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 RAF910

To the administrator, If you agree, could you please apply the appropriate sanctions to user RAF910 for what I consider non-collaboration, incivility, personal attacks, harassment, supposition and aspersions.

I requested the user assume good faith, stated to the user twice, I consider the user's statements personal attacks and harassments, but they continued.

Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Difference files showing the user statements, please click on the link then read the right side.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles&diff=next&oldid=741118844

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time".--RAF910 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=741209444

"I given you my answer, if you don't like, then find something else to do with your free time" RAF910|talk]]) 16:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742239645

"Who knows, like a Pokémon Go player, maybe you just got caught or carried away in the moment and you don't realize that you've crossed the line."--RAF910|talk 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruger_Mini-14&diff=next&oldid=742344735

my error, a repeat

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=792120156

… "CuriousMind01 has a habit of endlessly arguing his position, Wikilawyering and ignoring consensus that opposes his position. So, it will most likely be reverted again." RAF910|talk 17:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"As predicted Curiousmind is ignoring consensus and reverted the changes to the Bushmaster XM15 page, as well as the SIG MCX. He clearly does not care what any of us think, and is pretending that this discussion where an overwhelming majority of his fellow editors disagree with him is meaningless. And as usual, he is trying to intimidate anyone who opposes him by accusing them "personal attack and harassment." " RAF910 Revision as of 11:55, 24 July 2017

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&diff=prev&oldid=804529223

"CuriousMind01 attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page

My fellow editors CuriousMind01 is at it again this time at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page, where he is attempting the change the rules in order to override consensus and make the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms meaningless. So that he can add "Criminal use" sections to as many firearm pages as he can get away with. I encourage my fellow editor to comment there" --RAF910|talk) 16:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&diff=next&oldid=804562757

"*OPPOSE CuriousMind01 is a tenacious edit warrior obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to firearm articles despite massive opposition. About two months ago he lost a discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms by a 10 to 1 margin. Unfortunately, he has a win at all cost mentality. So, now in typical fashion he's ignoring consensus, forum shopping, wikilawyering, and gaming the system. He even attempted to unilaterally make this change himself, because he believes that silence equals consensus. He will most likely accuse me of personal attacks and harassment again for daring oppose him and pointing at his questionable behavior, a normal intimidation tactic of his. I will inform my fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms members that he attempting to override consensus and make the Project meaningless." --RAF910 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Another editor comment to the above:

Please don't inject personality-based criticism and supposition/prediction; it's not helpful... See WP:ASPERSIONS. …. SMcCandlish 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User notified https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RAF910&diff=prev&oldid=806595798 CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Most of these are a year old. I don't see harassment or personal attacks. I'm curious to hear if RAF910 has anything to offer here. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, could you please see recheck, I showed the text below the above links, which I consider rudeness and false aspersions: like obsession, edit warring, ignoring consensus, wikilayering,forum shopping, etc. The statements are all in the past 13 months. Please allow me several days to respond to the comments below. Many result from levels of consensus and local consensus does not override community consensus. (sorry, add the text lost the numbering) Thank you.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh...I forgot to mention that he is incredibly argumentative and constantly Wikilawyering. See above statement.--RAF910 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a case of sour grapes. CuriousMind01 is obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms articles, against massive opposition. He is also very upset that I’ve pointed out that he ignoring consensus and that he is continuously forum shopping.

His most recent activity’s, started in July of this year, when he lost a discussion on the “Criminal use” topic at the WikiProject firearms talk page by a 10 to 1 margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms&oldid=803378307

On August 15th, he started forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=795679904&oldid=793877524. His intention is to overturn the 10 to 1 consensus against him on the WikiProject firearms talk page.

However, nobody thought enough about it to even respond. So, on September 27th he unilaterally made the change himself, with this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide&diff=prev&oldid=802568241 which I reverted.

On October 9th he continued forum shopping and started a new and separate RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page on the very same subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Council&type=revision&diff=804434393&oldid=803706627

He also went forum shopping at the Wikipedia Village pump page with this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=804435002

Please note, that he is currently losing the RFC discussion at the WikiProject council talk page, again by a 10 to 1 margin.

I am not the only one to question his behavior. Other editors, have also pointed out that CuriousMind01 is ignoring consensus and forum shopping at the WikiProject council talk page discussion.

• ”Oppose this end run around the consensus at the project. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)”
• ”Oppose This is a perfect example of forum shopping. What’s next an appeal to Jimbo? --Limpscash (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)”

CuriousMind01 has an a agenda. If he cannot respect two separate discussions, with 10 to 1 consensuses against him, then he doesn’t belong here. Therefore, I recommend that he be indefinitely blocked. If not, he will waste more of our time on another page.--RAF910 (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• RAF, this is helpful (though please use fewer paragraphs), but we need more, from more editors, to issue a block per NOTHERE or whatever. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• CuriousMinds has battled this issue of including criminal use many times, refusing to accept consensus. Like this RfC result (which had quite a few participants) [1], then again in another discussion at the same article [2]. Continually forum shopping. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 23 October

• If you review User:CuriousMind01 edit history, he seems obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms, Automotive, and other articles. As other editors have noted, he is a very aggressive editor and will endlessly argue his position against overwhelming consensus. I agree with RAF, that he is ignoring consensus and WP:Forum shopping. He is also WP:edit-warring on the Bushmaster XM15 article, with these edits [3][4][5]. He is also Wikilawyering with these edits [6][7], where he basically claims that his fellow editors cannot make changes to the Bushmaster XM15 article. In essence, that he is right and everybody else is wrong. He has launched personal attack with this edit [8]. My experience with User:CuriousMind01 left such a bad taste in my mouth that I stopped editing. Please see "Advice" discussion [9] at User talk:AmaryllisGardener. I also recommend that he be indefinitely blocked.--Limpscash (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies in brief response: I think the comments above may originate from users not knowing some Wikipedia rules.

Like the Recent Example cited above: WikiProjects Firearm project took an internal vote to remove criminal use from gun articles then amended their advice page. I voted no as a violation of WP:NPOV. Then users RAF910 and Limpscash twice tried to delete community/RFC consensus, criminal use text from 2 articles 1, 2, which I and another editor twice restored, trying to explain in edit summaries and project that "local consensus" is not binding.

Having seen wikiprojects incorrectly try to impose their criteria on articles, I thought it would be helpful to add an additional criteria educational example to the Wikiproject "such as" examples, not a rule change. Using proper WP steps, talk page, be bold, RFC, commenters explained my example was not needed, because wikiproject rules already exist, like:

• “WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles.”
• "Advice pages: "projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope,". "and that other editors..get no say.."because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay."
• [[Local consensus]] "among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. ...WikiProject advice pages,...have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wait--if all else fails you claim the others don't know policy? :::I did not mean it that way, sorry if the words read that way.

BTW all y'all REALLY need to learn how to do proper indentation and paragraphing--these sections are clear as mud, esp. when editors start citing other editors. Anyway, I wish y'all had pinged me when that proposal came up (and RAF, I see 8 to 2, not 10 to 1--ansh666 was also an "oppose", and I see only 8 "support"s, but that's by the by. Again, anyway, CuriousMind, "Local consensus" etc, sure, but if you're the only one adding some section that others oppose, you're still guilty of editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Drmies it is the opposite, I and another editor were restoring the community+RFC consensus, I was not adding any section, and have never added anything against consensus. My understanding of Wikiprojects policy wording is local consensus is equal to a single editor opinion not a group of persons, and local consensus cannot override community consensus like 2 RFCs, if editors wish to change community consensus, they can through community processes, but not just by an internal wikiproject vote unknown to the community, and then try to change community articles. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: if anyone still cares - to be fair, my oppose was in the other direction, "this doesn't go far enough" type. I would prefer "criminal use" out of these articles completely. By the way, isn't there a gun control arbcom case sanction thing that this could possibly fall under? ansh666 02:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a far more than local consensus. Wikipedia articles about things generally do not center on, or even touch much on, the externalities of their use or abuse. Anmccaff (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• How has this not been closed yet? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

So a handful of gun fans vote behind a closed door to mollify firearm articles and this Curious guy tries to stop it? Sounds like he had the right idea to me. And trying to get more eyes on something isn't forum shopping. Saying that guns should be treated the same way as cars, or shoes, or hats is Big Gun playing small games. Cars are for driving, shoes are for walking and hats are for wearing. It would be stupid to remark on their criminal use. Guns are for killing. The End.62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a reason to have one: to defend yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Also for shooting sports. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 17:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Where was this closed door vote? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• The above statement by IP user demonstrates why the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms opposes "Criminal use sections". As they are little more than a political soapbox. As for the issue at hand, I still recommend that CuriousMind01 be indefinitely blocked for edit warring, ignoring consensus, wikilayering, forum shopping, etc. As his above statements are basically an admission of guilt, with a "I'm right and everyone else is wrong justification." --Limpscash (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Akocsg: Ethnic/nationalistic POV pushing, edit warring and IP-hopping

• Akocsg (talk · contribs) and block log
• Blocked on German Wikipedia [10] (Ethno-POV-Account on a mission)

This user removes the contents which he does not like and replace them with his own personal opinions. He always uses misleading and false edit summaries.

• I mention some of his edits for the comparison:
  • WP:BATTLEGROUND and misrepresentation of sources[11][12]
  • Removing sourced text and replace it with his own POV[13]
  • POV and labeling his edit as minor[14][15]
  • Removing any non-Turkic info which are based on the sources[16][17][18]
  • Disruptive edits like[19]
• The recent issues:
  • Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[20] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[21][22][23]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[24][25] That IP-range is from Germany and since this user was active on German Wikipedia, then I'm sure it's him. IP's edit pattern and edit summaries matches with him too. IP targeted related articles[26][27][28][29][30][31] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[32]
  • Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[33] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[34] And this one.[35]

It's a nationalistic mission/quest by him on English Wikipedia just like German Wiki. Is it necessary to provide more evidences? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would first like to state how surprised and astonished I am by this deceptive behaviour of this user. None of his accusations are true whatsoever. If you check his recent repeated edit diff in the article Baghatur you can see how he simply deleted a statement which was provided with three different academic sources. They simply got deleted by him with the excuse that they are not English and hence not reliable! That's cherry-picking. And not constructive behaviour at all.

The very same case can be seen in the article Ashina, where again a poorly written and unsourced passage was improved and corrected by me backed with sources. He simply reverted them all with the accuse that it's POV, which is the main accusation based on the same examples here! The result was that my objection got a result and the passage was finally removed after an input by another neutral user in the talk page. See here: diff2, the adding of sources by me: diff, then he does it himself what I said should be done, deletes the whole passage: diff3. As you can see, what he first accused me of turned out to be right.

And those older edits, which I mostly can't even remember anymore, where mostly backed by sources back then. Most of them are minor edits anyway, and not destructive in any way. They were definitely not POV pushing or a "nationalistic mission" or whatsoever. This user apparently wants to simply get me blocked because of personal reasons, it seems. See the Baghatur article, where sources simply get deleted on his whim... If you check my personal histoy here in the English Wikipedia, you will see that I made at least thousand edits and created/wrote many new articles. Most of them in the field of sports. Based on this fact alone one can see that I am not a POV-pushing User on a mission, like this user wants to make you believe.

But this part of his report is the best. Please do check this out, it's important and shows how he is trying to manipulate you (if he is aware that it's not me):

"...and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page. 23"

That was made by some totally different user. By this one: User:2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577 You can confirm that by checking the history in his talk page. That was not by me! But it is simply reported by him as if it was me. This is a serious accusation!

And that IP user is not me nor does not have anything to do with me. Please do an IP check or whatever is necessary to clarify this case. And as a major part of his accusations are based on that dubious IP account, one can see how this reporting is based on practically no consistent foundation. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and EdJohnston: Would you (or other admins) please look at this report? 72H has passed and I see no replies from the admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Can the admins please make it clear that comments like "What is it with Turks and their extreme nationalism?" are not acceptable - since when is it ok for IP editors to post racist comments on ANI? I'm not involved in this content dispute but a comment that all Turks are extreme nationalists easily fits the dictionary definition of racism, canard, racial stereotyping, etc. If someone wrote "What is it with the Jews and their shystyness" I imagine there would be a round of objections. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the comment in question. To be clear: No, comments like these are not helpful to resolving a discussion and they not acceptable to make. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out once again that all the accusations in the passage "the recent issues" of Wario-Man are from that already blocked IP account (2003:6:212f:ef43:40f0:fbd0:1966:e577) mentioned above. They have nothing to do with me. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Submitted on 28 October 2017 and still no replies from admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Investigation into the behaviour of User:Chas._Caltrop

• Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm writing to clarify the validity of the edit history of this user User:Chas._Caltrop. This user has a very strange style of editing and interacting with others. Their edit summaries are extremely uniform (mostly "CE; completed the sentence"), they seem to have little use for consensus or civility, and appear to have been re-structuring articles to their liking since April 2016 (they may have been confirmed too early, without developing the proper skills).

They've recently blown up at me personally; pasting as if from another user (on my talk page, and The Frankfurt School talk page). I've discussed and confirmed this with that user here. This strange overreaction by User:Chas._Caltrop appears to be in response to my politely warning them on their talk page that they should form a consensus before making drastic changes to The Frankfurt School page (due to its controversial nature). I believe this editor is attempting to intimidate me, and that their longer term behaviour may be detrimental to Wikipedia's cultivation of long standing content.

At the very least, they've failed to come to terms with WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL or WP:CONSENSUS.

This user has come to my attention due to their edits on the Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory page. Where they've broken the section anchor a few times, at one point had multiple "Cultural Marxism" headings, and would prefer the section contain difficult to decipher sentences like:

Proponents of conspiracy-theory Cultural Marxism claim that the existence of liberal social-ideologies — such as feminism, anti-white racism, and sexualization — are real-world negative consequences of critical-theory, despite such unresolved social problems dating from the 1920s.

...as you can see, they're also including some strange political terms, eg. anti-white racism and claiming it is a liberal social-ideology?

Anyways, their political language and editing style is strange, as is their failure to use talk pages correctly or respect consensus. They seem completely incongruous with Wikipedia's general ethos. I would like to see them banned from further editing The Frankfurt School page, and request they be investigated further (by someone more skilled and responsible than myself) for WP:Tendentious editing. Particularly if they are doing so in partisan 'teams', as this note on their talk page suggests.

Thank you for any help you can render with this strange issue (I've certainly not seen anything like this before). --Jobrot (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears other users have also had simmilar issues: 1, 2, 3. --Jobrot (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: It seems this user has now started causing similar issues on the Critical theory page, edit warring, inserting their subjective viewpoint, and malforming copy (see the edit summaries here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_theory&action=history). Indeed, on the related talk page they appear to be trying to provoke other users as well.

I suspect this user is very gently trying to vandalize Wikipedia over a long period of time with a somewhat political motive. It's an ongoing problem which has effected multiple users, and who knows how many pages. It will continue on this way without intervention or a remedy of some sort. I personally would ban them for violating WP:VANDALISM, WP:EDITWARRING WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TEND, but I am not an admin. --Jobrot (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with the articles cited above, but this same user embarked on a fundamental and unconstructive rewrite of McCarthyism, adding 26,000 characters, which is about 6,000 words, without word one on the talk page with the exception of a smarmy response to a note from me on the page. It required considerable time and trouble to undo his general cluelessness, in particular an RfC in which the unanimous verdict was that his rewrite stank. (See this section and the one following it.) He has a complete contempt for other editors, as evidenced by his condescending posts and failure to participate in discussions. He didn't even deign to speak up in favor of his own rewrite. I think that Caltrop is not here to edit constructively but seems to have his own personal vision that he attempts to advance. I recommend a good long hiatus from the project, perhaps permanent, as he is a net negative. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

he is a net negative. - agreed. A copy editor who introduces obvious mistakes in grammar and flow (whilst claiming to be improving those things), is a very strange phenomena. There's a lot of this sort of thing (the bold text being what Chas. Caltrops introduced): "The critical theory school of thought was established by primarily by..." - "Max Horkheimer said that a theory as critical insofar as it..." ...and then there are the more political edits, such as changing "Concern for social "base and superstructure" is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much of contemporary critical theory." to "Despite such intellectual evolution, contemporary critical theory retains the social concerns of Marxist philosophy, with the base and superstructure of society.[4]" (inverting the meaning almost entirely). Also there's the ironically fact they've deleted headings of the Anti-intellectualism article to serve their own politics (removing much of the left liberal perspective).

