Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avochelm (talk | contribs) at 07:58, 20 November 2017 (→‎Disruption, abuse, and NOTHERE with Avochelm). 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.

    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]
    If you would check the content of my edit in the Aq qoyunlu article, you would see that I didn't push POV or make disruptive edits at all. All I did there was add brackets and properly place two pictures as well as add relevant categories. What about that is pushing POV and ethnic nationalism?? Same in the Dastan article. All I did was add relevant names in similar languages. I'm wondering why you are desperately trying to show such edits as ethnic nationalist POV-pushing?
    You are accusing me of misleading summaries, then what is this listing of simple edits as nationalistic POV here, whcih they aren't? Besides, the dispute in those two articles has already been dealt with (including talk page), so there is no reason for further action. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Petition to indef block: Even if this user was blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia 8 years ago, and still has no will to contribute properly anywhere else, the consequences could Baton Pass over to other Wikipedia language sites, regardless if there are records of other mishaps and aftershocks. Whereas, the Meta Wiki Foundation could step in, and look into all of this. Slasher405 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As an added update, the user left a message on my talk page, imitating my message, and performing forgery of my signature. There's no point in view that this user is still performing foul play. What can we do about this? Slasher405 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue has been resolved on Slasher405's talk page. No forgery or whatsoever was intended by me. I just wanted to make sure that the response was noticed, that's all. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 01:51, 20 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 ([45][46][47][48][49]), but particularly with regard to their poorly thought out nominations for deletion ([50][51][52][53][54] and WT:AFCR#Unreviewed drafts at MfD). They generally haven't responded to these warnings (except rather hostile responses to WikiDan61 [55][56] and Magnolia677 [57]) 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]

    User:Amisom

    Editor requested I take them to admins [58], 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." [86] (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." [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] only warning [93] [94] 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 [95]) 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! [96] 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..." [98] 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". ([105] = adding titles to links, and links, [106] = 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]
    Great news that I've done nothing wrong, yes. (still, accusations against you by two editors here, and 20-30 on your talk wait for an answer). Widefox; talk 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I thought you weren’t going to respond to “this nonsense” (your words) (that you initiated) again? As it happens, the only uninvolved admin who’s not just bitter about a content dispute didn’t find any problem. Does that tell you anything? Amisom (talk) 06:15, 20 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 [107] (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]
    Acalamari thankfully has blocked him for a week. Hopefully that helps teach a lesson. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:13, 19 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]
    @Nagualdesign: Its handled by community consensus after several days of discussion and multiple cited examples of warnings or wise words having been given but not listened to. After that a proposal comes forth for a ban or other editing restriction(s) which are given in simple English and cover the areas relevant to the editor(s) in question. After community consensus is reached, an admin will close the thread and log whatever action is implemented (if any) at Wikipedia:Editing Restrictions under "placed by the community". Incidentally, you can check out the editing restrictions page to find the relevant ANI discussions that lead to editing restrictions to get a feel for how this all goes down if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the info, Tom. I think I'd rather spend my time doing other things as I find this sort of thing incredibly tedious. I've believe made my position clear enough. nagualdesign 20:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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, [108] and [109]. - 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.

