Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 18 November 2017 (→‎Vandalism in mobile version of Gastroenteritis: please pardon, editing to flag this as a wikidata thing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

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

    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[2][3]
      • Removing sourced text and replace it with his own POV[4]
      • POV and labeling his edit as minor[5][6]
      • Removing any non-Turkic info which are based on the sources[7][8][9]
      • Disruptive edits like[10]
    • The recent issues:
      • Ashina Removed sourced content of article by providing a misleading edit summary,[11] then started edit warring and inserted his personal opinions.[12][13][14]. Then switched to IP-hopping.[15][16] 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[17][18][19][20][21][22] and finally wrote a personal attack on my talk page.[23]
      • Baghatur Repeated his old way: Removed the content which he does not like and replaced it with a random non-English citation.[24] Then after 2 month, he repeated it again (non-English sources).[25] And this one.[26]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    I'm still waiting for administrators and their comments (this report submitted in 28 October). --Wario-Man (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wario-Man - All of the diffs and events you referred to in your initial statement are least three weeks in the past; I'm not sure what you want us to do now. Can you provide diffs of recent edits that show the disruption is currently ongoing and requires action at this time? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: All of the mentioned diffs describe his disruptive edit pattern and behavior. Ashina/Baghatur diffs was recent when I submitted this report but if you need recent ones:
    • Aq Qoyunlu: Removed sourced info and replaced it with his OR/POV, plus removal of related navbox.[27] Then started edit warring as usual[28], [29], [30]. Then two editors warned him (one of them is an admin).[31], [32] But he ignored them and started edit warring again.[33] Another editor reverted his edit[34] but he ignored that editor and just repeated same things.[35] and just stopped when he was blocked by an admin: 17:14, 15 November 2017 MSGJ (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Akocsg (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring - change expiry to 72 hours)
    • Bayandur: POV-pushing [36], [37], [38] and ignored the edit warring/3RR warning and edited like previous article.[39] How his edits are POV? Anonymous user (IP) who was involved in content dispute with him, described it on talk page.[40]
    • Dastan Edit warring [41], [42], [43], [44]
    As I said, I summarize his behavior as: Writing misleading edit summaries while removing sourced content and replacing them with his POV/OR and personal opinions. Ethnic/Nationalist warrior and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think there is a valid reason why he is indef-blocked on German Wikipedia. I don't ask same thing for English Wikipedia but since his account is old and he should be familiar with WP rules, then I suggest topic ban or longer timed block. Even a serious warning may be enough, but due to his edit history, I doubt he attends to any warning message. Or any other solution by admins which solves this case. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In the United Kingdom (specifically in England and Wales), "suicide" is legally-speaking a verdict, which can ONLY be returned by a quasi-judicial officer carrying out his judicial functions called a Coroner (himself or himself with a jury) in the Coroners' Courts, in an Inquest...in the UK, just because someones has apparently taken his own life, that doesn't mean that you are allowed to say that the person has actually committed suicide...anyone who doing this who is not the coroner is in effect commenting the results (the verdict) of an inquest in advance, and if the person is actually a resident, resident or ordinarily resident in England and Wales, he is in fact guilty of the criminal offence of contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 c. 49) [45], which also covers coroners, Coroners' Courts and Inquests.

    "Commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future criminal trial as the defendant may not be able to get a fair trial." [46][47]

    To put it simply, Carl Sargeant, in his country of death, and legally under the laws of the same country of his death, CANNOT be said to have committed suicide at present. "Had apparently taken his own life" a maybe (just), but "suicide" definitely a no. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • BBC An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood.
    • Telegraph: Welsh Labour minister Carl Sargeant takes own life days after being suspended over allegations of sexual misconduct
    • The Guardian: Sargeant, a 49-year-old married father of two, is understood to have killed himself. North Wales police said on Tuesday that the death was not being treated as suspicious.
    The Telegraph explicitly states "takes own life". I.e. suicide. Jim1138 (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sources support the IP editor's point - you're allowed to say "killed himself" but in England you're not allowed to say he committed suicide. It's the very narrow committed suicide wording that is problematic in England. Of course, that doesn't count for Wikipedia which isn't hosted in England. DanBCDanBC (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm aware of that, and almost included that point in my comment, but decided on not confusing the two issues. It's only a potential problem for UK-based editors who actually edit the article to say something which opposes UK law. And the "potential" is exceedingly small, in this non-lawyer's opinion - even supposing that the IP's point is accurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really an issue for ANI, but to the extent that there's a distinction between "take own life" and "committed suicide," we should go with what the sources say. In this instance the sources in th article use the phrases "took own life" and "killed himself," but don't use the word suicide. In which basis I've changed the article to "took own life."Agree with others here and in the talkpage that the specific legal issue seems unlikely to arise in Wikipedia's case. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say we were going beyond the sources in alleging suicide, which I see has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the coroner. The intent to die must be proven as well as the act which caused death, both by that standard, and the UK sources seem to be avoiding the word "suicide". There are BLP concerns regarding his survivors, who might be grieved further on seeing the allegation here, which may never be proven. I think it was appropriate for the OP, who is probably not an experienced editor, to bring it to the attention of administrators.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In England the word "committed" is more problematic than the word "suicide", and here are several sources (the Samaritans, the National Union of Journalists, the BBC editorial guidelines, the Royal College of psychiary) that ask us to avoid using the word "committed".DanBCDanBC (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But experienced enough to know that you can't say someone (in the UK) have committed suicide before the Inquest has concluded (even regardless of what the family might say or might have said, or the family's feelings), that there can be no argument. ---- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was raised whether this was the best venue for the concern. I am saying "good enough". I bring up the family because I am less convinced by English law in its own right, than in our WP:BLP policy, specifically WP:BDP. English law convinces me only that using the word "suicide" prior to any proving of same may cause harm to living people; I looked at a journal article that indicates that families will go to some effort to avoid a suicide verdict being returned in favour of an open verdict, for example. That's what convinced me there was a BLP problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, this IP has been spamming a similar message to many of the article contributors, as well as the article talk page. Dragons flight (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I will just ignore that remark! --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pasting the same message to many editors' talk pages is indeed spamming. I made no edits to the article about his death, and didn't need a message on my talk page about it. Next time, post your message to the article's talk page, and use Ping there if you feel that several specific editors need to be aware of what you posted. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The change is I am afraid not good enough. Even the BBC only went so far as to report that "An ex-Welsh Labour minister who faced a party investigation into allegations about his personal conduct has taken his own life, it is understood" (emphasis added). And User:Euryalus obviously is not aware of instances when the UK Press had got it horribly wrong [48]...UK online news articles these days (even from supposedly reliable news publishers) are (because of the 24-hour news cycle) no longer all automatically checked by in-house ex-solicitors (lawyers) before publication as they were 15-25 years' ago, until their legal departments actually receive angry telephone calls from the Attorney General's Office or from the Crown Prosecution Service. (I am afraid, if false allegations were made in the first place against the deceased, and the complainants were to be charged with involuntary manslaughter at a later date, their defence might e.g. then be able to use editing history in Wikipedia (amongst other evidence) to try and argue that their clients would not be able to receive a fair trial.) --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've amended it somewhat. What is your thought now?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Christopher Jefferies analogy is overblown. But Wehwalt's version looks ok to me. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm agreeing with Euryalus on this. I think the press have a pretty good idea of their legal position. Deb (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has posted this sort of guff on a lot of user's talkpages (example) and it has the vibe of a WP:LEGALTHREAT - "...is a fine not exceeding £2,500 or 2 years' imprisonment, or both..." Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted some gentle advice on the IP's talk page; we'll see if it has any effect. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks GR. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a view on WP that "UK law is not relevant to Wikipedia", held even by quite experienced editors. This is just not true. WP does not exist in a vacuum. WP is not on a par with the UK legal system (as it clearly considers itself!) and does not get to make legal rulings on issues like monkey selfie copyrights. Nor, in this case, does WP avoid the legal constraints that newspapers are bound by.
    We should not use the term "suicide" in a case like this until it has been ruled as such. This should be so obvious that I am amazed to even see it at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley: I would have appreciated a notification that you intended to indirectly criticise me here, in a matter entirely unrelated, for reasons entirely unknown. I absolutely stand by my reasoning that the British legal definition of a political party is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based and hosted in the United States. The British courts and legal system have jurisdiction over Britain. Before going after us, maybe you should go after the reliable sources in Britain, such as the BBC, that have been saying Sargeant "took his own life". AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing in the linked sources (or elsewhere at first glance) which says that you can not or may not call it "suicide" legally, but you may say "took his own life" without any problem. One source linked above[49] says that "commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future trial", but makes no distinction between using "suicide" or "taking his own life" or any other way to say the same. It seems to me that the problem isn't with the word "suicide", but that technically we (or the BBC, Times, ...) shouldn't speculate about the cause of death in any way or shape. This seems an untenable position. Fram (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And to that end, we're at least saying "reportedly took his own life", not a firm/conclusive statement, but equivalent to what the reliable media is saying. We're fine - this is how we handed Robin Williams' suicide before it was ruled that (which took several months before it was confirmed). --MASEM (t) 15:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I have no problem with handling it this way, but I was amazed at the claim "We should not use the term "suicide" in a case like this until it has been ruled as such. This should be so obvious that I am amazed to even see it at ANI." when I couldn't find any indication that the term "suicide" is the problem, and not the "alleged" vs. "definitely" aspect. When there is reasonable reason (from reliable sources) to presume suicide, it is perfectly allright to write "presumed suicide" or any of the other terms for the same. Avoiding that single word seemed weird, but was alleged to be a problem (and even an obvious one). Fram (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's specific concerns are correct as they stand. UK editors are bound by UK law on any material they edit. Likewise UK law is clear on pre-empting coroner's verdicts, however unless you are a news organization, they are highly unlikely to ever be prosecuted under. The reason most UK sources use 'took their own life' is a combination of the above (don't call it a suicide before a coroner has confirmed it, 'suspected suicide' is as close as they get) and that UK consumers of media generally prefer a lighter touch with issues involving death. Rather than the more exact but less emotional 'committed suicide'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a slightly silly conversation, nowhere in the world is it possible to say with CERTAINTY, how someone died until/unless post-mortem, police investigation etc. Suicide/ murder/ accident or other are only suspected until that time - except when obvious natural causes of course. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But in England it's possible to have a coroner verdict saying he killed himself, but that it wasn't suicide. In that case should we use the normal English word with its normal English meaning, or should we use alternaive phrasing? (I'd prefer almost anything over "committed suicide" - died by suicide; killed himself; took his own life.) DanBCDanBC (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a content or style dispute, not a behavioral problem (except the IP committing to spamming and/or NLT-sounding comments). Editors interested in the general problem of "to commit suicide" should perhaps participate at WT:MOS#Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article instead of expounding here. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a similar issue come up while editing an article in which information usable to order precursors for military nerve agents had been placed into the article in violation of several provisions of Title 18, US Code carrying lengthy prison terms.
    I finally reported the issue to Wikimedia Foundation Legal as our guidance suggested. The attorney I corresponded with told me that while WP:NOTCENSORED was final guidance regardless of where our servers are domiciled, legally troublesome edits are often not encyclopedic edits. In that case, WP:NOTJOURNAL was sufficient to remove the overly detailed (and helpful to would-be terrorists) edits. Other editors and I were able to make an informative encyclopedia article that didn't have troublesome details in it.
    So, even when publishing certain information might be a Federal felony in the US, where wikipedia's servers are located, Wikimedia Foundation's legal staff suggested that the correct guidance was not to censor, because WP:NOTCENSORED is controlling guidance for us, but to determine whether the troublesome information is encyclopedic in nature. In the case of the term "committed suicide" raised by the OP, none of the sources seem to actually have used that exact term. Each source used a circumlocution which avoided that precise term, so concluding that the subject of the article "committed suicide" could be WP:SYNTH. The issue is that some paraphrases actually go beyond paraphrase to suggest the outcome of an inquest, and that could violate our guidelines. loupgarous (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thucydides411

    Closing this thread per consensus to close. No judgement on possible outcomes. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The matter is now open yet again, at Arbitration Enforcement. Obviously, there is no consensus here for sanctions, as of now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is about Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    He keeps on reinserting this comment [50]

    As well as throwing about accusations of bias and censorship. [51] [52] [53] [54] and other PA's [55]


    All in less then 24 hours (there is more, but I got bored at this point).

    I asked him to stop

    [56]

    His response was

    [57]

    I even asked on the articles talk page for everyone to stop

    [58]

    This is now turning into an edit war over the offending comments.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What I object to is the constant removal of my comment on the talk page, but the preservation of the personal attack directly above it. If you want to remove personal attacks, remove all of them, rather than keeping the personal attacks made in one direction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not removed any personal attacks, just asked users to stop posting them, you choose to re-insert a (twice) PA. PA's are never allowed even in retaliation for others.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now removed all the personal commentary there ([59]), including the personal attack against Marteau and the one directed against me. Those were directly above the comment of mine that was removed. You can't remove one comment in the name of civility, while preserving personal attacks directly above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but n o you have not, just your interaction with Volunteer Marek.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've been reverted and it's all back in again: [60]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thuc, you've been warned on numerous previous occassions not to refactor other users' talk page comments. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what happened here is that my comment was removed in the name of civility (not that I refactored other people's comments), while the personal attacks directly above were not removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, thank you for volunteering the time and effort to make this report. I wonder whether it belongs here or better at AE, in light of the two prior Arbcom Enforcement sanctions against Thucydides411's and now this escalation of disruption at American Politics articles under DS? SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to correct the record: I received exactly one sanction (not two, as you claim). That sanction was under the "reinserted material challenged by reversion" clause which has caused so much trouble and confusion, and which was subsequently removed from the page. I appealed that sanction at the time, and the majority view of the admins commenting on the appeal was that the sanction was unwarranted. However, the sanction ran out before the appeal came to a conclusion, so the appeal was considered moot. One admin commenting on that case called the sanction a miscarriage of justice. I asked for a decision precisely because I expected that in such a contentious topic as AP2, editors would try to leverage that sanction into future sanctions, as is happening now. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitration enforcement sanctions I regret seeing you misrepresent so easily verified a fact: first sanction and then the second sanction.
    I haven't misrepresented anything, and you should strike that falsehood. As you can see, the second sanction was struck. And you're very familiar with the first sanction, and the fact that on appeal, it was viewed as unjust and incorrect by most admins who commented. You've been hounding me for over a year now, as a look through my talk page history will show, so you're very familiar with all this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to set the record straight, here is my appeal of the first (and only) sanction: [61]. It was closed on procedural grounds, because the block had expired. MelanieN said about that sanction, "I am distressed that no-one has done anything about what seems to me to be an obvious miscarriage of justice here." NeilN said about the sanction, "Appeals are supposed to review the decision. I believe based on the evidence presented, the decision was in error." NeilN also said, "It's not really fair to Thucydides411 to have this appeal rendered moot simply because the block expired." -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your convoluted solipsistic denial of your AE blocks is old news by now. No need to repeat. I hope you don't bother to attempt to explain away your other sanction. Tha Admin's notice speaks for itself. Your aspersions against me without diffs are themselves basis for a block or ban. And if you try to cherrypick a few diffs, just remember that others can easily look up the context and see through any spinmeistering you might decide to attempt. And really, ANI is not smart place to try that sort of thing. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You've told me (directly above) that it's important not to refactor other users' comments. I was restoring my own comment to the talk page. I objected to removal of my comment on grounds of civility, while personal attacks against me, directly above my comment, were preserved. In any case, I removed my comment, along with the other personal attacks, but have now been reverted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thucydides411 has a valid point, he only reinserted it 3 times.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't remember what policy this is in but I'm pretty sure restoring comments isn't a 3RR exception. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Technically, the talk page is not under 1RR, just the regular 3RR. Which he also broke. Note also that Thucydides411 was topic banned from this very article (it's pretty much the only article he edits, he's an WP:SPA) by User:Lord Roem for exactly this kind of behavior [66]. The topic ban was for BOTH trying to edit war non-consensus text into the article (which he has now resumed - it still has no consensus - and which is what prompted this renewed exchange on talk) AND for misbehavior on the talk page (in that case it was restoring disruptive comments by an IP).