Still, very early on in their edit history they greatly expanded the plot summary of The Turner Diaries! Interesting that they've gone from that, to plying their deletism to left-wing articles and perspectives. --Jobrot (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait, my mistake, they're not entirely deletionist, here they've introduced famed libertarian economist Murray Rothbard's opinion as an expert on the socialist Sino-Soviet split. This editor is WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons - and hence needs to be banned permanently (WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE). --Jobrot (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Now we have a rewrite in progress, for no apparent reason and not a word on the talk page, at Sino-Soviet split. See [36]. I do not see these edits improving the encyclopedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am familiar with Chas. Caltrop's behavior. The way in which this user interacts with other users is definitely irritating, but at the same time, it wasn't so bad that I thought there would be any point in complaining about it. The main problem I can see with his edits is the insistence on using vague, generalized edit summaries such as "grammar, flow, npov", no matter what article he is editing, and no matter what the changes that he is making. The vague edit summaries don't justify or explain those changes, and they make it that much more difficult to see what is really being done to the articles concerned. The user could at least be encouraged to use more informative edit summaries. I have noticed that his changes at at least one article (on The Turner Diaries) introduced outright factual errors, but I have not followed his editing closely enough to see whether that is typical or not. Looking at some of his edits, I have the impression (which may or may not be accurate) that some of his changes are semi-random in nature and are being made simply for the sake of changing the article in some way, rather than being properly thought-through improvements. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, here we are. Short of arbcom, there is no other place in Wikipedia where one can raise issues of this kind. I am in agreement that complaining about such users rarely results in any positive outcome, but fortunately someone stick their neck out and did so. Clearly this user has created headaches at multiple articles. We can kick the can down the road or not. The user in question has been notified of this discussion and has been active while it is pending, indicating to me that he would consent to whatever action is taken. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this editor. An indef block would be ideal, but failing that, he could be limited to adding new sourced material, with an accurate edit summary, and prohibited from copy-editing or removing other editors' work without first gaining talk page consensus, for a period of say 6 months. This would give him the opportunity to improve his editing skills while protecting the encyclopedia, and avoiding wasting other editors' time. zzz (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely be in favor of a requirement that Chas. Caltrop use accurate and informative edit summaries. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Hesselp again

This user has been banned from editing Series (mathematics) and its talk page (see [37]. He has formally respected the ban, but has continued his disrupting behavior on several talk pages where series are discussed (WT:WPM#User:Hesselp again and Talk:Cesàro summation#The series corresponding with a given sequence?). I suggest to enforce the ban to everything that is about some kind of series, and to extend the duration of the ban. D.Lazard (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

D. Lazard noticed 'disrupting behavior' on two talk pages: On Talk:Cesàro summation my last edit was on 18 Oct. 2017.
And on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics a new section 'User:Hesselp again' started 15 Oct. 2017. After 10 edits by 6 users, I reacted three times: 22, 24, 30 Oct.
Lacking is any indication of which of this recent edits are seen as disrupting (more disrupting than other edits), and for what reasons. Is it really enough for an extended ban? -- Hesselp (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Using WT:WPM as a forum, despite having your additions removed by four different editors, then edit warring to restore these comments: [38], [39][40]. This disruption actually occurred since you asked for examples of disruption. Note, however, that this is quite reminiscent to your earlier behavior at Talk:Series, where you pasted in the ANI thread to the talk page, and edit-warred to have it included: [41], [42], [43], [44]. This is exactly the same behavior that led to your initial topic ban. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A. What's wrong/disrupting with restoring comments on a talk page?  It's more wrong/disrupting to delete them. B. Since May 2017 I haven't pasted anything. -- Hesselp (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:EW. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support- I wasn't involved with the original ban discussion but, having read Hesselp's long-winded ramblings at WT:WPM, I can see that this user's obsessive behaviour will not benefit the encyclopedia but will continue to waste the time of those who do. Hesselp really needs to drop the stick but will never do so voluntarily. Reyk _YO! 18:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious crank is obvious. WP:DENY, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is becoming tiresome. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support only here to push his agenda. --Salix alba (talk): 23:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is a very circumscribed measure against someone who is no help at all to the project. It seems that in the months since the topic ban started, all of this user's edits have remained on that precise topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support He fails to understand that his competence in the history of mathematics and the pedagogy of mathematics does not compensate for his lack of competence in (the theory of) mathematics. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Per all of the above. Paul August ☎ 18:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- in Hesselp's response to me here, Hesselp makes clear that all his or her editing is indeed focused on the single topic/article to which the ban was applied. --JBL (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

1. You are right.  2. So what? I cannot see it as an argument to support a suggested ban. -- Hesselp (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

See WP:SPA. Paul August ☎ 20:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

In WP:SPA I see distinguished: "well-intentioned editors" versus "favored-point-of-view-promoting editors".  Via the link labelled 'which is not allowed" I reach a section titled "WP is not a soapbox or means of promotion" with five 'not-allowed' categories.  No one of this five, as far as I can see, has to do with my intentions.
That is: via analysing and comparing the merits of different attempts to describe the meaning of the mathematical notion mostly called 'series', reach as goal a situation without simultanuous non-equivalent (conflicting) descriptions of this notion in WP-articles (I noticed five different ones on the moment).
Here the force of clear sources and of logic reigns, not the force of promoting an a priori favorite. (At least: as long as no parts of the discussion are deleted from WP:WPM; recently here: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]). -- Hesselp (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Per comments by everyone else. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 01:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per all of the above. The problem is not just the crankiness (Wikipedia is not the place to initially prove an argument), but the disruption on the talk pages drown other issues. Limit-theorem (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support extension of this topic ban. The talk page contributions are not helpful, and this has become a circular activity that helps no-one. -- The Anome (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral   I'll not appeal against a temporary ban on attempts to remove conflicting (non-equivalent) 'descriptions' of the notion usually called series from WP-articles. Or attempts to comment on this situation at least, e.g. in "Series (mathematics)". (Operation? Description of an operation? Expression? Infinite sum? Pair of related sequences? Undefined notion, requiring some mathematical maturity? Sequence that can be written as sum sequence?).
  I didn't succeed in convincing the majority, that Cauchy's suite indéfinie de nombres réelles comes closest to the way this notion is used by mathematicians in practice.  With his convergente read as 'having a sum' / 'summable',  converger des termes as 'having a limit' / 'tending to a limit' / ('limitable')  and nombres réelles as 'addable terms'.
  I'm going to look for more/better sources and arguments. -- Hesselp (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

My dynamic IP address is blocked from editing

My TMobile smartphone's dynamic IP address is being blocked from editing (as anonymous), for "disruptive behavior" (had to look up what that was) by user Graham87, I don't know when.

The max extent of my edits is typos, and occasionally turning plain text to a hyperlink - so I'm confident I'm not the source of the disruptive behavior.

The pop-up that informed me of that, was not formatted (visible formatting symbols) on my Samsung 7 Android phone (default browser), and doesn't stay up long enough - ideally it would stay up until I clicked OK.

Here's my IP info - I'm editing now by connecting via WiFi (different IP), but I hate to think others will be blocked when they are assigned this address: 66.249.79.90 2607:fb90:2928:e8fe:4d16:35c7:d6bf:cd63

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.198.147 (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Most T-Mobile ranges are blocked as collateral damage from a long-term abuse account. You won't be able to edit from your phone unless you're connected to WiFi. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's this LTA case. If you create an account, you should still be able to edit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed the block reason to {{rangeblock}}, which gives people a better explanation of why they can't edit and how to request an account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Is it really true that "most T-Mobile ranges are blocked" as mentioned above. ~70 million T-Mobile subscribers are prevented from editing Wikipedia in order to stop one person? Deli nk (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

To my understanding, you can get around an IP range block by registering. Gabriel syme (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No. A few small ranges are blocked, but the vast majority are not. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A few small ranges, including 2607:FB90::/32, which is assigned to pretty much all LTE users with iOS and Android phones. It's probably worthwhile given the severity of the LTA, but it's a much bigger deal than you're making it sound like. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• It is an anon-only block which means you can edit WP by creating an account. 75.139.181.181 (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No, account creation is blocked as well. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, in that case, find an IP adress that can create an account. There shouldn't be a login block. TomBarker23 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Spammer, please block now

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

---

Shamonioli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nothing but spam ☆ Bri (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Three were a couple of iffy edits now reverted- but were they really spamming on behalf of the The Motor Ombudsman?! Doesn't seem a partcularly profitable exercise. — fortunavelut luna 14:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure if it's a spammer, or just someone who's overly enthusiastic with at least a touch of COI. Anyone want to try to see if there's a solution short of blocking that will work? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted a couple more of their edits and left a warning; everything's now been undone so we can see where they go from here. Home Lander (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Unsourced additions, then blanking by User:Dravrah2012

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

---

Can someone please revert unexplained page blanking by Dravrah2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Curtis J. Raynold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? I've already hit my 3 reverts on the page per WP:3RR, but it's starting to look like the user is WP:NOTHERE. The blanking started after I reverted unsourced additions by the user and subsequent warnings. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted them again and left a warning on their TP. If they do it again, they should be reported to ANEW. Blackmane (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Editwarring, incivility, etc. by FleetCommand

FleetCommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disruptive, incivil, and WP:ASPERSIONS-casting, without evidence, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

• [51] FC Attempted to hide my rebuttal of an argument he offered; he provided a bogus rationale: "You are not here to satisfy me. Hence, you are off topic."
• [52] Did it again, with aspersions: "obsessive, compulsive"
• [53] Did it again, with an incivil edit summary of "Reverted edit by an editor who is going to be Microsoft's bitch!"
• [54] Did it again (with a false accusation of personal attack), after I demanded that he stop per WP:TPG [55]
• [56], [57], [58] Spammed my user talk page with a pile of reundant edit-warring templates, for daring to object to him screwing around with my posts.
• [59] False accusation against multiple editors: "You people are just labeling he who disagrees with you as non-native speaker." But "non-native speaker" doesn't appear anywhere in the discussion but his own post.
• [60] Did that again, after it was pointed out to him [61] that his accusation is false.
• [62] Restated the same incivility: "Repeat: You're gonna be Microsoft bitch! Ha ha!"
• [63] Disrupted ongoing RfC (which he opposes) with an off-topic wall of text, which includes more "the bitch of publishers such as Apple and Microsoft" stuff, a false accusation that I have "attacked the editors opposing" me (I simply described his position as prescriptive grammar which he explicitly conceded is true [64]), and worst of all accuses all his opponents of "a racist act" and "evil" for not giving him his way (this, after he suggested that widely source-attested usage he doesn't like may be due to "writing by underpaid Chinese employees, which are pervasively hired"[65], plus all that "bitch" talk, which is widely regarded as sexist).
• [66] Disruptive, borderline vandalistic, and certainly WP:POINTy alteration of the proposed text that is the subject of the RfC, with more "Microsoft and Apple's bitch" stuff.
• [67] False accusation of ad hominem (pointing out that an administrative action was taken in response to editwarring about the same matter only a few hours earlier is not an ad hominem attack, it's an observation of relevant fact). Ironically, this post included another WP:ASPERSIONS attack by FleetCommand: "you have ... no respect for WP:CIVIL" (i.e., it's another false accusation that it's me attacking him).
• [68] False accusation of lying about him. I received no response to a request to back up this accusation [69], nor has any evidence been provided for any of his other bad-faith-assumptive and incivil claims.
• I could go on, but that's probably enough for the main issue.

There are other sorts of problems in this editor's posts and behavior at the same locus and at WP:MOSCOMP, where this started (and, I'm told, elsewhere, but I'll just address what's going on today, in this discussion), including:

• Really strange prescriptivistic (i.e. WP:SOAPBOX) original research and PoV-pushing, e.g. stating that Microsoft is "wrong" in how they choose to write about their own products and "must" do it some other way (already diffed above, [70]).
• When confronted with the fact that Microsoft's own documentation didn't agree with him that "the" cannot be used before ".NET Framework", he literally lobbied Microsoft to change it [71]. This is part of what appears to be a WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY problem, evident across all the diffs provided: FleetCommand is convinced that usage he doesn't like is wrong and must be eliminated. These antics won't have any effect on the RfC (other than drowning it in noise), because it's based on general usage in reliable sources (e.g. this pile o' books [72]), and isn't about .NET or Microsoft in particular anyway. The fact that the Microsoft page in question is one that the company permits outside users to edit (subject to staff review) makes it WP:UGC, so it's not even relevant anyway.

Background: The ultimate source of the whole mess is MOS:COMP, an essay FleetCommand created [73]. Much of MOS:COMP's content is problematic, and it was labeled a guideline rather than an essay [74] without any WP:PROPOSAL process, as far as I can tell. Among its problems is an attempt to ban the use of the word "the" before the name of any software product or service, except in constructions where the name is used as a modifier (e.g., it declares "the Mac App Store" to be "incorrect"). Seeing that MOS:COMP is primarily edited by only a handful of people, has had virtually no input from MoS regulars, conflicts with the site-wide MoS, on this "the" point in particular has been subject to previous dispute on its own talk page recently, and led to an editwar a day or two ago at an article, I opened a revision proposal about its "Definite article" section (for starters) at the main MoS talk page, then FleetCommand showed up and did all the above. As a side matter, I had recently also WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new "rules" to that "guideline", and opened talk page threads about them. Those additions had been made by FleetCommand, and this may have triggered the hostility documented above, though I can't say for sure. Another factor appears to have been an argument with one of FleetCommand's buddies about the same stuff, in user talk [75].

Discretionary sanctions, in particular for civility, apply to WT:MOS (per WP:ARBATC). However, FleetCommand had not received the {{Ds/alert}} template within the alotted year (Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log). This has been rectified [76].

I leave it up to editorial consensus here what remedy or remedies should be applied. User has a long block log, mostly for incivility and disruptive editing, the most recent earlier this year.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• I remember FleetCommand being told off back in September over personal attacks, wherein he called someone one of our most stupid editors and said of this editor When he dies, I will certainly celebrate. (diff; ANI thread) Even if the outcome of that thread was a bit of a boomerang, it was clear from the discussion that FleetCommand was warned about incivility. I think we're definitely to the point that sanctions are necessary, though I am not sure what those sanctions should be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  I would suggest a short-term block. Maybe a week. Then it might be a good idea to IBAN them for a further few days. –Sb2001 21:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  IBANs generally don't do anything useful, unless they're long-term and in response to long-term interpersonal problems that can't be resolved any other way. AFAIK, I've never interacted with this editor before. I think this is more of 1) a temperament/competence matter, given the exact nature and length of the block log and the failure of the behavior to change after years of blocks for the same stuff; 2) a topical matter of style "rules" about computing; and 3) a related SOAPBOX matter of forcing WP (and the rest of the world, if possible) to accept style-trivia pronouncements that the editor insists "must" be done versus are "wrong".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  I would also be opposed to an IBAN, if only because there's no clear "focus" of FleetCommand's incivility here. Rather, FleetCommand's problem appears to be with many others. I agree that a block may be appropriate. Going forward, I think this case is a candidate for a civility restriction, as described at WP:EDR. I don't really have a comment on the MOS behavior, other than that it does look like misbehavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• And woah, hold on a second, I took a closer look at SMcCandlish's diffs above... is FleetCommand calling SMcCandlish a racist here? What the hell is up with that? Or at least that prescriptive grammar is racist and evil... which is flat out wrong, though a common enough misconception. Prescriptivism is just another linguistic phenomenon which descriptivism itself would seek to describe, rather than supplant. I mean, a manual of style is inherently prescriptive: It prescribes certain usage as being "correct" and to be preferred over other usage. At any rate, I think the spurious accusation of racism or of furthering a racist cause, insofar as establishing or maintaining a manual of style for Wikipedia could be considered a racist cause, is enough on its own to merit sanctions, whether on its own merits or under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  Note the "evil" dig in the same post.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Aside from the above-proposed civility EDR, I'm thinking at this point that (inspired by a recent close above), FleetCommand should be topic-banned from MoS for a stretch. A new development is that an increasing number of respondents to the RfC propose that his pet pseudo-guideline MOS:COMP be merged (to the extent any of it is salvageable) into MOS:COMPSCI – or just be outright deleted. It's unlikely that he wouldn't resist this with an escalation of the same sort of pattern, since he totally blew his stack over a minor clarification proposal to just one section of "his" page. This is a classic case for "sanctions are meant to be preventative not punitive". (I'm skeptical that a block will be useful, since it hasn't been with him to date.) The "must" and "wrong" WP:TRUTH PoV he tries to impose on the English language, in the face of all evidence against his preferences, is fundamentally incompatible with MoS-editing, anyway. There's a clear precedent (see [77] and related noticeboard actions about that other user right before and after that action) for an MoS TBAN for this sort of thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a MoS TBAN for FleetCommand. FleetCommand's rhetoric as discussed in the diffs above is unacceptable and will only inflame what is already a perennially tense situation in MoS discussions. We don't need people throwing around baseless accusations of racism or of being evil, or saying that the other side's preferred outcome would make Wikipedia or the editors on that side someone's "bitch". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• I would not be heartbroken to see FleetCommand receive a substantial block for all these continuing personal attacks, but for now I Support a topic ban from anything related to MOS (and so allow a more collegial discussion on the fate of MOS:COMP). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comments by involved editor, User:Codename Lisa. One hour ago, not knowing this case was open, I filed an ANI case against SMcCandlish, for exactly the same charges: Being disruptive, incivil, and aspersions-casting, without evidence, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. However, in my own ANI case against SMcCandlish, I mercilessly ranked FleetCommand as an equivalent disruptor to SMcCandlish. They both engaged in disruption, non-collegial actions and poisoning the atmosphere of the aforementioned discussion. If I am asked to say which one is the worse, I refrain from replying directly and instead mention a fact:

FleetCommand is a reactive offender while SMcCandlish is a proactive offender. During 2012 and 2013, I endured 6 admin investigations, 2 CheckUser investigations and 1 Commons CheckUser investigation of whether FC is my sockpuppet. One of the reasons that made more sense than the rest of the nonsensical ones was "FleetCommand has never attacked me." (It was of course, not strictly true.) But the reason was simpler than being the socks of each other: I never insulted FleetCommand; he never insulted back. Even during this whole dispute, it was SMcCandlish who started uncivility preemptively. FleetCommand's initial response was cheery and civil: Revision 808212623 through 808215743.

