs convinced me that you were correct. Sock blocked, article unprotected. Diannaa had already revdel'ed the copyvios I missed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User:118 alex

Hi, would someone block 118 alex for racist personal attacks[98][99][100][101][102] as well as edit warring[103][104][105][106][107],
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, –Davey2010^Talk 14:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

User's been notified[108], Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

Thanks Ed - Much appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 14:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Edgar181: Now socking as 1186 alex (talk · contribs). Could someone block that one as well for block evasion? Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

In the article about Diego Maradona, my edit was absolutely correct: [109] 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)

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)

• Note, the RM disscussions in question are Talk:2017 Men's Euro Winners Cup, Talk:Sevens Grand Prix Series and Talk:European Women's Sevens Championship. All competitions have the new names, and I don't understand why user Andrewa voted against. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

• 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 [110] 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)

• 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? Second, you should use edit summaries every time, not just when you feel like it. Third, that's up to User:Andrewa, isn't it - it's in his discretion to provide or not provide, But either way, I don't think you just to get to say "goodbye" as if none of this matters, do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Simply read the rules. WP:OWNTALK: Personal talk page cleanup: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. I answered all questions from all users and removed the old threads. Any problems with this? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• @185.59.158.22: Because you are using an IP instead of actually registering for a personal account, the User talk:185.59.158.22 page is not your "personal talk page". Also, you may not remove the SharedIP template at the top of the page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Show the rules. And its a not shared ip. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@185.59.158.22: Well, if it's not a shared IP, then indefinitely blocking it will only block you. Since you seem completely unwilling to work with anyone when they bring up a concern on your talk page, then perhaps indefinitely blocking you is the best option. Editors here, including anonymous IPs, must be willing to work with other editors, and they definitely must be willing to change behaviors that go against establish policies, guidelines and procedures. If you continue down this path, that is where things will go. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

So far, I think my worst fears are confirmed. This is an intelligent and hard-working editor but with no concept of collaboration. They are quite possibly making some constructive edits, but I'm afraid that the overhead of cleaning up after the others is going to be considerable and ongoing. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Again, please show the unconstructive edits. Try to find one-two at least. Your personal attack is without any reason. Very good 'welcome' from administrator. "Short block" for what? You voted against all my RM propositions without any real arguments. Do you want me to stop any editng in wikipedia? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a personal attack, and that unfounded accusation is itself disruptive. (Note that disruption can be unintentional.) Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • None of the three RMs [111] [112] [113] were based on the article name policy despite many, many heads-ups in the process asking for this. Anyone can make this mistake and many do, but the response [114] fails to get the point. Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Try to read this diff [115] and this post [116] from another users. You have no arguments why competitions' old names are better than new ones. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Again you are failing to get the point. Irrespective of the subsequent arguments and RM result, the nominations were flawed. Andrewa (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Honestly I don't understand your position. There is no answer to the abovementioned posts? In all threads, you didn't say any words about the competitions itself! ...if the FIFA World Cup was moved to FIFA Men's World Cup, this would never stand and would be reversed. Correct or not? 185.59.158.22 (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Irrelevant. This is not the place to discuss the RM, just your behaviour. The RM was not properly raised. That is not serious. You won't accept advice about doing better in the future. That is serious. You are making thousands of edits per week, and consistently refuse to accept any advice on any of them. That is very serious. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
            • Yes, I am making many minor edits (mostly related to the correct categorization). And what? I check your contribution, but you are making about zero edits (besides some renamings) in the article space during the last months. And what? My RMs are the correct propositions. Some users are in support. And saying "refuse to accept any advice on any of them" is absolutely false. I read all posts related to my edits and answered all of them, until your today attack. And again, show wrong diffs if you find it. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
              • For all I know most of your edits are great. Or not. That is not the point. Some of them are not so great, and you consistently refuse to discuss this. And if you wish to discuss my behaviour, the place to do that is on my user talk page in the first instance, not here. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
                • I hope I will discuss your behavior on the desysop page in the future. Finally, I only noted that user Andreva have started this topic without any words on my user talk page in the first instance. Bye! 185.59.158.22 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
                  • No, he left this and this which you blanked.
                     — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
                  • (edit conflict) I posted on your user page as required [117] and you subsequently reverted the notice. I did not attempt to discuss with you on your user page before coming here because of the enormous number of edits involved. There were many other factors in that decision, but it was the sheer number of edits you have made over a short time that decided me on coming here sooner than I would have otherwise. And in view of subsequent discussion here, it was a good decision IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, 185.59.158.22, just create an account. It would solve a lot of these complaints, and there's really no downside. —Guanaco 23:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• No, thanks, it's a my choice. But thank you for proposition. 185.59.158.22 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Since this discussion started, the IP has made only one edit other than to this page and their user talk... again without an edit summary. [118] So it may not be as urgent as I feared, but I think it does require some sort of resolution. I've raised the matter of their talk page usage at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#IP user talk page and would welcome input there. Andrewa (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

And in reply it has been pointed out that Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings (a section to which the IP has themselves linked in justification of such edits) reads in part A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: ... For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address and/or to whom the IP is registered, although very old content may be removed. (my emphasis) I will point this out on the user's talk page. Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As the IP has now posted a retired template on their user talk page, [119] I think this incident can be closed and archived.