    Legal threat

    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 [110]. - 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 [111]. 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: [112] [113].
    This has since continued, with David first gathering links in his user space and trying to get others to insert them for him [114] [115] [116][117] [118] [119].
    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 [120]] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] 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 [126]. 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 [127] [128]. 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: [129] [130] [131] [132]
    "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: [133] [134] [135] [136]
    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 Support short term t-ban 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]
    Changing to support after seeing this and the user's continued placing blame on autism, OCD, etc. I have no confidence that the user understands the disruption occurring or accepts responsibility for it. An official sanction would stop the disruption and allow the user to demonstrate commitment to change. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 18 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]
    Tripled? Really? And all Muslims and immigrants, was it? EEng 04:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that should have been the sex crime statistics overall, but in 2012 it was 0.8% and in 2016 it was 2.4%, as you can read here. Anyway, I have no idea about the exact demographics, as the Swedish government has refused to order another such official crime survey since 2005. The Moderate Party did state that they want one last month though. David A (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, regarding the urgency, I have wanted to make some additions to Wikipedia for 8 months or so, but been far too busy to handle it, but I eventually forced myself to do so anyway, since nobody else seemed willing to help me out. David A (talk) 05:25, 19 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]
    • The problem is not that you don't understand our "bureaucratic conventions" (whatever that means, exactly), it's that you don't seem to understand our editing policies, such as WP:NPOV. As stated a number of times in this discussion, if you go looking for statistics to support a predetermines point of view, you're inevitably going to find them, but putting those statistics into articles without giving the fuller picture an unbiased look at the full range of stats would provide is non-neutral editing, and that is not what we're looking for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But I did not have a predetermined point of view regarding this. I have simply read a lot of statistics and regular news reports that point in a certain direction, and since I have limited mental filters and good pattern recognition, my analysis of this situation has shifted accordingly. I do have a problem with sifting information, and gauging where exactly to draw the line though, but I do think that including some of the information is warranted at least. Some of the pages were very onesided in the positive direction before I made some additions, and I did not remove any of that previous information. David A (talk) 05:13, 19 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." [137] "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." [138] "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." [139] "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." [140] "Please avoid censoring any valid information that you ideologically disagree with." [141]
    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." [142] 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 [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], while Ratatosk Jones reverted David A a full eight times in less than 30 minutes [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155]. 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]
    Thank you for the support. As I mentioned from the beginning, I did not want to ban RatatoskJones or Sjö. I just wanted some administrator to tell them to stop reverting everything, and instead collaborate. David A (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my edits. Everyone else here seems to understand that too, so I recommend you go back and read the other responses. David did bold edits, I reverted. Next step is discussion, which I initiated on the talk page. That's procedure, WP:BRD. David simply reverted back to his edits and then ran here. You're not really doing him any favors here. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I agree that I was too hasty in going here. I was thoroughly exhausted at the time, so my judgement was in a bad condition. I thought that you and Sjö had decided to constantly revert everything I added, regardless if it was warranted or not, and did not notice the talk page discussion until afterwards. David A (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratatosk Jones, your comments and actions show a continued failure to understand. And it's not "just me"; several users have expressed similar concerns in this discussion and you would do well to read through it. If you really think that it's normal to revert the same user eight times in twenty minutes, then you are very much part of the problem. While David A has at least acknowledged his errors and expressed a willingness to learn, you stubbornly refuse to accept that you have done anything wrong. My very best wishes expresses concerns that your (and Sjö's) actions go against WP:NPOV, and I share that concern. What David A added was well sourced and relevant to the articles. Some of it was badly written and some of it was not very relevant, but your attitude of reverting everything he publishes on sight, over and over again, then trying to get him topic banned, all the while insisting that you've done nothing wrong is very troubling. If this is not WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I don't know what is. Jeppiz (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that I have severe problems with sifting information, to find what is or isn't relevant, would you be willing to take on some sort of mentor role for me, in terms of deciding what is appropriate to include in the profiles? David A (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw: It might be worth noting that Sjö and maybe RatatoskJones seems to be a part of the group of editors from the Swedish Wikipedia who tried to get the page for the Citizens' Coalition party deleted here, after first removing it there: [156] David A (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pointless. Three of the reverts were roughly the same collection of trivia links dumped in three different articles. The rest were the misused taxation source that I've mentioned earlier. I also didn't revert all of David's links and text; the ones I found no fault in I left in. Over and over again? I did not re-revert anything after restoration by David or others with the exception of one occurrence of that taxation thing. Rather I took it to the talk page. I had no intention of starting an edit war, or dragging anyone to WP:ANI. That was David. I laid out the case for a topic ban here, and it's hardly limited to this week's actions. So you're penultimate sentence is pretty much all wrong. But hey, David is now accusing me of being part of some nefarious Swedish Wikipedia group that's here to delete articles, so... improvement? Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And, Jeppiz, what David A added wasn't well sourced. There was sourcing to non-RS sources, and instances where the text didn't support what the sources said. I gave some examples at talk:Sweden. I think that it's surprising that you restored all of David A's edits including the part about taxes that I explicitly called "not supported". If you think blanket removal is bad, so is blanket restoring. Sjö (talk) 07:26, 19 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 [157] (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]
    Thank you very much for the support. I really appreciate it. I am obviously perfectly fine with selectively removing references. It is just that removing over 30 of them at once and then getting me banned seems very unfair. David A (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The opinion by Softlavender and some others is not unreasonable because you already had a discussion about sources in May [158], and it did not help. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are correct. I did not remember that I received a reprimand. I probably thought that it was just an ordinary discussion point at the time, and am constantly extremely busy with a great amount of different tasks in my entertainment wiki, so I have a major problem remembering everything. The current situation on the other hand feels like I am on trial, so I take it very seriously. David A (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the help. David A (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @David A: Please stop responding to every "oppose" !vote with "thanks for the support" comments. It's really quite annoying and is on the verge of violating WP:BLUDGEON. This discussion isn't personal, the "supports" aren't "against" you, and the "opposes" aren't necessarily "for" you, each editor has simply looked at the situation and the evidence and decided what they believe the best course of action is. It would be best if you limit your participation to responding to questions or comments which require your input. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I will try to shut up then. David A (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban option a) Sweden in combination with any kind of crime, immigration, and/or Muslims. This editor has openly acknowledged their many personal impediments to NPOV editing in this topic area, and their cumulative contributions to this discussion verify their complete inability to edit neutrally about Muslims and crime in Sweden. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (a). Given the editor's statement at the top of this proposal, I do not think they have the competence to edit effectively and without POV in this area. With the topic ban, the editor can demonstrate they have something to contribute to Wikipedia besides tendentious/POV editing in a contentious topic area. If after a year or so the editor has contributed elsewhere effectively and without incident, and if they have not engaged in tendentious editing elsewhere, and if they finally understand what they were doing wrong in this topic, then they may appeal the ban provisionally, with it to be reinstated if the problematic patterns recur. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral but I have some thoughts - I looked through a number, though not all, of the diffs supplied. I had expected some serious POV pushing when I started reading this. I then found that... well... David A doesn't really know how to interpret what they're looking at and doesn't know how to sort the chaff from the wheat. Hence the appearance of POV pushing. I'll be referencing this lone diff to make my point. So what's the issue in the two edits? well... a) it's not pleasant to read (let's sanitize it eh?), b) it's poorly implemented (facts and figures just scattered about with no rhyme or rhythm - one second it's about guns and grenades and then the next it's about rapes) and c) it's presented with little explanation or justification. E.g. The number of sex crimes in Swedish festivals went up by 1000% in 2016 compared to the previous year. So? its written to sound very scary, except, if it's gone from 1 sex crime to 10 in a whole year (and that will account for a 1000% increase) then it's not particularly interesting let alone severe. What are the raw numbers here? of course, the source doesn't bother to say. Why? well... if it's anything akin to the news story in the U.S. a few months back concerning the 45% increase in young teenaged girls suicides (versus 30% for boys) in recent years, it's because the percentages sound a lot scarier than 2 in 100,000 to 3 in 100,000 (note that it's gone from like 9 to 12 in 100,000 for teenaged boys). Quite a difference when you look at the real thing. I would never recommend using a news source for any kind of statistics. I'd always go to the source material first. The reason for this is that you're quite likely being misled, or left insufficiently informed, by the source you're reading. Statistics can quite easily be manipulated to fit a narrative and that's what David A is buying into by reading and then utilizing these sources without understanding them. This is a problem, one that is sufficient to justify a TBAN, but, one that may be - potentially - rectified without it. David A is clearly engaged in problem editing, but not maliciously or with ill-intent. The edit-warring from the other side is also a concern and I haven't been able to justify a number of the reverts at all - like the ones at Taxation in Sweden and some of the edits at Sweden itself. The edit-warring only exacerbates the problem. So, finally, what to do? Well, David A has actually presented a couple solutions that would satisfactorily resolve the issue; a) use the article talk (additionally restrict yourself to 0RR), and b) get mentoring (this does not mean getting a baby-sitter). If this crops up again, it will need a TBAN to rectify. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated above, he lacks the competence to edit in this area, as he himself admitted at the top of this proposal. It doesn't really matter whether problematical and policy-violating editing is done with malicious intent or not, it just needs to stop. He needs to get his head out of this area and do something else. There is nobody who wants to mentor/babysit him, and the potential damage to the encyclopedia is too great to allow him to continue editing on these topics, even with a 0RR, because, again, no one can babysit him and watch every one of his edits on every single article he may edit. Softlavender (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this is extremely depressing, if I am not allowed to even find the most important and reliable references. All that I need is some collaboration from other editors in the talk pages to help me sift what is or isn't relevant. Can I at least make edit requests in the talk pages? David A (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I only have time to edit very few articles, so a mentor wouldn't have very much work to do. David A (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option (a). Per Cullen328; Softlavender. Given the editor's frank disclosures about their current state of mental well-being, they might be better off leaving the articles alone and going for a nice walk, or enjoying a hot chocolate and a good novel: Wikipedia is not therapy, and in instances like this it might be the exact opposite of therapy. If they must find an outlet for their fears about immigrants Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals and crime, there's always Facebook. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I am not afraid of immigrants. I am afraid of Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals. I am also afraid of various existential threats to humanity (global warming, artificial intelligence, etcetera). David A (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly amended. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formal warning should be given to David A against any further WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I first encountered this issue when I saw RatatoskJones remove the "Taxes" section[159] with the summary "rm unnecessary section" which struck me as odd so I reverted. Then I saw them remove a whole swath[160] of material which at first I thought might be more POV (or whatever) editing on their part until I saw that the content was a staccato hodgepodge of anti-immigrant tidbits that had recently been added by David A. It is possible to violate WP:NPOV (particularly in this case WP:DUE) while still following WP:RS. The material in question is not entirely inappropriate but openly editing with an agenda is. David A should be given an opportunity to rein this in and concentrate on contributing smoothly flowing, balanced paragraphs rather than jumbles of talking points. At the least I think David A should be allowed to continue to use the talk pages to make suggestions because he (I'll assume "he") seems to be contributing factual material. A litany of admitted mental health/disability issues is not an adequate excuse for bad behavior, and must be correctable with reasonable accommodation, which doesn't include allowing tendentious editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to do my best to adjust my behaviour accordingly. It should be noted that I have only edited around 5 articles to insert the list of references that I have assembled over the past 2 years, during the last 1-2 weeks. It isn't like I have made lots of edits over a long period of time in this manner. I would also very much like to still be able to use the talk pages to suggest relevant references. David A (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed "final" from my !vote because it made it sound like there was a longstanding problem, which I'm not aware of. On the other hand I see you are not a new editor, so if warning is the outcome of this it should be an only warning and final in that sense. At this point in your Wiki career you should know how things work. Also part of the perception of the problem may be how you are approaching editing - inserting lists of points rather than constructing paragraphs - and I think that may be affecting what content you decide to include. As I said on the talk page, you need to start with a paragraph that summarizes in words what the major secondary sources have to say about the topic, then look at what additional details might be relevant. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have traditionally not edited frequently, and mostly stuck to editing entertainment articles, as they are easier to understand. However, the main problem is my extremely split attention for the past 3.5 years while building my entertainment wiki. I have simply had a hard time to get the necessary time and attention span to construct proper text segments with a good flow into articles, when constantly simultaneously distracted by at least 10 other tasks that need to be handled concurrently, which, along with my severe lack of time, is the reason why I have almost exclusively been asking for help rather than performed any complicated edits. Hence, I messed up when I finally got stressed out enough to make an attempt. I didn't use to have nearly this much of a problem back when I was able to get the time to relax, calm down, and properly think things through. David A (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't allow people with uncontrolled epileptic seizures to fly commercial airliners, and I don't believe that Wikipedia should allow a person who has "almost no mental information filters thanks to my autism [and] cannot find any sense of mental personal security due to preconceived ideas", who suffers from "clinical paranoia, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder", who is "afraid of Islamists, Nazis, Communists, and career criminals [as well as] various existential threats to humanity (global warming, artificial intelligence, etcetera)" and "spend[s] much of the rest of [their] free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our country" anywhere near editing any area of the encyclopedia which deals with controversial issues, because they are quite obviously not equipped to handle them, and cannot possibly muster the objectivity to deal with those issues in an NPOV manner.