I am not defending reactive incivility. Incivility is wrong. Incivility is a cancer. Nobody deserves incivility, not even FleetCommand or SMcCandlish. And incivil people must not be held to double standards: Even in the other ANI case, which Mendaliv mentioned, I both mentioned that the reporting user was guitly of baiting incivility and that both behavior from either of them is unacceptable.

I say the same thing again: Incivility is unacceptable; both SMcCandlish and FleetCommand must behave themselves. Any sanction against either must be enacted against the other too. The fact that if we keep SMcCandlish in check, FleetCommand is less likely to be uncivil is just a convenient tool for us and does not entirely absolve FleetCommand from his responsibility. Right now, SMcCandlish has harassed me worst than everyone else in my entire Wikipedia career combined. Nevertheless, I reiterate you must not think in terms of who has been uncivil more often, longer, more severely, or more proactively. Instead, think to the treatment that participants of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style derserve: a clean, collegial atmosphere. We have no such policy as (pardon my language) Wikipedia:Be the lesser jerk! Our policies are Wikipedia:Civility and Meta:Don't be a jerk.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a very unfair false equivalence to me. What I'm seeing is FleetCommand over-reacting to perceived slights (even where there really aren't any) with massively escalating personal attacks - while refusing to listen to reasonable discussion. Your "they're as bad as each other" angle is simply not supported by the evidence. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This appears to have started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Bring MOS:COMPUTING back into line with MoS and reality. I see nothing uncivil in SMcCandlish's proposal or the way it is worded, but can you see where the first incivility comes in? To me it looks like "I question the motivation of the nominator ... Is the nominator truly here for a tangible improvement and a change with benefit, or because he wants to get back at Codename Lisa with whom he had a nasty argument earlier today? Are you going to make life a living hell for the future generation of editors just because an editor hurt your pride by contesting your change with a reversion?" from FleetCommand, which is blatant ad hominem personal attack. Had I seen it at the time, I would have redacted the attack and issued a stern warning - and I would have blocked FleetCommand had the attacks escalated in the way they actually have. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Further, I'll quote one complaint from you (now in the subsection below)...

Sometimes, the comments are pure mocking or perjorative.

• "[...] when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product? [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Outcome worth the attention: [78]

• "Thanks for making it clear (so I don't have to try to prove it) that your position is a prescriptive grammar one (which WP generally doesn't entertain, per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

That was a direct response to the above personal attacks, yet you make no mention of that whatsoever! A massive breach of WP:NPA by FleetCommand gets not even a hint of disapproval from you, yet a very restrained response that contains perhaps just a bit of mild sarcasm at most is worthy of your censure and your demands for sanctions! I'm truly astonished. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

FleetCommand was not the subject of that ANI case from which you are extracting this. And I have already said — repeatedly, in boldface — that I don't approve of FC's action. Furthermore, I do not care if it was direct response or not; we don't have a Wikipedia:No personal attack, unless it is a retaliation of a personal attack policy. (Of course, if we had, I'd have taken into consideration that the first personal attack came from SMcC.) —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I know you have since said you disapprove of FleetCommand's action. But the point is that FleetCommand launched a gross personal attack on SMcCandlish, SMcCandlish responded in a really pretty measured manner, yet at the time of your complaint you cherry-picked SMcCandlish's response in order to make accusations against him while ignoring the attack to which he was responding. You were trying to show SMcCandlish in the worst possible light you could rather than trying to be fair and balanced. That's hypocrisy and dishonesty, and I'm appalled - so please forgive me if I don't bother listening or responding to you any more. Oh, and kep your "jokes" away from my talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Am not supposed to do exactly that? In the "SMcCandlish" heading, I restrict my discussion to myself (plaintiff) and SMcCandlish (defendant) and in the "Editwarring, incivility, etc. by FleetCommand", I restrict my discussion to SMcCandlish (plaintiff) and FleetCommand (defendant). In one of them, I am a plaintiff, and in another I am a collateral damage. It is called being on-topic.

"You were trying to show SMcCandlish in the worst possible light you could rather than trying to be fair and balanced. That's hypocrisy and dishonesty". Is anyone here under the impression that SMcCandlish's openning complaint above is not trying to show FleetCommand in the worst light possible? It is not hypocrisy. It is called having a complaint.

Indeed, has anyone here ever opened an ANI complaint in which he or she has written equal measures of praise and complaint, not just about the subject of the complaint but also about the uninvolved third parties that does not concern him?

Please, my fellow Wikipedians, refrain from name-calling. You do not agree with me, and it is quite likely that I am in the wrong and you in the right. (I am not ruling it out.) But calling your fellow editors hypocrite just because they have filed a complain (perhaps in error) is beneath you.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• This text-wall by Codename Lisa is rehash of the separate ANI that editor opened about me below, which was headed for a WP:BOOMERANG until withdrawn. [Material removed; will reuse it in a moment in a separate place.] I was actually preparing an ANI about Codename Lisa when the disruption by FleetCommand began; this thread is about FC not CL only because FC suddenly overtook CL in incivility about the exact same matter and became more pressing to address.

  I'll ignore the bulk of what CL wrote above, but address one bit: "If we keep SMcCandlish in check, FleetCommand is less likely to be uncivil" makes no sense at all (aside from the fact that there's no demonstration of wrongdoing on my part); I have no interaction history with FleetCommand, who has had civility and disruption issues that go back a decade and which never change. It's a bit like saying, "If you kick your neighbor's dog, then cod populations in the Atlantic will magically recover more quickly."
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC). Trimmed: 04:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• First time I have looked at MOS:COMP. Needs to be delisted as a guideline - not fit for purpose. Probably should have started with that rather than get bogged down in arguments over specifics of it. If any of it can be salvaged it can be re-listed as a guideline once its been pruned. It current has 4, 5? direct conflicts with the wider MOS, as well as a number of issues that are not explicit but done differently anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  It seems to have been unilaterally promoted from Essay to MOS Guideline here, and I can't find any consensus to do that, which suggests that "It is a generally accepted standard" is perhaps not true. Unless there is such a consensus that I have not seen, I'd say any editor who disputes that move can demote it again and require an actual consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't have an issue with that, except it happened in 2012. Its a bit late for 'seek consensus' for a change when no one has complained for 5 years. It is the defacto standard, even if I suspect like myself, no one has paid attention to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and Only in death: Just for the record, I objected to to it. Well, not by a reversion, because one of the rights and responsibilities of admins is to detect consensus. And Ruud Koot was well within his rights to do it. I only asked if he had though it through. And he said yes. (Oh, oh! I was supposed to not come here. Well, technically it is a different discussion.) —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to ping me every time, thanks, as I'm keeping an eye on the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I expect the MOS discussions will sort it out. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm copying the following two comments from the closed section below (which was previously a sub-section of this one), as they are clearly part of this discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)...

• I've read the statements above and a fair chunk of the discussion at WT:MOS and come to essentially the same conclusion as User:Boing! said Zebedee above; SMcCandlish's "well-meaning but excessively bold (and long-winded, typo-filled, opinionated, redundant-with-other-guidelines) changes to the guideline" is not full of praise for another's work but it is not uncivil. Moreover, he then took a civil, reasonable proposal for how to move forward to the talk page. This was met with stonking assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks (point 3 of this comment is totally inappropriate). I propose a 3 month topic ban from MOS, broadly construed for FleetCommand. If he'd had a DS notification earlier in the process, I'd seriously consider just imposing it myself. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ooh, I learned a new word. I'm definitely adopting stonking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This Australianist could probably use a good shed too. Before his bath he really stonk.

–EEng

• An Australianism which, ten years later, I'm yet to shed. GoldenRing (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Repeating what I said above, I support a topic ban for FleetCommand from all MOS issues. However I oppose any topic ban for SMcCandlish, whose patience I find to have been admirable in this case in light of all the baiting that FleetCommand has been doing. This is even in light of all the diffs Codename Lisa provides above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish

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

---

Hello

On 1 November 2017, I had a little dispute with SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). It is said that one must not read too much into the bitterness of discussion and instead, take some distance from it. Doing so defuses the situation. So, on 2 November 2017, I stayed away from the discussion entirely, having no exchanges with this person, implict or explicit. Proof: Literally, nothing on 2 November 2017 on the whole "Wikipedia talk:Namespace", not just the heated discussion.

What happened in return? 20 hours and 19 minutes after our last interaction, he launched a preemtive strike: In revision 808421381, he implied that I am engaged in "Making false accusations of personal attacks", which "definitely qualifies under the civility breaches subject to [discretionary sanctions]."

So, what has happened between us?

• On 1 November 2017, in revision 808052437 (and two subsequent revisions) pertaining to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computing, he used unnecessarily harsh language to chastise a fellow editor's action, for which there is no evidence of being done in bad faith. "Rundancy" and "personal opinion" are quite enough. But "hand-waving" (a perjorative word), "rambling" and "magically special" are definitely uncivil. What's worse is that the chastised editor is none other than the notorious FleetCommand. (See sidenote 1.) Sensing a storm coming, I supported SMcCandlish's right to revert but not his harshness. But he assumed the worst in me, misinterpretted the concept of due respect (a requirement of civility) with endorsing ownership or Wikipedia and vested interest.

Sidenote 1

FleetCommand is notorious for sub-optimal civility, but he has never been uncivil to me. This has elluded no one's attention, causing no less then six admins and two CheckUsers in Wikipedia, and one CheckUser in Commons, to check whether he and I are sockpuppets. The reason is far simpler: FleetCommand responds uncivility with uncivility. (It is wrong; I know. Not defending it.) I was never uncivil to him; he was never uncivil to me.

• SMcCandlish started the User talk:Codename Lisa § MOS:COMP discussion. From the very beginning, the experssion "pot calling the kettle black" came to my mind. He is chastising me for starting a preemptive attack on him, but in reality, it was he who made the first uncivil comment. To my surprise, he has used WP:KETTLE in his message to premptively defuse my use of it. He accuses me of being in a bad mood that day, while it is him who is overreacting and assuming bad faith.

In the end, I told him that I will disengage from the whole dispute; in return, he must not come to my talk page for 24 hours. (I hoped he would calm down and stop antagonizing me if we are not in touch.) Guess what he did? He sent me an email, effectively keeping in touch to escalate the situation, without technically coming to my talk page.

• With a direct and explicit invitation from SMcCandlish, I participated in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. In my comment, I talked of unneccessary compliance with the rest of the world, unneccessary complexity, and the benefit of a rule-based system over an indecisionate one. He responded with the first clear-cut personal attack; instead of commenting on complexity, lack of necessity, and benefit of a rule-based system, he called me an edit warrior. He said an admin has protected the page only to stop me. (In reality, admins block the user for that purpose. If both editors are suspected of edit warring, both are blocked. Page protection is for more benign case)
• Finally, there is the templating I mentioned above.

Q: "Codename Lisa, don't you think you are reading too much into bengign behavior and it is you who is assuming bad faith? For all we know, all of this could be simple overreactions. Are there complementary evidences?"

Indeed there are. SMcCandlish and FleetCommand are poisoning the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Bring MOS:COMPUTING back into line with MoS and reality with immature and less-than-collegial behavior. It is not just me saying it; other editors are saying it too (permanent link):

• "Could we please talk TO each other, and stop talking ABOUT each other. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"
• "I completely understand what you are saying, FleetCommand. SMcCandlish does have a tendancy to respond badly when people do not agree with him. He is passionate about what he is saying, and considers it very carefully. He told me, also, that I must be a non-native speaker of English, and that I push for prescriptive grammar. [...] –Sb2001 19:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

SMcCandlish is resorting to the deceitful tactic of words in another editor's mouth. Examples for permanent link:

• "Re: Codename Lisa's redundant request for sourcing, I'll just copy-paste my response to FleetCommand, above: 'Of course we have proof that the "the" you don't like is used regularly in English, and you've already been provided with it; here it is again: [43][44] Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:FILIBUSTER."

  I certainly didn't ask anything that those links show; I was not even talking to him. Another editor said something about a certain grammar rule for which I asked for a source.

• "Repeat: No one said "non-native speaker" other than you. See straw man."

  It was implied, through the use of "native speaker". See:

  • "Nothing is simpler or more practical than using English the way native speakers of it use it in fairly formal writing. [...] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  19:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "[...] as any native speaker of the language would expect. [...] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"
• "I didn't use the term festival [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)".

  What the original author had said was: "Please cut the peacock term festival". The noun phrase "peacok term festival" is metaphor for "over use of peacock terms".

• "No one I'm aware of said FleetCommand is a non-native speaker. No one in this discussion did so; he just made that up."

  FleetCommand didn't make anything up.

• "Forgot a bit: Of course we have proof that the "the" you don't like is used regularly in English, and you've already been provided with it; here it is again: [39][40] Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:FILIBUSTER. [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

  The author to which this reply posted never asked for a proof that it is "regularly used", nor said that it is not so. As he/she says in the subsequent reply: "Oh, I hear you quite well. I just think we must do the opposite. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

Sometimes, the comments are pure mocking or perjorative.

• "[...] when are you going to schedule a meeting with Bill Gates & co. to "correct" their grammar about their own product? [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Outcome worth the attention: [79]

• "Thanks for making it clear (so I don't have to try to prove it) that your position is a prescriptive grammar one (which WP generally doesn't entertain, per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Name calling.

  In linguistics, "prescriptive grammar" has become a perjorative term for sour-faced linguistic conservative that hampered evolution. Something akin to "deletionist" in Wikipedia.

  Also, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX forbids no such thing.

• "More fringe prescriptivist OR. I don't think we need to entertain this any further. [...]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)"

  Well, no one forced him to reply to everything, and certainly not with name calling.

Summary: I am not saying that my fellow SMcCandlish is a devil incarnate or something equivalent. But I am saying that he dangerously wandered off the path of collegiality, civility and cooperative editing, and must be stopped, even with a block if needs be.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Short version I WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new PoV-laden "rules" (by FleetCommand) to a guideline page, and I opened discussions about them. Codename Lisa few off the handle about it, made various accusations and uncivil comments, all on the pretext of claiming I was being uncivil (sound familiar? See ANI about FleetCommand above; these two engage in the same tactics and come to each others' defense when challenged). Then CL played the "I'm not attacking you when I make unsupported accusations, you're attacking me and my tagteam buddy when you say anything I don't like"-style victim game. Then encouraged a dispute between FleetCommand and me while pretending to do the opposite. And editwarred on a WP:CONLEVEL-violating basis (article got full-protected to put a stop to it), and even tried to "ban" me from leaving required user-talk notices like {{uw-3rr}}. Etc. Most of the diffs above do not actually show what CL says they do, and CL seems to (or more likely pretends to) have difficulty distinguishing between criticism of edits, arguments, sourcing, actions, and policy interpretations, versus criticism of an editor's person, mentality, or motives; I do the former, CL does the latter. It's my bed time now; I'll address all this with another diff pile in the morning. If this is even still open. As with FleetCommand, above, I have no history of dispute or even any real contact with this editor before yesterday; the dispute with FC and with CL are in fact the same dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Very interesting comment:

    Codename Lisa few off the handle about it, made various accusations and uncivil comments.

    Throughout the whole 1 November 2017 hoopla, when he felt most strongly about my actions, he never said such a thing, i.e. he never labeled what I wrote as "accusations" and "uncivil comments". The worst thing he said was "Trying to personalize this matter" and "WP doesn't need you or anyone else to act as the self-appointed Editing Police". (Revision 808194151) So, it seems while I have been away, something has demonized me. (Or, SMcCandlish had some semblances of honor and civility, which are now lost in the poisonous atmosphere of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and now he is used to outright deceit such as this.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• I've examined the first few accusations and I see no substance in them, and I'm not going to waste any time on the remainder of this. I'm also seeing personal attacks in this complaint that could quickly trigger a boomerang effect (eg the "SMcCandlish had some semblances of honor and civility, which are now lost in the poisonous atmosphere of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and now he is used to outright deceit such as this" comment). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: As much as I hate using the word "lie" (both because it is uncivil and because it always upsets the discussion against me), it is now an elephant in the room.