Thanks to all who have participated. It is not an ideal outcome obviously but in glorious hindsight I can't see how we could hope for any better.

After the archiving has occurred, I intend to clean up the user talk page unless anyone objects or (preferably) someone uninvolved offers to do it. The Shared IP|Datsyuk Valentina Mykolaivna in Ukraine template giving the IP registration should stay indefinitely IMO, and a link to the archived discussion (this discussion) should be added.

The retired template should stay for a while, as the IP claims the address is not currently shared [120] and we have no reason to doubt this, but should be removed at some time in the future... how long?

The rest of the user talk page contents can go IMO. Andrewa (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit war on J. Geils Band discography

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

---

@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)

Why is there no discussion on the talk page?[121] AQFK (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@AQFK: Because there is literally no activity on that talk page. No one will ever see it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

They will if someone puts something there and points people to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not all the times I've tried it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I cited the "Bubbling Under the Hot 100" chart as published in the March 9, 1974 edition of Billboard magazine here which shows the J. Geils Band single "Did You No Wrong" peaked at No. 104. The other guy cited wikipedia. Piriczki (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats by User:Longhart

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

---

For some reason this user User:Longhart has been vandalising my page and making legal threats against me. [122] [123] I have no idea what they are talking about what I did to their page. PackMecEng (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

They've been threatening others the same way. Indef blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• It looks to me like they may be raising (in a spectacularly ham-fisted manner) an issue with Amanda Long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). That's based on who they gave the shouty threats to and the history of that BLP. The wording of the threats (and the "my page" wording to someone who has not previously edited their talk page) fits with that. The commonality between the BLP name and username might be the person taking issue with an article about themselves. Some basic BLP due diligence may be worthwhile (WP:DOLT). Murph9000 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Comparing the article from Longhart's last edit to it in December to immediately before the threat rampage does not show any immediately obvious BLP issues.[124] It may just be an extreme case of article ownership, objecting to anyone touching the article. Murph9000 (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Looking through the history again, and the threats, I'm entirely convinced it's an extreme case of article ownership. Accordingly, I left a {{subst:uw-own4im}} to warn them of that issue (severity based on their extreme response to it). Murph9000 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to explain to her how Wikipedia works and that she does not own her page and that legal threats are not allowed. Her unblock message shows a fundamental misunderstanding of these points. I would do it myself but I have been accused of 'grave dancing' in the past so I'll stay out of it. --Tarage (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am now convinced that I would have been the complete wrong person to deal with this. Someone who has far more patience than anyone else who has interacted with her thus far should make an attempt, because this is going to take a lot of explaining. She does not understand any of this and is quickly becoming belligerent. --Tarage (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or is there a notability problem here? EEng 04:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Well, the article may qualify under WP:NARTIST #4 if the National Portrait Gallery exhibit can be verified. Murph9000 (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  For sure there is a notibility issue but at this point, short of someone calmer intervening in this mess, she is going to rage quit. She's already filed like 7 unblock requests... --Tarage (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm not saying that it does qualify, only that the mention of the NPG & Smithsonian stood out to me. Murph9000 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

A new legal threat has now been made: [125] General Ization ^Talk 05:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. For the record, as the target of this latest threat, I'm gobsmacked at the totally unjustified arrogance. I'm also entirely unconcerned about the threat at a personal level, but desire to see the NLT policy enforced because that was completely unacceptable. Legally, I believe I'm covered by Arkell v. Pressdram (1971). Murph9000 (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Their talk page access (and email access) has been revoked. I also declined all of their unblock requests. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

I am feeling under WikiBullying from User:Timmyshin

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Chang, User:Timmyshin is keep using so-called "dark histories" of me in Wikipedia community against me, trying to use that as a "reason" for deletion (which was actually cannot be used as a valid reason for deletion according to policies and guidelines), despite of other participants' opinions and even consensus. The user's behavior made me have to recall, disclose and explain numerous of my sad memories before. The user's behaviour is also very likely for political reasons as I explained in that page. As a result, it already let me being very depressed and nearly devastated. I have already suffered PTSD including symptoms of depression and anxiety due to my experience of political persecution and harassment, and this WikiBullying is making my symptoms more severe. I hope I could got some helps from here.--Shujen Chang (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