    There's also a more serious matter here. Thucidydes411's comments directed at me have nothing to do with the article itself, but they bring up (in a dishonest way) an ArbCom case I was involved in ... EIGHT years ago. Back then I was naive enough to edit under my real first name. The linking by Thucidydes to that case is then not intended to bring up anything specific but to just intimidate and WP:HARASS. This is particularly true in light of the recent ongoing vandalism and harassment on my own talk page by throw away accounts. These accounts are making "we know who you are" kind of edits and Thucydides, observes my talk page, and is surely aware of that vandalism. He's playing up to them (I'm assuming it's not actually him) by posting the link to the eight year old arbcom case and because he knows that bringing it up will irritate me in the same way that the vandalism is meant to irritate. He's basically trying to pile on.

    The Russian interference article is more or less the only thing Thucydides411 edits on Wikipedia. He's a single purpose account. And he has a long history of disruption on that article (though because he gets reverted by others, mostly the disruption involves unproductive edit warring and posting rants and accusations on the talk page). It's way way way way past time he was banned from this talk page. That part is pretty much a given. The fact that he's now decided to use the talk page to engage in harassment and attacks - and since this is all he does on Wikipedia - clearly establishes that he's WP:NOTHERE and really - not gonna mince words here - should be told to leave the project (until he can figure out how to be a constructive editor). He's contributed almost nothing and has just caused constant headache and strife. And that's putting it nicely. Volunteer Marek  19:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to my comments on the talk page, you brought up my old sanction - and then accuse me of harassment when I raise your related sanction as well. What was the purpose of your raising my sanction, if not to intimidate and harass me?
    You can look through my edit history and see that I'm not a single-purpose account. That line of attack falls apart pretty quickly when you look at the article's I've written and improved, having nothing to do with American politics (e.g., Felix Bloch just yesterday).
    The lack of self-awareness above is astounding. I don't think I really have to go into specifics. Everyone who frequents this page knows what I'm talking about. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "you brought up my old sanction " - yes, the sanction for that very article and for that exact behavior. You brought up random shit from eight years ago that had nothing to do with anything, except possibly the throw away account harassment on my talk page. And people can look at your edit history and see for themselves how much time you've devoted to this article compared to others. Volunteer Marek  20:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we take the above as a no then?Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sort of unreasonable to ask someone to not respond to attacks made against them. Saying one will only oppose a block if the defendant doesn't defend themselves just puts the defendant in a Catch-22. In any case, as I've said, I don't have time for this nonsense. You guys can proceed as you wish. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason that I suggested you avoid ANI is that your responses haven't helped you at all. Everyone on this board can look at the diffs and editor histories for themselves. My offer technically still stands (if you have questions, comment on my talk page and not here). Separately, I think this thred should be closed in favor of the WP:A/R/E discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: I have been following that talk page for some time and I am struggling to recall a single PA initiated by Thucydides. His uncivil comments are always or if not, in almost every case, in response to uncivil comments. The problem of uncivil comments is solved by preventing them not ignoring them. It is unfortunate so many editors chose to apply a double-standard removing only his comments, which may be evidence of another fundamental problem. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trying to avoid it as much as possible. The Marek/EEML stuff clearly doesn't belong (and edit-warring is always unacceptable, especially on talk pages); I have no strong opinion yet on anything else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable decision. My understanding of WP:NPA and WP:TALKNO is that no personal attacks belong. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason for this was the reinsertion of blatant PA's, it does not matter if others were made, they were hated. It was the attitude of "but my PA's must remain to balance the other PA's" I found problematic. MArak at least has the savvy to not remove off topic material form a hat.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think Thucydides411's actions are appropriate here, but I will agree with the statement that differential treatment of multiple PAs from different editors is not helpful. Either they all should have been hatted or all should have been removed. I do think Thucydides411 has a point their comment (a clear PA) is being treated differently than the comment it is in response to (VM's, also a PA by the same measure of discussing the contributor, not the content). However, that gives no reason to edit war on re-inclusion or to remove all others, particularly when they are involved. This is probably a case due to the DSes where admins watching that page should be doing a better job to stall any descent towards PAs ASAP by hatting threads going that direction, rather than let it get towards the point where PAs happen and then we get situations like this. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mad Hater -EEng
    I may have missed something, whose PA was not hated?Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Haters gotta hate. EEng 21:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As the person who did the hatting: my intent with these edits [67][68] was definitely to hat all of the PA's and keep the rfcs from going off the rails. If I missed any it was purely accidental. Unfortunately that prompted some extensive monkeying with the hatted thread, as people on both sides of the debate (if we can call it that) tried to remove stuff that was directed at them and/or restore stuff they'd directed at other people. [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]. That's what this last edit of mine was about - I was just trying to restore that thread to the state it was in when it was hatted. The other one was removed wholesale by VM, which I have no problem with - but selectively removing or un-hatting parts of a hatted thread after the fact is not appropriate imo. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    Given the attitude shown above to a very lenient offer I think it is clear this will just continue, even after a wikibreak (enforced or otherwise).Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't helping. GoldenRing (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    You seem to share Thuc's suspicion of the majority of your fellow editors here. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the majority, SPECIFICO. Cjhard (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I don't know if this is the right place or WP:AE, but a topic ban on this article is long over due. Thucydides411 impact on the actual article content has been minimal - precisely because consensus is consistently against him. Yet he's managed to waste a tremendous amount of editor time with his obstinacy, talk page disruption, derailing threads, dragging down the level of discussion with rants and accusations etc. But like I said, given that now he's making comments solely with the intent of provoking and irritating people, an indef block wouldn't be inappropriate either. Volunteer Marek  08:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opppose Not really, none of the diffs above really struck me as personal attacks. I see the word "you" being used which is fine in a discussion. More importantly I don't see any actual incivility, but comments that are about article content and the position of editors, not ad hominem - and these sorts of comments I would say are not sanctionable. I see two comments that might be over the line, and others that are just padding the complaint. A warning would be fine for those. I would say considerably more is required for a topic ban then the diffs presented in this report. I've seen worse.Seraphim System (talk) 09:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. This is an WP:SPA who creates disruption in the narrowly defined area of their interest. Their recent comments on the article talk page are very clearly a disruption aimed at another contributor, nothing else. Article talk pages exist only for debating improvement of content. The user was previously sanctioned twice in relation to WP:AE. Therefore, I think this needs to be decided on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This can be a very tough topic to edit, and I don't think singling out action against one user would be a good solution. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not really that hard to edit in this topic space as most of us manage to do. Some editors single themselves out with conduct that others find disruptive and tendentious.- MrX 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm not seeing talk page disruption outside of the hostile behavior by many editors there that Thucydides411 is only a part of the problem. Yes, Thucydides411 is approaching WP:TE, and as I learned at GamerGate, that's when one should back off and maybe take a wikibreak, but being active on talk pages to discuss how to present content in an encyclopedic fashion is exactly what talk pages are for. As long as they are not disrupting the main article(s), there's no reason to block here. I will though offer that Thucydides411 should voluntarily step back for a week or so. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think that removing clearly inappropriate comments from article talk pages is OK. However, repeatedly restoring clearly inappropriate comments on article talk pages is not. That is what he did. If anyone else did the same, they must at least be warned. However, this contributor was already sanctioned twice. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically only once: the one in Feb 2017 for edit warring on the mainspace page. The second "sanction" was reduced to a warning on review. Here we are talking about the talk page (which is not under the same restrictions within the AP DS, though is under the same DS overall), and a frustration of seeing very selective enforcement of NPA. This is a trouting situation, but one that all editors should be aware that will not be tolerated in the future. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was reduced to warning only because he promised not to do exactly what he's doing (again) now. At this point a sanction would be preventative, not punitive, since there's no indication he intends to change his behavior. Volunteer Marek  16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, I don't know how familiar you are with the Amercian Politics articles, but if you look over the talk pages where Thuc is active, you'll see that nearly every thread comes down to his personal disparagement of other editors, claims that their editing is motivated by personal POV, ridiculing WP policy as a bunch of meaningless acronyms, and so forth. His harrassment of Marek is not the only problem. I hope you have time to look at a few links I have posted below. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from American Politics and
    • Support Site Ban. Thuc has been sanctioned twice in this topic already. He routinely mischaracterizes content disagreements by editors trying to reflect mainstream sources as POV-pushing. He accuses editors of following their personal opinions and engages with disparagement and denigration rather than discussion of content, sources, and policy. This behavior is not only at the Russian Interference article; it's on other related articles as well. For those who are not familiar with his conduct, here are some threads that demonstrate his personalized battleground style:
    [77]
    ANI
    [78]
    And meanwhile he’s been going after Marek on a long list of pages for a long time and has been politely asked over and over to stop.:[79]
    What's particularly weird, to me, is why Thuc would think that these years-old irrelevant ad hominems against Marek would hold any sway over current editors Thuc is presumably trying to win to his POV? It seems to me he is so invested in personalizing routine editing communications that he doesn't even realize that the overwhelming majority of editors thinks these ad hominems are useless and beyond the pale. The AE thread concerning Thucydides411 should also go forward. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I seem to recall multiple prior sanctions in this area (including previous topic bans), and at least two failed instances of someone admin shopping to try to get me sanctioned over some of the most laughable complaints in this subject area. This is an editor that has no business in politics, because the systemic problem this editor is "only" a part of is, in large part caused by this editor. Even if that weren't true, surely removing part of a problem is better than ignoring the problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose because the matter is being addressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thucydides411. Putting aside double jeopardy, it seems awfully inefficient and time-consuming to go through the same exact debate at two different drama boards. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Oppose because all editors should be instructed that comments about user conduct do not belong at article talk pages. More than this editor have been spouting off at the article talk page, regarding user conduct issues. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related articles, primarily per Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes who summarize the tendentious conduct quite well. Of course this is an exercise in futility because the usual wikilawyers and drive-by commenters have shown up to excuse this behavior. This is why I raised this issue at AE before I realized that the issue was opened here.
    Thucydides411 has persistently engaged in assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, edit warring, refusal to abide by consensus and general tendentious editing at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections for nearly a year as part of his campaign to inject his fringe POV[80], that election interference by Russia didn't happen, into the article. He has been warned several times at several venues to stop but he continues to exhibit a pattern of behavior that is disruptive and a drain on everyone's patience. These last personal attacks on Volunteer Marek are way over the line.
    Recent evidence
    1. November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring)
    2. November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring)
    3. November 12, 2017 Restoring blatant personal attack after it was removed by another editor. (Edit warring)
    4. November 12, 2017 Blatant personal attack and personalizing disputes.
    5. November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith: "This just looks like an attempt to hide the mainstream view of the JAR from readers. Given the discussion above about "purging" the article, the intent of this RfC is quite clear."
    6. November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith
    7. November 12, 2017 Assumption of bad faith
    8. October 11, 2017 Personalizing content disputes
    9. July 4, 2017 Refusal to accept consensus
    Setting aside the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks, and documented history of previous sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS, the more insidious issue is Thucydides411's polite but persistent horse beating in a transparent effort to discredit, disparage, undermine, and deny the well-established fact that Russia interfered with U.S. elections on many fronts. He has wasted far too much editors' time pushing a fringe point of view. It is nearly impossible to show this through diffs, so I refer you to his 48 comments here: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive_12 as representative of these less obvious problems.- MrX 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of your comment describes a content dispute in which Thucydides argues to include the most commonly-held evaluation of the December 2016 intelligence report (JAR), that it was lacking in evidence. This is not a FRINGE position:
    ''But security experts say that the document provides little in the way of forensic "proof" to confirm the government's attribution" - The Hill
    "The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." - Ars Technica
    "The evidence presented was light on details" - Washington Post
    "But the evidence in a report, in which the administration referred to the Russian cyberactivity as Grizzly Steppe, fell short of anything that would directly tie senior officers of the G.R.U. or the F.S.B., the other intelligence service, to a plan to influence the election." - NY Times
    "Such was the case last week when the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a technical exposé of Russia’s hacking that industry experts are slamming as worse than useless" - The Daily Beast
    Thucydides has not suggested adding this criticism (some of which was stable content removed out-of-process) unduly or to any section outside the one specifically dealing with the report. If there is bias it is in the push to obscure this majority opinion. Currently the article attributes all criticism to "persons" (not security professionals or experts) quoted in Süddeutsche Zeitung, a publication most english-speaking readers would be unfamiliar with, and multiple editors have argued against expanding or incorporating further criticism. I asked on the talk page for expert evaluations which dissent from the majority criticism. None were provided. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that has nothing to do with the conduct issues I've outlined. It is currently under discussion in two RfC's, which notably are trending toward not including this material. The personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are documented above. The insistence by Thucydides411's that we call the Russian Interference alleged is indeed part of the pattern of POV pushing that I and others have pointed out. - MrX 20:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This personal comment was in response to a personal comment on a talk page that has been awash in personal comments. What would be productive (as Masem suggests) is strict enforcement of NPA with a warning for first time offenses and escalating blocks for subsequent offenses. Given the relatively few regular participants in this article (and topic more broadly) enforcement would be trivial relative to the multitude of ANI and AE complaints. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - no action should be taken. There was no disruption by the accused. Atsme📞📧 20:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I recently mentioned to you on an article talk page, when you so frequently make such outlandish statements in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, one strains to take any of your comments seriously.- MrX 20:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on Russian interference in U.S. elections. The most recent incident wouldn’t be such a big deal if it didn’t follow eleven months of casting aspersions on those he is unable to convince and restarting the exact same settled debates over and over and over. A huge time-drain. No opinion on whether the ban should be broadened beyond this one article. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we agree on a timeline?
    1. 8 November 2017 - SPECIFICO removed content critical of the JAR report which had been present in the article since July [81] (Various editors then removed and restored it, leaving it removed)
    2. 9 November 2017 - Geogene removed further (stable) criticism of the JAR report (Various editors then removed and restored it, leaving it removed)
    3. 10 November 2017 - Geogene removed further (stable) criticism of the JAR report (Various editors then removed and restored it, leaving it removed)
    4. 10 November 2017 - I added content critical of the JAR report (which was reverted)
    5. 12 November 2017 - Thucydides restored the previously removed material (which was reverted)
    If there are errors in that timeline you may edit my comment to correct them. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am talking about eleven months of disruptive editing. Not five days in November. O3000 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    On closing this in favour of AE action

    Originally a response to the !vote of Anythingyouwant above. GoldenRing (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually the matter is not being address the, it was raised there but pretty much is not being dealt with for the reasons you state.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the AE case is open, hasn’t been postponed, and no admin has pointed to this ANI thread that you started, or suggested that this ANI proceeding come first. You say at AE “We should close this (or that) and only have one running”. It is entirely within your power to close this ANI complaint, but you have not. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because I am not sure which is more appropriate for this discussion. But I am not sure it is serious enough to warrant an AE as I am not sure he has been previously alerted to the fact they are under discretionary sanctions. If I am wrong and he has been warned then maybe AE is a better venue, has he? You will note I have not commented on the AE, as I do not fell at this time it is valid, but as I said please point out of I am incorrect.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You said at AE that “We should close this (or that) and only have one running” but you decline to do so. You started this complaint, and User:MrX started the complaint at AE. Please close this thread, and if the AE case is closed then this one can always be re-started. It is too confusing right now to have simultaneous proceedings. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me for laboring a point, but why should this be closed? Also if an ANI was closed I was not aware it could be re-opened, thus double jeopardy comes into play. This has had input, the AE has not (and was only launched after this had been going for some time). So (again) I ask, has correct procedure been followed to launch the AE?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I find he has been informed about discretionary sanctions (but there may be an error in that he was informed, not that he informed anyone), so am requesting that this is close doe to the AE being open. But only to keep this in one place.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The person who opened this thread has requested that it be closed. I second thatcrequest. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Please note this is a request for a procedural close only, not a withdraw of the complaint on the grounds I was wrong. It is solely based on the belief that there was forum shopping going on here, and that we should only have one complaint open, not that Thucydides411 has decided to mend their way, and will no longer be disruptive (I believe they will be).Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me add I am disturbed that an involved edd choose to close this. I have no issue with an involved edd closing it, but not someone who basically told me to ask for a close.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You can close it yourself. When an OP says a matter is resolved, anyone can obey the OP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not (and has not been) resolved, just moved to another forum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is resolved for now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So far there is no any sign that any uninvolved admin on WP:AE will address the request (it may be completely ignored and archived - there were such cases). Therefore, closing this discussion here is premature. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So editors now have to give their viewpoints in two separate forums on the exact same matter, or else risk that the matter will be decided without their participation? That makes no sense, User:My very best wishes. I have never heard of a complaint being reopened against the wishes of the OP. This is becoming a circus, unfortunately. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something to be resolved by uninvolved admins, rather than by contributors involved in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No it has not been resolved, and if you are using my request for a close to claim that then I have no choice but to withdraw the request on the grounds it has not yet been revolved, and the question of his actions remains open.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A request for a close means the matter is resolved for now, and will be addressed somewhere else before it is addressed here. That doesn’t seem complicated to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys just need some patience. Wait for a couple of days, and this question will be resolved by others, one way or another. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:My very best wishes, I have not edited the article in question since October 1, and I really have no idea what the dispute is about. If I want to analyze the dispute and give my opinion, where would you suggest that I or other editors dive in, here or AE? Or do you recommend that uninvolved editors just stay away from the matter and let it be decided by the involved editors? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that the discussion has progressed somewhat here and nothing has really happened at AE, I would suggest continuing here. Any admin who acted at AE in the face of a discussion here would be fairly open to accusations of acting against consensus; although admins are allowed to act unilaterally on AE complaints, if they decide differently than a consensus here then the chances of the action being overturned are fairly high. GoldenRing (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This was in essence my original point in rejecting the request to close this. I withdraw the request to close as are at least doing something here (unlike at AE, which seems dead).Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've closed the complaint at AE as on hold in favour of the discussion here. I imagine this will be resolved one way or another here, but didn't want the complaint to get lost there just in case. I think I've managed to prevent it from being archived, but if someone with more familiarity with the workings of sigmabot could check for me, I'd be grateful. GoldenRing (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A temporary ban