However, I implore you to see the picture in whole. You can never see a jungle if you focus on seeing one of its frail trees. The reason you didn't see any substance in it is that I wrote them in chronological order and things get worse as you reach the bottom.

Thanks for your time.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, after checking out some more of your claims (and having examined the MOS dispute), I'm still not seeing it. What I'm seeing is fairly reasonable responses to an extremely tendentious battleground approach from another editor which includes repeated personal attacks - and I'm surprised that you appear to be seeing it as one-sided from the opposite side. I also suggest someone should merge the two sections as this one is just a continuation of the discussion above (I won't do it myself as I have already commented here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I started at the bottom as they appeared to contain direct quotes, and what I found was someone repeatedly trying to get it into another editors head that Wikipedia does it the Wikipedia way. Not any other. Also sarcasm is not an actionable issue. If it was, we would have maybe 3 admins left.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and Only in death: I see. That is very interesting. Your assessment, I mean. FC and SMcC both violated WP:NPA but are treated much differently owning to use of the word "bitch", which is childish. So, incivility and disruption is allowed, if it has a more mature tone? Gross insult is not allowed but pestering is? Or is there something in the history of FC that has aggrevated both of you?

Of course, one of the most persistent criticsms of Wikipedia is that it generously allows harassment and even encourages it, and that its administrators have become apathetic, not feel bad behavior anymore and must resort to blind computer-like heuristics.

One thing is certain. Double standards are being used here. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Curly Turkey has just used the term "fuck" against me. Is he going to be treat like FC? ([80]) —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is the diff you intended to use, then no, I'm not going to take the slightest action against Curly Turkey for it since "did you just fucking write that?" is an entirely understandable response to your WP:IDHT claims. Wikipedia is written in English as it's actually used, not as you wish it were used if you could rewrite the rules of grammar. ‑ Iridescent 12:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Indeed that's what I assume to be the correct action. Also, in regard to FC using the term "bitch" and SMcC not using any profanity at all.

Althogh, just a clarification, I am not engaged in IDHT. I have provided evidence recently the English is actually used differently. I am sorry to see that you assume bad faith in me and purpose. I blame no one but myself. Perhaps I have done something wrong.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I don't know why this got split out again after having been merged, but I responded to your comment in the thread above. All I'll say here is that your inability to see any wrong in FleetCommand's appalling behaviour while looking for fault in every word SMcCandlish says is so staggeringly biased that I'm sure everyone can see it for themselves. But one thing I do agree with is that double standards are being employed here - is that a plank I see in your eye? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I see apalling amount of wrong and fault in FC's part. I have explicitly said that. Repeatedly. But I am also seeing equally or more amount of fault in SMcC. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'll just add that your dismissal of the use of "bitch" is both disingenuous and transparent, as context always matters and it is not just the use of the word itself. The full context is seen in these, quoted directly from FleetCommand, which I reproduce here so others can see how deceptively selective you are being:

1. "Reverted edit by an editor who is going to be Microsoft's bitch! " [81]
2. "It seems one way or another, you are not going to be able to put "the" before ".NET Framework", regardless of whether or not your proposal for Wikipedia to be Microsoft's bitch passes consensus." [82]
3. "Repeat: You're gonna be Microsoft bitch! Ha ha! Unless Wikipedia shoots down your proposal." [83]
4. "makes Wikipedia the bitch of publishers such as Apple and Microsoft" [84]

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I would like to offer my sincerest appology for unwittingly having undone your move. I clearly didn't handle the edit conflict as I must have. It appears my conduct here has caused you, Iridescent and Boing! said Zebedee to look at me as "just another combatant". For that I am very sorry.

As a way of appology, I will leave ANI and won't return. Again, I am sorry. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'll re-merge this section back again, as its splitting out again seems to have been accidental - please give me a moment or two to do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've read the statements above and a fair chunk of the discussion at WT:MOS and come to essentially the same conclusion as User:Boing! said Zebedee above; SMcCandlish's "well-meaning but excessively bold (and long-winded, typo-filled, opinionated, redundant-with-other-guidelines) changes to the guideline" is not full of praise for another's work but it is not uncivil. Moreover, he then took a civil, reasonable proposal for how to move forward to the talk page. This was met with stonking assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks (point 3 of this comment is totally inappropriate). I propose a 3 month topic ban from MOS, broadly construed for FleetCommand. If he'd had a DS notification earlier in the process, I'd seriously consider just imposing it myself. GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Repeating what I said above, I support a topic ban for FleetCommand from all MOS issues. However I oppose any topic ban for SMcCandlish, whose patience I find to have been admirable in this case in light of all the baiting that FleetCommand has been doing. This is even in light of all the diffs Codename Lisa provides above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Codename Lisa

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

---

The diff pile I promised yesterday.

Background

I WP:BRDed two undiscussed additions of entire sections of new PoV-laden "rules" (by FleetCommand) to a guideline page, and I opened discussions about them [85].

Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – hereafter CL – reacted to this completely routine action with unreasonable and escalating hostility and off-topic nonsense, such that I was already preparing this ANI two days ago, until FleetCommand (FC) ramped it up so much I ended up addressing FC here first. Since then, CL has perpetuated the same problems, including here at ANI, so we might as well get into the details now.

As with FC, I have no prior history I can recall with CL. This is not a "this editor and that one simply can't get along" matter.

Disruption at WT:MOSCOMP

Diffs

Codename Lisa (CL) leapt to the defense of FleetCommand (FC), as usual, in ad hominem terms that have nothing to do with the proposed material [86], including an accusation of "abusing" FleetCommand, and off-topic digressions into CL's opinion of FC). Argued for WP:OWN / WP:VESTED deference to FC as the author of the original essay behind MOS:COMP. Maked false claim that I reverted material without opening a discussion about it. Did a tit-for-tat revert of completely unrelated material, and tried to shoe-horn that into the discussion [87] I corrected the false claim about not opening a discussion, and objected to CL's personalization of the matter and injection of off-topic material; I asked for a return to discussion of the substance of the proposed guideline material. [88] CL instead does all following in one post [89]: Makes a false claim that doing a BRD revert is WP:VANDALISM Blatant personal attack: "I will let your coup d'tat [sic] of taking over the ownership of this page to proceed as planned." Repeats the accusation of reverting without discussion after already being pointed to the discussion – WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Returns to emotive accusations in defense of FC ("You just used three-blue links as a mace to beat them away"). Explicitly refuses to get back on-topic "No. I was not here to talk about the substance in the first place." Directly tries to foment a dispute between me and FC, yet claims to be trying to prevent one. There was no disputation before CL created one; even FC did not object to the BRD revert, just to not being pinged [90]. So, this is all pointed manufacture by CL of WP:DRAMA for its own sake. Engaged in weird histrionics: "Clearly I failed and probably lost a friend too ... Heartbroken." See also this pseudo-selfdeprecating edit [91] This appears to be a CYA game; see more on this pattern below.

All because I BRDed undiscussed major changes to a guideline by CL's buddy, a perfectly normal thing for anyone to do.

Unjustified editwarring at .NET Framework

Diffs

I replaced telegraphic writing at the article with normal English [92]. CL reverted with a doubly bogus rationale [93], claiming that the change was "deliberate grammar violations" and "violation of MOS:COMPUTING". I put back a slightly different version, pointing out that MOS:COMPUTING didn't address this but that the rest of MoS does, in favor of my edit. [94]. I then tried a compromise edit that might should have resolved the matter CL reverted again, on the same basis (but without the "grammar" claim) [95]. I re-reverted (my first actual revert), pointing both to actual guidelines, and already-provided proof that CL's assertions were incorrect, plus a discussion demand.[96] CL reverted again (3rd), this time with just a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. I reverted (2nd), pointing to two open discussions at which CL could make her (already disproved) case. I then asked for page protection at WP:RFPP, and left a 3RR warning for CL. In true TAGTEAM style, TC (not CL) left me an incorrect, tit-for-tat 3RR warning [97], and acted as CL's proxy to do a 4th revert [98], again with the bogus "grammatical mistake" claim.

I just left it as-is; I don't need to "claim my third revert". The page was fully protected (belatedly) in response to my RFPP request.

More incivility and drama-mongering in user talk

Diffs

I took it to CL's user talk [99] with a request for explanation. CL's response is (get ready for this) to shift blame onto me for not helping CL "to dissuade FleetCommand from personal attacks". This is followed by another false claim that I attacked FC, and the theory that "we are all uncivil people who use a link to WP:CIVIL as a stick to beat each other". [100]. I certainly don't see it that way, and said so. I addressed CL's civility/attack accusations, and asked them to stop. The short version: "You're mistaking specific criticisms of content for some kind of personal animosity (and not even about your person)." [101] CL's behavior in ANI yesterday/today indicates this was ignored, since CL repeated the same accusations and ramped them up further. More ICANTHEARYOU. CL's response? "Oh, you are the one picking the fight. I was trying to prevent it." Followed by another attempt to actually generate a dispute between FC and me: "I will leave you and FleetCommand to kill each other". There was no dispute between FC and me up to that point. One started at WT:MOS shortly thereafter, so mission accomplished. CL claimed I needed a 24-hour cooling down period, which appears to be projection. [102] This is a return to the "I'm being so reasonable, everyone else is the problem, woe is me, it's the end of the world" pattern used at WT:MOSCOMP. I left the required {{uw-3RR}} in response to the editwarring at the article [103]; CL falsely claimed I was not permitted to leave it [104]; a similar bogus objection was made here in ANI later about the {{Ds/alert}}, another prescribed template. I informed CL (via e-mail) that "I don't want you on my talk page" sentiments cannot be used to evade mandatory templates, per WP:TPG. I also offered a conciliatory desire to end the disputation. CL is free to post that message here in full (without e-mail addresses). CL has twice falsely claimed this is WP:Harassment [105], [106].

Editors cannot completely evade normal inter-editor communication, and the above attempts to do so appeared to be a buying-time mechanism, to prepare the ANI CL posted yesterday. My intent was dispute resolution; last I looked, that's why we have user talk.

Later problems, at WT:MOS

Diffs

Describes observable, provable English usage as "madness" that we're here to prescriptively "defy" with "principle-based grammar" [107] (i.e., principles CL and FC are inventing, and to which others are consistently objecting. I've yet to see a single other editor agree with them. Edited someone else's most (in a sarcastic way not permitted by WP:TPG) [108]. Accuses someone of "inventing a rule", when the entire thread provides enormous amounts of evidence for it. So, both aspersions and more ICANTHEARYOU. [109]. Takes the opportunity to make that dig even worse rather than retracting it [110]. Weird misdirection: claims that MOS:COMPSCI, the page to which MOS:COMP (the focus of all this dispute) has been proposed to be merged (in part, and the rest deleted) doesn't even exist any more, when of course it does [111]. This fits the pattern of several prevoiusly diffed CL posts on this page being a bunch of odd hand-waving that do not substantively address the discussion, same as at the WT:MOSCOMP thread. I and other editors [112],[113][114][115] have repeatedly explained why CL and FC's position is defying reliable sources, is OR, and a straw man (going back to at least May, I've discovered [116]), but these two just will not hear it.

The self-declared mission to correct the world's "madness" and "defy" it by having MoS imposing CL- and FC-created "principle-based grammar" pseudo-rules is a clear indication this person needs to be kept out of MoS-related editing. Especially since the majority of this person's edits of any serious length that I've seen so far are littered with grammatical errors. This was also pointed out others in the ongoing WT:MOS discussion.

Civility problems in CL's ANI against me

This (since retracted) included various uncivil aspersions not supported by the diffs provided (which often contradict what CL is saying), many were not diffs but links to entire pages, and others just had no alleged evidence:

Diffs

"he launched a preemtive [sic] strike ... [117]" – mischaracterization of delivery of the {{Ds/alert}} template required by ArbCom; we're not even allowed to edit it, only add a note (e.g. about why we think the editor may be unaware that DS applies to the topic.) "he used unnecessarily harsh language to chastise a fellow editor's action ... definitely uncivil" – unsupported supposition of motive, and false claim of incivility, later repeated: "it was he who made the first uncivil comment". "he assumed the worst in me" – unsupported accusation of WP:AGF breach. Did it again: "it is him who is overreacting and assuming bad faith". "clear-cut personal attack" – false WP:NPA accusation, which didn't even come with a diff at all, much less one with proof. "he called me an edit warrior" – I did not; I said "edit warring", filed a WP:RFPP, and the responding admin agreed. "resorting to the deceitful tactic of putting words in another editor's mouth" – false claim; the "evidence" provided has nothing to do with such a claim, and support nothing but that the sources I provided allegedly don't address CL's concerns. Me: "[FC's] position is a prescriptive grammar one". CL: "Name calling ... perjorative [sic]". Just patently false; an editor is not the argument they have presented. Nothing about the term is pejorative, just distinct from linguistic description, the opposite of prescription. False accusation of harassment (repeated here) CL withdrew the ANI against me, which was headed for a WP:BOOMERANG, and included a statement that CL would "make amends" [118]. CL also stated at 12:33 UTC that they'd drop the stick [119] Instead, CL kept at it: 13:18 [120], 13:24 [121], and 18:15 [122]). Boomerang should thus be considered back on the table. It's disingenuous WP:SANCTIONGAMING to pretend to retract to avoid a boomerang, then continue making or defending the same rejected aspersions in another thread. That this is gaming is essentially self-admitted: "Oh, oh! I was supposed to not come here. Well, technically it is a different discussion."[123] (Except it's not, as it was merged at 11:40 [124]).

Strong evidence of a civility problem (even one that someone takes pains to disguise) is inability to avoid engaging in incivility in a noticeboard where one's own behavior is going to be examined.

Tagteaming

Codename Lisa and FleetCommand are a classic WP:TAGTEAM. I was not aware of this until two days ago, when someone warned me in e-mail (by which point it was too late.)

Details

Comparing their contributions pages side-by-side shows an almost unbelievable level of overlap and mutual backup, including tag-team editwarring (as at .NET Framework the other day, where FC got "meta:The Right Version", moments before the page was edit-protected, by acting as CL's 3RR proxy). This behavior is consistent over time, especially at software and computer articles and at MOS:COMP. See also the (slow) Editor Interaction Analyzer results [125]. These two engage in the same tactics (other than FC tends to be directly hostile while CL plays pseudo-civility games) and come to each others' defense when challenged. Their hostility is frequent, but they exempt each other from it. As Codename Lisa put it, strangely drawing attention to the concerns: "This has elluded [sic] no one's attention, causing no less then [sic] six admins and two CheckUsers in Wikipedia, and one CheckUser in Commons, to check whether [FC] and I are sockpuppets." [126] And: "During 2012 and 2013, I endured 6 admin investigations, 2 CheckUser investigations and 1 Commons CheckUser investigation of whether FC is my sockpuppet." [127] CL's claim that all this happened simply because CL and FC don't attack each other is absurd on its face (and "not strictly true", says CL, anyway). Thousands of editors do not attack each other, yet no one is convinced they're sockpuppets. That happens when two accounts make the same pattern of edits, against opposition, and defend each other habitually and unreasonably. Since it's been proven these two are not socks, that only leaves TAGTEAM.

Any dispute involving one of this pair tends to involve both of them, in lock-step, and proxying for each other. See previous noticeboard disputes and editing patterns at computing-related pages, plus the current ANI threads involving both of them, and their talk page histories, and ....

Other examples of anti-collaborative histrionics and faux-civility

Diffs

"he dangerously wandered off the path [of] collegiality, civility and cooperative editing, and must be stopped" [128] "our esteemed colleague SMcCandlish", after verbally attacking me on multiple pages. "My sincerest apologies! ... Please forgive me" over a very trivial matter [129] – but never when it might count. CL does this frequently. "With all due respect sir, .... Thanks in advance." No question or request was made to which "Thanks in advance" could apply, making me wonder if these are being copy-pasted from a file of random platitudes. I saw another one recently, something like "crushed" or "devastated" in response to some minor argument, but I've misplaced the diff for it. I haven't trawled CL's editing history, but have a strong suspicion these behaviors are habitual.

The dual effect of this pattern is 1) CYA smoke-screening (as in "See, I'm always so nice, so it must be you who drove me to do something inappropriate"); and 2) increasing the heat and length of dispute, through hyperbolic mischaracterization of trivia as things that make CL or FC a victim. See also previous diffs: "a mace to beat FC away", "taking over the ownership" (which sounds rather like an admission of current WP:OWNership), "preem[p]tive strike", "harassing", etc.

