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 BIK89 (talk | contribs) at 03:30, 30 November 2017 (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G1). (TW)). 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

    Edit warring: original research with an agenda at Fake news

    Consensus is clear: editor is not here to improve our beautiful project in accordance with the guidelines. This includes edit warring, an uncollegial attitude, misrepresentation of sources, POV warring, and unencyclopedic writing. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Plus, I've been accused of editing for money and censorship [1]. Some diffs [2]; [3]; [4]. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning themselves and "I operate so much like a bot that most humans like you may be offended on occasions."....???? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

    As stated: "Plus, I've been accused of editing for money and censorship" The agenda is self-evident. Done. BelAirWhale (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for fun, regarding the previous report, I've also been accused of being a sock [5]. Apparently I'm more corrupt than I thought possible. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Their reply made no sense at all. I've reverted their edit per NPOV and lack of sources. To use your POV that The Economist is a bad source because who runs it is seriously troubling. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be a pattern of proclaiming defense of the truth while accusing other editors of concealing the same. See the response to last month's warnings [6]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the above points, BelAirWhale seems to like threatening other editors. Not quite on to legal threats yet, but I'd certainly classify these as attempts at intimidating other editors into backing down. (I also undid this extremely dubious edit to Wikipedia:Academic use. Wikipedia is never a reliable source!) Marianna251TALK 02:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reverted this [7], a pointed little addition to the intro that has little or nothing to do with the article subject. There may be a long edit history that merits review. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Endorse a short block so hopefully they get the message. --Tarage (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your concern and.. clarification? You are late to the party.

    Best regards,

    BelAirWhale (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • That borders on a non-sensical response. The goal of a discussion here is to determine consensus through the assessments of many participants; a discussion that completed in 48 hours would be considered quick. Do you feel there are WP:NPOV issues with that commit? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose indef block

    First of all: apologies, this got a bit long. Short version: I think BelAirWhale is trying to edit in good faith, but has some hefty WP:COMPETENCE issues and hasn't shown any willingness to take on board feedback or learn from more experienced editors.

    I've gone through a bit of BelAirWhale's contributions (nowhere near all) and they're kind of all over the place. A few are decent, but far more are POV, unsourced, original research or have other serious issues. Apart from the Fake news article, I've reverted BelAirWhale's edits to Whisper (app) due to their POV problems alongside misrepresentation of sources. If I try really hard to assume good faith, it's just about possible that BelAirWhale strayed into WP:SYNTH without intending to, but that's stretching good faith to breaking point:

    • They used an irrelevant Daily Mail article about husbands resenting their wives as a source for the statement "Whisper is also continuously being investigated by journalists and government authorities for Whisper's dishonesty to their entire subscribed users about Whisper's false statements about their privacy policy in regards to their users" [8].
    • They claimed that "Whisper has had to layoff 20% of their 71-employee staff due to a lack of revenue and operating plans which were based solely upon investment capital" ... except that the source mentions nothing about Whisper using investment capital and is actually fairly positive overall about their revenue potential [9].
    • They claimed that Whisper manufactured a story to "falsely indemnify" themselves against allegations made by the Guardian [10], with the only source being an article about the Guardian's retraction of their allegations - nothing about Whisper manufacturing a story. Basically, the source for the "manufactured story" claim was the allegedly manufactured story, which is practically the definition of original research. They also claimed that this meant Whisper's CEO had committed fraud - both OR and a BLP violation.
    • They claimed that even though the allegations were retracted, "the facts remain and there has been more proof that Whisper has breached the trust of its users identities, it's users locations, and its users activities", with the only source being the original allegations, which had been retracted by that point [11] (also note the edit summary "removed biased content made by paid contributors for Michael Heyward".)

    There are other, more minor issues with some of the edits I came across, showing a general lack of understanding of Wikipedia in general and sourcing in particular:

    • It's pot luck on whether or not their edits actually reflect the sources given. In addition to the Fake news and Whisper edits, I've just reverted this edit to the Isabel dos Santos article, because the sources provided only state that dos Santos was fired, with absolutely nothing to support the line "Authorities in Angola have recently taken action against and made criticism towards dos Santos in regards to the methods used by her to acquire her wealth and utilize her advantage in her business deals". Marking this edit as minor with the summary "corrected mispelling, grammar, clarified, added sources" is misleading as well. This was BelAirWhale's response to my cautioning them for doing so, asking if I am "afraid or biased"; when I explained the issue, I got this in response. (FYI, two more of today's edits by BelAirWhale were reverted by other editors for causing more problems than they fixed; the edits BelAirWhale made were good faith but nonetheless not helpful, further showing their lack of understanding/competence.)
    • They mark almost every single edit as minor (89% of their mainspace edits), even when adding a substantial amount of content [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. In fairness, this issue has not been pointed out to them before.
    • This was their cleanup of one article - personally, I would still tag that as needing a major cleanup.
    • They regularly use IMDB and other self-published sources [23][24][25]; comparatively minor, but even more of a problem considering that they tend to cherry-pick what they take from the sources.
    • And, of course, they think that Wikipedia is a reliable source.

    Generally BelAirWhale seems like they want to edit in good faith, and probably think that they are doing so. Unfortunately, their edits are frequently unhelpful, they don't seem willing to listen to feedback and their response to this ANI has been very lacking. If they're willing to work with other editors, they could become a good editor and a great help to Wikipedia, but they haven't shown any willingness to do so.

    Therefore, I propose an indefinite block for BelAirWhale, unless they show some willingness to take on board the feedback given and work with other editors.

    @BelAirWhale: please could you join this discussion? Marianna251TALK 22:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Edited for clarity: until BelAirWhale shows sincere willingness to take on board feedback and work with other editors, short-term sanctions would be a waste of time. We'd just end up coming back here again and again. Marianna251TALK 23:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    Could someone besides Mariana join this discussion because Marianna has made grave errors in her corrections.

    When making claims that state articles that are “poorly sourced,” including claims that state information entered in a Wikipedia article is not correct, such claims are without merit when there is evidence that some of the articles are both not being read as well as manipulatively using other sources to claim that such sources were used to represent information entered in a Wikipedia article. This husband and wife article had nothing to do with the sentence that Marianna was claiming.

    For the record, since I know this is a contentious issue in U.S., I am unbiased: Female, Male, Genealogy, Personal identifying characteristics mean nothing in terms of errors made in editing and sourcing data.

    While there may be errors that I have made in mislabelling any “minor” edits. I certainly do not understand what is minor and what is not. I will appreciate receiving a clear definition of what is considered minor.

    Is there someone available that does not have an emotional or prejudiced basis in their analysis of my edits?

    I am always open to learn, without bias and without prejudice.

    Best regards, BelAirWhale (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you clarify why you feel I have "an emotional or prejudiced [bias]", please? Regarding minor edits, Help:Minor edit will explain what should and should not be counted as a minor edit. If in doubt, it's always better not to mark an edit as minor.
    (FYI, I'm on British time so I'll be logging out for the night soon. I'll respond to further comments/queries in the morning.) Marianna251TALK 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse proposal for indefinite block. Not a surprise, since I brought this here. Given the frequency with which the editor provides copious sources that don't support controversial or irrelevant claims, this seems appropriate. I've already mentioned the bizarre edits at Fake news and [26], and see that this edit to Kim Kardashian was reverted earlier this evening [27]. Not only are these off-kilter, tend toward personal commentary and often aren't supported by sources, they consistently veer into WP:BLP concerns, with a reliably nasty tone. Thanks to Marianna251 for digging deeper. This goes beyond a competence issue. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, thank you Marianna251 for providing the clarification on Help:Minor edits. "Minor" is always a point of view (POV) so this Help:Minor edit clarification really helps.[1]

    References

    1. ^ "Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology". American Psychological Association. 2015: 1(4), 269–282. ISSN 2332-2101. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    I do recognise the "nasty" attacks on me from multiple users here so I would like to enquire why people are proposing an indefinite block on my Wikipedia account, rather than seeking a constructive resolution that has a target of problem solving, rather than emotionally loaded pleas to administrative personnel for retaliation against mistakes of Wikipedia formatting.
    BelAirWhale (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (I've indented your comment per WP:THREAD so we can have a clear line of discussion. Hope that's okay.)
    In response to your comment... There haven't been any attacks on you. Whenever an issue has been raised, it has been about the edits you have been making, with supporting evidence, not you yourself. We all get things wrong - it is not a personal attack on you to point out a mistake. It is a personal attack to respond by accusing others of bias [28], prejudice [29], manipulation [30] (or all three [31]), a conflict of interest via paid editing [32][33][34], or call them an embarrassment [35].
    I'm glad you found the minor edits help page useful. I'm guessing that you haven't had a chance to read it yet, though, since you are still marking non-minor edits as minor. Adding or removing references are not minor edits, whereas fixing a reference already in the article would be. Hope that helps.
    While I'm here, you still haven't explained why you feel I have an "emotional or prejudiced [bias]". Please could you provide evidence for that assertion? Marianna251TALK 14:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Marianna251,
    I read it again just now: I was relying upon "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits."
    I misinterpreted "formatting changes" as a category of "adding a source." Thank you for that clarification.
    Is there a significant value for Wikipedia in drawing upon past assertions?
    This chat page is not well organised.
    Regards,
    BelAirWhale (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Is there a significant value for Wikipedia in drawing upon past assertions?" - yes, there is. You asserted during this discussion that I have an emotional or prejudiced bias/basis. That is a blanket way of trying to dismiss every single concern I have raised without actually addressing the concerns. I have provided evidence for everything I have said; if you're going to accuse me of something, prove it. Otherwise I have to conclude that you can't argue against what I've written, so you're trying to remove me from the discussion via a combination of straw man and ad hominem fallacies.
    I'm quite prepared to pull a Jeremy Paxman and not stop asking until you actually answer the question. If you're not sure how to provide evidence, WP:D&L will guide you through looking at diffs and making links to them. Marianna251TALK 19:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Marianna251!
    I must say that you are starting to make this entertaining now. Are you serious?
    Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard. Is this a fantasy of yours or just some Forecasting of a Psychological projection. I don't have the interest to carry on with pointless bickering over something that you have decided to cherry pick out of context. I believe all of the points have been made clear to me. I have also thankfully learned more about how to properly contribute, and learn with the Wikipedia. I say you did something again and you carry on with endless bickering with me. I say you did not then we can focus on something of value, shall each of us move on or pull more meat from the dead turkey?
    Best regards and Good evening,
    BelAirWhale (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't explained why you feel I have an "emotional or prejudiced [bias]". Please could you provide evidence for that assertion? Marianna251TALK 21:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have, of course, read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelAirWhale (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indef. this recent edit by BelairWhale, while not offensive, is apt. In addition to the the diffs already brought, see tthis diff which could not be a more blatant "sell" for the PR director of the museum .This person is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is doing an excellent job of wasting everyone's time here. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading thru the defiant nature of the user's responses on his/her Talk Page, I see a whole boatload of trouble on the horizon - agree he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia. Support the block.104.169.28.113 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. The user's attitude makes it difficult for me to belief the user is sincerely acting in good faith. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm about to close this, but I'll add a "regular" remark--I picked a substantial edit at random to see if these editors above, calling for a block, knew their ass from their elbow. So I grabbed this one, and indeed, asses and elbows were properly identified and marked: the edit reads like an undergraduate essay, in which a general discourse about how the "Western media" vilify the Russian media is allegedly referenced...by a BBC story on the bias in RT and Sputnik and their deranking by Google, and a slew of articles from RT itself (including one on that strange case in Texas, with the F--- Trump sticker). So we have POV editing, unencyclopedic writing, references that don't bear out the text (to put it mildly), either individually or in combination. In other words, I find for the plaintiff, despite some claim of ... what is this? It has a theological flavor to it. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User consistently disrupting AfD process

    Störm (previously Greenbörg) has a problematic history with AfD nominations, particularly within the Pakistan topic area. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955#Excessive nominations of Pakistani schools for AfD from User:Greenbörg in May for example, where he amongst other articles nominated 75+ Pakistani school articles in a single day. Back then, the excessive nominations were dealt with through procedural closure following input from several editors (Swarm, Squeamish Ossifrage, SL93, SpacemanSpiff, Jacknstock etc.). The user was asked on his talk to limit himself or abstain altogether from deletion discussions temporarily, and advised by Kudpung that "If you don't stop what you have been doing, there is a very strong chance that the community will take measures to limit your editing or even stop you editing altogether." [36]

    However, not much has changed since then and unfortunately, the same pattern of drive-by AfD sprees is prevalent with little to no consideration of WP:BEFORE. In July, I left this message asking Störm to reconsider his strategy after he nominated 48 articles within the space of 4 days. The problem, other than the volume, was the very little time (one to three minutes, sometimes less) between the dozens of successive nominations, which suggested little effort (if at all) was usually paid to verification, sourcing and notability checks, as my participation in several AfDs would later on indicate. This is actually a minimum requirement. Last month, I was forced to leave another notice on the user's talk urging him to pay greater care, after he nominated a further 30 odd articles within 48 hours, several within minutes, where again no evidence of due process was apparent. What I got, instead of an acknowledgement, was this on my talk labeling me "stupid".