An examination of the AfD shows that you gave as good as you got, so I don't know what your grounds are for feeling "bullied". The discussion has been strong but not uncivil. You're also not extending AGF to Timmyshin by suggesting motivations other then the obvious one that he thinks the article should be deleted on policy grounds. Would you be happy if I did the same, if I suggested that your purpose in coming here was to win sympathy for your position and potentially attract !voters who would help keep the article about you? I don't think you would appreciate that, so please be so good as to not do the same to Timmyshin.

If you are upset by the discussion, then I would suggest you withdraw from it, considering that you've already stated that because of your obvious COI you won't be !voting. Just stay away and let the community reach its consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That was based on what happened on Chinese Wikipedia before. In April last year Jsjsjs1111 started an AFD on Chinese Wikipedia for the Chinese article about of me, after a report published on WeChat from a local Chinese media in Brisbane closely connected with Chinese Government judging me with numerous misleading information which already brought lots of troubles to me at that time including some death threatens to me from Chinese patriots (such as a person on WeChat said he was familiar with Vietnam gang and will let me "disappear" from Brisbane). Jsjsjs1111 (Weibo ID: 费城染色体 (szjdts)) commented on Weibo for that repot by disclose so-called "dark histories" of mine on Chinese Wikipedia community and saying I was a "psychiatric patient" ("这人我认识，精神病人来的。。。曾经在中文维基百科上因盗号被永久封禁" on 2016-4-24 23:09, which he later admitted on Chinese Wikipedia). Then he submitted the AFD which I just mentioned, and later on an AFD on English Wikipedia. Now Timmyshin is doing the similar thing according to prejudices from Jsjsjs1111 as I mentioned and ignoring my explainations. I did AGF innitially thought Timmyshin was just misled by Jsjsjs1111, but later Timmyshin's behaviours made me have to not to cotinue AGF.--Shujen Chang (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• What does your feud with User:Jsjsjs1111 have to do with me? I didn't want to respond, but let's see: You are pissed he called you a "psychiatric patient", but you also suffer from "PTSD including symptoms of depression and anxiety" and you were "nearly devastated" by my comments which caused "more severe" symptoms? Aren't these psychiatric problems? If you were "nearly devastated" you should see a psychiatrist and not look for more WP:DRAMA. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Timmyshin (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I had a read of WP:DRAMA and it seems actually talking about your behaviours. You are "spreading of conflict and strife" between me and Jsjsjs1111, as in the AFD you are based on his prejudices as I said and always refer what he said to against me. In addition, "psychological problem" is different to "psychiatric problems". By the way, I already had psychologist from QPASTT and had frequently consultations with my psychologist.--Shujen Chang (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Here's a suggestion, why don't you, @Shujenchang and Timmyshin: both back away from the AfD discussion now, because you've both made your positions clear and I don't see anything more you can offer that will influence the outcome at this stage, and leave it for other editors to offer their opinions on notability? Simply carrying on fighting with each other, with neither one even trying to listen to the other... well, it needs to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll second that. User:Shujenchang and User:Timmyshin should both leave that AfD alone for the duration. You've had your say - at far greater length than is necessary - now leave it alone. GoldenRing (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thirded. A combined 161 edits (not joking) on a single AfD should be plenty enough for everyone to get their point across and let others weigh in without needing additional, at this point probably pointless commentary. Lord have mercy on whomever closes that. And besides, the much of this report seems to concern things that have happened off of en.wiki, and there's not really much we can do about that, whether it's real life issues or things on the Chinese Wikipedia.

I could probably add that whatever deletion discussions occurred on other projects is pretty much irrelevant to the English Wikipedia, and it's a tiny bit disingenuous to say that you're not going to !vote on an AfD because of a COI, and then proceed to flood the page with thousands of words trying to sway people's opinions. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would concur as well, as an extension of my suggestion above that Shujenchang should consider leaving the discussion; instead, both editors should do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Bailey (PR advisor)

Anthony Bailey (PR advisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has been subjected to a variety of probable CoI edits under a variety of names and IP addresses. On 10th June 2016 Private Eye ran a story to that effect, after which further editors including myself have repeatedly removed a lot of puffery, of references to the subjects own website (some of which required admin access to that website in order to be viewed), and have inserted some details of the subject's position in the contentious "Delegation for Great Britain and Ireland of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George". The main registered CoI editors have gone quiet, but IP editors have since last year been busy reinserting puffery and unsatisfactory references, and removing the contentious points. There is extensive discussion on the talk page, and of course a rather long history. The current IP is 2001:8A0:7BDD:FA01:DA9:A4FF:AEED:46A6 and I have put a notice on their talk page.