    As the Topic ban does not have clear consensus how about we go with an enforced version of an request made to Thucydides411 above and go for a 48 hour topic ban. I think a message does need to be sent that his actions are not acceptable (unless anyone here thinks they are?).Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No one who makes edit summaries like this one when their only "evidence" of political editing (a blatant violation of AGF, of course) is throwing around EEML-related accusations should be editing a politically charged topic. For crying out loud, that was almost a decade ago, and Marek's offense was mild enough for his editing restriction to be rescinded within half a year. Now, in the mire of this thread, I don't know where to place this, but I support a topic ban--a broad one. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary restored text removed by SPECIFICO who has no connection to EEML, so I don't see the connection between the removal and the comment. It is also incorrect to say this decade-old case is the extent of evidence.
    When a discussion like this is forced (introducing ever-higher burdens for inclusion, first that a source isn't reliable than when that's demonstrated, that its author isn't an expert, then when that's demonstrated, that it's still undue, etc.) for every bit of criticism month after month, that is arguable evidence.
    The crux of the current removal is that an 11-month-old review of an 11-month-old paper is out-of-date [1][2] which is specious as the content of the report has not changed, no more recent, thorough reviews exist (if so they should have been substituted) and the article includes multiple uncontested "11 month old" sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    commentThis user has already had two Arbcom Enforcement sanctions against him and his behavior has continued to go downhill, capped by the total meltdown that prompted this ANI. He's still denying his misdeeds above, trying to explain away his two DS enforcement actions. This is a WP:NOTHERE editor and I think there's plenty of evidence on this thread that he lacks the personal maturity to engage in collaborative work here. It's not just Marek he's abused. He's gone after MPants, @Geogene:, one or two Admins, me, and I forget who else recently. This is a huge drain on editor time and attention. He's been warned over and over (and over) and we need to cut our losses and ban him. He can apply to return some day in the future. A short wake-up ban is meaningless when he's not responding to such warnings. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - the discussion here should be enough to make the editor aware there's a potential problem. Rope. Atsme📞📧 20:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. This huge ANI thread started with this: “He keeps on reinserting this comment [82]”. I recommend that everyone take a good hard look at that comment, and the one immediately preceding above it. They were both inappropriate comments about user conduct at an article talk page, and penalizing only one of them would be rewarding the other editor. Warn them all and drop the stick. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban - per Anythingyouwant and Atsme. I can't see the utility of a 48 hour topic ban that wouldn't be served by a clear warning not to engage in conversations about editors' biases on article talk pages. Cjhard (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeff. The user repeatedly restores his clearly inappropriate and unjustified comments on article talk page to attack other contributors [83]. Still, he claims to be a victim himself and refuses to discuss [84]. Their overall contributions to the project [85] look like "net negative" including the discussion above, a couple of sanctions and previous ANI engagements [86]. I would say, just block the account indefinitely and forget about it. Save some time.My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Discussion on that page has been heated since it was created almost a year ago, and the conduct that's obtained there has been unprecedented in my experience. For that reason I (essentially) no longer edit the article, and I suspect many others feel the same way. In this particular case, I think that these two edits by Volunteer Marek [87],[88], e.g.
    "Thucydided, you might really consider NOT edit warring over this material seeing as how this is *precisely* what you got topic-banned for from this article for, although it was later reduced to a warning by User:Lord Roem. And when I say "precisely", I mean, precisely.Volunteer Marek 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)"
    were certainly an escalation (not sanctionable, just typical for the page) because they contained an implicit threat. In that context, Thucydides' response was exactly in kind [89]:
    "People living in Eastern European Mailing List houses shouldn't throw stones. Marek, how many Russia-related articles have you edit warred on in your 10+ years here? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)"
    VM defends their comments as being appropriate because they are describing Thucydides' drama at the page in question. But VM says Thucydides' comment is inappropriate because it refers to VM's past EEML drama, to VM's continued Russia-related editing generally, and is in VM's words [90] "an obvious attempt by Thucydides to intimidate."
    It's simply implausible to maintain, on an acrimonious page, that you can threaten someone by bringing up past enforcement/near-enforcement [91][92] to shut them up, and not expect an equivalent response [93]. All of the subsequent efforts to remove Thucydides' response, but not VM's, just come across as disingenuous, whatever their intentions. It also looks like WP:GOADing, as JJLambden mentioned.
    And speaking of WP:GOADing, SPECIFICO's particular obsession with Thucydides (in the last 6 months, half of the "new sections" on Thucydides' talk page are threats of enforcement from SPECIFICO) deserves some investigation. SPECIFICO insists on frequently threatening administrative action on user talk pages when any one of a set of editors who edits or comments on this or related articles (myself [94], Thucydides411 [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106], JFG [107], Bob K31416 [108], TheTimesAreAChanging [109], James J. Lambden [110]).
    This looks like the definition of WP:BATTLEGROUND. And I'm honestly curious what percentage of SPECIFICO's edits are enforcement threats on the talk pages of long-established editors, usually referencing the kind of incivility or edit warring SPECIFICO is simultaneously engaged in. The whole environment on the page would be a lot friendlier if their egregious conduct was not being condoned. -Darouet (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Darouet, aspersions are not permitted here. Please present your diffs of me edit-warring? You won't find any. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Darouet, a reference to a recent topic ban is not exactly the same as a reference to a topic ban (lifted by ArbCom after a few months) from the last decade. What is it that you and your friends want? Improving the encyclopedia is not it, I know that. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies:, if VM brings up enforcement drama to "intimidate," his own drama is also on the table, and ten years of still-ongoing edit warring over Russia topics after EEML is as pertinent as any other behavior. Again, it's not reasonable (actually, it is disruptive) to demand that VM can launch this kind of enforcement threat / ad hominem, but that a reply in kind is sanctionable. Which is what you're arguing.
    As for my own concerns about the article, a large number of criticisms of the US intelligence case have been presented piecemeal in RfCs and each, independently, eliminated, so that the overall effect is to present only the official US perspective. Russian sources are not allowed to be cited in the article. The BBC's consistent, guarded editorial policy on every one of their platforms since day one — to write about this as "alleged interence," or "possible interference," etc. — is treated as a fringe and disruptive POV. That is strong evidence of an article and talk page atmosphere that's in deep trouble.
    In the mean time, SPECIFICO has been harassing editors who disagree with them with impunity. I've seen Thucydides411 repeatedly try to address content issues while facing replies that are ad hominem, vulgar, stupid, or worse. And I have the sense that you and MelanieN, while you don't personally behave like this, condone the behavior because you agree with the POV. The result is that acrimony runs wild on the page. So there are a lot of problems with the article. I'd suggested a dispute resolution on two occasions to handle this, but the idea wasn't popular. That's too bad because I think the only way to handle this issue would be through a mediated discussion, which forces everyone to edit collegially. It might also result in an outcome that no editor is happy with (including myself), but if that outcome were arrived at in a reasonable fashion, it would nevertheless be far better than what we have right now. -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Darouet, no. That old stuff is no longer relevant. I am sure that other admins feel the same way I do: if you don't have better evidence, if you have to resort to that, we don't need to take you as seriously as someone who can find real arguments. You're tarring and feathering, when (again--did you miss this?) the sanctions were lifted. Meaning VM had been a good boy. So it's over: I am going to consider such comments (depending on context) as personal attacks, hoping you will use this as an incentive to stop beating that horse. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Darouet, I just asked you, after your previous disparagements here, not to make aspersions about me without evidence. In response to my simple request on your talk page you come back here to do more of the same, even more? Your WP:NOTHERE, battleground theories of this project are beyond my comprehension. The amount of disruption you cause -- not just in politics articles (see this WP:TE slap -- is not worth whatever contributions you may have made here. And I note an aggressive pattern of tag-teaming and backscratching with Thucydides.[111] [112] [113] Do you discuss these edits or invite one another's comments off-wiki? Please don't be offended, but I see that you became very active here as Thucydides himself ramped up his American Politics campaigns and I happened to see this message on your talk page. I'm just asking a straight question. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do you discuss these edits or invite one another's comments off-wiki?" No. And while I'll provide more diffs shortly (I am pressed now), these three warnings that you placed on my talk page when we first began editing together are typical [114][115][116]. In the first one you accuse me of edit warring, but don't include diffs, and when I respond with diffs showing you're editing exactly as I am, you ignore those diffs, and don't provide any yourself. In the second post I've linked, you don't include diffs, and when I reply with diffs, you ignore them and drop the topic. In the third post, you again provide no diffs, and end up making a series of ridiculous "you are sexist" comments. -Darouet (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this supposed to be evidence of, exactly? Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil, by the way. Cjhard (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't agree with your sense of MelanieN, I agree that the general problem in this area is a result of inconsistent enforcement of Wikipedia's policies in the AP2 area. The idea that this [117] kind of behaviour is acceptable on any article talk page, let alone on a talk page under discretionary sanctions, needs to end. AP2 has gotten so toxic that MPants_at_work's suggestion below doesn't seem that bad, but that approach isn't really required. All that's required is that administrators apply the same policies to all parties in the AP2 as would be applied elsewhere. Cjhard (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a couple of quick diffs above. It's a conspicuous pattern. Editors in the AP area have seen it. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my sense as well. I suggest that everyone involved be put on notice that further PAs or excessive battleground behavior is not cool (and will result in blocks) as part of that though. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Should not the merits of the case be what matters, not why some editors are making their choices?Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course! And personally I support a topic ban at minimum, but unfortunately it's already pretty obvious that there isn't going to be a consensus for any particular action here. The thread is already in TLDR territory for anyone who isn't already invested in this debate, with bickering by the usual suspects drowning out & driving away uninvolved editors (hey, that's the same issue we have on the actual articles talk page - what are the odds!) Just put everyone on notice that the community is sick of this crap, and that the next PA or battleground violation will result in a topic van of non-trivial length, or worse. Then when it happens again (as we all know it will) it should be a pretty simple matter of taking it to AE with clear diffs and a link back to this thread. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyddlestix, This matter is already at AE (with the discussion suspended pending the outcome here) so IF nothing is decided here, the AE process, which relies on Admin judgment, will resume. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Scope of the ban

    I see that various editors are discussing "ban" in different senses. Some refer to a ban from the single Russian Interference article, and some are referring to a TBAN from American Politics, presumably as defined by ARBAP2. I don't think it is viable, and it's not usual practice, to limit any TBAN to a single article within a topic that has so many related articles. The underlying content and sourcing issues and the active editors overlap across many articles. I'd urge folks to speak pro or con in contemplation of a TBAN as defined by Arbcom in ARBAP2 "Pages related to post-1932 American Politics, broadly defined". SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As this will only cause drama. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • I would suggest closing this thread (no one commented for a day) and reopening it at WP:AE. So far only one uninvolved admin (Drmies) commented above on the essence of the issue, rather than procedures, and I think their comments should be taken into account on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    AE is a more appropriate forum, agree. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. ANI is useless for these types of matters which is why there were two Arbcom cases, and why I created the AE request in the first place. @GoldenRing: please reopen the AE request. Thank you.- MrX 15:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not object is this is moved to AE.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As Goldenring said above, "although admins are allowed to act unilaterally on AE complaints, if they decide differently than a consensus here then the chances of the action being overturned are fairly high." I urged people to move this whole thing to AE, but consensus was to resolve it here instead. We shouldn't just go back and forth between ANI and AE until there's consensus for sanctions. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe GoldenRing is mistaken. See WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications.- MrX 20:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what part you’re referring to. It says “Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction”. It’s not for appeals by editors who failed to get a sanction on someone else. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    GoldenRing was not acting on any explicit authority to suspend the AE thread, and he did not say it is closed, only in suspense. The reason Arbcom gives enforcement of its mandates to Admins and to AE is to avoid the kind of free-range chickenpucky that everybody knows is the norm here at ANI. In fact, cases are accepted at Arbcom usually because ANI has failed to find a resolution. So this needs to go to AE. It has nothing to do with double jeopardy or forum-shopping. It has to do with ensuring Thuc gets a fair and orderly review before any new sanctions are imposed on him. And BTW, there's always the possibility of American Politics 3 -- a new, full-formed Arbcom case, if that's what it takes to get the fringe stuff and the aspersions and other time sumps cleared up. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I urged above that this go to AE, but people preferred the free-range chickenpucky here. Now that the free-range chickenpucky has not worked out so well, they want to go to AE. What a farce. I have long advocated that Wikipedia adopt a jury system where editors are picked at random to decide stuff. Instead we have free-range chickenpucky everywhere. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it looks as if "people" was the single Admin who hatted the AE thread without warning. I was in mid-post when it happened. There's no reason why Thuc couldn't be banned by both a community ban and an AE ban. So I don't know whether there's any particular reason to close this prematurely. It's belt-and-suspenders. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anythingyouwant: I mispoke. Two things are possible. 1) No admin imposes a sanction at AE because of the lack of consensus in this ANI report, or 2) a sanction is placed, but overturned on appeal by a consensus of admins or a consensus of editors at AN. I would be surprised and very disappointed in #1 happened, because AE is not supposed to work that way.- MrX 23:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Once there's an AE ban, AN cannot reverse it. Community and AE are different birds. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it can, if there is consensus of uninvolved editors, unless the sanctioned editor appeals to ARCA first and is denied. See WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications: "For a [appeal] request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN...".
    I've never seen an AE sanction reversed at AN and unless I'm mistaken, I think this would be an unlikely event. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As I recall the AE was closed under the explicit understanding that if no decision could be reached here it would go there. Also (as I recall) I was told by some users to close this, rather then keep the AE open.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I hatted the AE thread but added a template to prevent it being archived. The request is on hold, not closed. I'm not sure the rules have ever been clarified around whether that counts as an AE action that can't be unilaterally overturned; I don't consider it as such and if an uninvolved admin wants to reopen that thread then they shouldn't feel they have to ask me. I'll leave a note there saying so shortly. I hatted the thread in part because it's just unproductive to have the same discussion simultaneously in two different places. And in part, as I said above, if an admin acted unilaterally at AE and then a consensus emerged here that contradicted that, it would almost certainly be overturned anyway (not to mention cause a lot of drama). Yes, it's possible for non-contradictory sanctions to be issued here and at AE, but it's also possible for there to be clear consensus against a sanction here and a sanction to be issued at AE. It was then too early, I thought, to say whether any consensus had emerged here, or was likely to, so it seemed best to let the discussion develop here. GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hatting the AE request was out of process. (See WP:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Dismissing an enforcement request - Note: "Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions."). AE requests are for presenting evidence of misconduct identified in Arbcom cases. Any consensus or lack of consensus here is irrelevant to those proceedings. As I have previously explained, ANI has consistently failed at resolving these types of conduct issues, which is why Arbcom and AE exist in the first place. @GoldenRing: Your comment above seems to suggest that you still expect this discussion to develop and that a consensus might emerge. If it does, that would be a remarkable anomaly in my experience.- MrX 12:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrX: As I've explained above, I didn't dismiss the request. While, yes, an admin can act against consensus at AE, as I've explained above, I think it would be unusual and unwise to do so. I didn't hat the discussion to prevent it being acted on, but the prevent other editors wasting their time having the same discussion here and there. I agree with you that this discussion now seems unlikely to produce consensus and if it's closed as "no consensus" then I'll immediately re-open the AE report; I don't have time to do the reading I'd like to do before closing it myself today. And, as I said, if another uninvolved admin wants to re-open the AE before this is closed, they're free to do so. GoldenRing (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Trolling