    The current topic ban being considered is most probably not broad enough, given David A's self-reported conditions, but it will do for a start, and may encourage him to return to editing entertainment articles -- although I frankly have my doubts as to whether they have the capability to edit Wikipedia in any subject area. About that, we shall see if the sanction is passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we are going to gauge my crime in all of this, all that I have actually done is add mostly reliable references to very few pages the past 1-2 weeks, in a rather incompetent manner. I would appreciate if I would at least be able to find and suggest relevant references in the talk pages, so others can add them. I have over 11 years of mostly good behaviour before that, and feel like I am on trial and condemned for being extremely overworked and having some mental disabilities that I am making an extreme effort to handle. I mean, I have managed to build a well-functioning entertainment wiki with 644000 individual visitors a month almost from scratch. David A (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Managing a private Wiki is not at all equivalent to gathering data, separating the wheat from the chaff, describing the resulting information, and inserting it into an encyclopedia article in a neutral manner. They simply are not equivalent activities and do not utilize the same capabilities. It's somewhat like thinking that being a success at making real estate deals qualifies you to be President of the United States. 'Tain't the same thing at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I agree about that. I also strongly dislike Trump. I just feel like I am being condemned and put on trial for my disabilities, despite that I have made an extreme effort to generally manage them. David A (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no current proposal that you stop editing Wikipedia. The proposal is to prevent you editing on the subject where you have zero healthy perspective and massive amounts of prejudice, obsession, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Since WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are prohibited on Wikipedia, I do not believe you should edit talk pages either on this subject, as it would simply create talkpage clutter of random unconnected links. If you feel compelled to pursue your obsession, I suggest writing a blog, or start a wiki of your own about it. Softlavender (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not fair at all. Prejudice is hatred out of lack of knowledge, whereas I have simply grown very worried due to reading lots of reliable information regarding certain subjects. You are not going to find any Wikipedian without a bias, whether based on emotions, or in my case information. The difference is just that I am unable to lie about it. Most of the references that I added were reliable, and not original research, and I only edited a few pages in an incompetent manner, which lead to this massive cross-examination and condemnation that is overexerting me even further than previously. WP:SYNTH is likely an issue though, as I have a hard time gauging exactly where to draw the line regarding what is or isn't relevant. David A (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you personally are not able to see that you are unable to edit on this topic in a competent manner is in fact part of the competence issues at hand and why the editing restriction has been proposed. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been very open about my problems, as I almost lack the ability to lie due to limited mental filters. However, instead of understanding that I am genuinely trying my best to find reliable references and have simply been too overworked to be able to structure them in a competent manner, all of my disabilities are systematically used as weapons against me. How is that not prejudiced, when I have over 11 years of mostly good past behaviour, and have managed quite well despite my various problems by making an effort to manage them. David A (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no current proposal that you stop editing Wikipedia. My feeling though is that if you keep responding this way to every single opinion on this thread, the proposal could grow broader in scope. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I suppose that I have to shut up then. I just feel the need to try to defend myself from false accusations. However, I should note that you have also responded to several other people's posts in this thread. David A (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Irondome and Jeppiz, while there may be some conduct issues at play that can be addressed, it is also clear that it's not one sided. It's also clear that David A. is providing reliable sources and it's not some hole in the wall conspiracy sources. This does indeed seem like a push to silence one viewpoint. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem to be a conduct issue to me, it seems to be a very clear competence issue, even as revealed by the editor's own remarks on this thread. It's not the case that a "viewpoint" is being suppressed, it's that severe prejudice, extreme POV obsession, and massive amounts of misleading WP:OR/WP:SYNTH are being removed from the article(s), per WP policy/guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, most of the information has been reliable, and I am deeply offended from repeatedly being called prejudiced simply due to reading lots of reliable information and being afraid of different types of extremist ideologues. That is a perfectly rational concern. David A (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you personally are not able to see that you are unable to edit on this topic in a competent manner is in fact part of the competence issues at hand and why the editing restriction has been proposed. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem wasn't only OR and SYNTH, but also adding unreliable sources and text that wasn't supported by the sources. David A's content wasn't well sourced, like Jeppiz said, and not all the sources were reliable. There were also reliable sources, but some of the additions sourced to them didn't say what the sources said. I think this also points to a competence issue, I can understand if someone misinterprets a machine translation, but not when a Swedish-speaking editor clearly misinterprets a source in Swedish. Sjö (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - oh God, this is overdue. It's been going on for awhile. To be clear, I don't think there's malicious intent here, but there is a complete lack of self awareness, lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and "right great wrongs" attitude which causes enough trouble as is. Volunteer Marek  05:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If I lacked self-awareness about my problems, I would not have been nearly as open about them as I am. Still, I am willing to make a serious effort to change my behaviour for the better. I should make an effort to shut up about my concerns and stay professional when visiting Wikipedia for example. David A (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Volunteer Marek did not say that you had a lack of self-awareness about your problems/diagnoses. You do however have a lack of self-awareness about your inability to competently edit on this subject matter. It is not a case or situation where "chang[ing] my behaviour for the better" or "shut[ting] up about my concerns and stay[ing] professional" is going to remedy that. Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do know that I have editing problems, but I am also good at finding valid references that increase the reliability of articles. I do not see the harm in at least allowing me to ask for help in inserting them via the talk pages. Also, I take this situation extremely seriously, so I am willing to do what is required of me to change my behaviour for the better. David A (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a case of "changing your behavior for the better". It is a case of lack of competence in this area, and the time-sink of dealing with masses of non-relevant WP:PRIMARY-source links and information, even on article talk. Your own idiosyncratic obsessions are your own business, but when they intrude onto Wikipedia, even on talk pages, that is severely disruptive and problematical. Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suppose that there is no hope then. I will be condemned and not given a chance to help out no matter what I do. This is all extremely dispiriting and depressing. David A (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not mandatory and Wikipedia is not therapy. You are free to indulge your idiosyncratic obsession on sites of your own devising, or indeed anywhere else, but you should not indulge it on Wikipedia. And once again, for the third time, there is no current proposal that you stop editing Wikipedia, although that may become the case the more you try to frame yourself as a victim and prolong the time-sink of this thread. Softlavender (talk) 06:41, 20 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.[161] 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]
    While it would help to search, another big problems is that there's often disproportionate coverage. This isn't so much an issue in extremely high profile examples like this, but with a relatively unknown individual from what I've seen it isn't uncommon there is a flurry of initial coverage, and some coverage of the initial court case and outcome and then very little afterwards even if there is some significant change. I say change here because I think civil cases are often even worse. Countries where court cases are far less routinely available online (i.e. many outside the US) mean we often don't even have primary sources. (Sometimes we have the problem where one party has made the court case documents available. While it's probably unlikely they've modified the documents, it's definitely not the best situation. And of course if there is yet another change they may not add these documents to their collection.) Fortunately many of these just don't belong on wikipedia but sometimes you may have an example where you have something which perhaps seems to have significant enough coverage, and the person just meets the notability requirements and we have an article on them but there are potentially new details on the case we just can't find. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 19 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]
    • I've added this sentence to WP:BLPCRIME: "Before publishing that an individual has been convicted of a crime, editors should take reasonable steps to determine whether the conviction was overturned." I've left "reasonable steps" undefined, but we could add advice in a footnote about what to look for. SarahSV (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I should add to my above comment (wrote many hours ago, just posted) that besides the sources problem, we have the same issue with our contributors namely that everyone gets super excited about it early on, so it's added to the article, then no one cares about it when it's changed (and for the reasons highlighted above they probably don't know anyway) so it's never updated. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    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 ([162], [163]) by editors who have tried to communicate with Chas - but been met with insult and derision ([164], [165]) (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]