I'd be grateful if an admin could offer the page semi-protection, autoconfirmed users only, and preferably indefinitely since I doubt if the subject will ever lose interest in it. That won't solve the problem completely - another new editor has just turned up on the talk page - but should keep it within manageable bounds. Hunc (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hunc: Given the disruptive editing going on, I've semi-protected the page for two months. I'm somewhat against indefinitely protecting articles, as it goes against the whole "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit" thing, but if the disruption continues when the protection expires then of course it can be extended -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am surprised that this article is being protected as I have only suggested changes to enhance the article. The predominance of of irrelevant and ill and unrelaiable sourced information on what is supposed to be a biographical encyclopedic text Is what is at issue here. I have attempted to point this out but Hunc (talk seeks not to answer my concerns. These relate to the subjects clear and prominent Antiguan role and the gossip nature of the comments re the Constantinian Order. The nature of the disputed grandmastership is well documented and is referred to in the relevant article. Is it really relevant on a bio page? These are legitimate observations and is by no means an attempt at vandalism Wonderground (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wonderground: My decision to protect the article isn't anything against yourself personally - you can use a edit request on the article's talk page to request a change be made -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse anti nuclear crusading

User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse has been vandalising articles related to Belgian nuclear plants on both the Dutch and English Wiki. After being warned by multiple users on multiple occasions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse#Doel_.26_Tihange_Nuclear_Power_Plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doel_Nuclear_Power_Station https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg:Kerncentrale_Doel#Veiligheid

He's now engaging in an edit war:

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

And reverting to islamophobic racism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doel_Nuclear_Power_Station#nowhere_safer_reactors_.3F

The agenda of this user is clear and its not providing worthwhile, objective content.

MCvarial (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This all above is written by somebody, who only can see positive elements in nuclear energy.

He has taken away all pleasure in editing wikipedia for me.

He does not allow anything to report about the protests against the prolonged use of the Belgium reactors...

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Previous ANI for context. Seems like this has been an issue for a while now. TimothyJosephWood 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of you are heavily involved in an edit war. I see you've taken discussions to the talk page which is good, but even so you've both been reverting while those discussions are taking place. Talk on the talk pages, don't edit war. I've given you both 3RR warnings as I'm not sure if you've had them before but I notice these articles are pretty much the only articles you edit on the English Wikipedia and this has been going on for some time.

Also both of you, this is the English Wikipedia, please make all article talk page comments in English (also keep them to point as the talk page entries I've read have been going all over the place and beyond the scope of those article's talk pages.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We're way beyond talking, the user in question has been vandalising articles for months now. Multiple users have complained its time for some actions against him.

MCvarial (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

At best it is POV pushing, which it very well may be. Vandalism has a very particular meaning on Wikipedia. And anyway, if this at some point has gone through dispute resolution, in particular probably WP:3O, WP:RFC, or asking for outside comment from related WikiProjects, then I'm not seeing it. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Interpreting block evasion and edit warring at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sarawak/archive3