Conclusion

The content dispute is basically a WP:1AM matter (except the "1" is "2"). Both CL and FC insist that, e.g., Apple and Microsoft are "committing a mistake" (CL [130]) and "wrong" (FC, diffed earlier) when they write "the Mac Apple Store" or "the .Net Framework". Yes, this whole kerfuffle is, almost unbelievably, just about trying tell the entire world that "the" somehow cannot be used here. I couldn't make this up. It's WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH, WP:POV, WP:SOAPBOX on steroids. And CL at least has declared a mission to impose this idiolect by "defying" the "madness" of real English.

For this reason, and because MoS is already under WP:AC/DS for civility in particular, and because of tagteam/proxy behavior, I propose that Codename Lisa should be WP:TBANned from MoS for the same period as FleetCommand, and subject to the same likely WP:EDR civility restriction. It is not okay for this editor to continue to dive into gross incivility, behind a smoke-screen of the pretense of excessive politeness, as a tool for disrupting consensus discussions at guideline talk pages. Especially over trivial style demands that have no sourceable basis, and which have already been disproved by multiple editors. This is a case where WP:LAME style disputation has fused with WP:FRINGE.

I don't think a block is warranted, because it probably won't work, and CL, like FC, is generally productive when they stick to content work.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Update

To the editor's credit, Codename Lisa posted this on my talk page while I was writing this ANI, and I didn't notice it until after the ANI was opened. It's a nice gesture (and I think CL struck some stuff here and elsewhere, too, though I haven't gone diff-digging for it – I thought it more important to post this positive bit immediately). That said, my concerns remain about the editing patterns; this ANI isn't at all about whether I felt personally offended by something. (People say uncivil and off-base things about me all the time.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SMcCandlish

Hello, my fellow Wikipedians

Thanks SMcCandlish for adding the update above. If you hadn't seen my apology message for nine hours, then you must been working on this ANI for that long. I am very sorry to put you through this.

Please allow me to be frank and truthful here. Frank truth hurts, because it is frank and not embelished with pleasantries. But I think you will want the truth here, not feigned softness for politeness. (Note: The so-called "joke" in a certain admin's talk page was actually a complaint with feigned softness for politeness.)

• My initial reaction (emphasis: initial) was (emphasis: was; no more) that everything you did was hostile, rude, battlefield-minded and retaliatory.
• When no less than five people tell me things that can be interpretted as "Codename Lisa, you are wrong!", I can do two things: (This part is going to hurt. But it is the truth.)
  • Not listen; refute them, defensively hold up magazines and newspapers that blame the environment of Wikipedia as hostile and shout to myself "These are the people these articles are talking about! Corrupt admins, uncivil editors! I am a Roman stuck among Barbarians."
  • Consider that they could be right after all. What is the chance of the whole world suddenly backing you up when there is no benefit in it for them? It must be me!

I chose the latter. And it seems the Wikipedia reacted positively. I have received "Thanks" singals on my notification board from people who indicated to have been disgusted with me. (Ok, well, not disgusted; it is a strong word... I don't know. They clearly didn't approve.) Two of them have actually written them in words to which we can link. (I am not going to; it would be total hubris on my part.) I am not boasting; logically speaking, these are signals that I am in the right dirction... at least I hope.

So, I now know what I must do, I think: I have to clear my head. I have to take a vacation. Then I have to carefully analyze our interactions and find out why and how I have been so wrong about you. I have one request though. I will want you to write another complaint; but not to ANI this time. For me. It is going to be simpler, with less diffs, and focus on the crux of the matter. I want to improve myself. In IATF, we have a saying: Problem is a good thing; when there are none, there won't be any improvemnts.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Nine hours? No, just doing other stuff. I have an enormous monitor, so the "you have new alerts" icon is a little blip in the corner, and sometimes I ignore it all day (usually it's just some mention or revert; I try to stay focused on a task at a time). I understand your bullet list above; have been through the same sort of thing, and took a near-total wikibreak for about a year (I thought I was actually retiring from editing). The time provided a lot of perspective.

I think you got the ideas about me that you did because of random human differences in communication style. I'm a tell-it-like-it-is [in my perception] sort of person, but I mean what I say rather literally (unless I'm being obviously arch, like "Call Bill Gates and get him to change his mind" jokes). If I say a draft guideline addition seems ranty and rambling, this not some kind of catty code for "you are an anger-fueled polemicist, and cannot focus and produce tight prose, so get lost". I mean that I reverted it because it's not guideline-worthy in that state and needs tone and focus work (often hard work). I explained that in more detail on your talk page but you persisted in accusing me of having made personal attacks when I just did a routine BRD; trying to extract a confession of wrongdoing from me appeared to be more important than getting back to what we're here for. [I am sometimes an ass; little pressure is needed to get me to say so. But I won't concede to an accusation that isn't accurate.] I suspect another factor (judging by the amount of intense argument against your and FC's "the" stuff at MOS:COMP#Definite article), is the I-feel-put-upon effect of weathering a long string of opposition to something one feels strongly about. It makes every new critic of the same idea appear to be part of a conspiracy, but it's one that doesn't really exist.

As for this ANI: Per AGF, we should all presume every editor we encounter is here to improve the encyclopedia and has the skills to do it (not always in the same areas and ways), besides obvious WP:SPADE / WP:DUCK stuff. However, we can't indefinitely presume someone is suited for a particular focus if what they're doing and saying indicates otherwise. There are various red flags that someone's temporarily lost perspective or has a topical neutrality problem (dismissal of evidence without actually refuting it, dwelling on interpersonal matters instead of the content and the work the page is about, advancing of preferences/beliefs as if universal truth, etc.). People usually mean really well when doing such things, but it's still not productive. Yet very common; we're kind of defying human nature in making this project work. This is why I so often oppose blocks (the go-to remedy) at ANI, and instead suggest temporary topic bans. Taking a voluntary wikibreak should have the same distance-and-perspective effect, so I have no issue with closing this ANI, as you requested in user talk. When ANI works, it's about solving a problem, changing a behavior, not about punishment or winning.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Resumed editing

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

---

Further to a previous ANI thread I’ve re-started editing at an article that I voluntarily took a break from, as noted here. This FYI is just for full transparency, not because I’m looking for applause and adoration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me then, but I applaud you anyway, AYW. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

request review of block

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

---

Requesting a review of my block of AZOperator (talk · contribs). The discussions are spread over multiple talk pages:

• Talk:Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona)#Recent edits August 2017
• User talk:Donner60#Hamilton Hazing Allegations
• User talk:Barek#Hamilton High School
• User talk:Kudpung#Appeal to Common Sense
• User talk:John from Idegon#Warnings
• User talk:AZOperator

I had at one point done one revert of the user at Hamilton High School (Chandler, Arizona), and had no intent to use admin abilities related to the article content. However, the disruptive behavior by the user over the past twelve hours on their own talk page, as well as the talk page for John from Idegon, more than justified a block on WP:HARASS, WP:BATTLEFIELD, and WP:NOTHERE grounds. However, due to the initial revert, I still wanted to request additional review of the block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks fine to me. I think your revert wasn't enough to make you involved anyway as there were pretty serious BLP issues with the edits you reverted, even if you couched them as being WP:WEIGHT-based. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have been watching this, and the only problem that I have with this block is that it's not long enough. With the humor aside, the block looks fine to me too. Alex Shih (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Having read through the links. I too endorse this block. Blackmane (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Frankly, I'm not surprised. I have given them plenty of informal warnings already and on my talk page. Barek has only done what I should probably have done already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC).

• Yes, good block. As seriously as I feel WP:INVOLVED needs to be rigorously abided, WP:BLP trumps all. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Sourcing concerns and refusal to communicate

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

---

Sangkaburi Gallery regularly creates articles. I have sent several messages which have gone unanswered, because these have an empty references section. I have stressed the importance of creating articles with references and also that WP:Communication is required. I have asked if perhaps the external links are the sources, although external links are usually friendly suggestion, but have had no response. I assume they are not the sources, as the editor is creating two sections, References and External Links, separately. Examples are Tinyu Ridge and Paya-thonzu Taung. Editors cannot create daily articles that are unreferenced and ignore other editors trying to help them solve the issue. 1 or 2 articles like this wouldn't be such an issue, but this editor has created 6 unreferenced articles today (so far!) Sangkaburi Gallery, how do you suggest we move forward? Please engage in this conversation. Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This isn't my area at all, but there's something very odd about these articles, which this editor is creating at a rapid pace. Take a look at the last 4 created:

• Selaung Taung
• Tinyu Ridge
• Pokabo Cho
• Khao Mamuang Sam Muen

They all have the exactly same set of external links (right down to their access dates from over a year ago), all of which are completely generic and do not link to the specific location of the article subject. Where did all the detailed "facts" and "figures" in the articles come from? Voceditenore (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I now see where they came from. They are all copy pasted from the equivalent Swedish and/or Cebuano Wikipedia articles, all of which were created by a bot (Lsjbot). The bot's sources are exactly the same and equally opaque. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Even murkier. Boleyn, have you noticed that there is another editor Somohto (talk · contribs) with exactly the same modus operandi as Sangkaburi Gallery (talk · contribs), who was also rapidly creating articles on Myanmar geography with the same generic links and who also pastes drafts on their user and talk pages. That account was created on 12 September, the day after a load of socks who exclusively edited Myanmar geography articles were blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eh Doh/Archive. Somohto's last edit was on 25 October. Sangkaburi Gallery's account was created on 23 October. Paging GeneralizationsAreBad and KrakatoaKatie, the admins who dealt with the most recent version of that SPI. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Both Sangkaburi Gallery and Somohto have just been indef blocked by Bbb23 as socks of Eh Doh. Something tells me we haven't seen the last of him however. It might be a good idea for a few people to put their frequent targets, Tagundaing (Kayin State) and List of mountains in Myanmar, on their watchlists. Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 DoneJoefromrandb (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I had sent several warnings to both without spotting the similarities, thank you. Thanks, Joefromrandb for handling this. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, but Bbb23 is the one who handled it. I just added the articles to my list. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Block requested by User:Margolis-Marmite

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

---

My knowledge of the Alt-Right language is poor, but I believe that "I love the way you dismiss the importance of ethnicity to millions of ethnic English people. Im guessing you'd never do this to a Jew." translates to "Please indef me" in English. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I think a more accurate translation is "Hello, I am waving a red flag, inviting you to review all my contributions in greater detail". When I take him up on this suggestion, I see that we do, indeed, have yet another racist and anti-Semite on our hands. Indef'ed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there a... Wiki policy against being alt-right? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Please try harder to think clearly, and rephrase your question if this block still confuses you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a wiki policy against being bigoted and uncivil. You can have whatever political alignment you want so long as you aren't a dick about it. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is basically the same thing as having a policy against being alt-right 71.183.236.103 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Racism is not exclusive to the alt-right, but they're a major proponent of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry EoRdE6, I should not have been flippant - there is no policy banning the Alt-Right from Wikipedia. In this particular case, the user is Alt-Right, but that's not why they were blocked. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: A one-edit IP showing up here? I think I smell someone's sock that got left in the dryer. Home Lander (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems a little too suspicious. Not that you're definitely wrong, but it could just be an IP editor on a dynamic IP (explaining the one edit). If actual disruption occurs, that's another matter, but one harmless comment at ANI isn't going to cut it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• We don't block people because of their politics or any other personal opinions. We only block based on behavior, and then only if it has become disruptive to the project. On a side note and speaking as one whose politics are well to the right of... probably everyone here, I find racialism to be symptomatic of bonecrushing ignorance. And in my experience, antisemitism has in recent years become much more common, even mainstream, on the political left. Especially on college campuses where anti-Israeli sentiment seems to have become the cause de jure for young leftists. But yes, it certainly exists in the darker corners of the far right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• My complaint was quite simply centered around Floquenbeams written block reason which seemed a bit much and just wrong... You can't be blocked for being racist, you can be blocked for being disruptive... Aka I agree with the block but am being picky about the rationale chosen which is unnecessarily divisive and accusatory. And Floquenbeam that reply was bordering being a personal attack that wasn't necessary come on... Aren't we all supposed to be working together or some shit EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I block people for being racist and anti-Semitic all the time (well, technically, for demonstrating a racist/anti-Semitic POV in their edits, but only because otherwise there's no way to tell). No one has objected yet. Your question, as asked, was stupid. it isn't a personal attack to point that out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well now I have objected so yes someone has objected. And thanks, I expect more from another established user. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I too would expect better from an admin. This is ANI and admins telling editors that their questions are stupid is borderline rude, and it doesn't surprise me if people would say that it is not even showing general human niceness. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: Please be bothered to at least treat others with the respect due a coworker, even when they're wrong. GMG^talk 23:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

well, technically, for demonstrating a racist/anti-Semitic POV in their edits, but only because otherwise there's no way to tell I think that's the point EoRdE6 is trying to make; that because the reason for the block is disruptive conduct, the block message should focus on the disruptive conduct and not the beliefs that led to that editor behaving in that way. That said, I think you did just fine with the block message, "racism and anti-semitism". Had it been "racist and anti-semite", I might agree with the criticism. Hopefully that explains EoRdE6's position a bit better. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much all of this editor's contributions consisted of tagging various American political figures as Jews in the article leads without any regard to whether or not these people's notability has anything to do with Judaism, plus arguing with increasing belligerence that a comedian born and raised in London cannot possibly be English because of his Norwegian/Nigerian ancestry. Their edits were based entirely on racialism and the theory that ethnicity is all important and is also entirely genetic. This type of POV pushing is pernicious and quibbling about the wording of a necessary block seems a trifle pedantic to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

I found an IP, an anonymous series of edits, that was close to vandalising

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

---

Ok, I do not know much about how to do this b/c not a big wikipedia person. I found edits to the page Palawan_people that were suspicious, made by not a user but an anonymous (it lists an IP). I cannot therefore warn the person or debate them about this. I suggest their IP be blocked b/c it is pretty close to vandalism what they did. So, there was a sentance saying something like, 'these people are being exploited by activists', with a ref (#4 in the artivle) to Survival International webpage about them. I was pretty weirded out by that so i checked the reference, and Survival page referenced says they are being PROTECTED by activists from mining companies' exploitation. I reviewed edit histories and found that an older version of article has the same reference, but reads like, 'this people is being protected from exploitation by mining companies, by activists'... so this IP pretty well changed the thing to mean the opposite of what the reference says, without changing the reference page either, called it a minor edit, didn't leave anything on the talk page. The creator of the article probably referenced Survival as a well known knowledgeable source on indigineous peoples, the troll here knows didly about palawans and is trying to troll politically. Anyways if you want to change what the sentance says, you have to change the ref, and discuss oon talk, and should have a username. The person is editing other pages with the IP, I think they should be banned or something. As long as the IP isn't a library or whatever. IP is: 112.200.104.86 , suspicious edit made: 10:00, 5 October 2017‎ . I am putting this here b/c I do not know where to report. It isn't a 'vandal', technically, tho a lot of little nasty edits by same anon IP you may expect in the future, they cost 60 seconds to make, it isn't really content dispute in how anonymously and casually it was done, and I can't talk to them about it b/c they're anon. So I post this here, maybe admin will know what to do. Nathanielfirst (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so the IP in question is 112.200.104.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and this user did indeed reverse the meaning of the sentence, and I believe it is vandalism. I warned the IP. I don't think a block is needed because there's not ongoing vandalism. The IP is not editing other articles at all. I also restored the article prior to that IP's vandalism, some of which wasn't reverted. In the future, you can just warn vandal IPs. As far as I can tell, there's no action that needs to be taken by admins here. I don't think we need to bother notifying the IP about this discussion given it's just a basic question of warning an IP about vandalism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Could I borrow those eyeballs once more?

Be my guest.