    Usually, the copy-pasted nom. statements consist of vaguely worded one liners, which offer no explanations of concerns specific to the article. This AfD on a mainstream artist for instance, was opened with "Not much coverage in WP:RS. No achievement yet. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN", although that was clearly not the case. What is more unfortunate is that subjects which meet notability, but have poorly written articles, end up becoming a victim of these spree AfDs without the necessary background checks, due to the user's carelessness. For instance, this AfD was closed delete, only to have the article restored after I was able to provide multiple sources here. I have dozens of other examples but it will not be possible to list them all here.

    Since 17 November, there's been another 78 new AfDs from Störm in very much the same drive-by twinkle-per-minute manner. And as one user (L3X1) already noted, it's replete with the same issues all over again. Not surprisingly, another editor, Soman, also raised the same issue recently here and here. What is consistent with Störm's rampage of AfDs is that very little thought and research goes into them beforehand, and as can be viewed from the editing history, the articles usually belong to the same set of topics. For example, if there's a newspaper AfD, the next dozen or so noms. will most definitely be newspapers. If it's a television show, the next dozen will be other of those. If it's books, companies, poets, scholars, and scientists, then vice versa. He picks a category, list or template and then bulldozes it. This defeats the purpose of AfD, which IMO is a self-corrective process looking at each article by its own merit. Some days back, it was all articles under Category:Pop albums by Pakistani artists. Before that, it was articles on Pakistani-Australians [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] etc. What accumulates after these questionable, tedious noms. is a huge backlog of un-participated discussions, with no one having the time and resources to do the user's own homework, and the articles meeting their fate. And when I mention that little thought goes into these AfDs, the user's frequent habit of self-withdrawing noms. is self-explanatory: [42] [43] [44] [45][46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] etc.

    I am raising this issue here after exhausting other methods and believe it warrants discussion. On account of the user's lack of WP:COMPETENCY and long-term disruption being caused to the project from this habit, I propose that an indefinite ban be placed on Störm from nominating any AfDs for the forseeable future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar4d (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly urge you to stop using my previous username which I changed to hide my real-world identity. I don't think I'm that much bad what Mar4d posted above. This is more like cherry-pickings from my AfD nominations and accumulating it to portray bad of me. My quarrel with Mar4d started when we disagreed on 'Kashmir' topic categories then some Pakistani diaspora categories and then Pakistani nuclear scientist who participated in Project 706. My point was to give it a neutral view per our policy whereas Mar4d wants to portray them as heroes. This is what I had done in the past and majority of them are Pakistani articles. What I urge is to strictly follow WP:GNG but there are some users who follow old-style guidelines and consider anyone notable if that got trivial mention which I disagree with. Whatever I done so far was to raise the standard of Pakistani articles owing to the fact there are limited editors working on South Asian articles. I don't want to discuss what Mar4d has done in the past because he is discussing me here. I generally disagree with cherry pickings Mar4d above. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked by Störm to comment as a regular AfD participant in some of the subject areas he nominates (as may be seen here Störm / Icewhiz editor interaction. As a mildly inclusionist editor, I often vote against his nominations (but I have agreed on some) - but I do think that his noms are generally (at least lately and the ones I participated in - e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamran Farid (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the March 2016 Istanbul bombing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatma Omar An-Najar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Dynamics Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadie Jwaideh Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIDS Shahpar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SATUMA Mukhbar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vo Duc Van Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Defence Systems - are generally made in good faith and on articles with significant issues - even on the ones I disagreed with, I saw/see where he was coming from (though possibly failing on BEFORE quality). Unlike some other deletion nominators - I have not seen POINTy behavior at least lately. And the fact he is willing to readily and promptly withdraw noms when presented with compelling arguements and sources (as opposed to beating the dead horse endlessly and arguing the case, or just letting it linger there) - saves community time. Withdrawing a nom is not a bad thing - to the contrary - it is an indication of an editor willing to listen!Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. (edit conflict) This ([53], [54], [55]) looks an awful lot like WP:CANVASSING. Stop it.
    2. This is a gargantuan amount of AfD nominations and that's no cherry picking.
    3. Just looking at the nominations today: 13:21, 13:24, 13:29, 13:32 raises the question of how you even had time to find the articles and nominate them, much less do anything resembling WP:BEFORE. GMGtalk 15:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the 3 articles just mentioned as nominated today, Future Sonics is sourced to primary, deadlinks, and non-reliable sources; Amar Audio has been tagged ofr sourcing for 2 years and, as the nominaiton states, page has no sources; Dewan Salman Fibre is an unsourced article tagged for sourcing since 2008. We do get an awful lot of PROMO on non-notable companies; someone has to birng it to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... so... Progressive Education Network Pakistan was nominated three minutes after their last AfD nom. So, just for shits and giggles, I pulled out a stop watch, and it took me one minute and 38 seconds to just read the article from top to bottom, no looking at sources, no conducting independent searches. So if we're asking the question "How did this user perform a thorough BEFORE?" Well, let me save you some trouble and let you know that if you're looking for an answer that doesn't begin and end with "they didn't", then it's the wrong answer. GMGtalk 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And stop the clock. 11 minutes 45 seconds, not counting the time it took me to read the article. Express Tribune, Pakistan Today, and oh look, apparently they had a case study published in the Harvard Business Review. Is the company notable? I dunno. The Harvard source is behind a pay wall and I don't know what the name of the organization in Urdu might be. Are those all things that need to be considered before someone opens an AfD? Yes. GMGtalk 17:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it was written by someone whose username contains the letters "PEN" and is full of sentences like "The rationale behind this model is that by adopting under-performing public schools, PEN can leverage the existing infrastructure of public schools to focus on the quality of education delivery." I suspect the issue is not "should this go to AfD?" but "should it have been tagged as a G11 speedy"? Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. None of that changes the fact that if you are nominating dozens of articles in a day and spending less time on your BEFORE than it takes to make a cup of coffee, something isn't lining up quite right. And it's certainly not the first time something like that has come up. In that case, the editor voluntarily walked away from nominating, would have been TBANNED a month ago if they hadn't, and for fairly similar behavior: rapid fire noms, dozens of nominations, and little to no BEFORE. GMGtalk 21:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've come across a large number of Model UN articles nominated by this user. While (at first glance) the nominations are all correct, it's still a *lot* of work to go over them all. I definitely don't support a TBAN, but some limit may be called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      One could argue, per WP:NMODELUN (no, we don't need that nonexistent notability guideline), that regional Model UN projects are rarely notable. These are probably a case of locating the problem area (student created Model UN articles), some quick verification on each one (particularly given the lack of strong sources in the article itself), and then nomming the bunch. I don't think he was wrong here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that individual regional model UN events aren't going to be notable; a single batch nomination containing one type of page would be fine. A few of the noms were of organizations that run multiple sites or other Model UN related topics. I spent probably 45 minutes on the 15 nominations (30 minutes at vote time, and 15 minutes of general research when I first saw them), and there's probably a need for 2 or 3 other people to spend that time as well. Again, nothing that justifies a TBAN, just exhausting when they show up on the AfD page en masse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was asked by Störm to comment as a regular AfD participant The nominations are in good faith at the time of nomination and looking at his Last 500 nominations over 70.4% of AfD's were matches at the time of typing here.I do not support a TBan at this point Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After going through above comments, I think I should improve my quality of AfD nominations. I know my short-comings and I want to improve my editing. I can understand Mar4d's worry because he is regular WP:PAK editor so he cares about Pakistani articles. I had written 250+ articles on Pakistani topics so in general I'm not detrimental to the project. From today, I will try to give detailed rational so no one complains that I'm not doing 'quality WP:BEFORE'. All who complain to me talks about the time but reality is that because my rationals are short and I spend time on spotting articles with issues and doing before(i.e. searching in Google News/Books etc,) and then nominating them at once so this gives bad impression. I will not repeat that. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    + i am busy from july 2017 when this bad faith contributor spoil this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehsan_Sehgal), you all can review, how he and Landscape repton (talk | contribs) destroy it. i am making the case against him with my friends because i am not familiar with rules and how to make link blue. anyhow, he and others working here to damage the wekipedia and its article. i try to soon submit my case for honest and neutral contributors. he should be stop for ever. sorry my english is not good. no one care to improve article, no one investigate, it is conspricy, now he is playing drama to cover his bad faith motives, i come up with details, some people promise to help me. my one lawyer friend, she told me, he does not seem he is a english speaker, he writes very poor english. contributors let not him damage wikipedia and articles. i will ask to improve article, because i must not touch article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehsan_Sehgal). Moona Sehgal (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Störm: I'm glad to see you are apparently open to some feedback. The problem is that AfD can be an exceptionally labor intensive process. Probably a good middle ground for BEFORE is to expect to spend at least ten or fifteen minutes making sure there's nothing available. If you don't and you're wrong, then you essentially waste ten or fifteen minutes for every subsequent person who !votes, plus potentially a DRV and even a subsequent time consuming nomination. When you multiply that across sometimes ten or twenty nominations a day, you can fairly easily and singlehandedly waste dozens of man-hours across dozens of editors, and all because you couldn't be bothered to spend 15 minutes of your own time on the front end.
    I think it'd be a good idea to probably limit yourself to like five nominations a day at least for the foreseeable future. If you can be more careful going forward, and limit yourself as far as overwhelming volume goes, then we can probably get along just fine. If not, you're probably going to end up back here in a few months over the same issues, and given that it has now come up seriously twice, and you agreed to fix it, and then couldn't, there's probably not going to be very many people running to your defense, and not very many people who will be receptive to it if they do. We need more editors on southeast Asian subjects, but we still have to work within reasonable expectations regardless of our expertise. GMGtalk 20:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenMeansGo: I second your thoughts. There are more issues like this, which makes it extremely hard to arrive at a simple conclusion. When there are multiple people complaining about the same thing, then there is definitely something wrong, and acknowledging the problem is a good start. The issue is that despite Störm's repeated assurances in the past, it's always back to square one with the way he recklessly handles AfDs. The Model UN articles aren't a great example to form a judgement, because they are probably actually non-notable. My concern stems more from the way certain notable BLPs and other Pakistan-focused articles have been handled (and continue to be handled). And unfortunately, there is no one around to check or oversee. As it is already, there's a serious lack of coverage and editors in WikiProject Pakistan, a predominately non-English country, so when you have poorly-executed mass nominations coming in everyday without WP:BEFORE, we have a serious problem on our hands including wastage of time, content, and productivity.
    Trust me, there is no shortage of good faith on my side as E.M.Gregory, Icewhiz and Pharaoh of the Wizards imply. Raising the issue here was a final resort; it's me who's been letting this go on for months, trying to engage on talk and discussions, and even taking comments like this. Even if we for a second assume that all those AfDs (including improper nominations) were "well-intentioned", the fact remains that there are several bad nominations, and they're occurring regularly by the dozens. Even a single bad nomination is one too many. And it is causing more disruption to the project than good. Now multiply this over the course of several months, and see how it ends. I have so many more examples, but I will recommend to all above to actually go through the user's AfD contributions, and they are bound to find some issues. It did not take GreenMeansGo long enough to figure out what is actually the problem. There are a lot of rash AfDs that have been created and handled recklessly, unproductively, and for a lack of better word, unprofessionally. The result is several legit articles turning collateral.
    I agree partly with power~enwiki that a limit is warranted. That limit in my opinion should be a restriction on AfD nominations. I think this boils down to lack of experience also; as an editor, Störm is less than two years old. A substantial time of his current daily editing is spent on deletions. I cannot ever recall any substantial contributions from him towards writing a decent WP:FA, WP:GA, WP:DYK or WP:ITN. I think if he focuses on the content creation instead, that will accrue long-term benefits. Let the experienced users who are well-versed with deletion policies handle AfDs for now. As I said, AfD is a self-corrective process. If there is a non-notable article, it will be found, nominated and deleted one day regardless. I just don't think Störm's repeated approach is the correct way to deal with it, because it is causing irreversible damage. Mar4d (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We all here volunteer or donate our precious time for Wikipedia and we do whatever we like to do, not what other people demand us to do. I'm asking tell me how I can improve my editing in the area which interests me. Don't ask me for WP:FA or WP:GA quality articles when I'm two years old as you said above. I had written over 300 articles for Wikipedia, all with proper sourcing. Whenever I found that my article has issues then 'I myself' nominated it for deletion, check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIPS Schools and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News Room. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Mar4d should not be talking about competence since Mar4d himself has gross WP:CIR issues. Experienced editors like Störm takes lessons from every AFD and no one is perfect with AFDs. If someone has made many AFD nomination it is inevitable that some of them are going to fail but we have to see the factors here and there is nothing wrong with the nominations made by Störm. I am seeing that I have participated on 5 or 6 AFDs that he had nominated. I can recall one[59] where Mar4d had no concerns about the notability instead he was shielding creation of a disruptive sock, and this thread shows that Mar4d is disappointed that he has failed to change the result of the AFDs as much as he wished. The AFD data shows that most of Störm's nominations were positive. Strongly oppose topic ban or any other sanction. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    First off User:D4iNa4, accusing someone of having gross CIR issues should probably come with a diff or two, and is a pretty serious accusation. I'm not sure I'm in favor of a sanction at this time either, so long as User:Störm recognizes there are some concerns and is making a good faith effort at improvement. But poking through their history, finding something like this is a problem when it concerns a high volume nominator. That's not a nuanced debate about policy, or someone sweeping in with a shovel and a library card to rescue an article. That's just a google search, and is kindof just a nomination that shouldn't happen from an experienced user. That looks a bit like a preference for nominating bad articles instead of bad subjects, which I'd say could fairly conceivably be compatible with ~70% accuracy, especially if, for example, one was fairly systematically nominating articles where sources can be expected to be mostly in non-English languages, and non-Latin alphabets.
    Something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memon Abdul Majeed Sindh seems to square with that assessment pretty well. About half the original rationale is apparently a mild ad hominem, and the reply there is essientially 100% out of line with BEFORE, which explicitly expects nominators to consider non-English articles, and searches for non-English sources where the foreign language name is given, which in this case, it is. Those kinds of mistakes are perfectly acceptable for someone learning the process, but are not acceptable for someone nominating ten or twenty articles within the span of a day. GMGtalk 17:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I still have no idea what "gross CIR issues" D4iNa4 is referring to. It seems like a poor attempt to derail the discussion. I have no intention to entertain WP:BATTLE and WP:NOTHERE. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only from reading this frivolous report and demands for topic ban from AFD, one can tell about your disruption. The AFD[60] that I had cited is evidence of your "gross WP:CIR issues", I don't have to list every incident now since they are too prevalent when it comes to you. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you might want to see how that AfD was also mishandled. The user simply copied a chunk of the deleted article and pasted it into List of Internet phenomena in Pakistan without attribution. As it stands, the list currently holds no other content. At least do your research if you're going to vomit big words that are difficult to handle for you. Mar4d (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    2 replies to my comment and you still haven't justified your own actions? Thanks for proving my point. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revisiting this because as I sourced an article on a church, (In case I was unclear: not by Storm, by a different editor,) which was brought to AfD in a row of 3 articles on individual churches I found on the Christianity AfD list. Nomination statement: "Appears to be just an ordinary church ... highly unlikely to have a history with significant coverage." made it clear that Nom hadn't looked very hard, if at all. It made me return here because among the things that make Wikipedia such a nasty place is the ease with which editors can be dragged here for commonplace editing. I do not know Störm's editing well; I recounted what I do know above. But I do think that we should be as cautious about sanctioning editors as I wish all editors would be about copy-pasted and scantily researched nominations and iVotes at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @E.M.Gregory: Name those three nominations soon where I wrote "Appears to be just an ordinary church ... highly unlikely to have a history with significant coverage." It looks odd when someone don't gives evidence and starts claiming. I tried to find out those but failed. Maybe you know those. Störm (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean that at all. You had nothing to do with those church discussions. What I meant to say is that nominating a lot of articles, quickly, is an extremely widespread practice. Lots of editors do this. One editor with whom I regularly interact routinely takes new articles on political candidates to AfD. A small percentage of them are about people of significant accomplishment who do merit articles. Other editors have to check very carefully to sift these form the many nominations. The same thing happens with authors and other WP:CREATIVE professionals. Not to mention bands and albums. That does not mean that editors who rapidly nominate articles should be sanctioned. What particularly worries me here is that editors who are deeply investigated a topic sometimes use a widespread practice like this as a pretext to sanction or block an editor with whom they disagree on content or political perspective. I see that as deeply problematic, although I cannot be certain that it is what is happening here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Five minutes spent reading this editor's talk page history is illuminating. Numerous warnings and exhortations about AfD and speedy nominations, declined speedy nominations, or their June 2016 spree of removing the religion of Muslim personalities, their creation of Category:Pakistani sex gangs, their permanent war footing against articles "within the Pakistan topic area" (as outlined by the OP) and their previously self-declared ethnicity of "Anglo-Indian" (but now described as Australian, Swedish, German and English, with the dog-whistle user name "Störm") all leave me feeling very unnerved and unsettled about this editor's neutrality and POV. I can't realistically list a hundred diffs here and expect you to check them all out. If you're interested you'll look at the contributions, across several different user names (is that deliberate? Is it ABF to wonder that?) and you may come away from it questioning this editor's long term pattern of edits. Or you may - as clearly many editors over the years have - not connect the dots and dismiss complaints as paranoia or mud slinging. But either way, I would urge you to look... Neil S. Walker (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I always try to remain neutral. I reject the hint given by above user by calling to join the dots that I'm doing any systematic harm to Wikipedia or to Pakistani articles. Wikipedia is about WP:CHOICE so what I do is my choice but by following WP policies. In fact, I should ask you about your contributions when you are 6 months old? Störm (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neil, Good point. I have now taken a closer look st Strom's editing, and now see that while I have seen him make iVotes and nominations at AfD that while cursory and not well-researched, do not seem overtly problematic, he also makes a great many that are disruptive to the work of careful editors working in good faith to build reliable articles, and to editors working carefully to decide whether to keep or delete. I support the suggestion made above that Störm voluntarily undertake to concentrate his efforts for a while on building articles to gain a better understanding of content and sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I instead urge you to voluntarily undertake that what you suggested above, because you are known for making AfD useless by bombarding it with comments, making it difficult to decide whether to keep or delete which in result ends as No consensus. You wrote this because of my neutral vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein. Your neutrality and continuous change of mind here and there is seriously questioned. Pinging @TheGracefulSlick: for her neutral remarks. Thanks. Störm (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't really say much because this looks a bit like canvassing but Störm I don't think you are in a whole lot of trouble so I would just listen to others' suggestions and the ANI will probably close without any actual sanctions. No point in getting in an argument with someone who may have it out for you but in a way that is somewhat difficult to prove. After all, Gregory does regularly, for better or worse, roam terror and crime-based AFD discussions. FWIW, I wouldn't recommend sanctions because I think you can voluntarily limit yourself to a lower amount.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Störm, since you recognize that you are new and have much to learn, could you agree to go more slowly as you learn? Could you for example, agree to limit yourself to some small number of deletion nominations per a given period of time (say 5 per week) so that you ensure that you take the time to do your diligence properly and don't cause others to expend lots of unnecessary effort because of a mistake on your part? It seems to me that would result in a huge improvement to your editing skills, your esteem within the community, and would ensure your continued participation in building the encyclopedia. I think everyone else would be willing to drop this ANI process if you made that pledge. Do you agree? Jacona (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JaconaFrere: I agree that I should slow down. I can accept what you proposed, and will try to follow in next four weeks. Because working with Categories, Templates and AfDs interest me so I have to increase that number. Maybe 4 or 5 AfDs a day but with in-depth rational. Any other suggestion you want to make, if you disagree? Störm (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were up to me, I would choose a smaller number, perhaps 2 a day for a month, and if things are going well, most of the articles proposed for deletion are being deleted, I would increase it to 5 or 6 a day (perhaps after seeking feedback from some of the commenters here). But I am not in charge of anything, it's just a suggestion, what seems reasonable and wise to me! Jacona (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Refusal to communicate or clearly source article creations