    I am a victim of trolling by a Wikipedia user User:Deb who made racially motivated remarks about my background, gender and religious believes on my Wikipedia talk page, as well as making various unfounded accusations about me. I have complained about this person's actions to the police. Trolling is not good for Wikipedia. Regards--WikiRecontributer47 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No diffs from you, just a legal threat. You've been here long enough to know better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been through every single edit Deb made on your talk page. There is not a single remark about your gender, background, or religious beliefs. The only statement she made is that your editing shows a poor command of the English language. Either provide specific examples, retract the statement and apologize, or I will block you indefinitely for personal attacks. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This same issue was opened at WP:HELPDESK#Trolling; please choose a single forum for this discussion, to avoid appearance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And likewise with no diffs, but with the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And in response being told they needed to retract said threat: "I have not made any threats...and I have reported this to the authorities". Given the continued and doubled-down WP:NLT violation, combined with what is either a blatant case of WP:CIR or trolling on their part (the things they are accusing Deb of saying, using direct quotes, were never said), I've blocked. If they retract the legal threat, nobody need hesitate on my part to unblock them so this can be hopefully resolved, even though I personally don't see this ending in any other way but one. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've interacted with WR47 for years and I've got no idea what they're up to at the moment. See this note I left them a few weeks ago where they deleted a load of content that they'd added to an article. Note that this thread was started after WikiRecontributer47 was listed at COIN by Deb. See also my earlier comments at COIN about WR47. Their edits seem dodgy and they're failing to communicate. The Bushranger (talk · contribs) has already blocked them, but regardless of legal threats, it seems to me that a block is merited. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No comment on the "regardless of legal threats", since I've not looked into it, but this is not a NLT situation — NLT is meant for "If you don't do X, I'll sue you", "...I'll sue Wikipedia", and the like. It's not meant for "This person broke the law, so I've requested law enforcement, and would you please stop him on-wiki too?" Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frivolous or not, "I have complained about this person's actions to the police" warrants a block, particularly absent any actual problem that would warrant such a statement.. This thread is an attempt to harass behind a (flimsy) veil of legal accusations. Acroterion (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to argue about why the block was warranted. I support the action of multiple administrators. However, the behavior of the blocked user was just weird, and raises competency issues. The OP gave this thread the heading of "Trolling", which may have been an accurate self-description. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that what the user made does constitute a legal threat given what I've seen enforced in the past, and how "legal threat" is defined. However, I absolutely acknowledge the lack of wording on the policy page in regards to threats of this exact kind and in this situation here, and I think that this may potentially be problematic when it comes to enforcing this with confidence as an administrator.
    If you read through the policy page, the summary paragraph links to the article Legal threat, which says that "[l]egal threats take many forms. Common to all is that the party making the threat will take some form of action of a legal nature. Most common is the threatened initiation of a lawsuit against the second party. Other threats might include an administrative law action or complaint, referring the other party to a regulatory body, turning the party into the legal authorities over a crime or civil infraction, or the like." However, the NLT policy page only references and makes examples to situations where editors threaten litigation (or to sue or file a lawsuit against another in court) and not a threat to involve legal authority such as the police or other law enforcement agency.
    In the end, I think that we should acknowledge that the NLT polict page lacks reference to these threats specifically, and (if worse comes to worst) perhaps seek clarity for certain if the NLT policy includes these specific kinds of threats as well. I, however, believe that they do. If anything, such threats are disruptive and only cause damage to discussions by destroying them and making attempts to collaborate and improve the project harder on others. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom line is "has the user stated they have, or will, take action or actions that will result in legal consequences for another user/other users/Wikipedia? If (y) = NLT applies". 'I have reported to the police' qualifies, especially when appended 'as trolling is illegal in the UK' (not sure if that statement is true or not, but they explicitly said that). It's a blatant attempt to at least imply 'you're in legal trouble now'. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are users seriously suggesting that if someone say, threatens a user with physical violence, that user could be blocked under WP:NLT for stating that they have notified the proper authorities? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the person making the threat would be blocked so fast they'd ablate on the way down... - The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not getting into the specifics of this particularly case, you are frankly wrong here. I have reported multiple editors to various legal authorities for a number of reasons in the past - child protection being the main one. The WMF was/is amazingly bad at acting on child protection issues, and since 2 of those I reported for child protection issues were subsequently hit with SanFranBans (and one of those was under active investigation in the UK) I feel pretty confident I was correct. If you make threats of violence I will report you to the police. If you act inappropriately (trying to get personal contact with an underage editor being a big one) I will report you to the relevant authority. 'I have done X' is not a threat, it is a statement of fact. You cant retract something you have already done. If an editor makes RL threats against me, and I report them to the police, and then you block me for stating I have reported them to the police, you will very swiftly learn that the error of your actions - the WMF is not going to be drawn into a situation where it gets labeled as punishing the victim. 'No legal threats' is for editors who are making threats of legal action in order to enforce an on-wiki outcome. It is not carte blanche to block people who have reported actual or potential illegality to the relevant authorities! Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: I understood The Bushranger to mean that the person making the threat of physical violence would be hastily blocked, not the person reporting the threat. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I know, I was addressing his previous remarks where he made it perfectly clear what he meant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. I don't think this should have been an NLT block as CIR would have more than sufficed as a block rationale. Also, I find it amusing that the OP filed this under the heading 'Trolling'. It's fitting, but not in the sense the OP intended. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Using your example here: Even if the response to the threat of physical violence and stating that you're going to contact the police wasn't a legal threat, it's certainly a trout-worthy response if anything. Taking the disruption and and other factors out of the equation... what's the point of making that response in the first place? Wikipedia is not the place for this, and the user who made the physical threat at you most likely isn't going to care... if anything, it's only going to feed and encourage the user to continue threatening you; it's getting a reaction out of you and that's usually what they want. Anyways, I'm not going to delve further into this example. I see this getting way off topic, so I'm just going to leave it at that :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    'Don't do that or I will report you to the police' is a legal threat per the policy, 'I have reported your actions to the police' is not. Its not a 'threat' under any definition of the word in common usage or under Wikipedia's definition. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are deep waters here. Because of roles I fill in RL, there are certain situations that I am legally compelled to report to the police (or, in certain situations, other relevant authorities); it would be a serious offence for me not to. And OID outlines some situations above where just common decency would ought to compel people to report situations to the police (child protection situations and so forth). But WP:NLT doesn't forbid doing so; it only forbids doing so and talking about it on-wiki. If there are users who are involved in a legal dispute with each other whether as a direct result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, it does not constitute a valid reason to block them, as long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia. So if you see something that needs reporting to the police, report it. There is no need to talk about the report here. If the police decide to follow it up, they will probably not thank you for warning the editor. GoldenRing (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I have no indication whatsoever that this is one of those situations or that Deb has in any way made me doubt whether I should be contacting the police; this was a general comment on the policy question, not on this situation. GoldenRing (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    GoldenRing is correct, and I apologise if I was making things unclear: yes, by all means, if there is a clear-cut incidence of breaking the law, it should be reported! But saying on Wikipedia "I've called the cops on you" is something I can't see being helpful in the vast majority of situations, if not all of them. Make the report (to the authorities), request a block (from an admin), and ignore (the waste of oxygen). And to Only in death's last comment - by that intrepretation of the rules "I have filed a suit against you" is not a legal "threat" and it would be wrong to block someone for it...I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This has wandered off into hair-splitting, and perhaps is best continued at the NLT talkpage where we might improve the policy writeup, but I will note that I've called the police about things on Wikipedia that clearly needed police attention (back in the days before the WMF had a procedure) as a matter of public safety. That's very different from what appears to have originally precipitated this thread, which more or less amounted to "I think you're bigoted and I'm complaining to the police to have you removed from editing Wikipedia." As others have pointed out, CIR applies equally well under that circumstance. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The responder would have been better off not bringing up anything about calling the police. Mind the old saying, "Don't give away your trade secrets." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Zimbabwe - heads up

    Just a heads up that there are strong rumours of a military coup in Zimbabwe, with Reuters reporting tanks heading towards Harare. May be worth keeping an eye on related articles, including Robert Mugabe, Emmerson Mnangagwa (the sacked vice president), and Constantino Chiwenga (head of the armed forces). DuncanHill (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi DuncanHill - Thanks for the heads up. If any of these articles start experiencing a high level of disruption by many users, please let us know at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and we'll definitely take a look. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We've got a new 2017 Zimbabwean coup d'état attempt page now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mnangagwa, which is almost certainly a better location for any further discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Military takeover confirmed, the General called The Crocodile is taking over. Expect NPOV to go out of the window on these pages. TomBarker23 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shyamravi dumping large quantities of copyrighted reviews onto Mersal (film)

    User has been blocked and an appeal to UTRS was declined. Nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 02:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    On November 9, this editor was warned about copyright violations by administrator @Cyphoidbomb:, who suppressed the edits [118].

    Today, despite repeated additional warnings to cease the behavior [119][120], and lastly a final warning [121], this editor has continued to dump large quantities of copyrighted text from movie reviews onto the Mersal (film) article. Examples include [122], [123], [124] and more.

    At this point, he is edit warring in an attempt to force copyrighted content from movie reviews onto the article, in violation of our policies on using such content. After the final warning noted above, he restored the copyright violating content yet again [125]. He has refused discussion. Not a single edit of 122 edits to date [126] has been to any talk page anywhere on the project much less his own user talk page. I am requesting he be blocked from further editing until he agrees to abide by our copyright policies. Editor has been notified of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Will clean up, and will follow up on user's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Excessive, hasty deletion nominations by a new editor

    ReeceTheHawk (talk · contribs) is a new, young editor who seems very keen to get involved in administrative tasks. Unfortunately they do not appear to be applying the level of competence required to do so. In a short span of time several editors have asked Reece to slow down or adjust their activities in a number of areas ([127][128][129][130][131]), but particularly with regard to their poorly thought out nominations for deletion ([132][133][134][135][136] and WT:AFCR#Unreviewed drafts at MfD). They generally haven't responded to these warnings (except rather hostile responses to WikiDan61 [137][138] and Magnolia677 [139]) but have removed them from their talk page which I assume means they have read them. Unfortunately they have not heeded them, and today nominated a further ten articles for deletion, almost all for dubious reasons, several of which have already been speedily closed. I don't relish pouring cold water on his enthusiasm for Wikipedia, but we all know that spurious AfD/etc. nominations take up a lot of volunteer time, and when applied to drafts or new articles they can be confusing and excessively bitey for other new editors. I think at this point we need admin intervention to get Reece to back off behind-the-scenes tasks until he is prepared to do his due diligence in learning our policies and processes. – Joe (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I for one have !voted WP:SK per criterion 1 on one Afd that was subsequently speedily kept and closed this one for the same reason. I've also placed what I believe is his third caution or warning on his user talk page. I think there needs to be a marked improvement, or failing that, a halt in Afds, or risk a temporary topic ban. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yours was his fifth warning about deletion specifically, by my count. Reece's habit of quickly removing messages from his talk page seems to have the effect that multiple editors are telling him about the same thing in quick succession, perhaps unaware that he's already been told. – Joe (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I might have thought a couple weren't warnings but messages -- but anyway, I see you've speedily closed more of his Afds. His nomination statements typically combine some form of vague WP:IMPERFECT statement with a suggestion of merging or maybe being unnecessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I warned him/her about not having a valid reason for deletion in virtually all of their nominations. The next nom s/he produced had a valid reason.198.58.171.47 (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jumping in here as an involved admin. I left a message for Reece offering such assistance as I could provide after I'd seen his AfD nominations for a couple of days (these two were the first I came across, and I'll admit to having been attracted by the remarkable article titles!). While he deleted that message shortly after I left it, my offer of assistance does still stand. I'm yet to see any evidence that he's deliberately here to disrupt, so much as very enthusiastic and perhaps making the mistake of jumping in head-first without proper guidance. My offers of assistance are always contingent on the fact that I know what I know, and can point the other user in the appropriate direction for others with more specialised knowledge, so if that or my involvement in the matter makes me less useful to assist, that's fine by me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A new user. Early edits to WP:RFPP. Picks up Twinkle pretty quickly. Lots of spurious AfD and MfD noms from early in their editing history. My sock sense is tingling. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lugnuts: Not saying they definitely aren't a sock, but I think it's hasty to suspect socking when a new account quickly tries to get involved in administrative tasks (heck, I did). Ironically, an IP contributed to this thread above and took the time to contact the user regarding their conduct. If this IP suddenly registered and continued editing in the same way it currently is, it would fall into the same vein. Home Lander (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted to his talk page three times warning him that he was headed for trouble. I'm a nice IP. Re socks, as far as I can see, a named account is as likely to be a sock as an IP account... but that is neither here nor there. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I left a detailed message on ReeceTheHawk's talkpage here discussing the use of tags on an article, including "much has been written about...how to use tags appropriately, such as Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and Wikipedia:Responsible tagging. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the established practices for the types of edits you have chosen to make". My message was deleted, after which this editor continued to tag articles unnecessarily. For example, at Sae Rojanadis the article was already tagged as having no sources. Then ReeceTheHawk tagged it here saying it needs additional sources. This editor has been cautioned and advised many times, but seems determined to do it his own way, which unfortunately, is not an improvement. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (My Response) - Hi guys, thank you for all your messages and suggestions, I have took them on board and have made and will make a few changes to my editing from now on.
    I really did appreciate the suggestions I got from some of you. Magnolia677 not being included because he usually makes excessive, volatile, and unhelpful suggestions and messages to people, as we have seen with him in the past. However I did like the suggestions / messages I received from 198.58.171.47, and BigHaz, as they really know how to get their point across in a good, appropriate manner. Thank you. ReeceTheHawk (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReeceTheHawk: Since you appear to want to take the community's advice to heart, I recommend a less confrontational communication style on your talk page. Deleting other users' messages without replying is somewhat dismissive, and gives the appearance that you don't care about the opinions of others. A simple "thank you" or even "sorry, I don't agree with that" is more constructive. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good to hear, Reece. I'd also recommend not immediately removing messages from your talk page. If nothing else, it will stop different editors warning you about the same thing multiple times, which I imagine is frustrating. If it gets too long, you can archive the older messages. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReeceTheHawk: I'll third those comments about not just removing the comments, particularly if you feel they're constructive. Even if nothing else, it allows for a bit of clarity if (for example), someone comments and says "I'm not sure why you tagged XYZ for deletion", you can then reply directly below them and outline your concerns, they can reply to you and so on. Gets harder to do that when the earlier interactions are hidden away in the page history. Speaking of which, I've got a quick suggestion I'll make on your Talk page in a moment. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I made this kind of mistake. Have a look at my talk page. Just saying, I don't think he's a sock. TomBarker23 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - ReeceTheHawk was explicitly cautioned by me here about tagging stub articles with a "lead too short" tag. He deleted my caution, and then tagged another short article that had no sections here with four tags, including a "lead too short" tag! So, User:BigHaz left a second personal message here telling ReeceTheHawk to avoid tagging short articles with a "lead too short" tag. ReeceTheHawk doesn't seem to be listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which Reece then removed with a response which I would describe as "obfuscatory" at best. I've replied to his reply (and WikiDan has remarked on his removal of text again), but I will admit to having my assumption of good faith being tested here, particularly in light of Reece's earlier comments which sounded a bit more positive. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final warning issued. Please report any further problems here, or on my talk page, and I'll block him. There's being a newbie (we all were once), and then there's being a bull-in-a-china-shop newbie, bouncing from disruption to disruption, not listening to advice (with an attitude problem too). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a report per se, but I'm a little concerned with Reece's response, which I'm sure you've seen but just in case. The wording of "I won't do any of those 3 things again" sounds promising, but having grown up with two younger brothers I know it can just as easily mean "I'll do something else unhelpful instead, and complain that I wasn't told not to". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ReeceTheHawk:: Good to hear. Given your previous responses to advice and suggestions, though, I think you can see why I was sceptical. I'm happy to be proven wrong here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting block of troll user

    Problem editor User:Simply-the-truth has been involved in long-term edit-warring and agenda-pushing across WIkipedia, particularly at Michelle McManus (due to a clear personal dislike of the subject). Has had multiple talk page warnings for his behaviour (many of which he has removed),[140] has butted heads with many constructive editors, and has been identified as a "troll" by multiple users.[141][142] He recently followed me from Michelle McManus's The Meaning of Love (album) to Dark triad to make a WP:POINT-y revert, brazenly restoring vandalism that I had undone.[143] I can't believe he's avoided a block thus far. WP:NOTHERE. 95.213.136.218 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, removing warnings is ok. Secondly, only one person is calling him a troll. I believe he might be just unaware to some BLP rules. Though, the Dark Triad revert is a bit worrying, but I would wait and see if his behavior changes. (Sorry I sound a bit rough, I haven't been active in 4 months). —JJBers 00:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amisom

    Editor requested I take them to admins [144], so I did:
    I have concerns that User:Amisom's edits and behaviour need further scrutiny, with possible immediate action to stop multiple PRODs (and AfDs), in particular:

    Seems disruptive / borderline WP:NOTHERE.