–EEng

• C._W._Gilmore (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)
• Newwikiaccount666 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) (likely sock)

User:C. W. Gilmore has been making a series of edits to Ridgefield, WA, repeatedly re-introducing false information, accusing other writers of canvassing, violating BRD, and, in my opinion, trying to coatrack the article to be an offshoot of Removal_of_Confederate monuments and memorials. There also may be some socking; this low-output, interestingly named, single purpose account appears to share writing style with him. Anmccaff (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Returning the article to it's original condition while the section in RFC discussion[131], appears to be the issue for Anmccaff as they have repeated attempted to delete the entire section.[132][133] This is very disruptive.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope, it's repeatedly re-introducing false information, accusing other writers of canvassing, violating BRD, and, in my opinion, trying to coatrack the article to be an offshoot of Removal_of_Confederate monuments and memorials. There also may be some socking, as seen 4, 5 lines above. Anmccaff (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The section before it was repeatedly deleted [134] is what I was attempting to maintain while the RFC discussion proceeds. It is Anmccaff, who is being disruptive and deleting the section in some kind of edit war.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I also asked Anmccaff to specify sight anything I posted that might be in error and all I got as response was a threat of ANI action. This is most troubling and non-productive.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

And, not surprisingly, we have a repeated accusation of canvassing, I'm curious whether by cavalry [brought] in from as far away as Swastika, Ontario he means User:Cullen328 or User:Kleuske this time. Anmccaff (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to Anmccaff.[135] You and the others had no interest in this article, until John from Idegon pointed you in it's direction. You don't need to be so hostile, I'm an honest contributor and no 'sock puppet'; just ask and I will be happy to clarify any question you have. I do however, object strongly to your false accretions, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I dunno if that's mendacity or conveniently poor memory on your part, but I was involved in a conversation with you here, about five days prior. That's on the same page, with you directly responding to me. More importantly, JfI and were discussing the larger problem of POV-pushers circumventing restrictions on political topics by coatracking them on other articles, viz:

Anmccaff, do you have any idea if the arb American Politics discretionary sanctions decisions apply to political content in what should be non political articles? John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are on to something here. When the subject is pretty close to an obvious political subject, it's gonna get noticed and brought up, but if, say, folks keep adding borderline stuff to Swastika, Ontario "because bacon Hitler!", and so forth, it's not going to be seen that way. I don't think there is any formal policy that covers this. Anmccaff (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

When JfI mentioned It's gone to RfC now, I'd assumed "it" was a request for clarification of whether the arb American Politics discretionary sanctions decisions apply to political content in what should be non political articles?. We had already discussed your coatracking days earlier, remember. Anmccaff (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I was only mentioning that JfI, you and others do a great job tag-teaming to push you POV; from Swastika, Ontario to Ridgefield, Washington. The cavalry was called and you did a great job responding, thus the natives from the area, like myself, have no chance. Great work to you and your friends. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not close friends with anyone involved, although I try to be friendly with everyone. I just took a look when the matter was brought up here, and commented on what I saw as foolishness. The only POV that I push is that we should all work together to build a better encyclopedia. The notion that "natives from the area" ought to have some special status when editing articles about cities and towns is erroneous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

A blimp in the news cycle

–EEng

The local sources have know that this is not just a blimp blip in the news cycle, the issues surrounding the Jefferson Davis Highway markers began in 1998 with the Vancouver city council, when they removed the stone. It again became an issue in 2001, and again in 2006 when it was removed from public land for the last time. Thus the park was built in 2007 for the purpose of displaying the marker and for the education of confederate heritage. Those of us close to it have seen it play out in the local media: [136][137][138][139][140][141][142]http://www.kptv.com/story/36153519/some-calling-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-at-ridgefield-park][143][144][145][146][147][148]. The problem is when those that do not familiarize themselves with these local issues, take over control of wiki to the point of whitewashing them out of the local history. None of this was directed at you, Cullen³²⁸, only those that are pushing their agenda from outside the area that have not educated themselves to this, almost 30yr issues in Southwestern Washington. Ridgefield city government has asked the county historical society to remove the stone markers just this year, but all this started in 1939. I do appreciate that you, Cullen328, have an opinion and I respect it, and I also know that these over editors will get there way with this site as they are in force. So it will be, but I do object most strongly to the false allegations of Anmccaff, that I am someone's sock puppet, or a single purpose account (SPA) or that my account name, which is my name, is some how questionable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the questionable assertion that it's just then pointy-headed outsider troublemakers causing the problems at your lunchcounter town, I am not saying that you are a sock-puppet, I'm saying it looks like you use them. Any objection to a checkuser looking at the edits in question? Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"There also may be some socking; this low-output, interestingly named, single purpose account appears to share writing style with him. Anmccaff" -"I am not saying that you are a sock-puppet, I'm saying it looks like you use them. Any objection to a checkuser looking at the edits in question? Anmccaff"

Your spurius allegations are what I object to and consider an intimidating tactic that goes against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and are not worthy of response. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Either file an SPI or drop the allegations of sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I think this has disagreement been resolved via the RfC. Separately, I invited C. W. Gilmore to create a stand-alone article on the subject, which they are in the process of doing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but Anmccaff is not through with me as he has begun a 'sockpuppet' investigation.here I do hope that they will leave me alone after this, but I get the feeling, that's not their style. This really does make for a hostile environment to try and contribute. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Repeated violations of WP:BLP and WP:V by User:Mam1984

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

---

• Mam1984 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

Mam1984 has been editing since June. She or he is primarily interested in articles about pornographic actresses. Unfortunately, Mam1984 is under the (mis)impression that the Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) is a reliable source. Like the IMDb, the IAFD's content is user-generated, making it unreliable as a source, especially for BLPs.

I first became aware of Mam1984 about two weeks ago, when she or he added some material sourced to the IAFD to a BLP on my watchlist. I reverted, explaining in my edit summary that "the IAFD is not a reliable source for date and place of birth, or height and weight". (I see now that Mam1984 had added the material in September, and I removed it then with the same explanation, but I hadn't made the connection until now.) The following day, Mam1984 restored the information, so I reverted it and left a message on her or his talk page. Mam1984 did not reply. (In fact, she or he has never made an edit outside mainspace.)

Since then, Mam1984 has continued to add or restore material sourced to the IAFD to at least five other articles on at least a dozen occasions. I left her or him a warning about what she or he was doing, and another warning. The warnings have had no effect. Mam1984 has not responded anywhere, nor has she or he stopped adding or restoring material sourced to the IAFD.

I believe Mam1984 has been adequately warned and should be blocked. If necessary, I will give her or him a notice about the sanctions that apply to the editing of BLPs and take this matter to WP:A/E, but I don't think that should be necessary for a first block. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for 48 hours, which should be long enough to get their attention. Please let me know if they resume use of sources that do not comply with RS and BLP policy, Malik Shabazz, and I will block for longer periods as needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. Will do. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

New Eh Doh sock

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

---

• Mam1984 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

Resolved

 – Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Back again with yet another sock created shortly after yesterday's blocks. (See the discussion above Sourcing concerns and refusal to communicate.) Modus operandi is blindingly obvious. Bbb23 and GeneralizationsAreBad, do I need to start an SPI? Or can he just be checkusered and zapped?

For reference: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eh Doh/Archive

Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like another editor opened an SPI shortly after I wrote the above. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eh Doh. Voceditenore (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Published plagiarism of one of our articles

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

---

Can I ask what can be done (or who I should contact) about the plagiarism of one of our articles in a recently published book. The book, Tottenham Outrage (published in 2017) has used much of the text from the Siege of Sidney Street article. A sample can be seen in the last two paragraphs on page 18, compared to the second and third paras at Siege_of_Sidney_Street#Immigration_and_demographics_in_London. There is further plagiarism on the following few pages of the book. There is no attribution anywhere in the book (including in the sources) to show that the text came from Wikipedia. I appreciate that this may not be the right forum, but does anyone know if WMF take action on this sort of thing, and if so, who should I contact. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd email legal@wikimedia.org. Katie^talk 13:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• The WMF cannot take action as they do not own the copyright: individual Wikipedians own the copyright for every word they contribute and they license it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. If the terms of the licensing are not met, individuals who are contributors to the content that is being used are the only people who have standing to take action. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Realistically, no one's going to take any meaningful action. If someone wanted to take symbolic action, they could drop a letter detailing the plagiarism to the publisher and hope that they slap their author with a wet salmon. - Nunh-huh 13:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of along the lines of what I'm thinking...in my opinion, the best person to do so would be the actual author, but anyone could. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have emailed legal. Crafting an effective strategy for dealing with trivial, minor, and major instances of copyright violation is their task. If it worthwhile in this instance to enforce the copyright, one of the authors can be recruited as a plaintiff. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if the legal people at the WMF replied with anything other than a statement that it's up to the copyright holders to enforce copyright if they wish to do so. There would need to be a large expensive team of lawyers at the WMF if they were to get involved in every case of copying Wikipedia content without attribution - for every case that is noticed and brought to people's attention here there are probably hundreds of others. The only thing anyone else can do is to inform the publishers who will take whatever action they deem necessary to protect their reputation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

SchroCat has 3/4 of the article and would thus have the rights to send a complaint or even a takedown request. Only the copyright holders can do that and editors retain copyright to the text they contribute. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wellll... any interested person anywhere could notify the publisher, a company known as a publisher of criminal justice and related matters, whose mission statement is: "Putting justice into words". This publisher might be interested in knowing that they either 1)paid an author for material that was plagiarized without attribution from another source or that 2)a writer who stole writing and words is associated with their imprint (since the business is both a standard publishing house and a "joint-venture publishing" house and I am unclear as to what this particular author's association is with the publisher).

It really gets me - all the CC-By-SA 3.0 asks for...all Wikimedia/Wikipedia asks for, is attribution. It's ok, take the words, we'll give them away for free! Just let the world know that someone else wrote it. But so many can't seem to be bothered. Ugh. Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

They may or may not have paid the author; the publisher also provides self-publishing services and joint publishing ventures. In other words, the author may have paid them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's what I posted above Nat (joint-venture etc). But even if they didn't pay him...if they were informed about this plagiarism, the company not want the book to be associated with their company anymore, especially considering that they are a publishing house that specializes in criminal justice matters. Shearonink (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that that's the best approach to take. There's no evidence that anyone other than the author knew about this plagiarism/copyright violation, and any damages involved would be very small in comparison to the potential cost of taking legal action, with the risk that when such action found against the author he might not be able to pay the costs. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

At least SchroCat can tell people they're a published author now  ;) — fortunavelut luna 16:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

From the Amazon "About the Author" section on this book: Geoff Barton is a skilled 'thief taker'. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No-one is allowed to say "Takes one to know one" at that, please.... — fortunavelut luna 16:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: An important note about CC-By-SA—attribution is necessary, but not sufficient. (That's the 'By' part.) It also requires that derivative works be licensed under the same CC-By-SA license: 'Share Alike', or 'SA'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

True. Without getting in to the depths of copyright & trademark law etc, I bet that the author's "book" is copyrighted and if someone turned around and lifted entire passages out of it the author and/or the publisher would not hesitate to sue. Shearonink (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with backward copy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This stuff happens all the time. I read an article on a subject I've written on and I see "my" words staring back at me. Even when they are kind enough to muddle with the text, it often still has the "look and feel" of the Wiki article. Attribution would be nice but in general, I just take it as a compliment and let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I see this every few months in connection with my favorite article, Phineas Gage. Most recently, in the episode described here [149], one of the characters speaks whole phrases that I wrote in the article. I'm a ghostwriter for a popular TV series! EEng 19:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Mmmhmmm. Any of the roiling "news"-sites do this all the time - "Top Ten [whatevers]" or "Strange legends about [whatever]" etc. I am always presently surprised when I see attribution, I just wish people weren't so lazy and quick to grab the credit for the work that we all do here. I don't mind sharing, just tell folks where you got it from. Would be nice. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I know that the case of Stranger Things is off topic to this specific discussion, but I feel this is the most appropriate place to comment. My suggestion is that you view the full credits of the episode, as stuff is often hidden in those long credits. If you find that no attribution has been provided I suggest you contact them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked the credits and sure enough, there's a bit near the end that says, "Additional dialogue by Wikipedia editor EEng." Just kidding. You weren't serious, were you? EEng 21:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I weren't joking. You might be able to get some financial compensation, or at least being able to officially and undisputedly claim that you wrote that. Completely your choice if you choose to purse this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• There seems to be a lot of editors commenting here but none doing anything about the issue, so I have sent an email to the publisher with the text:

It has been noticed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Published_plagiarism_of_one_of_our_articles that the book "The Tottenham Outrage and Walthamstow Tram Chase" by Geoffrey Barton violates the copyright of Wikipedia editors on page 18 onwards. I would hope that, as a reputable publisher, you would take the appropriate action to rectify this.

86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If that's all you said, you should expect little in return. When one requests administrative action (even in othr spheres), one must establish one's case. That particular email fails to do so. What gives? — fortunavelut luna 20:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

As you said in your edit summary, that's bs. Give the publisher, who was almost certainly not aware of the copyright violation, the chance to do the right thing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A more effective strategy might be publicity and ridicule. Interest a journalist.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Or better yet, declare all text on Wikipedia to be public domain. If the WMF doesn't care, why should we? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Great point. When dealing with others within Wikipedia, assume good faith and be civil. When dealing with outsiders, go straight to ridicule and canvassing. EEng 21:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Bonnie Blondell

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

---

Disruptively editing Naparima College by repeatedly adding content about a non-notable volleyball player named Marc Anthony Honore. This user has no other edit history. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I was about to leave a warning for repeatedly adding this entry when I saw the notice for this ANI. Since the user has never been notified about the usual rules for adding alumni I think this ANI is premature. I'll leave her a notice and pointers to the appropriate guidelines. Meters (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Point taken. Therefore I'll withdraw this notice unless the issue arises again. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Spam-only account

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

---

Would an admin please put a stop to this spam-only account:

Bubbly1558 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He has done nothing but repeatedly spam various Wikipedia articles with his own non-notable books. He has received usertalk warnings to stop, including a final warning, but persists in re-adding the material.

Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I was meanwhile reporting at WP:COIN but self-reverted when I noticed this report (some diffs in that post). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) —PaleoNeonate – 00:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This editor is spamming unreferenced mentions of his recent self-published novels which are for sale on Amazon for Kindle for 99 cents each. I searched on Google and could find no independent reviews of these books. Mentioning these novels adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia and is a glaring conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Boundarylayer and pregnancy

This is about

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

The pages being disrupted are:

• Death of Savita Halappanavar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Premature rupture of membranes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• University Hospital Galway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Savita Halappanavar went to University Hospital Galway in Ireland having a miscarriage and died several days later of a heart attack caused by sepsis from an infection of the sac around the fetus, which also caused the miscarriage. She and her husband had asked the medical staff to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear she was going to lose the baby, and the medical staff said "no" as the staff did not see her life as in danger at that time (their understanding of Irish law). Her death become a rallying cry for changing Irish abortion law. Subsequent investigations found "death by misadventure" and blamed the medical staff for failing to diagnose the sepsis early enough to treat it.

Boundarylayer has been disrupting the heck out of that article and related ones. Looking at the editing stats for the talk page of the article about her death, Boundarylayer has added 138 KB in 89 edits; the next highest person has added only 26 KB and the next is 21KB - so Boundarylayer has 5x the nearest person and has just been bludgeoning the hell out of that page, as you can see a quick scan of Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar

It is hard to discern what Boundarylayer's issue is, exactly, but they apparently object to the death of Halappanavar being discussed as an abortion rights issue, and have been trying to focus the article on her actual cause of death, which was the doctors not treating the infection/sepsis.

Prior to my getting involved they were making edits like this with edit note Stop the spin, the facts are in. And Boundarylayer was the subject of ANI thread opened on Oct 22 here, about their overfierce editing which included personal attacks. That thread ended with a block, given here at their Talk page. Please see the several unblock requests and the long thread below that, where they continued battering the issue.

Since I started paying attention, they have been trying to force content into the article, based on their own application to the situation of Royal College guidelines about bacterial sepsis in pregnancy, as in this diff. Yikes! I have also given them several warnings on their talk to slow down and edit more carefully.

Boundarylayer more recently turned do the Premature rupture of membranes article, and I have seen their edits there from the getgo. I am showing the kinds of edits/arguments that people have been dealing with at the Death article:

• Boundarylayer added content based on that Royal College guideline, here.
• This guideline like many is based on the principles of evidence-based medicine and each recommendation has an evidence level; in this case the recommendation level is "4" - the lowest - based on expert opinion and not evidence. This is all explained, within the ref itself. I expressed that in the content saying "based on expert opinion and not clinical evidence" here.
• Boundarylayer reverted that here, with edit note: Removed unsourced POV editorializing
• and continued accordingly at the Talk page here, where they jumped right to an RfC and continued to characterize this as unsourced and POV, as well as "bizarre".
• I explained very clearly here what the source said and what that meant.
• Boundarylayer ignored that and again insisted that the ref doesn't say what it does, and then further asserted that it would unethical to get clincal evidence (this is not true, as observational studies are ethical and are a form of clinical evidence).
• At that point I warned them that they were pretty out of ROPE and further bad arguments editing like this would lead me to call for a TBAN.
• They then replied again, again asserted the ref does not support the source. And most recently has written this tl/dr screed. This is heading directly into the situation that everybody has already been through at the "death" article.

Boundarylayer has also made this series of edits to University Hospital Galway, which I have not analyzed. But this is clearly a campaign they are on.