Uninvolved admin eyes needed please, essentially to interpret Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks. Essentially this - an editor blocked for personal attacks, Singora has made some valid comments about an article, Sarawak, that do need to be addressed. See [126] for revert-warring of the relevant material. In essence, all editors involved have recognised that the comments are valid and by addressing them the article is improved. Under our block evasion policy the qualifies as (Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.) Unfortunately, the IP doesn't see it that way, and looking at the IP's talk page leads me to think that their rationale behind this behaviour is to cause the usual mayhem when beneficial edits of blocked/banned editors get reverted. Anyway, the IP's behaviour is becoming frustrating. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Thing is, Casliber, in this comment, you make no reference to protecting a 'closed discussion'; rather- regardless of the IP's motives- that remark could easily be construed as not only endorsing, but perhaps even encouraging, WP:IPSOCK, which would be unfortunate. IMHO, of course.Cheers, — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because the blocked editor is a friend of yours, with whom you have been discussing the mental stability of people like Dr. Blofeld, does not grant him an exemption from the blocking policy. What is the point of a blocking policy (and Singora's block was confirmed by community discussion), if you, an admin and arb, are prepared to support and enable block evasion? Most users would be blocked for doing it, but you've edit warred and blocked in defence of your friend who boasts on Wikipedia Review about how you and he have discussed the mental state of Dr. Blofeld. You are a long way out on the branch for him. -213.205.194.60 (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I do hope this is not true. Please can someone provide a link? If this is true, this is despicable. Cassianto^Talk 17:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Unlike Singora, Casliber to my knowledge doesn't hang around troll forums like a humungous bad smell. I've not seen him discussing my "mental stability", in fact I've only seen Singora question it and label me every condition in the book. That Casliber is fond of Singora is his business, but as astounding as it is that he's willing to overlook Singora's deep-rooted mental issues and obsession with myself, Cassianto and SchroCat on Wikipedia Review which hasn't subsided in three months, I don't hold it against him. But it doesn't seem right that an editor who has been banned by the community is being allowed to comment in AFDs as an IP, however constructive. If somebody has posted the comments by the IP made elsewhere that is a bit different of course but Casliber might be better off requesting that Singora be given permission to comment on discussions but not edit if he feels strongly about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just had to douse myself in bleach and then scrub myself down with a wire brush for the fear of catching something as I've been forced onto Wikipedia Review in order to bottom this all out. It appears Cas liber hasn't speculated on Blofeld's MH at all; I didn't suspect that he did, and knew he was made of better stuff than this. Unfortunatley, and I say that because speculating on such things in a public forum is sick, it is limited to the fingers of that disgusting piece of filth, Singora. This brings me onto my next "hope not" comment: With that in mind, and with Singora openly admitting that he has edited whilst banned, the onus should now be on Cas, an admin and arbitrator, to block the ip's accounts so this creature can not edit at all. I including this one, too. If not, it comes across as enabling which is very disappointing and, in my mind, brings his status as an administrator and arb into serious doubt. Cassianto^Talk 17:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to look a bit harder, including in the locked members only section, unless they've deleted the posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.181 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive here. Singora's block-evading IPs should of course be blocked, but that doesn't mean someone can't read their comments in the history of the talkpage and improve the article using that information if they are indeed generally helpful. After all, at least four established editors have owned his edits by restoring them, whether one agrees with that or not. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's the blocking that hasn't happened, that perhaps should, that I think is the problem here. Cas is not at fault, although he should pick his friends more wisely. Cassianto^Talk 18:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Here are some of the IPs below but the /24 range is high traffic. Semi protection seems more effective than whac-a-mole with single IPs and rangeblocking isn't the best way to go here because of collateral damage, imo. Another admin may may decide differently.
    • 213.205.194.181 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • 213.205.194.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • 213.205.194.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • 213.205.194.55 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • 213.205.194.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
    • I suspect that he will be popping out of more IPs soon.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      • And yet you've not thought to take action against the block-evading 14.207.36.231? perspective needed!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.149 (talk) 19:27 June 26, 2017‎ (UTC)
        • I was taking a closer look at your range and decided that the rangeblock was worthwhile after all. It seems most of that traffic is someone highly dedicated to racing. Rangeblocked one week. I'm heading out for a bit so someone else can evaluate 14.xxx.
           — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
          • I've blocked that one for a month as well. Right, can we all get back to, er, whatever we were doing previously? Ta. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• There's a great deal of irony that an IP editor that is citing block evasion while edit warring has used no less than 6 different IPs within the last day to keep the edit warring going. I've semi-protected to squash that.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No irony, just a knowledge of policies. In terms of my reverts, see point 3 of WP:3RRNO ;-p 213.205.194.181 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
• Can I check, based on policy, whether or not the IP comments should be left on the FAC page or not? They are certainly valid comments but I'd like to check if they should be allowed or not. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I can make the comment instead, Sarastro1, and possibly others. That way, we cure the problem of Singora being in any way associated with it (nice to hear from you again, by the way). Cassianto^Talk 18:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to Casliber's viewpoint that Singora produced FA content and might have some good input in FACs, I know Casliber does genuinely care about content first and foremost. But for all the love of content and wanting to improve the site, what I can't understand is how he can still treat Singora and what he has to say with any credibility after the way he's behaved daily on Wikipedia Review in the last three months, referring to wikipedia frequently as "WikiCrappo", which should send alarm bells ringing in anybody's mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at Bardrick please

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

---

He doesn't seem to understand WP:DERRY. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.0.157 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring, 3RR violation and deliberate and obtuse violation of the community consensus at WP:DERRY. Canterbury Tail talk 20:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Came here to make a quip about having a cunning plan before realising it was Bardrick and not Baldrick -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

😀 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.0.157 (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

100.0.243.124

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

---

Don't know who User:100.0.243.124 has previously edited as, but seems to be attempting to reinstate previous edits to multiple articles. Not such a big deal, but the death threat edit summary [127] is way over the top. Meters (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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