    Comment from Amisom: Widefox has a very unhelpful attitude. They have repeatedly accused me of disruption, just for making points that they disagree with - eg calling the Campaign Against Antisemitism afd “disruption” just because they want the article kept (other users have argued for deletion) - and they have even accused me of “forum-shopping” by starting a discussion on an article talk page. It’s just silly and a bit OWNy. Amisom (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Good link - it sums the disruption well "(general behaviour to be taken up at ANI per issues on user's talk). Point is, when reverted by two editors in 24hr and still don't discuss on the talk, then taking straight to AfC with a non-neutral nom (even !voting) may give the impression of going against consensus and WP:FORUMSHOP. When the RfC is about something that doesn't apply, then it appears disruptive." [172] (of course it's not forum shopping on the talk, but it's a malformed, against edit consensus, non-neutral RfC with no previous discussion per WP:RfC indicating editor doesn't need to discuss their edits, doesn't need to follow RfC discuss on talk first, doesn't need to engage on talk 2x BRD BRD and has contempt for the current consensus, shorthand FORUMSHOP although not one) Widefox; talk 14:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also @Widefox:'s criticism of me for using the refernce desk - which is a long-standing feature of Wikipedia - is silly. They're clearly just looking for things to complain about and should be given a quiet WP:TROUT and asked to move along. Amisom (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Amisom: Multiple editors have warned you on your talk for months about disruption "..misrepresentations.." "We don't decide things by straw polls at local pages." [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] only warning [179] [180] Dismissing even admins with "you're not an admin I don't want to hear from you" "..accusing others of behaviour that is just not true.." rollback removed, NOTHERE accusation . None of those are me. Can you answer the above first? Especially rapid deletions without performing WP:BEFORE (B, D) even (and when asked that, don't answer [181]) but give a personalised uncivil answer "Duh", and the AfD where nobody agrees with you due to lack of BEFORE. How this is a plus for WP? Widefox; talk 18:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not going to answer you at all. Amisom (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's me now, but over 10 editors on your talk recently, right? You dismiss all (including admins) as non-admins and refuse to discuss, which you were even warned about by another admin! [182] Widefox; talk 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm. Well your thread’s been here 12 hours now. How many people agree with you that yiur complaint is valid? Amisom (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Widefox: 36 hours now. Anything? Amisom (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No sign from this editor yet that they will stop this disruption, no. One more editor complaining about them here, yes (see below). Widefox; talk 03:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Your behavioural issues should be discussed here, not at the AfD.) Widefox; talk 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies I'm concerned about mass PROD, AfD without BEFORE yes. (the refdesk is a miniscule point about NOTHERE) I stand by my dePROD there and said take it to AfD where it was uninimous Keep. Would it have been deleted if I hadn't? A good edit. What about all the other PRODs, AfDs? I don't know what's going on, all I know it's an editor against consensus on most of these deletions, claiming GNG failure when there's 30 sources etc. This is not new - POV removals accused here by an admin "MO..remove content you don't like, even if it's properly sourced..." [184] Widefox; talk 20:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just saw this report and have to add today’s experience with Amisom, an editor I have not before encountered. I am attempting to rescue a section of Card counting which Amisom has deleted three times. I made it clear in the edit comments and in discussion with them that I am continuing my attempts to salvage the section. The editor is Wikilawyering on my Talk and the article’s talk while I’m trying to work on the article. Although I have reduced unsourced text substantially, added refs to the article, and am researching further refs, the editor has just deleted my work. This is not helpful. O3000 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I deleted it because it was unsourced and quite contentious (accusing casinos of systematically “harassing” their customers is a biggie to throw in without a reference). You restored it in direct violation of WP:BURDEN which says that unsourced material should only be restored WITH sources, not before. Come on. Don’t break an explicit policy and then accuse the other guy of wikilawyering. Amisom (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first mention you've made of the section being contentious. If you’d like me to add all the lawsuits casinos have lost for harassing players, I will. (Actually, there is already a ref in the article.) But, you are making it difficult to work on the article. Particularly since I need to move text between sections. I didn’t write the section in the first place. But, it is worth salvaging. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not pettifog. O3000 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged the section to request help. Amisom doesn't appear interested in improvement. Only disruption of efforts at improvement. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering-look-over-there-desperation - @Amisom: read WP:REDACTED allows "add links". ([191] = adding titles to links, and links, [192] = ditto, didn't bother checking more) . I will not respond to this nonsense again. Widefox; talk 10:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Great news Amisom (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Report of vandalism by unknown user.

    A user with multiple IP addresses is constantly removing information from articles. His recent edits are shown here. He also thinks he is an administrator and he keeps on suggesting things like one [193] [194] [195]. It is requested to block this IP address from editing so a future edit war can be prevented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U1Quattro (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Those diffs only illustrate fine-tune improvements, not removal of information. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP's edits are all just minor improvements. No vandalism at all.198.58.171.47 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not "suggesting things like an administrator", that's perfectly normal editing and improvements to the article. The OP is directed to WP:NOTVAND. And for future reports of actual vandalism, WP:AIV is thataway→. That said, I was originally going to close this with the prior statement, but after looking at the history of Koenigsegg Agera, I'm concerned about the OP's conduct there with regards to these edits: here the summary claims the IP edits were "misleading" (they were not) and restores a poorly-worded section the IP had cleaned up, while they included a "you will be reported" warning here on...a revert of a link to an essay that isn't even visible on the page and isn't clickable. Combined with their claims of the IP "thinks he is an administrator and he keeps on suggesting things like one" which is blatantly not the case, I can't help but be concerned that we have a WP:CIR issue brewing here. I'm not suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG yet, but I think some mentoring might be in order perhaps. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, especially as the complainant has only been here for 10 days and (AGF) may be kind of clueless. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Annabella (actress)

    Annabella (actress) has some weird damage that I don't know how to fix or revert.64.175.41.99 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's similar to the section above regarding the background page, I've purged the page and that should be taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We need to start a vandal hunt. Somebody has figured out how to damage pages like this, and we need to stop it quickly. I'll look at the edit histories and look for any common factors. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC) There's no shared usernames. Either we have a sock puppet ring, or lots of editors have worked out how to hack the system. TomBarker23 (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's hard to see an effective protection against this, short of protecting all templates (a new use for ECP, maybe?). The collateral damage would be large, but since these reports are trickling in at more than one a day now, it may be necessary. Removing particular editors who figure out how to do it is just security-by-obscurity. Tracking down which template is causing problems is also still pretty painful - time to start dusting off my show-me-the-source-with-all-templates-transcluded tool that I never quite got working. GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see how it was done but probably best not to broadcast it! Suffice to say the vandal is blocked, the template protected and what people were reporting here were the pages’ server cache, which can be cleared by purging the pages. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to take a calculated risk in the hopes of getting something done about this: it was Template:"' (I found it using Special:RecentChanges, but only after it was reverted - I can provide the filters I used but they won't be useful in finding active vandalism), which is a redirect to a protected template that is used in citation templates. When protecting a high-vis template, please also protect all of its redirects. ansh666 19:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent, well done. Sockpuppetry, was it? TomBarker23 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Changes made to article not reflecting source

    User:Jaco IV has made a number of reversions to the List of Champions section of the Lega Basket Serie A article that are not consistent with what the given source says. I raised the issue with an admin (@GiantSnowman:) and he reverted the changes, but on being reverted himself suggested I try ANI.

    The most recent change he has made is at [196]. The concerns with the changes are as follows:

    • Generally not following the source at the Italian federation page
    • Changed team names not as source
    • Removing calendar years for seasons
    • The same source has been added to the Performance by club section, but this does not reflect the information in that section, as the winners are not summarised by title but only listed by season
    • Removal of a note relating to Milano clubs; re-adding the reference I removed about a revoked title, as this does not reflect the federation's summary source

    In general the user does not put in edit summaries of these changes, or makes minor comments not providing many details, and has not put forward reasons for his changes that are reflected by the sources. Eldumpo (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by TrentonDaniel2003

    After a change was made to a page I keep track of (Mariana Trench) to place scare-quotes in the lead of the article (specifically: In 2009, Marianas Trench was "established" as a "United States National Monument" – [197] and [198]), I had a look at this user's contributions list. (User:TrentonDaniel2003)

    There seemed to be an overuse of the "minor edit" flag, which was slightly concerning. After looking at some edits more closely, it seemed there were some rather major edits that I'm having trouble believing were in good faith. I placed a message on their talk page ([199]), which got no response but was blanked.

    One concerning edit was [200]. It seems to change large sections of the Superpower article, in particular modifying sourced quotes and sourced sections, as well as removing some quotes, so as to place the Soviet Union in the list of superpowers. (This also involved removing cited material in the 'Potential superpowers' section, and no addition of citations. The edit has since been reverted.)

    They also seem to be engaging in edit warring on the List of wars involving the United States page. (As this is not solely about an edit war, I didn't think I should place it in the relevant section, though I've never reported an incident before.) The original edit was here, which was again worrying – it was marked minor, and had a vague edit summary ("Specifications", which seems to be a justification used on other edits). This was then reverted, but the user then re-reverted it. It was again reverted, and today (just three minutes after they blanked my message on their talk page) they again re-reverted it.

    Since I tried to contact them on their talk page first, and it doesn't seem to have been acknowledged or responded to, I thought it would be best to try to get someone else involved who knows more about the process and can handle things better than I can. Thanks.

    Throne3d (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

    User:Nixiao1983 had, on his discussion page, blatantly told editors to "[s]tay away with "visa policy of China", if you do not want to be "Chinese", you can go to US or any other countries". I have no idea if he was responding to my concerns or other editors' as well. The editor recently made changes to Visa policy of China regarding political status of Taiwan without consensus building of any kind, after explicitly stating that "Taiwan is a province of China".

    This user's action clearly broke several Wikipedia guidelines and a separate NPOV issue will be raised in the NPOV noticeboard. C-GAUN (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    nixiao1983 Taiwan residents can apply for passports from People's Republic of China when they visit or live in mainland China. and they can be elected into national congress of China. There is no "Taiwanese" or "nationals of ROC", only "Taiwan resident". Speaking of ROC, how many Taiwan residents recognize it, do you know? GAUN? We can do things democratically if you prefer, ask all Chinese people (over 1.5 B population) including Mainland, Taiwan, HK, MC to vote, what we choose to call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixiao1983 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is obviously another one of those nationalist sorts that periodically pop up. My take would be to nip this in the bud and just indef them now to avoid the obvious time sink. Blackmane (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a POV-pushing nationalistic SPA who edit war to prove his agenda [201] (replacing ROC/Taiwan by "province of Taiwan"). I agree - indeff. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing disruptions from ShaneFilaner

    ShaneFilaner (talk · contribs) is known to insert unsupported/poorly supported changes in articles and often uses deceptive edit summaries to try sneaking things in, most recently by fabricating sales here. He's been repeatedly warned on his talk page not to do so and has been blocked twice for fancruft. Making up a figure entirely for Canada is what got him blocked last time, and I've warned him that his deceit doesn't go unnoticed. It's obvious at this point that he doesn't take past warnings or blocks seriously. Someone needs to block him for continued WP:IDHT actions before he disrupts Wikipedia even further than he already has. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah in this case numerous explanations have fallen to deaf ears. Either a case of WP:IDHT or WP:NOTHERE both applies, but I tend to believe that its the former case. A big block is needed, and an administrative intervention if this doesnot work. —IB [ Poke ] 04:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jasonanaggie

    (The following is copy/pasted from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where User:Kralizec! wrote, "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:ANI." Forgive me if I've failed to follow protocol to the letter. I didn't realize that reporting blatant vandalism would be so difficult!)

    Some diffs might help your case. I agree that some of his edits on the Time line of Russian interference in the 2016 ellection are basically "anything that is about negative US/Russian relations". But I am not sure they are anti-Russian so much as naive in what constitutes "Russian interference".Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, his edits to Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections were the least of my worries. There were a dozen or so articles where he shoehorned in the (alleged) news that "RT officially registered as a Foreign Propaganda Outlet", some of which he inserted multiple instances of the same nonsense, and there have been more edits than I care to count to BLP articles and articles about TV shows where he changed the infobox descriptions to "Russian State Propagandist" or "Russian State Propaganda", presumably on the basis of RT now being officially registered (in his eyes) as a "Foreign Propaganda Outlet". I expect there's more but I grew tired after about an hour of cleaning up his mess. I haven't got the energy to find, copy and paste diffs. Basically, almost every edit he's made in the past few days at least (ignoring the Timeline article) have been variations on a theme. nagualdesign 19:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Okay, in an effort to do some of the leg work for you I went digging for diffs. It turns out that Cullen328 has already had words with him and he (Jason) reverted many of his more inflammatory edits (to BLP articles) himself. Here are just a few diffs in reverse chronological order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23... You get the idea, right? nagualdesign 20:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As the administrator at AIV who recommended that this issue be brought here to ANI, I could not in clear conscience block Jasonanaggie for vandalism after seeing that he had self reverted many of his questionable edits after his discussion with User:Cullen328 on the matter. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to fix the issues in question that were objectionable to a few people, I am sorry if I missed a couple, I will try to get any others that might be objectionable. I am not trying to offend anyone here. Sorry if my good faith edits were seen as malicious, they were not intended as such. Jasonanaggie (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly honest, and you'll have to pardon the expression, but this smells like bullshit to me. This has nothing to do with edits that might have been objectionable to a few people. It's about blatant and rather transparent POV pushing. Moreover, I don't think anybody here has said anything about being offended or felt that you were being malicious, you simply flouted several of Wikipedia's fundamental rules. And now, because you can't pretend to have been unaware of the rules you were breaking, you're attempting to deflect the issue by wringing your proverbial cap and saying how very sorry you are. It's laughably transparent in my eyes, since I wasn't born yesterday.
    As far as I can make out, you were given a formal warning by Cullen328 for labelling perhaps a dozen or so people and organizations as "Russian State Propagandists" - a term which you spun solely on the back of RT America (not the whole of RT) falling foul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which simply means that they now have to disclose financial information - so you undid those edits. Then you changed tack and started inserting what you thought you could pass off as referenced material, notwithstanding the fact that you were grossly and deliberately misrepresenting the source, into any and every article you could. You went back to every article where you'd undone your previous edits and basically made another that you thought you could get away with. In one article you even inserted the same paragraph five times. Perhaps you could explain what motivated you to do that? Or maybe you'd like to say you had no idea that that wasn't a good thing? We're all ears. I'm particularly interested to hear you explain your thought process when you invented the term "Foreign Propaganda Outlet", and whether the irony of your actions is lost on you.
    I'd put it to you that you don't like RT very much. You tried very hard to find every opportunity to 'dutifully inform the world' that RT is the propaganda wing of the Kremlin, and everyone that works for them is some kind of 'gubmint shill'. And now you're going to pretend that what you thought you were doing was becoming of an encyclopedia, right? Okaaay. nagualdesign 00:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized what this notice board was for; I have no anti-Russia nor any other country of origin bias. If it appears that way it may be because I have recently focused on the Robert Mueller investigation into the 2016 United States Presidential Election Interference, it has surprised me how much this subject has blurred across all lines of the Russian Government and Russian Business sector as well. To cover this story it has been necessary to cover many things I didn't even know about before this topic came to the front burner. I appreciate the need to view things from a neutral viewpoint and I appreciate the reminder we all can get somewhat involved in the minutia at hand and not realize how it may seem to someone from a different ethnic background. I truly have nothing against the Russian People, much of my family comes from that region, what I am focused on is the regime of the Russian Government, not the Russian People, these are very different topics. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding that may have been caused by me. Best, Jasonanaggie (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha... "Homophobic? Moi?! Some of my best friends are gay!" Haha... You must think we're all idiots. To be clear, despite another of your attemts at deflection, nobody is accusing you of anti-Russian racism. You're obviously just some sort of conspiracy nut who thinks the Russian government are conspiring against the good people of America, and you'd like to use Wikipedia to hawk your own brand of tin foil hats.
    I find it doubly amusing because just the other day I was having a conversation with a friend of mine where I was arguing that when one finds oneself filled with righteous indignation, chances are that you're about to do something rather foolhardy because you're not really thinking clearly. Then along you came and exemplified my point to a tee! Go on, admit it, you thought you were doing the Good Lord's work, or somehow acting in the interest of the greater good. nagualdesign 00:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was just trying to convey my sense of regret that the actions in question offended anyone, as that was not my intent and I seek forgiveness and will not take such action in the future. This is my mea culpa. Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep up, Jason. I'm not asking you what's motivated these public displays of penitence. They're simply your reaction to being caught out. What I'm interested in is you explaining the motivation for all of these edits you've made. Obviously, if you can bullshit explain your way out of it you'll be off the hook. So I'll ask you again, what motivated you to go back to every article where you'd undone your previous edits per Cullen328's request (BLP violations and the like) and make another series of edits where you grossly and deliberately misrepresented the source? You must surely be well aware that you invented the term "Foreign Propaganda Outlet" yourself, which certainly wasn't how Reuters reported it. That's what we mean by POV. More to the point, why did you copy/paste your POV into one article a total of five times? What did you think you were doing, and why? Please attempt to explain yourself instead of wringing your cap. nagualdesign 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes, I warned Jasonanaggie quite forcefully about his edits to Abby Martin, a BLP on my watchlist, after he listed her occupation as "Russian propagandist". That conversation began on his talk page and continued on mine. I am very disappointed that this editor has continued their tendentious and obvious POV pushing. Perhaps I overemphasized BLP policy since it should be obvious that this style of editing is completely unacceptable on all articles, not just BLPs. I am not sure of the best course of action, other than to say that this behavior cannot be allowed to continue. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: Actually, this is an outcropping of the incident you are referencing, I went back after you had mentioned this and removed anything I thought could be offensive in the way you saw it. I evidently missed a couple and it ended up here. I have not added anything else since you alerted me of this issue. I understood that this was an issue when you alerted me to it and I have ceased such action. Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make this perfectly clear for anyone reading this who hasn't quite followed the course of events. Jason is now telling porkies. Yes, he went back and removed his first swathe of edits where he labelled many people and organizations as "Russian State Propagandists", but 'missing a couple of edits' is not why he's ended up here. As explained ad nauseum he returned to those pages and re-inserted his POV in another form. Since this has been explained several times, and he was already aware of his own actions before being caught for the second time, the fact that he's now misrepresenting what happened constitutes an outright lie. nagualdesign 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nagualdesign: I am going to take the high road here and not respond to your ad hominem attacks directed at me. Personal attacks are not the way to get your message across and I have kept my comments to the issue at hand, not the character of the individuals expressing their views in this discussion. Please refrain from attacking me personally as I won't respond to these types of attacks again. Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out the fact that you are lying, assuming that that's what you're referring to, is not at all the same as an ad hominem, but I sincerely thank you for taking the high road. You're a good egg, Jason! Now back to the questions raised above and the proposal below, since you're online, would you please respond to those. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign 00:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it escaped your comprehension, the lie you told was, "I have not added anything else since you alerted me of this issue." nagualdesign 00:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal - Jasonanaggie