    • Comment: The key to success on ANI is to make the clearest of points, as thoroughly as is necessary, with the least amount of words, including a fully adequate number of WP:DIFFs with brief explanations. You failed to do that the first time, and you've failed even worse now. No one wants to read your whining and sarcasm, and no one wants to take the trouble to figure out what you are talking about, especially when you've presented so very little evidence. What you need to do is immediately and clearly make your case and then stop typing. Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 19 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]

    Legal threat at AfD: Tricomplex numbers

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

    The underlying IP address that made the edit was blocked for 36 hours. Slasher405 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jytdog

    (non-admin closure) This seems to have been wrapped up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 [167], [168].
    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]
    <ec><ec><ec>Endorse Tony's action. I'm not convinced the arrival of DrivebyChristian (talk · contribs) at the subject is a coincidence. Acroterion (talk)
    @Acroterion: Sock  Blocked and tagged. GABgab 15:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that would be grounds to extend the original block.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to Tony's original block, I've indef'd. The user's conduct, editing pattern (WP:PACT, with actions like that and so quickly I can't in good consience extend good faith this is a new user), the socking, and the wording when they tried to forumshop all add up to a user who is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm behind the indef block as well. There's no reason to have an incompetent editor pass off some religious propaganda as "word of God" - and it endangers the veracity of the encyclopedia if we allow such actions. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 04:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    removal of notable events by Rlbarton

    Rlbarton has removed many events from days of the year with no valid explanation. A trend I have noticed is removal of religious-related events. See diff, diff, diff, diff.

    See most of notes on their talk page, none of which have been responded to. Especially this thread.