    On 1st November I initiated an ANI about Dimitrije jankovski's editing, as they are producing lots of unreferenced articles. I have sent about 20 messages between April and November, but the editor has not responded to a single one, despite it being pointed out that WP:Communication is required. Unfortunately, the editor has continued since the ANI was closed with exactly the same behaviour (no discussion actually got started, and Dj did not comment or edit for a few days after the ANI was initiated).

    I have been sending the messages asking about the sourcing for this editor's many creations; none of them seem to have clear sources. I asked if by 'external links' DJ meant the usual 'friendly suggestions for further reading' or if these were actually the sources, and was happy to help make the sources clear, but DJ refused to answer and continued creating articles like Silvia Veleva, which has an empty references section and not even any external links. This is an issue because he/she is creating articles very regularly, all of which have significant issues with verifiability. I moved some to draftspace asking that they be moved back when it was clear they were not WP:OR, unfortunately Dj just reverted this but didn't add clear sources or communicate on the issue. I would like the editor to stop creating articles unless they have clear sources, and to please communicate with other editors on this issue. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also calling WP:DUCK on this IP [61], who mainly edits articles dj has created, including when they are in draftspace, and edits in a very similar way. The IP has been editing since this ANI opened to revert my edits on dj's articles, see [62]. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd really appreciate some comments here, as I'd hate it to just be closed again without any discussion. Dj seems to be using the IP but not logging into the main account, which may be to avoid this discussion. As there has been no communication, despite a previous ANI, and continued unsourced creations, I think he/she needs to be indefinitely blocked until he/she communicates. Then, if he/she is willing to discuss the issue and agree to only create referenced articles in the future, it can of course be lifted. Boleyn (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP 212.62.42.197 is continuing to edit only articles dj has created/been involved with. Boleyn (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still refusing to communicate and just editing under the IP. Can an indefinite block please be put in place until the editor agrees to communicate and to reference? Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ivanvector, I hope too that this will get dj's attention and get them to start communicating. They must be reading the messages, to know to log out for a bit to avoid this discussion. However, after 3 years of editing and having ignored more than 20 messages, I'm not hopeful wither. Dimitrije jankovski, 212.62.42.197, if you don't communicate in the next day or so, you run sereious risk of an indefinite block. Please just talk to us so we can sort this out. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins - this user is most active at shwiki (Serbo-Croatian?) and srwiki (Serbian). If one of you watching this page can communicate in those languages, could you please try to reach out to them here? They seem to use talk pages at least sporadically on shwiki. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hesselp violation of topic ban