    I'm not sure how this sort of thing is normally handled, since I've never had cause to involve myself in such proceedings. For what it's worth I'd like to draw people's attention to the first post I made on Jason's talk page (before I realized the extent of his edits) and suggest that if he takes the suggestion I made seriously then he might be allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. And by taking the suggestion seriously I mean he ought to be topic banned. nagualdesign 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason logged on over an hour and half ago and left a comment above suggesting that I was making ad hominem attacks. In fact he used the word 'attacks' (and 'attacking') four times in just three sentences! I consider this yet another painfully transparent attempt at deflection. I asked him once more to provide some sort of explanation for his behaviour but he has apparently declined again. Though he has used the phrase mea culpa I'm not at all convinced that he actually understands what it means or is willing to acknowledge what he has done wrong. Saying "I'm truly sorry" multiple times is irrelevant.
    I'm growing tired of thinking about this, to be honest, and unless someone pings me with a specific question or request for comment I won't be returning here for the time being. I strongly suggest that Jason be immediately and permanently topic banned unless he provides some sort of convincing explanation for his behaviour and can answer the questions that were asked (which is never gonna happen). I'll leave it to the administrators to bring this to a swift close so that no more time has to be wasted on this. And thank you to those involved. Regards, nagualdesign 02:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    HRequest for edit deletion

    (non-admin closure)Not even close to a valid reason for revdel. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I want deletion of the edit I made at User talk:Divy(a)95. I have been leaving an edit summary for every edit except the edit mentioned above. I want to have 100% edits with summaries. If the edit is deleted, I shall have 100% edits with summaries. Therefore, I request that the edit be deleted. Thanks for your time. Don'twasteTime 16:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repetitive vandalism of Riaz Mamdani page

    Offending user:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.191.179.66

    Diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riaz_Mamdani&oldid=810648544

    Please note there is repetitive inappropriate and inaccurate editing of "Riaz Mamdani's page". This includes false information about his children, saying he died from liver disease, that he was molested as a child etc.

    Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbagepatch1 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved. Being dealt with at WP:CP To the sound of coconut shells, clippety clop! Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    The article St Brigid's Well has been blanked as a copyvio for over 2 years. It seems it was a copy&paste on first creation, and then dodged a speedy delete bullet. Candidate for Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over? Or is a formal deletion discussion necessary? I'm easy either way, just looking for the most efficient solution. Neil S. Walker (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    By all means, let's esquire.
    –EEng
    For some reason it is not listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Very old issues. I suggest that you esquire on that page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if there are no knights who need attending on that page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps black knights? Blackmane (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add it to WP:CP under today's date for processing. Thanks for notifying. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, sorry for making work for you - had I followed the links I should have thought to do that myself. Thanks for that. I've added a potential rewrite for the page in the usual talk/temp space. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Alaska911

    Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 01:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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

    An evidently WP:COI and WP:SPA editor, User:Alaska911, has been edit-warring with two editors for several days at Alaska Thunderfuck, adding promotional material, WP:BLP vios and non-RS citing like personal blogs and wikia. They have finally resorted to name-calling and threats in their edit-summaries. There has been no talk-page discussion by this editor except for one intemperate, belated post here that did not address any of the issues brought up both on the article talk page or on that editor's talk page.

    Independent of me, User:Geordie has made these detailed observations at the article's talk page:

    • The editor Alaska911 reverted in one fell swoop many corrections of punctuation, grammar, and style, rewording of awkward sentences and paragraphs, and removal of irrelevant, non-notable, and unsourced material.
    • When this was in turn reversed approximately 24 hours later--and after an invitation to communicate on the article's talk page was declined--Alaska911 immediately reverted it again.
    • In addition Alaska911 insisted that any changes to the article (referred to as "vandalism") first be submitted for approval on their talk page.
    • Also, Alaska911 has not responded to assertions they are a SPA and in COI, both of which on the face of it seem to be the case.
    • Plus, Alaska911 has descended to name-calling in edit summaries.
    • And they're using threatening language towards other editors: "how about YOU take it to the talk page dumby or else your gonna get reported because I know a LOTS of admins that can do that for me...."

    --Tenebrae (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As an interested party, I concur with User:Tenebrae  --Geordie (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23 has blocked Alaska911. Great to see Bbb23 back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yukterez discussion page

    Page was deleted and can be recreated as a German-speaking talk page for en-wiki related editing discussions and a link to the old discussions at de-wiki. Nothing more to do here. Regards SoWhy 08:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following problem I posted on the vandalism report page (the answer was to post it here):

    Yukterez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After he got blocked indefinite in the German Wikipedia, he copied the whole user discussion in his English profile without permission of anyone (especially me): User_talk:Yukterez/deutsch. This is a violation of the personal rights of the German users, as he's not allowed to use our German discussion to make the impression, we would have been discussing here. Also the site is not declared as a copy. While the site has been deleted in the German Wikipedia (especially a post, "I would be a ridiculous person"), he's going on with the same discussion here. The discussion is over! Seems so, he's requesting for a global ban... -- Uwe Martens (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • This does not seem to be an en.wiki issue, and just as de.wiki would not be happy if we brought our drama to your pages, I'm not particularly happy seeing it here. I declined the report at AIV, and I'm going to speak out in general against action here unless archiving would violate the polemic policy. We give a lot of leeway on en.wiki as to what users can keep in their user subpages, and I'd extend that to talk archives. For what it is worth, de.wiki has not deleted it, they have blanked the page. The history still exists, and I have made edit summary attribution on the en.wiki archive for copyright purposes.
      That being said, if there is content that would be in violation of en.wiki policies it can be deleted. @SoWhy and Sandstein: would either of you mind looking at User_talk:Yukterez/deutsch and telling us your thoughts on that page. From Google translate, all I see is bickering that isn't any worse from what we have on user talk pages here, but getting native speakers to review it might be worthwhile. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    First, this was not a block but a ban (for exchanging some compliments with an old foe via IP, so no sockpuppets were involved. Also, this little skirmish is not part of the archived talk). Second, if it helps I can link to the original archive instead of pasting the whole conversation, like this: Update. --Yukterez (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (pinged) Sandstein's assessment is correct. I disagree with Tony's conclusion though. We do give users some leeway on what they can have on their userpages and in their userspace but still it should be at least be in some way pertinent to editing this project (cf. WP:UP#NOT). I fail to see how keeping a copy of a German talk page here is in any way relevant or serves any purpose other than to try to continue the dispute from de-wiki here. As pointed out, the original page has not been deleted on de-wiki, so what exactly is the point of this "archive"? @Yukterez: If you wish to edit here, feel free. But unless you can give us a good reason why we keeping a copy of a page that still exists on de-wiki is in any way pertinent for editing en-wiki, you should defuse the situation and just agree to have this page deleted. Regards SoWhy 07:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoWhy: I already deleted the text and linked to the archive instead, see this Difflink. But as you can see here, there were also plenty of open discussions regarding articles in both languages which had nothing to do with the conflict. --Yukterez (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yukterez: The last discussion has been copied as well and thus should be blanked as well. Would you agree to me deleting the page completely? You can then recreate it with just the link to the old page at de-wiki, thus avoiding any of the drama swapping over to this project. I think that would be the best solution. Regards SoWhy 08:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoWhy: Ok, that you can do. --Yukterez (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the records and to illuminate Yukterez's character: He has got several escalating temporary blocks for provocations and personal attacks, beginning with one for a "funny" play with the words "Ofen" and "Auschwitz" [202]. To log out for personal attacks to avoid further damage for the block log is socket play just without puppet. And even now he continues and forges signatures [203]. --Feliks (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That was not a "funny wordplay" but a well referenced quote. In de-Wiki even an original quote from a holocaust survivor was mistaken for a "funny wordplay" although it was referenced. Unortunately, everybody who takes a stance against calling the german AfD (the Trump equivalent in Germany) Nazis is regarded as a Nazi himself by the Antifa, which is very strong on de-Wiki. My old foes from de-Wiki are just trying to import their crusade into en-Wiki by warming up old stories, and because they don't have any Difflinks from en-Wiki they just try to follow me around and comment everytzhing I do until I lose my temper, just like they did on de-Wiki. --Yukterez (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Article title change request

    WP:RM is thataway→. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello! Could an administrator the title of the article for the album Blue Lips to "Blue Lips (Lady Wood Phase II)"? It is the official name of the album according to iTunes. The source is provided in the article. Thank you! AgWoolridge (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been disputed. Published sources and the cover say differently. This isn't the place to request page moves anyway. See WP:MOVE or use WP:RM/TR. Ss112 06:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Assistance needed with COI gone PA...

    RESOLVED
    Blocks and protection provided. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ...on Firebird Skydiving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). An obvious COI with a corporate username - Firebirdusa appeared and started making unsourced alterations to the page. They have been informed regarding COI and the need for referencing, and replied with "google us". I softerblocked and pointed them to the fact that wasn't how Wikipedia referencing worked, and now they are personally attacking editors reverting their unsourced COI edits and making a personal-attack username - Bushrangersmama. I'm amused, but they're well past 3RR when you combine the softerblocked-account, the PA-account, and their IP edits, and the personal attacks are continuing - see the article history in edit summaries, [204] and [205]. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I'm really sorry guys, but instead of helping all you do is block people. If people that run the page would actually know what they are writing about, they would have seen that the information on the page is obsolete and inaccurate. I wasn't aware of any username policy or COI which was my mistake. But again, if you guys don't help new users but only delete and block then, then i guess wikipedia doesn't care that it is full of misinformation. And yes, going on the website that is on the wikipedia page would have made anyone clear that the edits were true. Anyway, if you felt personally attacked, then i'm sorry but you should use your power of admins in a helpful way. over and out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushrangersmama (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We need a big banner at the top of every article that says "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FACEBOOK". People keep confusing us with them. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the user has been linked to the relevant policies and advised to read them, I'm not sure what further help they would desire. (And the only block handed out - so far - was a {{softerblock}} on account of WP:U, so...) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this company even remotely notable? Blackmane (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As a (former) manufacturer of aircraft, yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked Bushrangersmama as a username violation and semi-protected the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:162.72.18.252 is obviously the same editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, but that's not technicaly block evasion as at that point the only block was the softerblock on Firebirdusa, and they had, at that point, chosen to resume IP editing instead of creating a new account. The new, now-blocked account came after that. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Avtr2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants Seatrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deleted from Wikipedia, has been removing content which I have been restoring, and has suggested getting Seatrade's legal department invloved on talk page Jim1138 (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If this was a BLP, they'd have a case, but this is a corporation and somebody needs to let them know they don't WP:OWN their article [206]. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has been fully protected. Jim1138 (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I read them the riot act about WP:OWN and WP:DR, hopefully that will be enough. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm calling WP:DOLT on this one. Even if it does evolve to a full legal threat, Seatrade seems to be a network of companies, and we need to make sure we're actually describing it properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a legal threat. But even forgetting that, the user's COI is obvious. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Failed login attempts

    Today, I received several dozen failed attempts - all apparently within minutes - to login to my account. Has anyone else experienced this? Sort of alarming. Isn't there some way to discern the IP of the would-be hacker? Thanks, GABgab 16:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As to experience, this is fairly common and quite many people have reasons to have a strong bout of admiration for active sysops:) I also recall, that Spiffy was recently targeted by VirajMishra in a near-similar modus-operandi.Winged Blades Godric 16:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I had several hundreds yesterday, and already a dozen today. They were so nice to leave me their IP address, which is 216.25.187.3 .--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: Yes, I'd seen that you had knowledge of that IP, so I was hoping that we could find this one (for a block). GABgab 18:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They do not edit anyway, and I believe they can continue breaking in even if they are blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good chance to remind admins (in particular) to use a unique, strong password on Wikipedia. You may want to run your email address through have i been pwned to discover how frequently your credentials have been leaked elsewhere. And, where possible, use multi-factor authentication, which (happily) Wikipedia supports (don't forget your backup codes!). --Yamla (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of important statistics from reliable references