In any case, Boundarylayer is very clearly passionate about this topic, is bringing a very strong POV, and is not competent in the medical stuff and is unwilling to learn and follow the sources. Their participation is a time sink and I think they should be topic banned from anything related to pregnancy. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban: I hate to say it, Jytdog, but I don't see particularly disruptive conduct on Boundarylayer's part. I see a content dispute. Moreover, I don't think Boundarylayer is wrong. The presentation and phrasing of the EBM evidence level, which is (as here) mostly buried in an appendix, gives the synthetic impression that the claim by the guideline is unreliable or improper. That said, Boundarylayer needs to cool the rhetoric (as in the way the RfC presents the dispute); that is problematic, but in my opinion, not problematic enough to merit sanctions. I was ready to support something against Boundarylayer because of how outrageous his or her conduct was in the last ANI thread, but this behavior just doesn't rise to the level of meriting sanctions. At least, not yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to oppose this, then I suggest you start putting your own time and effort on the line dealing with this time sucking behavior. it is an exact continuation of what they were doing before. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it to me. What got Boundarylayer in trouble in the last thread was calling people he disagreed with schizophrenic and then defending that insult by claiming it was factually true. And, as I say, I don't think Boundarylayer is wrong on the content in this one instance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv, what got Boundarylayer in trouble that he is way too intense and is not really engaged with the policies and guidelines. If your review his talk page, you can see he has a pattern of locking his teeth onto one issue, often taking a contrary stance, and battering the hell out of articles in the topic to try to implement his contrary stance. In the fall of 2012 into summer 2013 it was energy (nuclear and coal), which brought him a block for making legal threats (and while he was blocked, he socked), and many warnings. Now it is this. The combination of over-intensity, not listening to to others, and only kinda-engaging the policies and guidelines makes his presence on the topic a time-sink. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: There comes a point where one can no longer blindly assume good faith. The reality is Boundarylayer is hell-bent on introducing an anti-choice PoV to Wikipedia. A "victory" on Premature rupture of membranes article (via the sledgehammer method of a full RfC on one sentence rather than even once raising the issue on the talk page!) will be used to feed into changes to the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, presumably in preparation for articles relating to Ireland's forthcoming referendum to Repeal the Eighth Amendment to Ireland's constitution. As evidence, please see the staggering volume of contributions by this one author - in terms of both number of edits and wall-of-text size of those edits - to the premature rupture of membranes article, a 'sandbox' page to rehearse arguments, and in particular to Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar. Forum shopping has been used (without following the requirement of notifying all other involved editors), wikihounding of at least one other involved editor has taken place, and a block for personal attacks has been issued.

On the issue on which a non-neutrally worded RfC had been called (also without notifying all other involved editors), level 4 evidence is expert opinion. Not drawing attention to the fact that it is not based on clinical trials would - per Pincrete and Jytdog - serve to mislead the reader. That should not happen and I can only conclude that the intention was, in fact, to mislead the reader.

Boundarylayer seems to not quite get sourcing, at least in relation to medicine, pregnancy and abortion. E.g., they have previously argued - erroneously, and at length - for only WP:RSMED to appear in the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, which couldn't happen for obvious reasons; and, for example, that the Irish newspaper of record and other broadsheets are "tabloids" and not RS... at least until such time as he found a pro-life opinion piece in one and apparently wants to use a quote sourced to "a nurse friend" of the journalist to attack the standard of public healthcare in Ireland, in which case it presumably stops being a "tabloid" and becomes a RS broadsheet again. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you get there. I mean, I fully admit we have someone who has strong opinions, but that is not in itself disruptive or unacceptable for Wikipedia. Nor is discussion which grasps multiple points of view. Frankly, I find the qualification of the EBM guideline source as "not based on clinical trials" or however it was written, highly questionable, especially as an attorney who has worked extensively with evidence based medicine guidelines. The phrasing used is the sort of argumentative phrasing one finds when opposing counsel is trying to argue that the opposite conclusion should be reached: That because the guideline is not based on clinical trials, it should be considered false. This is absolutely the impression the phrasing gives, and the understanding an average reader will draw from it. It's exactly the sort of convenient placement of "neutral information" that quack physicians and their lawyers use to counter arguments against their pet procedures. You can see this sort of thing constantly from the electrotherapy industry. In any event, this is not a discussion that is appropriate for ANI. It's a content dispute. It belongs at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. Apart from that, I don't see anything so objectionable about this instance of Boundarylayer's conduct that merits a TBAN, and no real nexus with past misconduct to conclude that there is a longstanding pattern of misconduct so significant that it jeopardizes editing. Yes, Boundarylayer is loquacious. That's not a bannable offense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

We've both had our say so I'm not going to add anything further, except to say the particular wording in the RfC could easily have been discussed as normal on the talk page; at least three editors supported a form of words that I believe addressed your concerns. That can still be discussed on Talk:Premature rupture of membranes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my only involvement was limited to suggesting an alternative phrasing at the RfC at Talk:Premature rupture of membranes. Hopefully a wording that would satisfy the medical people's demand for 'exactness', but which would be clearer to the layman. Bastun and Jytdog were perfectly amenable to somesuch compromise, BoundaryLayer was not. Why, I cannot say, but the reasons offered were 'odd' and unconvincing. Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: Boundarylayer is editing with an agenda, or at least with a highly idiosyncratic opinion, and is brushing away criticism of the spin he places on articles with walls of text on the talk pages. Here is an example (more on request) of editing with the space of 48 hours, typical of their approach at Death of Savita Halappanavar – I must make it clear that the topic of the article is not notable simply for being a woman's death through medical error, but for being a trigger for extensive protests about the legal situation in Ireland:
  • Removing mention of the legal uncertainty [150] with edit summary: Removed nonsense spin, abortions had been preformed before her death, the only new law is this new suicide clause being within the remit of "threat to life"
  • Replaced the words "requested an abortion" with "Savita was to infamously request an abortion" [151] with edit summary Stop the spin, the facts are in.
  • Removed the words "after having been denied an abortion" three times more [152] [153] [154]

  And that's just one small part of their editing: a glance at the talk page Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar will show the extent of the problem in trying to discuss the issues. An immediate example is the section started by Boundarylayer is titled No WP:RSMEDs argue that "denial of abortion" played any part in her death, which turns out to be completely untrue (the HSE enquiry and report into her death is MEDRS and clearly makes recommendations about the denial of abortion). Reading through that talk page will give an idea of the tactics adopted by Boundarylayer.

  I'm sorry, Mendaliv, this has gone far beyond a content dispute. This is a single editor who is tendentiously pushing a POV against all the advice and concerns expressed by multiple other editors. They even tried to call it a fringe theory in an attempt to remove any mention, and you can see the time-sink it caused at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 58 #Death of Savita Halappanavar, where two other editors gave their opinion that it wasn't a fringe theory, only to have Boundarylayer argue the toss with them, instead of listening to the other editors' opinions. It now seems the same problem is spilling onto other pages like Talk:Premature rupture of membranes where he preemptively jumped into an RfC when he wasn't getting any agreement with his spin. He titled the RfC RfC On describing RCOG guidelines, should it include the curious insinuation that they are "not based on clinical evidence"? which is about as far from neutral as it's possible to get. This editor has no clue about how to edit collaboratively and has no respect for any opinion other than his own. To be frank, he's a menace on any article and talk page where he has a strong opinion, and the editors on those pages should not have be subjected to it. --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: Having considered the recommendations of the folks above and having examined the evidence, I think it is abundantly clear that Boundarylayer is trying to push their own viewpoint, even in the face of contradictory reliable sources. I think a topic ban is clearly needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban: Having been initially involved only as an innocent RfC-er, but now having examined the evidence, it is clear that Boundarylayer cannot attempt to be neutral in this topic area. What swayed me was the inclusion of 'mud-slinging' opinion pieces as fact in WP voice in the lead. If any of this material deserved to be included AT ALL, WEIGHT considerations dictate that it should be in 'controversy' or somesuch further down the article and attributed. What makes the agenda-pushing doubly distasteful, is that it concerns a young woman's death. Some topic areas demand higher standards of behaviour and Boundarylayer is not a net contributor in this area. Why should we believe that this is going to change. Pincrete (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Some one trying to delete following afd discussion page and try to save article

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

---

Is it correct way to delete discussion page with out finessing of discussion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_Romar#:Jan_Romare

(Privldieu (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC))

The deleted page was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Romare. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

So a page move happened because the AfD nominator got the name of the article wrong. The AfD is still going on - I see no issues here. Marianna251TALK 15:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This account is clearly a sock of User:Nsmutte. Home Lander (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

SPI opened, if a CU could swing by, we've had at least two accounts and one IP so far, so I'm thinking a sleeper check and/or rangeblock would help here. Home Lander (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

• I have struck out my comment above because a sock of this sock tagged me when they brought this up again ([155] [156]). Now that I know this was a sockpuppet, my attempt at WP:AGF is clearly no longer relevant. Marianna251TALK 21:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedily deletion tag removed multiple times from KSBK

Huerfanoedits has removed the speedy deletion tag multiple times [157], [158], and [159] from KSBK, a page which this user created, without providing explanation. In my edit summaries, which restored the tag, I notified the user that the notice should not removed from pages that they have created themselves. This warning was ignored. Rather than edit war, I wanted to take the issue here. 17:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This station is a Broadcast relay station which duplicates the programming of KSPK-FM, so I created a redirect as a better alternative to deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggested a merge on the KSBK's talk page but a redirect works as well, thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone with more knowledge of the subject than me look at KSPK-LP, from the same author, as well? The leading sentence ("KSPK-DT is...") doesn't even match. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Please block Wiktbdhb (talk · contribs) per WP:NLT for their comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BojanJJ. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Nastiness

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

---

here on a user Talk page needs admin attention. I will now inform the user concerned. Roxy the dog. bark 21:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Informed. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You're letting obvious antisemites like Malik and Ivar (who literally called us trolls and racists for objecting to their biased edits) run around, and I'm the nasty one? OK2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP troll initially wrote, then removed, "I hope you get shot in the head". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You just did it again. And it shouldn't take a genius to see that I wrote that out of frustration and anger. Who *wouldn't* lose their temper dealing with a bigot like you? You should have had your account axed long ago2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

See! -Roxy the dog. bark 21:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

In case it isn't obvious to you, I don't care anymore. This site has long since lost any credibility it once had. No professor worth their salt takes this site seriously. People like you are the reason why.2601:84:4502:61EA:65A6:1187:CF1C:195C (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Your not-caring remains well concealed when you keep posting, but grave accusations of other editors being antisemites require diffs. Please do keep caring, and provide diffs showing that the editing of Malik Shabazz and Ivar the Boneful is that of antisemites. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nazi trash[160] Can we just get 48 hours for egregious redundancy and call it a day? GMG^talk 21:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for continuing personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  And tpa revoked for continuing personal attacks on talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  Perhaps revdel the edits with PA as well? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  I second the revdel suggestion. Nobody needs to see that.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  I've rev-deleted their edits on their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Actress Devin Kelley

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

---

Can someone please lock this, as a matter of urgency: or would you rather be sued for gross libel? 86.131.45.165 (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two days. It’s unfortunate that the lady shares her name with the Sutherland Springs gunman. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sutherland Springs church shooting fyi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In which things take a jump to the left, a step to the right. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see the OP has been blocked for making legal threats. I don't think this qualifies as a legal threat. Grossly overreactive, but not a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC) You think that trying to stop an actress from repeatedly being described as a mass murderer is 'overreactive'? Interesting... 86.191.147.56 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC) That's not what Baseball Bugs is describing as an "overreaction"; what they are describing as being overreacting is the block for the legal threat above. SkyWarrior 01:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I hope you are right, though if that is the case, I have to suggest that Bugs tries to write a little more clearly. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.147.56 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC) I was going to suggest that Orange Mike be asked to account for his actions, but since it appears from his contribution history that he habitually blocks new accounts rather than actually dealing with underlying issues, I can only assume this is considered acceptable behaviour here. 86.191.147.56 (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC) If anyone is interested (which seems unlikely) it appears that Orange Mike insists on being right, even when he knows he is wrong: [161] Of course, since he is an admin, he must be right... 86.191.147.56 (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC) What I meant was that the OP grossly overreacted in making his original post. But he's been re-blocked for abuse, and his sock soon will be also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

CSD tag removed mutliple times from page's creator

Sumair1981 has removed the speedy deletion tag four times from Muhammad Sumair Kaleem's page [162], [163], [164], and [165] and has been warned both in edit summaries and on his talk page. To prevent edit warring, I'm taking the issue here. Meatsgains (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

And before anyone says this isn't the right board (which it might be? It might not be? I don't know), maybe a passing administrator could, in the spirit of whatever ANI is, delete the article. CityOfSilver 02:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Per his stated on talk page intent of creating a promo page, deleted per A7 and G11. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Per his sandbox it's blatant selfpromotion by an editor who took the wrong turn and ended up here instead of at LinkedIn, so you might want to delete his sandbox too (per CSD:U5, blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host), to make it a little bit harder for him the next time he decides to recreate his CV here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: You might want to tag for g11. You'll get a quicker response. I'm off today. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Annoying speedy deletion

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

---

User talk:RHaworth deleted an article I just started today on Christine Hogarth which already had 3 reliable sources and there was no valid reason whatsoever to speedy delete it. I am pretty new on Wikipedia but I thought you'd want to encourage new editors and valid content Please rectify asap. Magicmondays (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted as promotion. Perhaps you can write a version that doesn't read as a campaign advertisement, assuming the subject is notable for something beyond being a candidate for office. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you looked at it? No way is it promotional or read as a campaign advertisement. Magicmondays (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It should have also been deleted as G12 as you've just lifted phrases and sentences from the sources. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's just a collection of campaign material. By definition, promotional in nature and clearly WP:CSD#G11. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. It is not a webhost, a soapbox, or a stump. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blatant electoral campaign spam. AFAICR, it doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

1: Look at the rule you are supposed to adhere to, I think. "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. That is something that is not subjective, a specific time frame, unless you think less than 1 day is not too soon. Before you pile on with lots of other subjective criticism, please tell me why you think there is justification for that rule being disregarded? If you look at my edits as they occurred you'll see how I was steadily including more info, from additional reliable newspapers, even some about about how she lost her job. None of the content is from any campaign material because I have never even seen any !

2: Can you guys see and read the article that was deleted? I can not and why not? IF I am going to reasonably defend the article I need to see it.

3: I know myself and my motives and I know there was no attempt on my part to promote or advertise anyone. My only motive is that since an important election is coming up I think at least the 2 strongest candidates , if possible, should have a Wikipedia page for the benefit of the voters. Her chief opponent, Peter Milczyn who has been in politics a long time, has a well developed Wikipedia page and it only seems fair to the voters and our readers that she, as his only real competition, should have a page too. This is a very important position just to be a candidate in this election.

4:Dlohcierekim, I take strong exceptiuon to your false allegation. I'm calling your bluff. Please show us where the material I used is from any campaign material. Every single word I used was from the 3 different newspaper sources I referenced. Also your "soapbox" accusation is completely without merit....so I think you should apologise for that. Magicmondays (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

5:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง spam? how so? Magicmondays (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

To answer some of your questions:

1: Speedy deletion is "speedy" for a reason; as a *general* rule, we do not leave clearly inappropriate pages up for 24 hours at a time. An hour or two is more the mark; the five-ish hours that this article was live doesn't seem all that unreasonable. For future reference, this is why writing drafts in draft- or userspace and only moving to main article space when complete is recommended.

2:Administrators can see deleted articles, yes; this lets us vet deleted material in response to questions like this one.

3:While I can respect your motives, that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a voter resource. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Magicmondays, you've told us yourself that it is electoral promotion: I think at least the 2 strongest candidates , if possible, should have a Wikipedia page for the benefit of the voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What a bunch of jobsworths. Restored to Draft:Christine Hogarth (and copyvio removed) so you can at least access the text. To forestall a few follow-up questions: drafts are not indexed so they don't turn up in a Google search, we're not short of disk space, I'm not going to do this for every single article I delete for all time, I don't think it meets the notability criteria either but there's no need to be so bitey about it. @Magicmondays: If you have trouble with a biography of a woman, contact Rosiestep or Megalibrarygirl - they won't necessarily be able to rescue it, but you'll probably get a less frosty reception than the one you got here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ritchie333. Magicmondays (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Time for an indef (or Topic Ban?) for editor?