    I consider [63], and several other edits at Talk:e (mathematical constant) to be a violation of User:Hesselp's topic ban, which I have only now read in detail. But regardless of interpretations of "remotely related" in the statement of the topic ban, in my opinion, the user is engaging in the same behavior that led to the original two topic bans, and this therefore warrants further intervention. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No action: I don't see this as a topic ban violation. I also don't see this as being particularly egregious bludgeoning behavior. It's all of, what, eight comments/responses? Is there a pattern of ongoing conduct here, or is this just an attempt to nip Hesselp's argumentative responses in the bud? I'm just not seeing actual disruption, just disagreement. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action yet- I am worried this will develop into Hesselp transferring his obsessive ramblings from the subject of series to... whatever it is he's trying to say now. But we're not at that point just yet. Suggest keeping an eye on the situation and leaving the possibility of expanding the topic ban open. Reyk YO! 07:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • An even more explicit violation of the tban: [64]. Note the series appearing in the post. Any takers yet? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe a warning that he's getting close? The topic ban is "all articles on or related to mathematical series". The closer's statement includes the phrase This is understood to include all articles on mathematical series, those who developed them, theories on mathematical series, practical applications and uses for mathematical series, etc, as well as the article talk pages on related to the mathematical series in question. I don't think e (mathematical constant) is primarily an article about a mathematical series. That said, the argument I saw someplace that just about every mathematics topic can be discussed in terms of a series rings very true, so arguably e (mathematical constant) could be considered an article related to mathematical series in that respect. However, it's quite clear that the topic ban is not a topic ban from all mathematics articles, or even most mathematics articles; it's clear it's intended to be a fairly limited subset of mathematics articles. I definitely don't read the topic ban as saying he can't talk about series at all.
        And even then, his conduct at Talk:e (mathematical constant) still has not risen to the level of being disruptive. If he's being annoying and is obviously wrong, say so and ignore him. He's made seven edits to the talk page. I'm not even sure if this isn't somehow a content dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So simply because e can be expressed using a series, the page is entirely off-limits? There's virtually no mathematics articles that you can't say that with respect to. No, that's not what the topic ban was. If you want a topic ban from all mathematics articles, then propose it. You can't bootstrap sanctions out of another topic ban. The topic ban doesn't cover talking about series either. It covers participation at articles and article talk pages where the subject is a particular mathematical series, mathematical series theory, biographies about people known for series theory, and the like. Discussing mathematical series on the talk page of an article that isn't obviously off-limits isn't a violation of the topic ban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. However, the link Sławomir Biały provided shows the same long-winded and argumentative rambling that led to the original topic ban. It is worth considering whether to extend the ban to cover all discussion of mathematical series, which I would support. Reyk YO! 06:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m on the clock at work and have only a moment’s downtime, but I can preliminarily attest that he is definitely in violation of his topic ban - he’s not supposed to be editing any talk pages for series, and the article says it’s part of a series. If he wants to discuss the matter of changes to a series page it would need to be done on a project talk page for the series in question such as wiki project mathematics or on a user talk page (more probably the former than the latter). That being said, the ban is amendable by community consensus at ani, so if ya’ll wanna move to amend the ban here be your chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a different kind of series than the kind the TBAN is talking about... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not he is in violation of his ban, I would strongly suggest that, in the spirit of WP:DENY he be ignored. Paul August ☎ 10:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban: For me, it is unclear wether he has formally respected the topic ban. But he has been topic banned twice for disruptive behavior, the first time from the article Series (mathematics) and its talk page, and the second time from anything that is related with series. Each time, he has reproduced the same behavior on articles that are not formally implied by the ban. Thus, he clearly refuses to question his own behavior. This is clearly a case of WP:RECIDIVISM. Thus it is highly probable that, if the ban is enforced, he will find new articles for continuing his disrupting behavior. For example, if he is topic banned from mathematics, he will continue with some philosophical or linguistic articles (his comments involve philosophical and linguistic (WP:OR) points of view (respective meanings of the words series and sequences, what is a mathematical concept?, ...). Therefore, a unlimited site ban seems the only way for avoiding further WP:RECIDIVISM. D.Lazard (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definite violation assuming this topic ban is defined as "broadly construed", as bans normally are. Editing e at all is probably pretty close to a violation, but the second diff of violation above involves the user giving a detailed explanation of compound interest which is a mathematical series any way you look at it. Was it disruptive? I think not. Does it matter? No. But a warning to be more careful should be tried before further sanctions. And to that end: if the community wants to refine the scope of the ban, this is the place to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The topic ban didn't have broad construction, and applied to articles and their talk pages. Including e in that definition is, frankly, such serious overreach that you might as well hold that the original topic ban applies to all mathematics articles. And in any event, Hesselp was never banned from incidentally mentioning series theory. The big deal here is that it's not a disruptive discussion. At worst, it's annoying. The answer is for the individuals on the talk page not to engage Hesselp. We're not talking about conduct so offensive that it's understandable and acceptable for other individuals to become upset... at the start of this thread you couldn't even really call it disruptive. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apology  A considerable part of the discussion with me in the section 'Circular Definition' was about my proposal for an altenative start of the article on 19 November 2017. The words 'has doubled the start value' in this proposal, were interpreted as 'has doubled the abscissa at the start', while it was meant as 'has doubled the ordinate at the start'.
      I've seen much too late that the original wording was not unambiguous (as being myself very familiar with the picture of the 'exponential surplus').  I regret that I didn't see this earlier, and I apologize for that. As an extra argument to clarify my proposal, I used the well known situation with growing bacteria, not realizing that this could be seen as having a link with the earlier discussion concerning the subject 'series'. -- Hesselp (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin closure requested

    Just for preventing automatic archiving without admin closure. In fact, this thread needs an admin decision, whichever it is. D.Lazard (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Avaya1's behavior in the Israel article is well summarized in the first point of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article."

    Last year, I tried repeatedly to remove an image (which was pushed into the article by Avaya1 years ago [65] [66] [67]) from 'Literaure' section because there is no room for it, but Avaya1 reverted me, and I was blocked for 24 hours. Based on other editors' responses, they didn't look into the problem and were in favor of the status quo just to stop the edit-warring. Recently, another editor raised the issue and consensus was reached for the removal, which I implemented. Avaya1 added it back twice citing old consensus ([68] [69]), falsely stated that a minority supports the removal and called me sad stalker. Finally, I posted a RfC, which ended with overwhelming support for not including the image.

    In 'Military' section I replaced Avaya1's image with an image that he edit-warred out of the article in 2016. Then he tried to replace it with different images and rationales, including "no consensus", although there was no consensus for his additions ([70] [71] [72] [73]). I opened a RfC, which ended in favor of an image closest to the one I was trying to restore.

    After Avaya1's image in 'Tourism' section was replaced by me with more notable tourist site, he tried to replace it first with a location outside of Israel's recognized borders, then with a place that is not related to tourism. Now he's asking other editors to nominate new image, without ever giving a reason why it should be replaced in the first place.

    At 2014 WP:AE, admins agreed that Avaya1 is close to a topic ban, but at the time decided: "Avaya1 is subject to a zero revert restriction on all Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. If Avaya1 wishes to change or revert another user's edit (which does not unquestionably fall within the standard exemptions) they must propose the change on the article's talk page and obtain a consensus. Avaya1 should not be the one to determine whether a consensus exists." --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Malik Shabazz I have simply requested editors to discuss the tourism image edit. Check the image - it has been replaced by Triggerhippie4 here and here. My response has been to open a discussion here rather than edit warring or reverting, while Trigghippie4's response was just to revert. And Triggerhippie4's is to revert and try to get a topic-ban rather than responding to my attempt to open the discussion on the talkpage (I have not reverted his edit). How is this obstructionist? Note his response here is in response to this edit by me here.
    2. Likewise, Triggerhippie4 edited in a picture into the military section here and here and here - which was reverting edits not just by me, but by another user. My response was not to revert anymore but to let him revert, but to open up a discussion on the talkpage here. Which resulted in the consensus we have for the new image choice.
    3. Triggerhippie4 opens highly personal attacks on the talkpage. And then when I open the discussion on the talkpage, he responds with things like "If Avaya1 was an honest person, the captions would be". this
    4. Count the reverts on the page. In both the edit-wars, he reverts more times than any other editor and always has the last revert. Which I accept is fine, if there is a consensus for those edits on the talkpage first. Rather than reverting his last edits, I opened a discussion section on the talkpage in both cases (the last one needs input), while he reverted in both cases without any consensus. My opening the discussion for voting on the talkpage is the thing that stopped the reverting in of his choice of the military image which had been going on for a year or so, and which he had the final edit on. It resulted in a better image choice - which has consensus support. This was by the book.
    5. He refers to my trying to open discussion on the talkpage here as 'this joke' here. I opened the discussion to get a consensus, after he reverted the same image choice twice without discussion. I have not reverted him, but opened a discussion so we can get more input. Avaya1 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I gave strong arguments in those reverts' summaries. You proposed to change the image on the talk page without a replacement or explaining why.
    2. Another user didn't oppose the inclusion of the image but noted a Manual of Style issue, which I fixed.
    3. In your proposal, you captioned your image that no one supported as "One image that has been used", and the image that you were removing from the article for almost two years against four users (including me) as "Triggerhippie4's choice".
    4. You reverted my edits for months citing "no consensus", and opened a proposal on the matter just three weeks ago.
    5. See 1. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support topic ban, if not 1-way I-ban. Avaya1 is not going to be any help on this page, and his interactions with Triggerhippie4 are against our principles. I wouldn't go to a block yet, though. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not familiar enough with the nuances that inevitably come with editing in this area to formally support or oppose anything, but I feel comfortable saying that Malik's summary seems to be spot-on. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I am going to say about this is that any edits about the IDF, including the photo, are edits about the conflict broadly construed. It would be considered part of the conflict area if the edits were about photos of Hamas, wouldn't it? Seraphim System (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So what's the decision? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Users Störm, Saqib, Landscape repton

    I think we're done here. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Relating - Ehsan Sehgal - Zarb-e-Sukhan - The Wise Way - Muslim United Nations

    This case was reviewed and suggested by my private friends' team, who went through the real conspiracy and dig into it, to brought up the matter, which deliberately and with the hired ones, who illegitimately, violating all the rules for their bad faith motives that achieved with the calibration of the visible and invisible contributors. My team has selected the major things that can help the neutral and honest and fair contributors, who work for the best of Wikipedia, not for intelligence agencies or personal hatred or jealousy. I am sorry if I don't use the Wiki way of language. I don't know the rules, it is just my feeling that I feel some contributors brutally misused the Wikipedia, even I doubt the involvement of some admins behind this game, because, I update all social media accounts of the subject, many of you know the relationship of it. I am thankful of those friends, who searched and provided me the facts, alone, for me was it very difficult, as the subject would never help in this regard. I don't worry if the result goes against this case, I want only that this case should be handled by the native speakers, who know the policies better than those ones, who misuse it.

    1 - The subject's mistake was that we misused his name, to create the account with his real name, we were not aware of that will be the ugly problem, the whole history is on Wikipedia, admins can easily find that on subject's talk page, which lead personal motives than rules.

    2. Small events are ignored, but issues started from here, 1

    3. About my role and others, who added the information in the subject's article, were explained by the subject through email privately, as I know, the subject and admins involved were satisfied, but not the opponents, they remained against the subject, with different accounts, and waited for lang for that and they finally succeeded.

    I come up to recently, in July 2017, started to mess the articles of the subject, and articles created by the subjects, it happened after I blocked several admins and contributors of Wikipedia, who were on friend list of the subject on its social media accounts, which I was time to time updating besides the subject. I don't want to reveal the conversation among them, I respect subject's privacy and those, who tried to --- (?) ---. Maybe, some of those got anger, I didn't realize, when I got email in July that pics, uploaded by me were for deletion, I without notice the subject, became aware that someone, not only nominated the pics on Commons but also subject's articles and created articles were under deletion, and messed, and well-sourced content was removed mindlessly. Mess the article Ehsan Sehgal started after that as such comments:

    [74]

    Saqib disclose the identity of Justiceoo7, for that Saqib got just a warning from Drmies, but damage was done. Such unjust practices lead that Justice retired from editing permanently

    Just after six months, planned bad faith practice started by Greenbörg (talk), now User:Störm, on article Ehsan Sehgal as this [well-sourced authentic weekly magzine of Daily Nawaiwaqt group source no-5. and so on- exceeding of hatred and bad faith resulted as these tags,and planned reaction.

    And helpers appeared, as Landscape repton and Saqib and double helper of both sides, as strangely NitinMlk, who one side criticized and other side to encourage for deletion or merging, telling the most comprehensive reliable sources, as:

    Comment – The links provided by the above anon user show that the cited offline sources of this BLP not only exist but also discuss the subject in detail. I also looked at the revision history of this BLP. It's clear that most of its online sources are archived at archive.is & Internet Archive. I am adding some of those archived sources here: Bilingual literary read. Daily Times. Daily Jang. 15 May 2012. Daily Jang. 24 November 2012. A splendid poetry collection. Daily Times. Geo Urdu. 2 January 2014. Urdu, surviving against odds. Daily Rising Kashmir P.S. As one can see in the BLP's revision history, User:Landscape repton – who registered here a few days ago – has cleaned it up, which includes addition of 20 plus tags by them. And its lots of sources & content has been deleted. So, I guess one will have to look at older revisions like this one for analyzing the sources. BTW, the user has also done similar sort of edits at the subject's book article – see here. - NitinMlk. Contributors can read through all comments to realize the bad faith and of citation templates. Only that three most honest contributors each after each spoiled the article, no one bothered to stop them, it had shown the complete conspiracy and preplanning agenda and motives, which was and is against the Wikipedia. Not only this, they went to all articles, created by the subject and user Justice, for deletion, in which those articles were deleted that subjects had received government award and prizes, it was very shameful practice but happened. Even though article Zarb-e-Sukhan well-sources, with comprehensive 5 sources had been merged by the nominator, who voted for deletion, and his self-closed as merge, it is a great surprise but no one's matter, more surprising, he with so called good faith went here too, for deletion all pics 1

    I just want to ask the nuetral and western contributors to judge and review the matter. It is not the compelete case, I will add more facts as my team ready to give me the draft for submit here, these are my comcerns, which I asked my friends to help me, they are not from Wikipedia, but somehow aware of that, we are busy from july 2017. I today also commented this. Moona Sehgal (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • It makes me more surprised what it means or something els? I will write after finding facts.

    On User talk:Mar4d - page: - 1 - 2.

    Moona Sehgal (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • i am not here for tricks, no one is using my account, my friends just make the draft that i paste, i tell that because i write in small letter as my habit. i fairly tell the truth, my concerns in another way of writing, i have asked many contributors through email, just help me, where to go and how to deal. it is a harassment that they don't dare to comment because later they will be targeted by such ones. i am not alone to say this. you can see others too, here. 1

    saqib & storm violated a rule, you mention here 1. thank for it, i am learning this, while i am not interested to contribute, i was just for upload pics of my father. my first task is to get delete my father article, which caused him humiliation, damage in private life, i don't think wikipedia is for this purpose, but these two have done this, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.

    Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information are not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing."

    don't ask me, just go and dig in the article history and talk pages, you will know what is reality. i am busy to add more things, as i have. Moona Sehgal (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • About Muslim United Nations, disgusting remarks of Landscape repton: It is just a pamphlet repton and Greenborg, as "he is a critic of UN so he wrote that charter and that's it." . It was deliberately insulting and degrading the subject, is the Wikipedia ground of such conduct or checking the reliability of sources or insulting of the subject, to enjoying self-egoism? While utmost two reliable sources were cited, as [75] Family Magazine of Daily [76] Nawaiwaq group, stated in second leads, "Muslim United Nations Founding Chairman Ehsan Sehgal, residing in the Hague, magazine issue of 1998 and Daily Hurriya Karachi, the biggest daily newspaper of its time, mentioned lead in box: To establish Muslim United Nations Is My Mission-Ehsan Sehgal - Good faith contributors had that seen and cited too, but working on agenda could not see, even making jokes in insulting way- They could not find that-- 1, 2, 3

    Charter.

    My friends are busy to help me, I come with all answers to bad faith contributors. It is not just conspiracy, it is a big conspiracy and very accurate planned to humiliate the subject. It has to come more, I am busy. Moona Sehgal (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: In the interests of making life easier for everyone concerned, could I just ask that you outline what the concern actually is, without the flowery language? Is it an issue of users deleting content when they shouldn't have done so, outing other editors, a combination of the two or something entirely different? If anything's going to come of this, it will come of it due to facts and policies, rather than oratory. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We I don't know exactly what we are here for, but we I do know that none of us are currently in a conspiracy, as far as I to my knowledge hand on heart. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As if arbs had hearts.[FBDB] EEng 14:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You and your supporters assuming good faith, having no any clue what does it mean, make me surprised. You call it good faith? An IP removed term Scholar for having not citation that you and your supporter blindly first removed all sources, and then tagged multiple templates, and blaming subject's connections with media, you are well aware of my father's personal life than I do?? very interesting! The most insulting game did your supporter, as; A student of Urdu literature, you both had no manner of respect and civility, it was inserted without citation, is it good faith?

    Your good faith openly shows a reality, while you have more knowledge of a subject, even you tag Hoax, a completely planned and conspired edits. You still determine to be a good faith contributor? Do not worry, my friends helping me, you and your supporters can not damage Wikipedia. I am still busy to collect the facts, there is more of this conspiracy. Moona Sehgal (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Storm, you and suspicious account Landscape repton, which was created within the minutes and directly he or she found your adventure on Ehsan Sehgal, which you illegitimately messed the article, Landscape repton with its dubious tricks, as a newbie contributor demonstrated as an experienced administrator of Wikipedia. You stormed the policies on the subject and taking the gun of promotional, knowing nothing that was promotional? While here is your list of articles that you created, all fall under WP:COI and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising, your all articles are upon Pakistani subjects, while you are English speaker and from Australia, it is so strange that you are interested in Pakistani subjects, not the Australian ones???. You have let your previous account name Greenbörg, deleted, where, a contributor Mar4d posted you the Wiki Barnstar, while you asking him to help too, how you knew him?These are the question but my friends know the answer, I will come up later about this, Wikipedia is not a platform to misuse for personal use. I am not accusing, I am telling the truth if admins let me continue that because I and my friends are not much familiar, we step by step finding the facts. Don't forget, I have proof of harassment to the subject on its social media and real life, by the ISI and RAW agencies and at the same time, his articles were messed? Collibration of you, Landscape repton and Saqib, from different worlds, show doubts??

    You also targeted hundreds of other articles blindly because just to cover your way as normal practice while your created most of articles fail to pass notability, and you clearly breach COI and Advert policies, for example, these articles 1, 2 have none of the sources that establish WP:notability, just promoting subjects here as like things of supermarket. Well aware of rules may review your list of articles, most of the single line articles and fall under WP: COI and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising articles. There is more to come, I will defend the credibility of the Wikipedia until I am allowed to do that.Moona Sehgal (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am a Dutch woman, wife, mother, sister, and daughter, I am here to ask fairness, not to threaten anything, but good for Wikipedia. Discussion on talk pages was not anymore possible, in a situation of three bad faith editors and their supporters, who occupied the editing process, no one was allowed to do, what they want they did, preplanning edits, if you will not allow me to express my concerns, as I am also contributor of Wikipedia, should not be taken side of anyone, it should be different here than the talk pages, but I feel harassment here too?

    As on article talk page, a contributor, User:Renzoy16 commented this

    As a result, a pinging contributor Jytdog went to the Renzoy talk page, rather reply on article talk page, it was openly way of harassment, that's why I am here. Working on agenda will try to cause me blocked, for me is not a problem that, I will not stop until there is not a fair investigation and decision, otherwise, I will take my case to The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. I hope, admins will give me, right to say my concerns, which are in the favor of Wikipedia. Moona Sehgal (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not stop until there is not a fair investigation and decision Well, I see why you're upset, then. You're getting a fair hearing but that it isn't what you wanted. Marianna251TALK 13:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moona Sehgal: Why are you hiding behind other names? Be brave! Come up and discuss. You should start AfD where you think my created articles are promotional. I can assure that you will never do that. I want to hear more. Störm (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    i don't understand what you want to say, give the answers that are raised here, if you can't, plz go to school and first finish your study. i am here for fair investigation, not for your ordinary questions. Moona Sehgal (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]



    --**"My Last Comment"** - My concerns are that restore the well-sourced version, and neutral originally Eglish speakers copy edit if there is promotional content, to make balance rather than deleting it, or delete the entire article, to let us free from COI, which remain the target of bad faith contributors. there is all content, someone can rewrite for Wikipedia, it is not a difficult, and also restore well-sourced, zarb-e-sukhan covered with five major mainstream international newspapers. I repeat a comment of  — Myk Streja (when?), who was convinced to delete vote. Recently bad faith edits of Strom are not as the sources state. In lead, he added false claim while it was Zarb-e-Sukhan. Similarly, such edits created the problems by such contributors since it was created. Now I will only focus to upload pics in commons. Moona Sehgal (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    • Note: I have tried a half-dozen times or so to read this section, and I could not make heads or tails of it, it's simply impenetrable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The impression I get is "content dispute, OP decides that since all the other editors disagree with their position they must be socks or at least a cabal, and when their ANI gets befuddled-yet-generally-opposing responses they double down, while playing the what a nice person I am/what terrible people you are card multiple times, all of this with a side of sounding seriously like a shared account or something indistinguishable from same". Having gotten a triple word score on Wikipedia Bingo, this should probably be closed while adding the '...before the boomerang', 'belongs at DR', and 'please try to be clearer with your complaint there' cards to the deck. (Now, that isn't to say there isn't fire under this smoke - see above - but this, as it is, is only going to hurt the issue, not help.) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, you got a lot more from it then I could. The major problems here are the English-language capabilities of the major participants, which are poor, and, to be trite, the formatting. I don't think people realize how important it is to use short paragraphs, indent properly, etc. so that the reader's eyes don't glaze over in trying to take in the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting false vandalism accusations from Me-123567-Me

    diffs

    • My edit to the page [77]
    • His template vandalism warning [78]
    • My edit to his page [79]
    • His edit to my page [80]
    • My edit to his page [81]
    • His second false accusation of "unconstructive editing" for wanting to discuss this with him. [82]

    Notes: The Orville has been subject of IPs with one edit to their name attempting to force through changes to the Reception area which go against WP:UGC. My edit was removing one such edit which included duplicated links of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as per Wikipedia policy.

    I've been an active editor on The Orville page for many months and have regularly updated things such as the ratings and the reception area and kept the area as vandalism free as I could. Today I received a false accusation against me on my talk page and responded on the users page who left. He removed my comment and responded on my page basically saying he could do what he wants if he feels it goes against policy. I responded to this and left a comment on his page to remind him that leaving false accusations of Vandalism goes against Wikipedia policy and if he did that again I would report him on the admin board.

    I don't think it's right or fair for a long standing editor to behave this way. He refuses to discuss this situation and is throwing a bad faith accusation against me without any grounds to back this behavior up. I've received two templates from this editor that I feel are entirely unjustified and I would like to request an admin look into it. I've never vandalized Wikipedia in my life.

    The user in question also has a history of false vandalism accusations, such as this one [83] 82.15.11.92 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Me-123567-Me - I have to side with the IP user on this one. While I'm not 100% certain when it comes to community consensus regarding the use of rottentomatoes.com as a reference and if it's acceptable or not when adding content regarding the ratings of films, these edits made by the IP were definitely not vandalism... especially when the user cites a Wikipedia content guideline in their explanations (see edit summaries here and here) - which to me is a reasonable interpretation of it, even if the user is incorrect in this situation. I think the user was completely reasonable when they messaged you on your talk page and expressed their frustration toward you about it (I personally would't have said, "I thought you'd be mature enough to own up to your mistake and apologize but I guess not" as it starts to direct the discussion toward being "snippy", but it's not a statement I'd consider uncivil). Your response here obviously didn't make the concerns expressed by the user any better. If you think an edit is against a Wikipedia policy and don't know for absolute sure, you should ask and find out for sure first before you revert the edits of others. I'm not trying to be overly harsh here; I've been in this position a number of times before where I've done this in the past. But if you're going to patrol recent changes and take action with any edits, "shoot first and ask questions later" isn't a method that's going to be viewed positively by the community. I highly recommend that you re-evaluate your responses to this user and try to turn his/her frustration around. It's the least you could do (assuming I'm not missing anything obvious, of course). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that 82.15.11.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been around since August. If they don't know the policy and how to be WP:CIVIL then pergaps they need a refresher. I keep this particular mentioned page on my watchlist. I disagreed with this IP adddy, however, I chose not to engage in a revert war, which based on the tone of some of their messages I could see they would easily engage in. Do I own them an apology? Perhaps if they had a username (so I know who this person is in the future) I might issue one and if they too apologized. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Me-123567-Me - Aww, c'mon... IPs are people, too, man. You can't forget that fact. Look, I can't tell you what to do - you don't have to listen or do a darn thing I suggest here (and it won't hurt my feelings if you don't... lol). But if you want to grow as an editor and become respected and looked-up upon by the community as a leader and a user who sets the true example of how the rest of us should be, sometimes you gotta be the bigger person... :-). Other than that, there's no administrative action required here. Just be careful with your reverts; that's all that really needs to be said. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sidebar Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Sidebar: "IPs are people, too" - Obviously (unless they're bots), but not exactly in the same sense as accounts are people. With an editor who uses an account, I can be reasonably (although not absolutely) sure that I'm dealing with the same person behind the account name every time I see it. With an IP, I don't know if it's static, and therefore the same person, or if it's a different person every time, or the same person for a month and then a different person at another time, and so on.
    That, and the fact IPs are simply numbers, or, with IPv6, very long strings of quasi-random-looking numbers and letters, which do not have the same semantic value as do names, means that IPs are, in reality, perceived differently from account editors. That's not necessarily deliberate, and not necessarily an indication of prejudice, it's just the way our brains work. People who choose to edit without an account, for whatever advantage they see in it, have to take this disadvantage as part of the package, because trying to remember "IPs are people, too" will not make it go away, it's intrinsic to human psychology: we're simply not built to think of strings of numbers or numbers and letter as being name-like.
    That doesn't mean that IPs can or should be abused just because they're not accounts, but it does mean that they're always going to be perceived differently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban violations, again

    C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) continues to violate this interaction ban.

    I'm in an editing dispute with Slatersteven and Gilmore heads over to his talk page and calls me a Pig He adds OR to an article I created and am still working on, so now I can't do anything to it. Can something be done now to stop this constant messing about. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a comment on a source I had just added. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC) You can still edit that article, you just cannot undo his edits. You should also inform parties mentioned as party to a dispute you have launched an ANI against the, You have failed to do so.[reply]

    As to the comments on my talk page, they do not mention you by name. But they may well be about you given the timing of them. Hence why I said to Gilmore he was sailing close to the wind.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now informed them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I find a clear violation of the interaction ban here. Aside from taking sudden interest in the Rose City Antifa article and editing it after the interaction ban was imposed, these messages here are a clear attempt to push the envelope and refer to the user without actually mentioning them by name. C. W. Gilmore has been blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ‎Darkness Shines

    ‎Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) I believe the user has major POV issues that make interacting with him on certain pages a problem.