    The editor RatatoskJones is attempting to systematically remove a vast amount of valid reliable references about the situation in Sweden simply because he personally disagrees with the statistics. I would appreciate if you would tell him to stop doing so, to rather try to find compromise solutions by helping to improve the text flow and structure quality of the pages in question, which are areas that I admittedly have problems with.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RatatoskJones David A (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, I am fine with pruning references one-by-one, if valid reasons are added for each of them, but he opted to remove absolutely everything, with inaccurate sweeping generalisations. David A (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still the problem of WP:SYNTH by combining sources, even if each of them are correct when taken separately. You have asked about some of the sources and their use and basically told the same. See [207]. Sjö (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    David A has been POV-pushing for a while now, and was warned by EvergreenFir back in May: [208] [209].
    This has since continued, with David first gathering links in his user space and trying to get others to insert them for him [210] [211] [212][213] [214] [215].
    The links and pretty much all of David's editing is focused on negative info on muslims, immigrants and Sweden, usually a combination of all three [216]] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] among many, many others.
    Now he has taken to simply insert these sources in various articles, asking others to do his work cleaning up after him [222]. The end result was a mess of statistics without context, misleading text, op-eds and blogs used as sources. Per WP:BRD I removed most of them and asked for talk page discussion. Instead, he dragged me here. Considering the editor's paranoia and constant cries of censorship, as well as the issues mentioned by EvergreenFir in the link above, I do think a topic-ban is suitable here [223] [224]. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should I be banned? I have not broken any rules. All that I have done is note down reliable references about important issues, and then had them all sweepingly removed by RatatoskJones and Sjö, without any collaboration, compromise, or individual justifications. This is extremely unfair, and can not be acceptable behaviour by Wikipedia's standards.
    Having problems with writing a coherent communication flow given my autistic limitations, can hardly be considered as a crime. I have found lots of reliable references, and yet absolutely all of them are being removed. David A (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See here for examples: [225] [226] [227] [228]
    "Blogs used as sources" where? Could part of it have been removed? Yes, certainly, but I do not understand how anybody can possibly justify removing absolutely every single reference that I added to the Crime in Sweden page in particular. David A (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as far as I remember, I went here before noticing the talk page discussion. I am exhausted from working 15 hours in a row with both managing my entertainment wiki and editing Wikipedia today, and was shocked about that all of the information that I had spent several months gathering was just sweepingly removed.
    Am I afraid of Islamism? Yes, obviously, but so is 60% of Europe according to the statistical research that I have read. That can hardly be considered as a valid thought crime in itself, as long as I stick to the rules and only add relevant statistics from reliable sources. David A (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)}When you add references that say a crime went up 1000%, but don't give numbers -- was it 1 last year to 11 this year, or 100 to 1100? -- it's more sensational than useful. When you don't distinguish between occurence of a crime going up and reporting of a crime going up, again, it's more sensational than useful. When enough of your additions have problems like these, it's more effective to remove them and discuss on talk before re-adding. See WP:BRD for an explanation of the long-standing technique. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I see nothing objectionable in RatatoskJones' edits or behaviour, but a whole lot of POV pushing through synthesis and additions of poor sources (and half-truth supported by said sources) in David A's contribution history. As noted above, David A has been previously warned about this, but seems to be doing it still. I would support a topic ban, suitably defined, given the sensitivity of the topic area and the apparent inability to understand the issues here. --bonadea contributions talk 18:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a serious effort to relay the information word by word exactly as the sources state them, and almost all of the references are reliable major newspapers or official government reports. I have my mental limitations, so my editing is not perfect, but if there is a problem with references they should be discussed one by one and then removed. I should not be banned simply due to having read a lot of disturbing information, and turning very worried due to this. Valid references are valid references. That is all that should matter, not what the references say. Only facts matter, not opinions. David A (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)x3 I indeed have my concerns about David A. I was first alerted to this editor on IRC when a link to User:David_A/Important_Fact_Links was posted, containing various sources that view Muslims in a rather negative light. I wondered when I or someone else was gonna have to give him the note that the grim reaper was soon upon him. Based on these continued problems, I think David A needs to stop touching these topics for a while -- take that subpage to MfD and I support an indefinite topic ban relating to Islamic topics, the current refugee crisis and political and societal issues in Sweden. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So I am going to be silenced simply because I cite valid reliable statistics that some people are uncomfortable with, regardless that they are usually correct? That is downright Orwellian, and definitely not how a reliable encyclopaedia should work. All of this is extremely depressing. All that I wanted is some help to add reliable information. David A (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're going to be silenced because you refuse to listen when many different editors tell you what is wrong with the way you're editing. There's an easy way to avoid this, you know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a right to feel righteous, but it is 99% of the time, in these circumstances, not going to be helpful for you. If you review and understand what we are saying, admit that you made some past mistakes, agree that you won't touch this area for some time, at least until you can understand what a reliable source is for Wikipedia's purposes, you might be able to save yourself, and not have a black spot of a topic ban be put upon you. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I suppose that I will do so, but I do not really understand this. Why was absolutely all of the information that I found considered unreliable? I wanted to collaborate to find the relevant parts.
    I have almost no mental information filters thanks to my autism. I cannot find any sense of mental personal security due to preconceived ideas. All that I see are the statistics. Raw information, and little else.
    If you mean that I should collaborate more, I am perfectly willing to do so, by discussing what should and should not be included, and asking for help given my mental disabilities.
    Also, I have not been "POV-pushing for a while". As I have repeatedly stated, I work 7-12 hours a day taking care of my entertainment wiki. I haven't had the time to make almost any edits for many months. I finally overexerted myself this week in order to add various references, but beyond that, there has been extremely limited activity on my part. David A (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been "POV-pushing for a while" -- Whatever you say, David. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have barely had any time to make any edits for the past few years. I am busy being a bureaucrat for one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis. All that I have done is make some occasional talk page posts asking for help. David A (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody please explain to me why all of the dozens of sources from major newspapers and government reports were considered as unreliable? David A (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with my editing? What should I change? What is allowed to be added and what not among my references? I am extremely exhausted, confused, and disoriented at the moment. David A (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to adjust my behaviour according to Wikipedia's rules, but I do not understand this situation, and need to have it explained to me. My social orientation ability is very limited. David A (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not ignoring you BTW. I am just on my phone, which makes for slightly more difficult editing. I'm sure other editors can fill the gaps, but I did discuss to you about adding the Daily Express as a good source for discussing immigration. I'll back to you with something more detailed when I get back home. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but I have no problem with that. You were clearly an impartial knowledgeable editor who told me concrete logic about the references that you removed. It is the wholesale removal of 50 or so references, without any solid explanations that I had a hard time accepting/understanding. It has taken me years to notice them all, and lots of work to edit them to Wikipedia format. David A (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I am about to fall over from sheer exhaustion, and have to go to bed soon. I suppose that I may wake up to some extremely bad news tomorrow. David A (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, I do want to note that I have always tried to stick to Wikipedia's rules. I simply did not understand why there was anything wrong with adding references from reliable sources, regardless of somebody's personal conclusions or viewpoints. I am not good at all with bureaucratic intricacies. David A (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you start with a predetermined notion and then selectively trawl the internet for sources supporting that notion, you will certainly find a lot of supporting evidence. But that is not the way to write an encyclopaedia, that is the way to create propaganda and fall pray to confirmation bias. You need to follow the Baconian approach: First collect and view the data, then come to a conclusion. Or, on Wikipedia, where we don't do original research, check how experts view and interpret the data. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is what I have done. I used to be a PC leftist until I started to gradually actually read up on the statistics. (Nowadays I am a centrist with extremely mixed viewpoints, as you can see in my userbox list.) I do not claim to always understand the information correctly, especially given my ADD, but as long as the information can be verified to be accurate, I do not understand why it should be removed. David A (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have broken our rules by tendentious editing, David A. Your additions that were removed fell foul of our policy on due and undue weight. The references may have been reliable — some of them were, some were not — but all were arranged into a tendentious pattern. Not everything that's true, and that's even reliably sourced, belongs in every article. From David A's posts above, he seems to have difficulty taking these distinctions on board, and to grasp the difference between "true" and "belongs in an article". I therefore propose a topic ban of David A from Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or muslims. I'm not sure my phrasing would cover the problem; please feel free to make a different suggestion, especially users who are more familiar with David's editing than I am: pinging @EvergreenFir, Sjö, and RatatoskJones:. Would a broader topic ban from Sweden and all related pages and topics be better? I find the editing quite concerning, so we need to do something IMO. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Topic ban proposal - crime in Sweden

    I propose a topic ban of User:David A from either a) Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or muslims or b) Sweden. If you agree, please indicate a), b), or other. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Well, I would very much prefer if I was not topic banned. I am genuinely trying my best to only make reliable contributions, but I think in terms of fact or fiction. I have a hard time doing anything else, given the autism.
    I haven't done almost any editing for a long time, and finally overexerted myself to take the time to insert my references this week, but I should probably have been more discriminate than insert all of them wholesale. Nevertheless, I would appreciate if some experienced editors could look through them, and insert the ones that are appropriate.
    I am obviously willing to make required adjustments in my behaviour, but I need easy to understand directives to follow. I do have several mental disabilities after all. David A (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I could simply start talk page discussions about any references and ask for which ones are acceptable before adding them instead? It seems a shame to not allow me to find any reliable sources whatsoever. David A (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, it might be a good idea to edit elsewhere for a bit. It's not the end of the world, and might be fun to be in a milieu in which you're a little less invested. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that you have a point, but given all of the statistics that I have read about the situation in my country, I am extremely stressed out. David A (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You should be aware of the fact that interested parties do use the selective presentation of such statistics and of misleading extrapolations and interpretations as a tool for political gain. There is no reason to be stressed out about the situation in Sweden. See Dihydrogen monoxide hoax for a display of this technique in a very different setting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I tend to trust statistics far more than I trust opinions. There can still be problems of course, but it is nevertheless more reliable. David A (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I am not fanatic about adding everything. I just want help from more skilled editors to figure out which sources that should be added and which that should not. I would prefer if I am able to at least suggest new sources in talk page discussions. David A (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's very rare for me to disagree with Bishonen, but this time I must do so wholeheartedly. Looking at the recent activities at Sweden, David A added some statistics from perfectly reliable sources, even excellent sources (the official of the Swedish police, most of the major Swedish newspapers). Everything was deleted on sight by Ratatosk Jones who appears to not even have checked it properly (on the discussion page, they incorrectly claim the taxation statistics was sourced to a think tank when it was in fact sourced by a major newspaper and David A's text correctly indicated it was only a claim). Looking at the wider picture, David A's edits seem to conform perfectly well with WP:NPOV. Yes, his edits often give one side of the story, but usually on articles where the either side of the story is already told. Apart from edit warring, which of course it to be frowned upon, I cannot see what David A would have done to merit a topic ban from Sweden. In the recent exchanged with RatatoskJones and Sjö, I find David A to be the one more in line with WP policies. WP is not the place to promote Sweden (or anything else) so if the statistics about crimes that David A has edited are well-sourced (and they are), then what is the problem? Jeppiz (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the support. I have made an extreme effort to find what seemed to be reliable sources for the Crime in Sweden article and othervise, and accurately summarise them as best I could. However, I have to go to bed now, as I have not slept well for several days. David A (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The "major newspaper" source in this case was an op-ed (by a member of the think tank), which I made note of every time I removed it. I read through the whole text, both op-ed and think tank, and I stand by my claim that the sources were used to indicate Sweden had an 86% tax burden, which isn't even what the articles claim. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then remove that alone. There is no valid reason to implicate every single reference in the flaws of that one alone. David A (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I looked into some of the sources collected on his userpage that another editor has brought to MfD. while there is a couple themes to the sources, there is nothing wrong with them. Pew Research for example is quite respectable. I'd like to see some serious justification for other editors excluding this material. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Here is the information that was removed, for reference: [229] [230] [231] [232]
    Not everything is perfect, obviously, but I would prefer if part of it remained at least. David A (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral for now but the past behavior and the comments in this discussion give me great pause. I do not think Bishonen's proposal is out of order given the circumstances. This user clearly has a POV (a self-admitted one it seems) and that POV is causing disruption. David A seems to not grasp how their edits have been running afoul of SYNTH/POV. I am not at all convinced David A would stop this behavior on their own without some sanction. But I'm not sure it's t-ban time yet. I am leaning toward either a short-term t-ban (e.g., 1 month) so that David A can demonstrate their commitment to ceasing disruption or perhaps just a formal warning with a clear expectation that a lengthier t-ban would be implemented. On a side comment, David A's self-stated mental health issues is something to consider as an extenuating circumstance. However, plenty of us have mental illnesses or disabilities (whether autism, as David A mentioned above, or others) and have not caused disruption to the point that David A has. So, in sum, I'm still mulling it over... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Autism is not a mental illness, it is a disability, but I have that, OCD, ADD, paranoia, anxiety, and formerly psychosis, but the last one was several years ago.
    Anyway, yes I have a bias, like everybody else, but mine has almost been entirely caused by reading a lot of statistics. What I really need is some experienced neutral editor(s) to give me feedback regarding what is appropriate to add when I find what I think are reliable references. David A (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected my comments to reflect the distinction re: disability/illness. Thank you for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. David A (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not open this can of worms here - The Bushranger One ping only 02:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Mental illness, neurodevelopmental disorder, same difference. --Tarage (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference. One you are born with, whereas the other can pass. David A (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it that anytime the Wikipedia community gets together to calmly !vote on whether sanctions are warranted against an editor, someone pops up to call it a "witch hunt", or makes some kind of comment about "torches and pitchforks"? There's nothing in this discussion that remotely smells of hunting witches, it all appears to be a rational evaluation of behavior and what response is appropriate to that behavior. Let's put the "witch hunt" and "torches and pitchforks" rhetoric away, shall we, and bring it out for those very rare occasions when it might be appropriate. It's not helpful, and it's insulting to boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I would be fine with going via talk page discussions first before adding items about this topic in the future. Take note that I have been thoroughly exhausted during my editing here the past 1-2 weeks, as I had to push myself to extremes to get the time for this on top of my regular massive workload. David A (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which suggests you see this topic as some kind of urgent crusade. EEng 03:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS may be relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, this week the results of an official government survey went out, and found that the rape statistics had tripled between 2012 and 2016. It would be strange if I did not get worried about that. David A (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - per Bishonen. Facts and figuers aren't inherently neutral, it depends on how you use them, and collecting them using predetermined criteria leads to predetermined results, something that David A doesn't -- for whatever reason -- seem capable of comprehending. Given that it's unlikely that's going to change, this sanction is necessary to protect the encyclopedia from his biased editing; perhaps not deliberately biased, but biased nonetheless, because the system he set up to feed his editing is itself inherently biased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It would appear that David A is using some WP:RS material but in an inappropriate manner at this time. I would suggest that a period of mentoring would be a wise solution. Sweden does have issues in terms of it's present far left administrations' attitude to refugees and the governance of certain cities who's hostile attitudes to Jews who wish to publicly show support for Israel is disturbing. Malmo is a particular example. There are also obviously issues with the far right. It would be best in my opinion that David is helped in presenting his acceptable sources according to WP procedures. I think you are overreacting here a touch Bish frankly. Simon. Irondome (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I would greatly appreciate some ongoing mentoring. I have over 11 years of good past behaviour in Wikipedia, but I do not understand bureaucratic conventions at all. David A (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Bishonen. Preferably alternative b), but failing that, a). Statistics can be used (and are often being used) to lie and distort the truth, correlation does not imply causation, and confirmation bias is a powerful thing. I do not believe David A fully understands these things, and the discussion makes it clear that there is an element of wanting to right great wrongs here. Wikipedia is not the place for that. --bonadea contributions talk 06:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I am not suggesting that the David A is consciously using statistics to lie or distort the truth, just that it is easy to be taken in by misleading statistics from unscrupulous (or misguided) publications. --bonadea contributions talk 06:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But they are mainly statistics from major newspapers that have traditionally been in favour of massive immigration, and government instititions from a government with the same viewpoint. Why would these be considered as deliberately misleading the public in the other direction? David A (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is neither what I said not what I meant. My concern is your inability to understand how statistics can be used. Part of that is trusting in unreliable sources but another, equally serious part is making your own unsubstantiated interpretations and syntheses of figures from more reliable sources. My second post was just a clarification that I do not believe you are editing maliciously. --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Thank you, and you are correct, I am not. I am just extremely worried and afraid from reading a lot of information. David A (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, alternative a, per Bishonen and Beyond My Ken. I linked to a lot of diffs earlier, and there are plenty more that could be added. It has been a steady stream of POV-pushing and righting great wrongs for the better part of a year now.
    Usually, when one of David's edits is removed, it's called censorship and the paranoia comes out: "You have no right to censor valid information from reliable references, according to Wikipedia policy." [233] "Also, I am admittedly a paranoid sort from being used to that lots of people are either not basing their conclusions or opinions on empirical facts, or outright want to censor them from public view and destroy the lives of anybody who mention statistics and the nature of reality." [234] "the party itself represents an important rational new perspective in Swedish politics. This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to prevent the larger public from getting informed about its existence." [235] "What is the issue here is that you view offhanded casual remarks without any evidence as absolute Truth™, simply because it aligns with your political agenda, not that I do so." [236] "Please avoid censoring any valid information that you ideologically disagree with." [237]
    I think this demonstrates a mindset that is not capable of editing neutrally, as does this: "I (...) spend much of the rest of my free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our country (...) However, I feel like I have a moral responsibility to help inform the public about the horrible situation in this country (...) If people remain blissfully unaware, the situation is only going to get considerably worse, and it is likely already far too late to do anything about. As such, I get extremely frustrated and depressed when there seem to be collaborative efforts to sweep all reliable statistics under the carpet. Not just in Wikipedia, but in society as a whole." [238] Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have clinical paranoia, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, this is true, but I still think that this focuses far too much on my worries and concerns as automatic thought crimes, rather than on the quality of my added references. I have made additions to 5 or so pages in the last week, and this is still immediately deemed as tendentious editing, which should merit that I am unable to even find and suggest any references in the future, no matter how reliable. Virtually all of them are statistics from major newspapers or official government institutions, and yet absolutely none of them should somehow be allowed to be featured within Wikipedia. This seems like an extrene overreaction. Take Snooganssnoogans for example. He has edited several hundred different pages in the past 8 months by adding references in favour of mass immigration, and attacking anybody who questions it. Yet, when I spend 1-2 weeks editing 5 pages by adding references that question it, all references should immediately be removed, and I should be banned because of my anxiety. This seems very unfair. David A (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I have been, and am, perfectly willing to collaborate, find compromises, and remove inappropriate references. It is wholesale removal of everything based on a few possible bad examples that I disagree with, and find unfair. David A (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have genuinely done my best to accurately summarise them, but if you disagree, and my reading comorehension is lacking, you should mention what should be corrected in the talk pages, and I am perfectly willing to agree, not attempt to shoot the messenger. David A (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I would much prefer if I could get an experienced mentor who can evaluate what is or isn't acceptable to add, and still be able to contribute to talk discussions, after which what is agreed upon can be added to the pages. I would feel completely crippled if I was unable to even find and suggest valid references. David A (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, or alternatively topic ban for Sjö and Ratatosk Jones from the same topic as well. While I agree with Beyond My Ken above in that the term 'witch hunt' does not contribute to a constructive discussion, I would say this is among the more appalling cases I've seen during more than eight years on Wikipedia. Yes, there are problems with some of David A's edits, as he himself has recognised. At the same time, just yesterday we see Sjö reverting David A no less than five times in nine minutes [239], [240], [241], [242], [243], while Ratatosk Jones reverted David A a full eight times in less than 30 minutes [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251]. After this collective reversal on sight of everything David A tries to add, we now see the two of them here to support a topic ban. I must say I find these two users' behavior just as indicative of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as that of David A, and I see no reason to hand out a topic ban in just one direction in what is clearly a complex situation. Jeppiz (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Editing history of the page looks to me as typical dispute if country X was "good" or "bad" country. "Proving" that it was good by removing something that RS tell [252] (by Sjo and some others) goes against WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That type editing is actually a clear cut "nationalistic" pattern. Including such content (as David A does) can also be problematic, but it must be fixed by editing, not by outright removal of the sourced content and banning the contributor, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Minneapolis child sex abuse ring