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

---

Hello while patrolling recent changed I noticed that Sfsound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was removing content from the It's a Beautiful Day article. At first I didn't think too much of it, but after looking at their talk page it became clear that this has been an issue in the past and they have been blocked more than once for it. Could an admin (or admins) check this out and see whether we need to impose sanctions on the listed user. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 04:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. Clear case of NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Might consider some level of protection on the page. The history shows that Sfsounds isn't very competent with Wiki and has inadvertently edited while logged out. Blackmane (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User:EchoUSA

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

---

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

---

EchoUSA (talk · contribs)

This editor states on his user page that his goal is to "rid the world of Marxism and international Jewery." He endorses several contemporary Nazi groups, including those who explicitly call for the murder of Jews. Since I reverted one of his edits before reading his user page, I would appreciate another administrator taking appropriate action. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't need this kind of editor here. I call for an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the display of right-winf fascist hate group symbols from their user page, per WP:POLEMIC and WP:PROMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor restored my removals, so I'm taking the page to MfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, he says I used to work for a group called the Social Force, which was a internet leftist group. I worked as a website designer for about a month before the group shut down, and I switched from being apart of the left to a more right-wing political stand point. After the United States 2016 Presidential Election, I began to read and learn more about far-right political ideologies. I become a fascist back in February and March, after reading many books from George Lincoln Rockwell and James Mason so maybe if we just wait a few months his tiny brain will vibrate again and he'll switch to Quakerism or vegetarianism or something harmless like that. Note the infobox listing an alternative account. EEng 06:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

That account, "Echo", appears to be non-existent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless this editor is directly espousing the sort of rhetoric that the alt right is infamous for, I would instead counsel that an eye be kept on their edits. At this point, they haven't, strictly speaking, grossly violated any policies that would call for an indef block. While I find their user page distasteful, that is being rightly dealt with elsewhere. Simply blocking them because they're of the alt right is basically giving the alt right to bash WP as being leftist, or at least anti-alt right. Blackmane (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So Blackmane, openly stating his desire to "rid the world of Marxism and international Jewery" does not meet your personal standard for a gross violation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would say that any editor who announces on their user page that they want to "rid the world" of any group of people because of their ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or other beliefs, has absolutely no place here, and cannot possible be here to improve the encycylopedia -- making them automatically WP:NOTHERE, no matter how many useful edits they may happen to make. We cannot see inside the minds of other editors, but when they present their own hate-filled agenda, we have a duty to act, and not simply contemplate our navels. An indef block is really the only reasonable response to this editor's spew. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to rid the world (figuratively speaking) of Trump and his family and their circus of incompetents and misfit hanger-on poseurs because of their beliefs, if only we could figure out what their beliefs are, or even determine they actually have beliefs. Anyway, I hope you're not planning to block me. EEng 07:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, because all you want, I believe, is to remove Trump from office, a legitimate political goal, not to literally "rid the world" of he and his family. However, if your talk page was full of anti-Trump polemics, it would probably be nominated for deletion, and rightfully so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Besides, you're too much fun to have around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Request - Would someone more familiar with MfD than I am please fix my nomination of the page "User:EchoUSA", which I managed to screw up somehow. I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment -- there were some very fine people, on many sides ... on many sides. But seriously, how does the desire to "rid the world of Marxism and international Jewery" create a collegial atmosphere?

Upon registering and creating a user page chock-full of neo-Nazi iconography, including a swastika-adorned self-portrait, the user then proceeded to edit the page of Vanguard America, a neo-Nazi group. He states that he's a former member of the group: diff.

It's as if having neo-Nazi groups on one's user page is a totally normal thing, as in: "These are my favorite and relatable political organizations by nation" (see User:EchoUSA#Political Organizations). The odd thing is that the user appears sincere, rather than trolling, which is bizarre. Perhaps the user page should be kept, instead of deleted, as an exhibit in the Wiki Museum of Neo-Nazism. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• How come racist idiots can never spell? It's Jewry. EEng 07:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

EEng , it is something like Emily Litella rambling on about "Soviet jewelry" on Saturday Night Live back in the 1970s. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. EEng 07:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Indef User for hate speech and creating an attack page for their userpage

• Support as proposer. Clearly WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, we are seriously going to do this, so that we don't come across as too anti-racist / anti-Nazi? Just in case, I support indef block. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support just as I would if a Marxist-Leninist editor was advocating for the capitalists to be butchered. To state the obvious, you cannot both openly advocate mass murder of the Jews and contribute to a project where the neutral point of view is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• support -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support First thing I looked at was their edit history. Pretty much all of their sparse editing has been to build their userpage. If (and it's a big if) they'd been active in the topic area(s) they are interested in AND had been building good content in a neutral way, then there would be a case to remove or blank parts of their userpage, but allow them to continue their work. But this isn't one of those cases. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - As per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin opinion). In addition to the NPOV content problems Cullen mentions, it's also a matter of not having an editor who is openly hostile to other editors to the point of wanting to remove them from the face of the earth. --bonadea contributions talk 08:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked and page deleted. —SpacemanSpiff 08:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

• A note that EchoUSA's previous account was User:GrahamHughey, who was indef blocked in May, and whose user page was almost exactly the same as that of the now deleted page User:EchoUSA. On that basis, I have stripped the page of everything but its categories. An admin might like to delete it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• SpacemanSpiff has done the necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, SpacemanSpiff deleted the page User:EchoUSA, I was referring to the possible deletion of the page User:GrahamHughey. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Also, User:GrahamHughey/sandbox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted them both on the grounds that they serve no purpose beyond being inflammatory, especially at this point. It might be a stretch of the 'attack page' bit of G10, but WP:IAR. (And honestly, I get a sense overall that this whole thing had trolling involved somewhere in its genesis, but that's neither here nor there either way). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I was wondering about that as well: the Marxist to Fascist storyline -- while creditable, since it's happened in the real world -- seemed a bit too pat to me. In any case thanks for deleting the pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just to note that I've dosed myself with some seafood for not doing my due diligence. Blackmane (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• For a minute there, I thought perhaps you were allergic to seafood, and had eaten some as penance, and I thought that went a little far as a token of self-flagellation - then I moved my cursor over the link. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Page not online / redirection issue

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

---

Hello,

I created an article page for the artist Lady Bee. Unfortunately even thought I can still see the article in my profile, it never appeared online. Last Friday I found out that the page has been redirected. Following the instruction I cancelled the redirection today but I still cannot see the article online.

I tried first to redirect to the page Lady Bee: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Bee&oldid=808980758 and after as was saying this was wrong I blanked the redirection instruction.

I really appreciate your kind help to sort out this matter.

Thank you

Best regards

Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie McGuire (talk • contribs) 12:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I've examined the history of Lady Bee, and it had been a redirect to Mad Decent ever since March 11, 2017 (and it has been restored that way now). The history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lady_Bee&action=history) shows no version with any content other than a redirect. Also, looking at your own edit history at Special:Contributions/Stephanie McGuire, there's no creation of any article content at Lady Bee to be seen. I've also checked for any edits you might have made that were deleted (which only admins can see) and there aren't any. The only thing I can really suggest is that maybe you didn't actually hit the "Save changes" button after editing the article? If that's what happened, there's nothing we can do, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

How about this page: Lady B - any connection? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Lady Bee has now been rewritten by someone else in a blatantly promotional style, and very possibly containing copyright violations too - I have to go out now and don't have time to investigate, so I've just tagged it with G11 speedy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've deleted as G11 then restored the original version, a redirect to Mad Decent which seems reasonable enough. The accounts involved in recent edits probably bear more looking into by someone with more of a clue about sockpuppetry than me. GoldenRing (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• And User talk:StrassEdit recreated the same blatantly promotional article again, so I've deleted it and restored the original redirect again, and I've blocked StrassEdit as a promotion-only account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to ask Stephanie McGuire on her talk page if she has a professional (or other) relationship with Lady Bee (and I'm fairly sure I already know the answer). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Just a question. At the top of the talk page is a Dicretionary Sanctions notice that says "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." Does the 1RR apply to the talk page as well? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No.- MrX 18:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't what are you reverting on a talkpage anyway. BLP or copyright violations? Because they are exempt from 1RR are they not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Neither BLP or copyright. Please see recent talk page history. Also note that I reverted MrX after reading MrX's above comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually @MrX: I believe that @MelanieN: advised us earlier this year that 1RR does apply on talk pages of these DS articles. I forget when. btw: @SMcCandlish: also commented elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Hrmmm. That doesn't seem to make sense based on the Arbcom case and the fact that the word "article" is specified in the DS restriction edit notice. Perhaps MelanieN can share her perspective here.- MrX 19:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the Arbcom ruling refers to "all pages"... And surely this unhatting is exactly the kind of disruption that ARBAP2 was intended to prevent. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The specific wording on the DS notice (non-case-specific) is ...users who edit pages related to all edits about, and all pages related to..., which would indicate that, yes, the talk pages are included in the 1RR restriction. ansh666 20:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Orrrr...on closer reading, not. ansh666 20:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• If 1RR is being applied to a talk page of an article subject to WP:ACDS, which is not an automatic, then it should have its own edit notice alerting editors whenever they click on the edit button. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This kind of discussion belongs at Arbitration clarification and amendment. However per editors' remarks on the article talk page and Jimbo's talk and per Jimbo's own comment, the thread had more than run its course so, in the alternative, we could consider the whole matter here for just garden variety disruption if that's what it takes to put an end to it. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• The only time that I'm aware of a talk page of a page under DS being under similar restrictions was with GamerGate, due to massive external factors. I don't think this directly applies to the post-1932 US politics DS, but that said, continued behavior problems on a talk page is something to be considered actionable under the DS. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Does it bother anyone else that we're treating this sentence as if it was in coherent English? "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article." [italics mine]. I tried to fix it, but it seems to be a template nested in a template nested in a template, and I couldn't figure out how to fix it without messing everything up. But the part in italics really needs to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I boldly tried to fix it in this edit: [166]. Seems to have worked. Revert and let me know if I broke something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  Bad grammar aside, the meaning is actually clear. The presence of "all edits about, and all pages related to" this topic, means the talk page is, in fact, covered by the DS. We don't know if this first read "impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to [topic]" or "apply sanctions to all edits about and all pages related to [topic]", before they were incompletely merged, so it is not at all clear that the part you've italicized is the iffy bit; it's just as likely that this was the later revision. PS: We're not permitted to edit those things; only Arbs and ArbCom clerks can do it. Which is lame, but it is what it is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think the meaning is clear, considering that there are multiple opinions about what it means on this very page. My edit messed up {{ds/alert}}, so I reverted myself, but I think the poor wording muddies the waters. Further discussion probably better at Template talk:Ds, where I started a thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  I think you're confusing discretionary sanctions authorized by Arbcom and the actual restrictions placed by an admin on an article (or editor) at their discretion. In this case, the admin did not include any such reversion restriction for the talk page.- MrX 02:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I am WP:INVOLVED at that article. To the original question here, I note that there is no DS warning when you start to edit that talk page, so that would suggest the DS have not been applied to it. What this whole thing is about: There has been a long discussion on that talk page about whether to add material to the article about "public" vs. "non-public" evidence for Russian interference. The question raised here relates to some back-and-forth editing today about whether to close that discussion. It was closed by User:SMcCandlish; the close reverted by User:Bob K31416 with reluctant permission from SMcCandlish; the close reinstated by User:MrX; the closure reverted again by Bob K31416. SPECIFICO then told Bob K31416 that he had violated 1RR, and Bob K31416 came here to ask about it. Further discussion about it is here, and that's where we stand. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Concur with SPECIFICO. I have no connection to the topic, I just noticed a post at User talk:Jimbo Wales in which one of the parties, Nocturnalnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had posted a "halp, someone wants to hat muh thread" kind of thing, claiming "censorship" [insert dramatic musical cue here]. Everyone (with one exception) who responded, including Jimbo hisself, along with multiple parties at the original talk page, agreed it should be hatted [167], as a big pile of conspiracy theory original research, tinged with WP:CRYSTAL / WP:TOOSOON concerns, and WP:SOAPBOXING ones. A previous closure of this thread by Geogene [168] had been reverted per WP:ILIKEIT for then-unclear reasons [169] by MelanieN.

  Based on the strength of multiple participants' desires to see it closed, a clear pattern of nonsense followed by policy arguments followed by nonsense, and the failed "appeal to Jimbo", I hatted it (non-admin closure), with a detailed rationale for the hatting [170]. This was reverted by Bob K31416 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – the one editor at Jimbo talk who agreed with Nocturnalnow – with a disingenuous edit summary suggesting I "gave permission" to revert it [171] (I actually discouraged unhatting, as likely to lead to continued disruption, but conceded that I could be reverted [172] – I am, after all not an admin much less acting in an admin capacity.) It's been re-explained on the reverter's talk page why that discussion should be remain closed, but the response has been more litigation about why it wasn't against the letter of ARBCOM law to revert it (see WP:SANCTIONGAMING); the obvious real point was why it was a bad idea to revert it, and that it should be re-hatted [173].

  This is a bunch of failure to drop the stick and a WP:ICANTHEARYOU pattern. I haven't pored over every detail of the still-growing thread, but it appears to me that Nocturnalnow and Bob_K31416 are in WP:1AM territory, except the 1 is a 2. I don't care at all that I was reverted, as some kind of pride thing; it's more that the discussion is a WP:NOT#FORUM problem among all the rest of the policy shortcuts above, and is not constructive. Hatting it was the correct action for any editor to take. If this topic is under DS, it's probably worth seeing who's received a {{Ds/alert}} for it, and taking steps accordingly (including deliver of that template if one has not been received within the year). My concern right now would be that the closure will be reinstated then the same parties will just open another thread and continue with the same stuff. At very least this could be administratively closed with an admonition to stop bring up pet, unsourceable hypotheses, or engaging in activism against our core content policies to add impermissible primary-sourced and unsourced hypotheses (about the events or about the evidence) so this just goes away. PS: For all I know there may be 3+ people trying to use the page to host and to endlessly discuss and promote the ideas they can't get into the article; I'm just aware of the two at this stage.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  PS: I see from MelanieN's post, with which I edit-conflicted, that even more editors want this hatted, and the same party Bob_K31416 is revert-warring unilaterally against all comers. I think this can end now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I had completely forgotten I unhatted this five days ago; thanks for the reminder. However, my unhat wasn't per ILIKEIT; I hadn't actually participated in the discussion at all at that point. I just thought that closing the discussion when it had been open less than 24 8 hours was inappropriate. I should have made that clearer in my edit summary. At this point, there are many people who want the discussion closed, and one or two who are fighting to keep it open. I would welcome any uninvolved closer to take a look at the discussion and decide if it has run its course and is ready to close - or to archive without an actual closure. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted! I retracted that. It was meant in a wry way, but in retrospect it probably came off as excessively critical of a vague edit summary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There's an actual conversation about substantive changes to the article going on, with people weighing in with different views, and no clear consensus yet. Just because some editors dislike the discussion or disagree with some of the suggestions made in it doesn't mean it should be shut down. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What I recommended was that anything of actual productive substance [probably already material that's right near the bottom anyway] be refactored into a new thread.[174] This advice was ignored, and revert-warring ensued, so here we are. The fact that the overall thread is a trainwreck doesn't besmirch the intentions of all participants, or preclude sensible discussion from resuming about improving the article in policy-compliant ways.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Don;t let anyone accuse you of personalizing this editing dispute. Nobody except Thucydides411 is trying to do that, as far as i can tell. Aspersions like that don't need a reply. It only makes things worse, and nobody takes them seriously. [175] [176]. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• I came here for clarification of an ArbCom message on the article talk page before I made a revert of MrX's edit there, I got it, and I'm satisfied. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that comes off as a fairly feeble attempt at forum-shopping. Doesn't seem entirely credible to me. What was your rush? You already knew about several editors who did not want it unhatted. Then you get one OK and you're done? Are you familiar with how ANI threads generally develop? Folks say all kinds of things and almost any opinion could be supported by one post or another on a typical thread here. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Repeated harrassment

A few months ago, I started having problems with GeoJoe1000. He was a rude, aggressive and altogether disruptive editor. Despite repeated warnings from admins, he did not change his behaviour even after attempting to start over as GeoJoe10000. He was subsequently blocked for having sockpuppet accounts. One of his favourite things to do was edit the talk pages of editors who discussed his behaviour, trying to remove criticisms. He returned as GregJohnson1245 and continued this behaviour; he was blocked again. He made several edits to my talk page from an IP address, and I responded by requesting temporary semi-protection. He has since returned overnight as Whatashame0 and has resumed editing my talk page, accusing me of being unable to work with other editors and causing untold damage to the site. At no point have I been referred to the admins for the way I handled the situation; nor have I been subject to any sanctions. It would appear that my only "crimes" (as they were) were calling him out for his behaviour and refusing to accept his apologies (he had previously "apologised" as a way of escaping punishment). His latest string of edits appear to be threatening further disruption, stating that "there's more trouble to come". This is a clear pattern of harrassment by this user. If you check the edit history of his original account, you will see abusive tirades and deliberately disruptive behaviour. If GeoJoe1000 got in trouble, it was all his own doing, as I am sure both Tvx1 and Spintendo will attest (I hope they don't mind my mentioning them here). This harrassment needs to stop. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I have put in an RFP for full protection on both my user page and user talk page, but given GeoJoe1000's behaviour, I am a little concerned about where he might start causing disruption if he cannot access those pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked Whatashame0 as no Checkuser is required to show that they're not here to build an encyclopedia; a review of their contributions makes that pretty plain. Sounds like this needs a wider SPI though, and that will require an admin with more experience in that area than me. A Train^talk 07:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears that some of his early edits were to establish a facade of legitimacy. His GregJohnson1245 account directly edited my talk page (and Spintendo's) and referenced old conversations; there was no way he could know that without being GeoJoe1000. Now he's making edits where all he does is shift white spaces around and then undo his own edits. It looks like he's trying to set himself up as a legitimate editor before turning his attention to my talk page. It's a worry because it means he's learning, trying to find ways around the rules. It does make me more concerned about how he might act if my RFP goes through, especially considering his threat. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. As facades of legitimacy go, that wasn't exactly Frank Abagnale. A Train^talk 08:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)