    He has re-added material to this article [86] without consensus (And despite an ongoing talk page discussion).

    In addition to accusations of censorship [87]

    There are claims that his edit was accurate (when in fact it left out that this was only an allegation, not a fact) [88], [89],[90]

    A very battleground mentality over what (he see's as) antisemitism [91] & Getting personal [92], [93]

    It is clear to me the user is a POV warrior.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    When someone's able to point out what in the edit ain't in the source then there ain't nothing wrong with the edit, Slater, who btw is on 4RR over there, needs reminding ANI is not the place to win content disputes, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I point out the sources do not say he said it, they say he was alleged to have said it (thus this was a BLP violation). In addition there are (as I said) questions of undue and POV pushing. Also I am not at 4RR, if I am please provide the diffs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, 1 2 3 4 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr, you are aware that repeating an accusation as if it is fact is a BLP violation?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We also have attitudes like this [94] to anyone who posts what he does not want to see on his talk page. He really does seem to have a major attitude problem.What is galling is that here [95] he says "Allegations are not facts" yet when disusing the speech at the labour party fringe meeting he argued that an allegation was a fact. So we also have a double standard in operation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So we've gone from you saying it ain't in the source to it's an allegation, of course you know it was reported on from the source you presented on the talk page [96] and of course I wrote that it was reported on, not presented as facts, that's my last comment here, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time saying "Not sure why this matters....", if you cannot see why saying an unproven accusation is a fact (and that is then way you originally worded it) does not matter you should not be editing any BLP material. And I did not say it was not in the source, I said the source does not say what you are, it is not the same, but is a good reflection of the problem here)Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Can we have a moratorium on ANI threads beginning DarknessShines has done XYZ in what is almost always a content dispute. and I'm not sure if that 'almost' was actually deserved! — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is, as has been shown many times, par for the course with the way DS operates. They push a very specific POV, make edits against consensus constantly, and simply don't hear things. Perhaps there is a reason why there are so many "Darkness Shines has done XYZ" threads.--Jorm (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They've got a WP:COI? Great, WP:COIN. Pushing a bias? Great, WP:POVN. Edit warring? WP:ANEW. Etc etc. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a continuing pattern of behavior forum?Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is a reason why there are so many "Darkness Shines has done XYZ" threads. Yes, and perhaps there is a reason a wildly disproportionate number of them seem to wind up as boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what I have done to deserve a boomerang?Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying you have. Just noting in response to others that it seems that a large majority of the complaints against DS wind up boomeranging, and thus the "well maybe there's a reason DS gets dragged to ANI so much" argument may not mean what those who say it think it means. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this would answer your question. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe instead of derailing this with discussions about others or past actions we should look at this case on it (or lack of them) merits?

    Did Darkness Shines repeatedly add material that breached BLP?

    Did Darkness Shines refuse to acknowledge this, and continue to say that his edits accurately reflect the sources (did they)?

    Does this (and other behaviors) demonstrate a battle ground mentality in relation to certain topics?Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So now It's WP:CRYBLP, make your mind up. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was you who said I had breached 3RR, I pointed out they were (to my mind) BLP violations that I reverted. I am asking if this was correct. It if is I did not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment)I have edited alongside darkness shines (though I know nothing of the current dispute), and I have seen a pushy, somewhat [[[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] attitude, and perhaps some bias. However, I am hesitant to support sanctions as I fear overuse of discretionary sections may just make people afraid to debate things. But I will say that the pushiness in the diffs provided above is not surprising to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean WP:ICANTHEARYOU? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fixing my previous typo. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over CAGE_(organisation)

    Cautious is topic banned on all matters relating to CAGE (very broadly construed), indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:Pincrete is constantly deleting new content from the CAGE_(organisation) article. Due to the fact he is reverting the new content since a long time, the article is usually outdated. User Pincrete do not react to arguments and for example reverting to the false quotaion, only because his POV. Plaese help me to resolve dipute with him. Cautious (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Why should a content dispute be settled at ANI? And you did not bother to provide diffs. Regardless, it appears Pincrete perfectly described the issues with your additions here. It is much more appropriate to discuss with him and, if there is no resolution, perhaps initiate a RfC.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note By the looks of this discussion, Cautious has been particularly uncivil, accusing Pincrete of misrepresenting sources, POV-pushing, and being "blind". I find the accusations of misrepresenting sources as the most ironic as it appears Pincrete thoroughly describes how you are the one actually committing such an act.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff illustrates TGS's last point quite well. Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User Pincrete removed sourced quotation from Rabbani, who said that it was "moral victory". Cautious (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User Pincrete also replaced quotations regarding Zakat appeal with false quotation. Cautious (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem is that User Pincrete is reversing changes to that acrticle since long time due to that fact the content of the article is outdated. He is not even filling the reverted content with his version. He is removing content, because of some POV reasons. Cautious (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathsci this is not point of dispute. I answered his question, kind of open discussion. Above I mention 3 problesms I have with user Pincrete. Cautious (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rabbani did not say it was a 'moral victory', CAGE did in a headline on a press release, this I added back into the article Cautious's text, My addition of the shortened text, My explanation on talk, though the reason why many of these additions are unacceptable (analysis of a primary source), had already been explained several times. Cautious does not live up to his name and appears determined to use the article to put his own opinions of CAGE and its staff. His English is not always clear either.Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    https://cage.ngo/press-release/muhammad-rabbani-we-have-won-the-moral-argument/ Here is quotation from Rabbani: we have won the moral argument. Cautious (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "add CAGE (not Rabbani's) statement, which does not mention any 'demonstrations' ... see talk", while in the source the demo is clearly visible. You are reverting, ignoring sources, without reading sources. I propose to discuss sources first and than make decision to improve.Cautious (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are simply ignoring sources and writing content based on your imaginationCautious (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    That is not the source you were using. It still would not justify WHERE you put the text (splitting up citations), nor the claim of a 'demonstration, which appeared invented by you. I have no objection to saying that both Cage and Rabbani claimed a moral victory and will add it myself. What do you mean VISIBLE? Are you now interpreting photos? Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of sources you choose to ignore. I just proven my point, why are unable to acknowledge it? In the previous source there are photos, clearly showing Rabbani within the crowd. Again, you are not reading the sources! Cautious (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how to 'read' a photo and your interpretation of one is not a source. You seem really determined to prove that you lack the competence, experience and neutrality to edit in a controversial topic area. I suggest you close this ANI before it blows up in your face. Pincrete (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been awhile, and I'm an old curmudgeon, but I'm pretty sure "this is a photo, I see X in the photo, therefore the photo is a reference for X" is pretty much one of the textbook examples of WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally I found the source, where I took the gathering from. Following the judge’s verdict yesterday Rabbani addressed supporters and members of the press outside Westminster Magistrates Court. http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/09/26/cages-muhammad-rabbani-to-appeal-guilty-verdict-in-schedule-7-trial/ Cautious (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed that Pincrete removed the whole chapter related to Political activities of Cage based on their article to remove US and UN Based soldiers from Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAGE_(organisation)&oldid=810837495#Political_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAGE_%28organisation%29&type=revision&diff=812266638&oldid=810837495Cautious I believe it is important to know that the allegededly charity organisation has also political agenda. (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A photo showing Rabbani talking to reporters + supporters does not = 'a demonstration' . The "allegededly charity organisation has also political agenda" is your analysis of a primary document. CAGE opposes many of the laws and actions perpetrated by US and allies! It says that in almost that few words in their mission statement, yet you imagine you have discovered something important and sinister in their press releases. Read what others (not me) are saying above, you are way out of your depth here . Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking to reporters + supporters: quite a crowd! Regarding Political activities chapter, it is your POV that Cage is not sinister organisation. I am only quoting Cage press release with demand of troops withdrawal from Africa and I am nit saying they want it to make space for terrorists organisation to make them freely operate there. Cautious (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re:"it is your POV that Cage is not sinister organisation" Errrr yes, it's also my PoV that Donald Trump isn't a ballet dancer, that the Empire State building isn't made of blancmange. We don't need to say or prove or cite or even discuss what things or people AREN'T. How do you know I'm not a jelly-fish? Shall I prove it? Pincrete (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see that you have a good point here. User Pincrete put the Cage article on his watchlist and contantly reverted the new content. When I provided sources, he reverted without reading the new sources. The article became obsolote, the sentence for Rabbani, though extremely important, was not even mentioned. I dont think he has good point to refuse the new content, if it is written in neutral matter and with sources provided. By the way, I provide sources from CAge own page, no hatred pages. Cautious (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading your most recent edit and the source, I've struck out my above comment about taking this issue to dispute resolution. There is an issue here with edits going against policy and an editor who refuses to listen, but it's not Pincrete. I reverted your most recent edit to CAGE because it is very, very clearly your interpretation (i.e. original research) and does not actually reflect the content of the source in anything approaching a balanced, neutral way. If your edits were written in neutral matter and with sources provided, then I would agree with you. But they're not. Marianna251TALK 13:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: criticising anti-terrorism laws =/= advocating for terrorism. Marianna251TALK 13:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As general statement criticising anti-terrorism laws =/= advocating for terrorism is correct. However, please focus on sources. One the source says as following:

    We must begin to openly discuss the root causes of violent incidents in a balanced and intelligent manner. This in turn, must prompt a re-examination of the neo-conservative and violent Western foreign and domestic policy towards Muslims.. There are other sources. Let us right NPOV article, not based on presumptions, but factual sources. Let us continue discussion here Talk:CAGE_(organisation)#Advocated_strategy Cautious (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]

    Regardless of the rest of the dispute involved here, ANI is not the place to propose content. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Version 1 proposed: Cage advocates deeper view into the way the Muslims see the world and accomodate to their demands regarding foreign policy. In addition they demand to change policy towards Muslims to align with mainstream Muslim demands. Cage believes such a policy would influence potential and actual terrorists to prevent them from carrying out the terror acts agsint United Kingdom.

    Competency issues with User:Cautious

    When I first interacted with User:Cautious on the CAGE article, I presumed that he must be a 'newbie'. For anyone who did not understand NPOV, OR or SYNTH to the extent that Cautious didn't, and who insisted on interpreting PRIMARY sources to back up his additions, this seemed the only rational explanation, and I have spent quite a lot of time trying to explain core policies on talk.

    In fact Cautious has been an editor since 2002 although the focus of his editing since March 2017 has been almost exclusively on CAGE, his first edit in March and on related pages such as this addition to The Guardian article. Most of Cautious's edits are using PRIMARY sources interpreted by him/her, for example the Gdn addition uses a CAGE press release to claim that a Gdn journalist has "expressed his support for CAGE" and that CAGE has been "investigated due to terrorist connections", this simply because CAGE quoted the journalist in a report. Needless to say, the "have been investigated" claim is not in the source, nor is it true AFAIK and the comment about the journalist is possibly a BLP violation.

    His problematic edits include this addition, which is a mixture of unsourced and contentiously phrased, (scroll down to Zakat sections, which again interprets a primary source and categories, which include 'organised crime') and more recently this series of edits including 'political activities', My reply to that series of edits is here.

    Almost all of Cautious's edits are based on HIS reading of primary sources and he seems incapable of - or unwilling to - understand why that is unacceptable. Discussion on talk is here.

    There is further evidence above of his IDHT attitude above, and TheGracefulSlick and Mathsci both point to his PoV and PA-ish approach, whilst The Bushranger, and Marianna251 endorse his SYNTH and Marianna251 additionally has endorsed that Cautious is misrepresenting sources in violation of OR and NPOV. It does not help that Cautious does not appear to be a native English speaker.

    For all these reasons, I am therefore proposing a Boomerang below that Cautious be banned from the CAGE article. If someone has not mastered the basics of NPOV, SYNTH, OR and misuse of sources since 2002, there is little reason to think they are going to do so anytime soon. AFAIK, Cautious is a constuctive editor in his more 'traditional' topic area, which appears to be E. Europe.