    I do note that they have made positive contributions, such as this, but it bothers me that they have been removing so many entries without better explanation/messages on talk pages, or response on their own talk page.

    I would appreciate any advice, and direction toward policy, etc., if I am overreacting to this editor's behavior. = paul2520 (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure this rises to the level of vandalism, but some of the edits look questionable. On the other hand I think a plausible argument could be made that Pope Francis' first trip to Kenya does not rate a mention on the OTD lists. In any event persistently refusing to explain or discuss potentially controversial edits is certainly discourteous, at the least. I think Rlbarton needs to respond to the concerns raised here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rlbarton. I am trying to give you the benefit of a doubt here, but you really need to offer some kind of explanation. Otherwise your edits might be subject to reversion and future similar editing could be seen as disruptive. Thank you in advance for your reply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Church of God of Prophecy

    Would someone mind resolving a very slow edit war at Church of God of Prophecy? User:Im4god persistently replaces "The COGOP is a Pentecostal Holiness Christian denomination" with "...Christian non-denomination" and removes the founder's name and date of foundation from the infobox, and past edits have also involved problems such as deleting Category:Pentecostal denominations in North America and adding unparseable stuff like "The Church does agrees an individual be a Christian (born again) without being a member of the Church." Here are the last fifteen items from Special:Contributions/Im4god:

    I'm one of two users who's left warnings on the user's talk page, but he clearly isn't getting it. Nyttend backup (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the last one for 24h, because they only revert and do not discuss anything. If they continue, they must be blocked for longer terms and eventually indef. However, generally I do not see many options here: Many reverters are autoconfirmed, and full protecting the page indefinitely does not seem reasonable at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One vandalistic edit in the last 11 months? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean the editor I blocked their last edits are all reverts, and they have been warned previously. They are clearly a single-purpose account, and they are apparently not interested in discussing their edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the editor Im4god, who has 1 edit in 11 months, that one being about 6 weeks ago. If it were me in your shoes, I would indef, since it might be another 11 months before he edits again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered this option, but we can always indef them, it is never late to indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint was about an edit made six weeks ago, which was the only edit by the user in the last 11 months. So a 24 hour block is meaningless. But as you say, if he strikes again, he can be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael A. Aquino (lieutenant colonel)

    User is indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could a sysop please address Maquino's edits at this page. They claim to be Michael Aquino, and keep deleting the content claiming it is defamatory, though I don't see any defamatory content in the latest revisions. Home Lander (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, highly defamatory: Cadet Colonel, Distinguished Military Graduate of the University of California, honorably retired after 38 years' service, Silver Star, Ph.D., political science professor, etc. I have trimmed the bit about the occult, the "daily alternative news blog" source failing WP:ELNO as well as WP:RS. I wonder if that's the basis for the objection? Nyttend backup (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Nyttend backup. I figured I had to be missing something there, perhaps that was it. Home Lander (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New editor adding and removing spaces

    Socks dried. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    TroppoRoxxo is a new editor whose only mainspace contributions have been to add or remove blank spaces on seemingly random articles. Some examples from today: 12345678910111213141516. (Their User space edits were adding images and a small amount of text.) This may be an attempt to game 500/30 restrictions or maybe they're just NOTHERE. In any case, I AGFed and left them a welcome message and warning to use the sandbox but they've ignored it. Woodroar (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Woodroar: Possibly a new sock of ConsumersDistributingonline, which is already awaiting a CU at SPI. Home Lander (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's certainly possible! It feels like every week someone else is trying to bypass 500/30. Woodroar (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Woodroar: Added this account to the SPI per this complaint, and the Checkusers can take it from here. Home Lander (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds great, thanks! Woodroar (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Woodroar: The account has been blocked by Bbb23 as a sock of ROXELANA22. Home Lander (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Bizarre edits

    Nominating the main page for deletion should not be presumed as evidence of nefarious intent. I mean we've all been there... right? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A recent series of inexplicable trollish and disruptive edits by User:‎Batreeq. I for one am not amused. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give some examples? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like he somehow nominated the main page for deletion, but that's been done before as a mistake with automated tools. Home Lander (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I am mistaken. WP:AGF. Sorry for shooting up the flare. I apologize to User:‎Batreeq. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See User talk:SoWhy/Archive 25#deleting_main_page regarding the main page. Home Lander (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Quick block of IP 93.188.36.237 needed

    Please can someone do a quick block of this IP? They're just rapidly reverting lots of edits without reason. Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And done. Thanks Ymblanter! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been a whole spate of different IPs engaging in similar rapid fire vandalism in recent hours. I blocked one of them a few minutes ago and other administrators have blocked others before I could get to them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's an odd one. Totally different ranges and countries. Without jinxing it, they seem to have gone away. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that it's a vandal bot operated by an LTA. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This kind of reverting LTA is still happening, although there's now a new filter in place in an attempt to stop this. See 69.55.127.4. Only 3 reverts are made, but on the filter log there's alot of them. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    American Canadian Expat In London 10404

    American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk · contribs)

    New editor, unsourced and implausible claims that 85% of Southport have American ancestry [170] (many similar claims - see contribs). Edit-warring to push this. Some suggestion that they're a sock.