    I've just deleted Minneapolis child sex abuse ring as a possible BLP violation and would appreciate some other input. Per WP:BLPDELETE, there was no version of the article that was clearly BLP compliant.

    Several members of the Somali-American community were charged with sex trafficking in 2010. Three were convicted. I made some copy edits to the article today and found a source that said the convictions had been overturned and the appeal upheld in 2016 (see Talk:Minneapolis child sex abuse ring#Appeal). The article has been contentious because it was created by a new editor and it's a sensitive issue. I therefore decided to err on the side of caution and delete until someone can create an accurate version. I've suggested on talk that it be written in draftspace.

    Pinging TonyBallioni, Drmies, Kablammo, NatGertler, and Chrissymad, who have been dealing with this, and the creator, Jack Coppit. If someone thinks I ought not to have deleted it, please feel free to undelete without consulting me. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that was a good delete. It might be a BLP issue but it met with extensive news coverage and while one person was exonerated, that still doesn't negate the notability of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The "forjustice.org" source discussed here and on the article Talk page refers to a Tennessean case, not a Minnesotan one. Is this correct? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The names of the three convicted in the article are the names on that website, and it says the convictions were overturned. The case was heard in Tennessee. I don't know why it had Minneapolis in the title; several states were involved, I believe. The title was one of the issues of contention on the talk page. I'm not involved in this and have very little knowledge of it, except that I've seen several editors express concern. I'm hoping the others can clarify. SarahSV (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure why you think that merited a deletion. The individuals were convicted and if they were subsequently overturned then a sub catergory for “appeal” would be far more suitable than simply removing the page. It took up a large amount of news coverage and it is certainly notable. The page should be reinstated. Jack Coppit —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to also point at the related BLPN discussion. —PaleoNeonate – 21:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From BLPN, pinging Eggishorn, Cullen328, Tornado chaser, John from Idegon. SarahSV (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, SarahSV, and thanks for finding that site, which links to the decision on appeal. It seems that some people think that the default position is to repeat allegations in the news as fact, rather than to wait until actual facts are established. Your actions here are commendable. Kablammo (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Joseph, all three of the defendants in question were acquitted by the trial court judge after the trial, and that judgment of acquittal was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit. United States of America v. Idris Fahra et al. Kablammo (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that the convictions were overturned - then definitely delete. The coverage was always on the immediate events - arrests and trials - so it fell into WP:NOTNEWS. (The article also had problematic racist overtones.) So at this point what we have is an accusation that failed to secure a conviction and no sign of lasting impact. If there was crime involved, tragic though it may be, that tragedy does not confer notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC) (And now having read through that ruling - there's real problems with any claim there was a sex trafficking ring at all. There's no there there. What the article's author tried to portray as a sex ring handling 200 girls turns out to be the highly problematic claims of two Janes Doe. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC) )[reply]
    Kablammo, thanks for finding that document, which explains what seems to have happened. There's nothing here for Wikipedia, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME. SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you google "mall of america prostitution" you'll see plenty of info about the subject, possibly starting with this 2003 article from Newsweek.[253] It doesn't name any names, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how that 2003 article had anything to do with the supposed ring that was claimed in 2010; this was not a generic article on prostitution in Minneaoplis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard to tell, given the generic nature of the article title. And note that most of the articles are from the last couple of years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    These articles shows more of the reasons why we should be skeptical with these cases:

    and there's much more, for anyone interested. Kablammo (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I saw the rev-delete go by today and looked again at the history of the article, including my own removals--I always thought this was iffy at best, the title being one of the problems. At the time I read all the sources and because they were there and were reliable, I chose not to take it any further, but I did not know there were acquittals or, indeed, that there was so much more (thank you Kablammo). This is a BLP; we should err, if we err, on the side of caution, and I am perfectly happy with the deletion. I hope that the involved editor/s will find other things of interest on Wikipedia than this particular topics.

      Note: that there's so much newspaper interest in such cases is often a problem for us; there is a similar thing in Britain and we have an article on it--that article (also) strikes me as a honey pot for those who see a good opportunity to bash some Others. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted an earlier version of this article as a BLP violation and explained our policies briefly but forcefully to Jack_Coppit in the first minutes of November 13. He removed my message indicating that he had read it. I was aware that another version of the article had been written and it was my understanding that it did not mention people who were not convicted. I have not had time to take a deeper look at that article and the underlying sources and issues, so I am very grateful to Kablammo and SarahSV for investigating and deleting. Well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A new editor, in complete good faith, started a new article based on wire service news articles. The article stated as facts what were mere allegations-- which were allowed to stand despite objections. The article then was truncated (by me) and then deleted (by Sarah, who found a site, by itself perhaps not authoritative, which said the convictions were reversed, and had a link to the most reliable source of all on that-- the Court of Appeals). We now find that, in the views of the trial and appellate court, that the indictments and convictions may have been procured by false testimony, and defendants spent years in prison for charges that were later dismissed.

    Perhaps there should be a list of "best practices" for the guidance of new editors as well as the rest of us. We should not assert as fact what are only allegations. (The presumption of innocence should apply even on Wikipedia.) Google searches should be done for the names of the defendants. Where a court action has taken place, searches should be done to see if there are later rulings (and often Google searches for defendants' names will produce links those rulings). Kablammo (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kablammo, your last point could be added to WP:BLPCRIME, namely that editors should google defendants' names, particularly when creating an article, to make sure they're aware of all the rulings. SarahSV (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. So, Jack’s article was an egregious defamatory lie of omission. I say “lie” because he clearly knew enough about the case to have known the omitted outcome. Well done all. Jack should be shown the door. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So the author was given a level 4im warning for creating the deleted draft, makes a bunch of POINTy edits to other sex scandal articles, re-creates another article in mainspace that is now deleted and turns out to be cherry picked at best? And there is a debate on what to do? I'd say that clearly an indeff for Jack is called for here. Per NOTHERE and RGW. Are we being hesitant to act because this involves child sex trafficing? To me it appears to be much more about racism. John from Idegon (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are reasons beyond the fact that his article creation has focused on building one about this very selective and ultimately false picture of this. Even given the sources he had, the editor was spinning it as a case of Somali men (and yes, they were mostly from the Somali community in the US) selling 200 (by interpreting number of witnesses rounded up for the case - most of whom were not used in the case - as victims) American girls (actually from the same community as the accused) to Somali clients (no source for that!) in one of the largest such rings in the area (unsourced). This gives me pause about whether the goal was an accurate depiction of events, or whether some certain spin might be involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive userpage

     Done by Acroterion. Home Lander (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC) (WP:NAC)[reply]

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

    Could a sysop please delete this userpage which consists of an invisible Youtube link to some sex offender thing - and probably indef the user as well. Quite obviously WP:NOTHERE. Home Lander (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    He also hit Template:UN Population with this thing - will clean up after him until his spree is over with. Home Lander (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked, deleted. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism in mobile version of Gastroenteritis via Wikidata

    The same template vandalism reported and fixed before, it seems. No action required. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I apologize if I'm putting this report in the wrong place. When loading the article Gastroenteritis using the Wikipedia mobile app for Android, there is apparent vandalism in the "tagline" text below the article title, but above the beginning text of the article itself. I went to the page's source (on desktop) but wasn't able to find the offending text there, nor did I see any mention of it being removed from the article in article history. I'm unsure how the "tagline" text could even be vandalized in the first place, since I cannot find any way to edit the text from within the app itself and I can't find where the text is stored on the full site. -- 107.2.72.101 (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cancel this. I just figured out where the information was being transcluded from. I saw the vandalism a few days ago and I must still be viewing an outdated version of the page, even though I've forced a refresh. -- 107.2.72.101 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just loaded this article on my phone and also found nothing unusual. Home Lander (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Samueljames400

    (non-admin closure) Samueljames400 has been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits, even after being given many warnings to stop. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    One of the nonsensical "contested deletion" insertions:

    He also vandalized my user page and creates a sandbox with my name on it:

    And later he vandalized the redirect page Lei Andrei Navarro, which I reverted:

    Samueljames400 (talk · contribs) continues to make disruptive edits after warnings. I don't know what the heck this user is doing, or what is the disruptive edits are for, but the edits he made imply he may be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. He also does not make any communication at all and just continues with his nonsense, and disruptive edits. At this point I think an indef block would be necessary here; he was previously blocked before by Widr for the similar reason. theinstantmatrix (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that a lack of basic competence may be an issue here, but the result is ongoing disruption of the encyclopedia. I have given the editor an indefinite block, but will not object to an unblock if any other administrator sees any potential for redemption. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the block. Closing as done. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Chas. Caltrop still making edits that other editors have to revert or clean up.

    So I recently tried to bring attention to the long term edit history and behavioural issues (WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG and WP:CONSENSUS) around one Chas. Caltrop (talk). In the ensuing discussion 3 other editors came forwards unprompted with complaints about this user. No admins commented on the situation, and no administrative actions were taken (nerry a warning).

    I'd just like to point out that Chas is still making edits that are regularly reverted ([260], [261]) by editors who have tried to communicate with Chas - but been met with insult and derision ([262], [263]) (they are separate editors who have not yet commented on these discussions). This course is not the first time someone has tried to highlight this user's behaviour.

    Am I to understand that those who pass themselves off as Copy Editors are above the requirements of politeness for Wikipedians - even though their edits generally have to be reverted, cleaned up by others, or are unconstructive/tendentious/damaging to Wikipedia as a whole? Perhaps I'll do some sloppy, politically biased copy editing of my own. I'll make sure all my edit summaries read "CE, completed sentence"; as it seems to provide impunity as an editor regardless of how poorly the end result is. If the goal of administration is to ensure Wikipedia is kept to a high standard, then every now and then difficult to interpret, borderline cases such as this will occur; but they do still need to be actionable (for the sake of the community, and for other editors to feel they've been heard). I understand that this is not a particularly thankful task, and that the violations aren't a particularly obvious breaking of the rules - but it is an ongoing issue and it is damaging (at the very least time wasting)... and the more it is ongoing, the more damage is manifest. Does anyone want to try to bring some deft sanity to these discussions? To at least make this feel like a community, rather than a bunch of peasants yelling at an ivory tower. --Jobrot (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Allan Rayman

    Our article about musician Allan Rayman has been having problems with anonymous editing that I'd like to bring to wider attention. The issue is that in some of his early marketing materials, he tried to cultivate a mystique by claiming that he was from Lost Springs, Wyoming, a town with a population of just 4 (and that's not a typo, I literally mean four as in two plus two.) Some early sources that only had the press release to go on repeated that claim, but every source that's ever been based on actually talking to him in person has just said he's from Toronto without mentioning Wyoming at all. So, our reliable sourcing requirements being what they are, our article (which incidentally had to be fundamentally rewritten from a grossly advertorialized start that nearly got speedied) goes with "based in Toronto", which is true, without taking a stand on whether he was born in Toronto or Wyoming — but several times since then, various IP or new editors have tried to push it back to Lost Springs, Wyoming again, sometimes even removing the strongest source from the article entirely because it's too unmistakably clear about saying he's from Toronto. Most recently, someone claiming to be Rayman's manager flipped the origin to Lost Springs, Wyoming in the infobox again, also blanking the entire article in the process so that the infobox itself was the only thing that was left at all. Obviously, that's been reverted.

    Obviously, Wikipedia is a venue for reliably sourced and neutral information, not for replicating musicians' own publicity kits, so we have to go with what's said in reliable sources. Even as now written, his notability under WP:NMUSIC still isn't being brilliantly demonstrated, but trust me that it's a thousand times better than it was at first.

    For the moment, I've semiprotected the article to lock out IP and newly-registered editors, but obviously I don't want to leave it that way any longer than I absolutely have to. But I don't want to have to keep dealing with this on my own, either, so I'd like to request some assistance in getting it more widely watchlisted to prevent the problem from recurring again once sprot comes off. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [264] - not unlikely to have been socking prodigiously in that thread already. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jytdog

    Jytdog has been harassing me on my usertalk page; citing me for an edit war which did not occur. The article in question is Historicity of the Bible Banzernax (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Banzernax was removing sourced material from the article and replacing it with his unreferenced POV. He notes on my talk page he does not require references as it is, "the word of God." Ifnord (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that he is POV Pushing on the article, and adding biased information. Banzernax (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Banzernax, please let me correct you on two accounts:
    1. You have been edit warring [265], [266].
    2. Jytdog has not harassed you. They have posted once on your talk page, and that was a standard WP warning about edit warring, posted after you engaged in edit warring.
    To put this in very simple terms: you are wrong and Jytdog is right. Period. Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have not been edit warring. That is only two diffs. You need four. Banzernax (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to go back and read again how WP defines edit warring ... Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And where does it say that? Banzernax (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EW: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BOOMERANG springs to mind. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OP is clearly edit-warring. Not a xtian thing to do. -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Banzernax has apparently come to WP to preach The Truth
    Historicity of the Bible
    • here 14:22, 18 November 2017 (no edit note)
    • here 14:25, 18 November 2017 (edit note: This is the correct version
    • here 14:38, 18 November 2017 (edit note: Ifnord, you are wrong and I am right.
    Historical Jesus
    • diff 14:53, 18 November 2017 (no edit note)
    • dif 14:55, 18 November 2017 (edit note: God is the source
    And they have been blocked for 31 hours, here. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block of Banzernax

    This user is obviously trolling, as evidenced by their actions here, on articles, and on AN. Most likely a sock, and definitely not here to contribute. The sooner an admin blocks, the less time is wasted. Jeppiz (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    See above. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing based on their clear intent to edit war on multiple pages and rhetoric here. Depending on their reaction to that, we might not need to indef. There are issues with their editing, but I typically like giving people a chance. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=810951253"