    Boomerang proposal

    • I propose a topic ban for Cautious from the CAGE article for a period of one month minimum. He simply does not listen or care about his WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or NPOV editing Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite t-ban from CAGE - One month would only temporarily address the issue; if Cautious is even fairly determined to continue to push his POV, he can wait out the month. The editor has had plenty of time to brush up on the basics of reliable sourcing and neutral editing. His I didn't hear that attitude and lack of growth do not make him a net-positive to the article. If he was not constructive in other fields, as you mentioned, I would have proposed a WP:CIR block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on anything related to CAGE (not just the article, given the Guardian edit) for the reasons already detailed. Marianna251TALK 00:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Against The Cage article has multiple issues undue weight update it is poor quality article in area, where many people have very strong POV. User:Pincrete believs in his POV - example CAGE is opposed to many US and allied actions in the 'war on terror'and they are not 'extremists' or 'terrorists' or advocates for same.. User talk:Marianna251 stated Just to be clear: criticising anti-terrorism laws =/= advocating for terrorism., which is cleraly POV if applied to Cage prisoners . I am doing in-depth researches and providing good sources, mostly from Cage own pages, therefore I consider POV accusations baseless. How come their own page can provide source to provide somebody else POV??? Here is example that Pincrete appreciates source I provided It is a good source and it includes an admission from police that Rabbani was 'targeted', because he was known to be carrying client info about someone allegedly tortured by the US, also that Rabbani believed the guidelines to police (which exclude client info), exempted him from the requirement to 'hand over' his passwords. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) We can combine our strengths together and make very good, NPOV article. Cautious (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You DID bring the Rabbani case to my attention, thankyou, it may well ultimately prove to be a 'landmark' case when it goes to the High court. However you made no attempt to present the case in a neutral and complete fashion. Your only interest is in using the source to condemn CAGE as being 'led by a convicted terrorist', a position you still defend below. Someone convicted of a - minor and highly controversial - clause in anti-terrorism legislation, which he had every reason to believe he was exempt from (because of client confidentiality), is not the same thing as a 'convicted terrorist'. Even the Magistrate endorsed that reading. Pincrete (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    However, Pincrete appreciated my sources. Moreover current state of article is hopeless. It is oudated and content wise is poor. Cautious (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring to restore NFCC violation and unsourced claims

    Walter Görlitz has been blocked at least a dozen times for edit warring and 3RR violations. A few days ago, I removed a clear NFCC violation (nonfree album cover in musician bio, no discussion of cover in article text) from Terry Scott Taylor. Görlitz restored the image and made a non-policy-based justification for his action on my talk page. Two other editors, including one admin, pointed out his error, and explained carefully why the image should be removed (User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#FUR). After twodays, when no other editor supported retaining the image and Walter did not respond, I removed the image again. Walter, without engaging in substantive discussion, has restored the NFCC violation several more times. I have also removed a laundry list of about twenty-five performers supposedly "influenced" by this musician, sourced only to a blog post where one of those twenty-five performers describes a song Thomas wrote as "awesome". Walter also restored that, arguing that "referenced content" cannot be removed even if the reference does not support the claims. It's pretty evident that he either does not understand or is unwilling to follow basic NFCC, RS, and BLP principles. There's no point in waiting until he formally violates 3RR again; this is a longstanding misbehavior pattern without any reasonabnle justification. Since he's abandoned the substantive discussion he began on my talk page, and hasn't engaged with the other editors who tried to explain his errors to him, I don't believe this can be resolved without further intervention. (and, of course, my removal of a clear NFCC violation is exempt from 3RR limits). Perhaps, as long-term remediation, Görlitz could be placed under 1RR limits to prevent further timesinks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no clear NFCC violation as there is a fair use rationale provided on the image. That FUR has not been contested. Despite pointing that out to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, the editor is clearly ignoring the law and using some undefined consensus to support edit warring in removing the image. I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And now that Adam9007 (talk · contribs) has correctly nominated it for deletion, it should only be a short while before it does not exist and the process started by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in the incorrect location will be over. Again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And since the FUR has been removed as invalid, I will remove the image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The FUR wasn't removed; the file copyright tag was removed which actually creates is different problem per WP:F4 since all files are required to have a license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes that album cover any different from the hundreds and hundreds already used in Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs, the vast majority of images of album covers are used only in articles about those specific albums. In occasional cases, they are used in an article about a photographer, for example, if there is critical commentary about the cover photography in the article. In this case, Walter has been trying to use the cover art in a biography of the musician, without any critical commentary of the album cover. That violates WP:NFCI. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So the solution or workaround is to write a separate article about the album? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look up fair use doctrine, User:Baseball Bugs. It specifically allows use of non-commercially damaging reproductions and excerpts when there is scholarly commentary on that copyrighted item/excerpt. So a mere gallery of album covers is not fair use, but reproducing covers which are famous in themselves is allowed in articles on those albums or covers or cover designers. Evidently this is argued not to be the case in this complaint. I might support action, but where are the supporting diffs, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no gallery and there was discussed of the album, although not of the cover (not that there is discussion of the cover art in 95% of album articles I've seen). And in this case, there was a fair use rationale that was applied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did not argue it was invalid nor was there an attempt to dispute the FUR or have the image deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the point I'm making. If 95% of album articles have no commentary on the cover, that means 95% of those articles are simply using the album covers as decorations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "decoration", illustration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly; having the image of the album cover in an article on the album adds to the encyclopedic value and comprehension of the article subject, and is thusthus should be permissible under fair use. Having a random album cover as "here's an album this artist made" in an artist's article does not. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, again I say, the workaround is to create a separate article about the album and post the picture there instead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming the album is notable, that should be an approprate use, yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That gets into a slippery issue. For example, are all Beatles albums automatically notable? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (From an NFC standpoint, if an album is notable, then it is presumed there is secondary sources that talk about the album in depth. As such one cover image of that album is within NFCC guidelines as it also implicitly gives the marketing and branding that was associated with the album, along with the "commentary" aspects for fair use for the discussion about the album (see WP:NFCI#1) This only applies to the standalone article on the album - anywhere else, the use must have a proper rationale and should be more than "just to illustrate the album on a different page".) --MASEM (t) 04:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say there was a gallery in that article, did I, Walter? You need to understand a principle being explained when you see one. Your edit history shows a lack of reading comprehension and raises questions of WP:Competence is required. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To clear up several mistakes by several editors, just because an image fails WP:NFCI it doesn't mean it can't be used. That said, the current rational for its inclusion is using {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} which can only be used as the rational for a standalone album page. This is an insufficient rationale for use on the artist's page (and just arguing "well, this is the only place we're talking about the album since it can't have a separate page" is not a usable rationale/reason for this. But that all said, while one should not edit war over a disputed rationale, disputed rationale is not also an "automatic" NFCC violation that would be exempt from edit warring (that would be if it was a flat-out copyright violation). The image should be discussed appropriately at WP:FFD to determine if its use can on the artist's page can meet NFCC (specifically NFCC#8) and if it can't it should be deleted. If it can, the rational needs to be fixed and use a non-canned rationale to justify the reason. (All that said, I don't think we can justify the image on NFCC#8 grounds - there's very little discussed about the album relative to the artist, so it fails NFC) --MASEM (t) 04:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem: Thank you for the voice of reason. Fair use is not a black and white issue. Disputed fair use rationales are serious, but not so serious that they require immediate strong-arm suppression in favor of the person advocating deletion, or admin action against the person advocating fair use. Overreaction to disputed fair use rationales constitutes copyright paranoia, and that is not something that should be encouraged. These issues can, and should, be reasonably resolved via FFD, without edit warring, and without admin intervention. The project has never been harmed by waiting for the correct process to take its course, and I will add that the image has been in use since 2014, so let's not pretend that this is an urgent issue that requires immediate admin intervention. I agree that the NFCC rationale is weak, but regarding the requested admin intervention, the relevant policy here is WP:3RRNO, which very intentionally addresses this specific issue. Edit warring is only allowable if the disputed content is "unquestionably" a copyvio. If we're dealing with a longstanding fair use image, that has an FUR (however debatable), and an established editor advocating in good faith for its continued preservation, that, to me, does not appear to be an "unquestionable" violation in need of one-sided action, but rather a genuine FUR dispute that should and is being hashed out at FFD. Recommend closure of this complaint without action. Swarm ♠ 06:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is the rule about pictures of albums so much more lenient than pictures of living persons? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While someone is living, there is the possibility a compliant photo can be taken that illustrates the subject (person). It is unlikely-to-zero a compliant album cover will be released that illustrates the subject (album). Its the same principle, but one can happen, the other will not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely that a compliant album cover will illustrate the album? I think you've got that backwards. An album cover will always illustrate the album. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you understand how/why NFCC is applied. We can use pictures of the album cover on the album page to illustrate the album, because despite being non-free media, they are the only likely possible image available to illustrate the album so fall under fair use. They are not going to re-release the album with a new album cover that satisifies our criteria for being a 'free' picture. With a living person, given the copyright rules on photos of people, there is always a likelihood that a new photo could be taken that can be released under a free licence, so you cant get away with stating that a non-free alternative cant be found. (With some exceptions, do we have a free picture of the leader of NK yet? -edit- Apparently we use a photorealistic sketch, ha.) Which is why with dead people we can often use non-free media. Its unlikely we will get a free replacement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless an album is pulled from circulation and hence no longer exists in public view, a picture of the album is not needed for identification purposes. The only reasonable justification for an album illustration is if (1) there has been notable commentary about the cover (as with, for example, the Sgt. Pepper cover); or (2) the album is no longer available, i.e. "dead". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes? Feel free to go nominate album covers from their respective articles if you feel the community considers that interpretation valid. Good luck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more of an inclusionist, so I would take the opposite argument: That the notion that identifying albums is somehow much more important than identifying people, makes no logical sense. Maybe this is why some other Wikipedia sites don't allow fair use at all. Then there's no argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I lean towards making it possible to use more images, even if it's at the expense of some disputes over NFCC. I'd love for it to be easier to use non-free pics of living people when it's proven very hard to impossible to find free ones, but not at the expense of losing another category of images (album covers) which it is currently possible to use in most circumstances editors would want to use them (in album articles).
    It's very frustrating to be working on a BLP and not to be able to illustrate the person's physical appearance because a hardline-NFCC patroller insists that a free image is technically possible. There are a number of notable people who are either notoriously camera shy or who work overtime to control access to photographs of themselves, and free images just don't exist. I feel ghoulish just waiting for the person to die so I can add a non-free image to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all about the potential of getting that free image, which is required by the Foundation. They specifically laid out the example of a non-free photograph of a living person of the case we shouldn't allow. Yes, it sucks, but it also prevents a potential slippery slope that if you start letting in edge cases, more and more editors will want to claim this type of exemption. In response to @Baseball Bugs: about when album covers can be used, please see the footnote on WP:NFCI#1 which links to three previous RFCs about this type of use that clearly shows consensus is for this piece of "implicit marketing and branding" , even if the cover is never discussed in text. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, it's unclear to me why you say "this is the only place the album is covered" isn't a valid argument. Could you elaborate? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The NFCI#1 provision for covers to identify works like albums is presumed that there is significant discussion (critical discussion, not just rote facts) of the album. This aligns with the album itself being notable and thus allowing for a standalone article where that significant discussion occurs. In this case, the album does not appear to be notable, (not enough to have a standalone), and the "discussion" of it is simply the factual nature it exists - fine to include on the musician's page, but that changes how NFCC applies. Without any significant discussion, the standard provisions for NFCI#1 no longer exist, and now one has to have a more concrete reason to include the cover image for the album in this case. I don't know immediately of any existing cases where this has occurred, but I recognize that there is a possibility for it (eg maybe the person was also a painter and painted the cover image themselves and shows an example of their work?) I don't think that exists in this case. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And that takes us back to the point that nearly all LP or single covers in the articles about the records are merely decorations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with you, but that's why its important to recognize that across 3 RFCs, consensus has claims this is not the case. (I will also note that the Foundation does actually suggest its okay for illustrating culturally-significant works). I'd love to say "nope, not usable" but that would be removing content against strong consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what's so special about this one that it needs to be deleted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, as explained previously, the copyrighted image is in the biography of the musical artist, rather than in a freestanding article about the album itself (which does not appear to be notable). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If album covers are copyrighted, then why are they being used for decorations all over the place? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can call them "decorations" all you want, but policy and long-standing consensus allow for the use of low resolution images of album covers, book covers and movie posters in articles about notable albums, books and movies. "Illustrations" is a better word, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, as mentioned, it is (entirely reasonable) consensus that using the image of an album cover, book cover, or film poster to illustrate the article on the album, book, or film is a proper use of fair use as it enhances the encylopedic value of the article and adds to the knowledge of the reader, as the image is both in context and provides context, while a random "this is an album this artist produced" image does not. (tldr: Bugs, this isn't the rabbit-hole to die in.) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreeing here that this idea that we allow articles on albums, books, people (sometimes) to have non-free pictures of the topic of the article and generally not elsewhere unless discussed in reasonable detail in the text of the article. This is the compromise we've reached. I personally think that compromise is too strict and hurts the encyclopedia a bit (e.g. "decorative" things like album covers in a musician's article can be informative about the nature of the time period, what "vibe" the musician is trying to project, etc.). But it is largely where we are. And sometimes it's worth it to have fairly bright lines. That said, once contested, FFD is probably the right venue. It is 99% likely to get removed from the article. Suggest closing this discussion and letting the FFD proceed. Hobit (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can find sources that justify the (second) use of an album cover in a musican's article that discuss in some depth how the cover reflects the musician's style at that point, that's fine that is greatly enhanced with the illustration present, that's great - that's a usable case. But you have to have sourced discussion, not just because you feel it is important. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I entirely agree that's how we do things. I just don't personally think it's the right thing to do. But it is our standard procedure. Still worth discussion at FFD IMO. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A few points that have been lost as this discussion has gone offtrack in various ways:
    1. Walter Görlitz has claimed that the use rationale for the image at issue "has not been contested". That statement is plainly false. Both Jo-Jo Eumerus and Marchjuly, in response to Walter's initial post on my talk page, explained why the use rationale was invalid. And I agreed with them. Walter then posted "according to you, the FUR is invalid".[97] It's damned hard to take Walter's contrary argument here as good faith, since he'd said precisely the opposite a short time before.
    2. It is evident that the use in the bio does not have a valid, article-specific use rationale. Walter simply took the use rationale for the individual album article and changed the article involved to the musician bio, even though it was evident that use in the bio was not within the scope of that use rationale. WP:NFCCE calls for (not simply allows, but calls for) summary removal of the nonfree image whenever there is no valid, article-specific use rationale. Walter's position that prior discussion is required is contrary to well-established, explicit policy.
    3. See the discussion at User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz/Archive_2#April_2012, where it was determined that removal of an album cover in parallel circumstances was exempt from 3RR limits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The key point and still true today is that the NFC use has to be obviously wrong. If the image lacked mention of the article name, for example, that's obviously wrong and removal would be exempt from 3RR. This is not the case here - it is a disputed use and rationale, but it is not "obvious". No one would be allowed to edit war to remove or keep it. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, the 2012 "parallel" that is being cited is a false equivalency. Those images had no FUR, which is a specific procedural issue that cannot be debated. The degree to which an album cover "makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the [artist's] article," on the other hand, is inherently abstract and subjective, and that's literally why edit warring policy refers users to FFD. It's not a convincing FUR, but the fact that it could be argued invalidates the claim that it's an objectively-unquestionable violation. This is no different from anything else. If there's a dispute, proceed to the appropriate forum, and seek a consensus to resolve the dispute. It's as simple as that. Don't edit war and then run to ANI if you're not even going to attempt to approach the issue in an appropriate manner. Swarm ♠ 20:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't piss in my tent and tell me it's raining, Swarm.It's false, and you know perfectly well it's false, to accuse me of "not even going to attempt to approach the issue in an appropriate manner" and then "run to ANI". At least you should. My initial post here pointed to the discussion on my talk page where three editors, myself explained why the use was improper and the use rationale was invalid. Walter did not respond on the substantive issues, and after waiting more than a day, I implemented the consensus on my talk page. Being an admin does not entitle you to fabricate facts to denigrate an editor you disagree with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. That is a...bizarre response, to say the least. Wolfowitz, regarding the actual dispute, I've already pointed out that I agree with you. So I'm not sure what you think I'm fabricating due to some sort of disagreement. You were involved in an edit war, and you came to ANI seeking one-sided enforcement against your opponent, implying that you were "in the right". All we've done is refer you to the relevant policy (which happens to not support the one-sided admin intervention you're seeking), and point you to the correct venue to hash out your dispute. You're the one who ignored the input you've received, chose to continue to argue, and even falsely cited a "parallel" situation from 2012 that both me and Masem took the time to examine and explain to you why it's not the same. If your goal was to "avoid timesinks", you've failed spectacularly. Here we are, two days later, with a ridiculously bloated ANI thread that is achieving nothing, and you yourself so worked up that you're lashing out at some random replying admin for "[fabricating] facts to denigrate an editor you disagree with". Don't you think that's a little irrational? Maybe you feel "treated like dirt" by administrators because you interpret genuinely neutral disagreement from random strangers on the internet as some sort of malicious personal slight? You need to get over this, the policy does not support the action you're requesting, this is not a personal issue against you, I don't even know you! Swarm ♠ 21:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Swarm and Masem. Hobit (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I was pinged so I guess I might as well respond. I saw the discussion on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz user's talk and have already responded there. I also have commented in the FFD, so I'll try not to repeat everything I wrote there. Basically, the image was being used in a stand-alone article about the album, but that article was subsequently merged into the artist's article as a resulf of an AfD discusison. There was no discussion as to how the merge would affect the non-free use of the file in the AfD, so it appears to have been assumed that the same justification for non-free use would be just as acceptable for the artist's article and the only "change" made to the rationale was to simply change the article name in the rationale.
    I think HW's assessment of non-free use in general is pretty good and in this particular case was correct; so, I can also see being bold and removing the file once in the belief that doing so would be uncontentious and save the community some time discussing it by simply letting the file be deleted per WP:F5. Personally, I think it probably would've been better to tag the file with {{rfu}} or {{{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, or maybe even prod it for deletion instead; however, once it was re-added it probably should have gone to FFD for discussion. I think any of these things would've most likely led to the same result (deletion/removal of the file) and probably prevented this from ending up at ANI.
    In general, I think this kind of non-free issue is not uncommon when it comes to merges, so it might be better to provide better guidance about it somewhere in WP:MERGE to make others aware that merges which include the moving of non-free content should consider any possible WP:NFCC issues. Non-free use is and never has been automatic and trying to argue WP:JUSTONE is in some ways more of a problem, in my opinion, than not having any rationale at all because the latter could be just due to a lack of knowledge of NFCCP, whereas the former seems to indicate a clear misunderstanding of the NFCCP. As for the other issue about the list of performers mentioned in the article, I have no particular comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you're misinterpreting what I mean when I write that the FUR "has not been contested". Until a short while ago it stood on the image's page. Any other argument is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and at that point, it became contested. WP:LONGTIME isn't an argument to avoid only at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, see WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED as to why it sometimes takes time for someone to notice a problem with the way a non-free file is being used in a particular article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    110.54.128.0/17