    I don't know what they're up to, but it's clearly not anything useful. Block, then cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Designaccountforher. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a former editor from Canadian IPs from 2005-2008, 2012-2014 and odd occasions then. This is my only account, if you discount the IP addresses. And I'm a she, not a he. --American Canadian Expat In London 10404 (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTHERE. Block. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be User:Bearfield1, whose accounts were blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joaquinito01/Archive#07 November 2017. It should be a separate case, unrelated to Joaquinito01 - earlier accounts include User:NigelHowells and User:Renamed Imposter Account 000001. Peter James (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits like this demonstrate their motive is simply to add spurious content. Neil S. Walker (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    According to records, the main account has been globally locked due to cross-wiki abuse. So, even if there was socks resurrecting, they should be globally locked as well, to prevent any further abuse. It's pretty blatant that those who create secondary or more accounts to continue this kind of trouble are simply no match at all. Slasher405 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Bearfield1 (also globally locked). That account is mentioned in the Joaquinito01 case but it looks unrelated. Peter James (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though it may be that account, the other main account may be the concern that the reported user could likely be linked. If it passes WP:FOWLPLAY, a checkuser could look into this to see which underlying IP address is behind all of this. So much time is being wasted here. Wonder what might happen soon? Slasher405 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Already checked [171] and inconclusive as a proxy was used, but looks unrelated to those accounts. Peter James (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked as an advertising-only account; (to be exact, advertising- and disruption- only.) . DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job. I guess we can close this discussion. So much casualty by so many accountants. So much time wasted. It looks like that we made up for it here. Slasher405 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Brendar 1214

    Brendar 1214 (talk · contribs)

    I don't understand why this user wasn't blocked after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brendar 1214, now they have re-created the article for whose AfD they created the sock. Fifteen AfC attempts, votestacking, more AfD disruption, and disruptive re-creation is more than enough rope. Icing on the cake is refusal to answer this legitimate question about motive. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week. Let me know if the disruption continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Series of unnecessary and superfluous warnings from Mahveotm

    Please note that it is not up to other editors to find sources for your additions/changes/re-additions, it is up to every editor to add them with their additions/changes/re-additions. As stated at WP:BURDEN "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (my bold) - Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this went sideways fast, and in an interesting way. Again, it wasn't difficult to reword the sentence to the uncontested claim that the two personalities are brothers. I've tried that tack. The above note that I'm heading for 'an almost certain block for edit warring' is also interesting to me. To restate the obvious, I originally attempted to restore what appeared to be an uncontroversial claim that was removed without explanation. What's followed has been a cascade of warnings, including the most recent from a new IP. Sorry to ping you, but Drmies, your input would be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the latest IP was a well-known LTA who is now blocked and their edits reverted per WP:DENY  :) so that's a slight reduction in sidewaysness. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, and Bbb23. I confess I'm not sure what's going on there. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true that it is the responsibility of the editor who adds the information to also add the sources, in the specific case where the information concerns a person with an existing Wikipedia article, it only takes a few clicks to verify the information through the sources in that article (the brother had a starring role in at least two Tamil movies, both of which received lacklustre reviews which are used as references in the articles, and which mention him by name.) Yes, the OP should have done that, but issuing several warnings to them without taking a moment to check, when there is such an easy way to do that, is perhaps a little silly, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting whithout discussion at PFC Cherno More Varna

    There is a longstanding content dispute at PFC Cherno More Varna. I tried to start a discussion on the article's talk page on 10 August, inviting Rebelheartous immediately. I asked him again to discuss the matter one month later, on 10 September. On 3 October, I left a talkback on his user talk page. When I hadn't heard from him in two weeks, I left another talkback. When he still had not responded in 10 days, I edited the article and he reverted me again, still without discussing. The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing? Yavorescu (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Zimbabwe: who to belive, Wikipedia or BBC/CNN?

    The Politics of Zimbabwe lists "unknown" and "since November 17, 2017" as President in the box near the middle of the article. The news is reporting that President Mugabe just gave a speech and isn't quitting.

    Normally, I would correct this myself or discuss it on the talk page but when one is dealing with the President of a country, I wanted to seek administrators' advice. Thank you in advance for correcting the page or leaving it like it is. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you are a new editor so I am guessing you have not read WP:NORUSH or WP:NOTNEWS. The BBC is probably right, but we are volunteer based so it could just be nobody has edited the article yet. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't the case of nobody editing the article yet. It could be vandalism. It could be a joke. The addition of "unknown" happened today. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He certainly isn't resigning, even though he is no longer party leader (did anyone tell him?). So it seems we'll have to wait for formal impeachment, which might take weeks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted, as Mugabe still appears to be President (until the Zimbabwe army and/or ZANU-PF tell us otherwise). As an aside, looking at recent changes I'm amused by "coup de Tate" - you just can't trust those art galleries. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha.. Cheers for the giggle. It's been a long day. nagualdesign 22:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One can also say "uncertain" with a link to the coup de Tate article; when the situation's ongoing, it doesn't hugely matter who the officeholder was until recently. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's just a big sweetie really, isn't he, as is the lovely Grace? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JohnMclean

    The first edit of this user was to add a 3k draft of an article, complete with infobox and photo into their userpage. They also placed it in Draft:Kelvin Roy and at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (from where it was promptly deleted). This was all back on 10/29. Then today, they put this article into Kelvin Roy - overwriting the existing article of a different person of the same name. They also made edits to several existing articles of just adding a single space (perhaps to build enough edits to be autocomfirmed?) This all seems rather suspicious. MB 00:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is all up in the air, then the user is WP:NOTHERE. It cannot duplicate any sort of description to another page or article. I would recommend to delete and revert all edits of the duplicates as a further precaution. Slasher405 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Laury, persistent reversion of a sensible redirect

    I can't revert to redirect again without edit warring, but this is a long term problem, with the subject already blocked and presumably using a farm of meat or sock puppets to reclaim a vanity bio. I've requested page protection and a block of the most recent IP, but this really merits something more, I suspect. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Go ahead and revert. It looks blatantly promotional, and you should be fine reverting. Blatant vandalism is an exception to the three revert rule. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    • Thanks, but he's going to keep at it all night, and one has other things to do, like sleep. But he also has articles here for his solo albums, several of which make claims to notability, so I'm wondering if an individual entry isn't merited. That said, it can't be the spamicle that he's determined to own. So there look to be a few issues here, the first of which is blocking the COI accounts. Then the bio can be assessed on its merits. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Page has been semi-protected by TonyBallioni and reverted to the "last good" version by your truly. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now Mr. Laury's using the article talk page to post the promotional version. Again. So we need protection there, too. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's odd that 66.66.156.187 (talk · contribs) isn't blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a message for Laury on the article's talk page. I have my doubts about whether this guitarist is truly notable, but am certain that the overtly promotional content is not acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    110.132.8.37

    Hello, could someone do something about User:110.132.8.37? This person's undoing lots of random edits, including user talk signatures, cutting comments on talk pages, line breaks, and even userspace edits. Please don't undo all of them blindly (this edit was good), but it looks like someone's just going through Special:Recentchanges and randomly hitting "undo". Nyttend backup (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This clown is bothering me too. He hit my Sandbox page and my Talk page with reverts that he claimed were due to me being a new user. Hello. I reverted one of his edits on someone else's page, but I didn't want to get tagged as a 3peat vandal or whatever you call it, so I didn't undo any more of his edit reverts. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all so interesting. I'm not an admin but I am a geek from way back. So I love this stuff, like the link you just showed me. Very cool. Thank you. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued harrassment by GeoJoe1000

    I have been repeatedly harrassed by User:GeoJoe1000 in his various guises and from a variety of IP addresses for some time. I had temporary semi-protection put on my talk pages a few weeks ago, but GeoJoe1000 returned almost as soon as that protection expired. It is quite clear that he has no intention of stopping this any time soon:

    "Maybe if you had learned something from this, I would leave. But, to paraphrase the words of your lying meatpuppet, you just want everyone else to go away so you can do what you want, the mindset of a 6-year-old; this isn’t improvement, it’s regression. The fact you keep berating me for acting the same way you are is laughable. Just imagine if you had chosen to keep to yourself and maybe even be friendly. Problem solved. Have you ever thought of… not responding anymore? Why keep digging a hole to prove you don’t belong on this site? Just let this be the final word so you can learn from all this."

    I have not acted like him at all. My handling of this situation has been beyond reproach. But he has singled me out because I called him out on his behaviour and was critical of his rude and aggressive attitude. I don't know what he expects to come of this, but he clearly expects to humble me in front of other editors, or humiliate me should that fail. I have not "acted the same way that he did"; I have never told anyone to "Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit", call someone "a complete asshole, and I hope you die" or invite them to "Again, fuck you. You are a toxic, worthless human being" for the simple crime of disagreeing with them.

    Could somebody please do something about this? Preferably something more permanent than blocking an IP if it is possible. This has gone on for quite long enough, and I am concerned that it is escalating towards something that will require suppression. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semiprotected your talk page for a month, Prisonermonkeys. Speak up again if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Cullen328. It's unfortunate, but based on past experiences, I fully expect that the disruption will continue. This has been going on since the end of July. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If it happens again. I will extend the semiprotection for a much longer period. Just let me know, Prisonermonkeys. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone might want to take a look at these - racist death threats, etc.

    [176]

    "If I were you, I'd be worrying about another Holocaust occuring, not engaging in edit wars on Wikipedia" "You might want to consider that next time you disrespect whites"

    When asked to clarify responded with:

    "You might want to avoid offending whites as you have done so at white pride and other anti-white pages on Wikipedia. We have a violent history."

    Just indef already. Volunteer Marek  07:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption, abuse, and NOTHERE with Avochelm

    After years of inactivity, Avochelm has coffee back recently. Their first acts we're to level articles with categories about Jewish heritage (though much of this looked like original research). Today, the user decided to pick up the "why is white pride different from black pride?" torch ([177], [178], [179], [180]). This includes blanking the article and trying to PROD it five times ([181], [182], [183], [184], [185]) as well as some abusive language and comments and veiled threats of violence ([186], [187], [188], [189]) EvergreenFir (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe he should switch to decaf. EEng 07:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See section above. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 07:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not advocate violence, my genderqueer friend. Avochelm (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=811225464"