    Can anyone revoke talk page access for this range IP? Multiple IPs seems to be spamming this on their own talk pages. This looks like a LTA of My Royal Young. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct, the IP range was use by My Royal Young. SA 13 Bro (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page access revoked for that range. Should something be done for the talk pages themselves? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Could you help blank some pages and ask the steward to globally block the user via m:SRG for the global blocking as well. --99.109.85.105 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted the not yet blanked ones under WP:CSD#G3 since that's what they are. Checking global contributions now... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I can't tell. 99.109.85.105 if you can find any problem edits on the other projects you can report that yourself on the Steward board. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I found 112.198.64.0/18. He's attacking Zzuuzz a CheckUser. Could you revoke talk page access for this range and let me help Ajraddatz to globally block two ranges on m:SRG and I leave Filipino cases alone. --99.109.85.105 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page access revoked again and more deletions and rollbacks issued. I don't think that global blocking is warranted unless there is crosswiki activity, but I'll see what @Zzuuzz: may propose here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically, there is cross wiki abuse and global blocks.[98] See also ranges at WP:LTA/MRY. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe i'm bad for vandalizing my talk page, RadiX could you help global block two ranges been abused for vandalism. 99.109.85.105 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block a Thai editor Golf-ben10 again

    hi sir, please Block Golf-ben10 again, he is back to spam on many pages of The Face, The Face Thailand season 3,The Face Men Thailand season 1, The Face Vietnam season 1-2 again and again after he got unblock. he still did not stop to spam on The Face and many pages of Wikipedia, please block him. thank you.Anybodyfitfit (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anybodyfitfit: I don't see the spam. Can you give some examples of such edits? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't looks like spam to me. Looks more like a content dispute / edit war / lack of communication: taking The Face Thailand (season 3) for example, these content additions [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] appear identical (corresponding to the prior deletions [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] (by different users), and are marked minor and have no edit summary. The talk page only has a third party entreating the edit warriors to come talk it out, and no discussion from them. The request from the reverting editor (looks like it is one person with dynamic IP who then created an account) is to "use same color code with Thai page" and to not "spam", but the edit doesn't look like spam to me. Both parties should go to the talk pages of the affected articles (this pattern seems to occur on other articles also, judging by Special:Contributions/Golf-ben10) and discuss the issue — we've got the "B" and "R" of WP:BRD (and some more Rs for good measure), so it's well overdue to Discuss, I think. There's no deadline, so it's not a big deal if the article is stuck on the "wrong" version for a while until a consensus is reached. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 18:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yngvadottir: @Goldenshimmer: can you check his Contribs? i dont know how to sent an examples for you. if it's spam please block him, his got blocked many times before but after unblock his always back to edit same thing on the same pages as spam again and again such as The Face, The Face Vietnam and some sport page that he like to edit the name or other with no reason and source. he always do this when other editor undo back to the right. he didnt read his talk page, many editor send msg to him but he never reply or talk. thanks.Anybodyfitfit (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    White space adding

    Rural Lyra who started editing on Wikipedia in September 2017, has been making 'un-necessary' edits to several articles (mostly Republic of Ireland & List of Presidents of the United States), mainly adding or moving 'white space'. He/she has been doing so in spurts, without edit summaries & no responses at article talk-pages or his/her own talk-page. We may need help here. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Haven't reviewed many of the edits. What I did see looks like it might be another 30/500 issue, but it might not as there are some other, more major edits. Not any accusations, just that it could be. A lad insane talk 17:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    65.182.125.30 trying to act like an admin

    RBI. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP user acting like an admin, see the post history. Modifying talk pages and putting block notices. User 261115 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been warned, spurious sock block warning deleted. I don't think any further action right now is needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's a diff of the IP saying he had blocked you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    185.26.183.45

    185.26.183.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    • Massive addition of BLP violations (the info is apparently correct, but refuses to add references to the articles; additionally personall attacks in edit summaries (for example, this one refers to me as a "Russian moron", which is factually wrong).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now continues as 185.26.183.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), again with personal attacks in edit summaries, probably a block range needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good one:[109] "rus is loosers". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they're switched to 178.93.236.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Probably need some fairly wide-spread semi-protection for a bit. Ravensfire (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are they doing with those category edits, like this? Is that useful at all? Sure it's the same person, and I could block again, but if the edits from that IP are constructive, and they leave out the semi-literate insults, what's the point? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's the odd part, and I almost wonder if this is a different IP user. They did add doping categories to Sergey Chudinov without any sources, which I reverted. I just added them back, after adding the ban info to the article with a solid source that was dead simple to find. Given the hostility of the early IP's and the strong nature of the claims, I'm comfortable with my revert; just wish the 178 IP had bothered to take 30 seconds to add something to the article with a source to support the doping categories. Ravensfire (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the end of the day, all this info was restored, and everything is unsourced (the generic source would be this one. I am not sure why they refuse to add sources (thus making BLP violations), but at this stage probably we need to go after them and add sources ourselves. Reverts do not work, they just hop to a new IP and continue reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm a lot of Nazi stuff this evening

    I just blocked someone for, well, I don't want to repeat it. Also of note are recent edits to Keith Olbermann and Joseph L. Goldstein: we have a joker who takes images on Commons and turns them into antisemitic caricatures, and then uses those in our articles. You can see what happened in the histories of those articles. A lot of you who read this page also follow Recent changes; the new image names were minor variations on the old. Please be aware of edits to images in our articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I put those three biographies on my watchlist but who knows which bio that troll will hit next? Why a 77 year old scientist other than pure hate? So sad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those images are now deleted and I'm sure they'll catch it on Commons if that happens again. No, my friend, it's on to the next one. I saw Tony's by pure chance, and the ball got rolling because I saw a strange edit in Recent changes, which led me here, User talk:2620:0:E50:3400:184B:973B:A52B:69EE--I cannot ascertain if they have anything to do with it. CU revealed nothing that I can make sense of, but I emailed the CU list. On Commons, PumpkinSky and Guanaco have been deleting files. Thanks Cullen, Drmies (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking to see if an underlying IP (or range) could be blocked. I found several of these yesterday morning: User:James Edward Washington, User:Not (((them))), User:Bornsteadfast, User:J3wboss, User:Super editor 2. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks Paul Erik. Bornsteadfast came with User:Risingbull82. Super editor 2 also came in the 1 vesion. Washington and (them) were the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
    Thanks, Paul Erik. Good work. I wonder why somebody would bother to spend the time messing with Eddie Cantor who died well over 50 years ago, but I am no psychiatrist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a bit of speculation about a returning sockpuppet known for white supremacy stuff over at Talk:Nathan Damigo earlier. Not sure if it's related but it wasn't the only time I witnessed stuff like this today. Could be related, might be just coincidence. -- Longhair\talk 06:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably worth noting that repeating parentheses (at least three sets, as in the username above) seems to be an alt-right meme; you might get a decent hit rate on a search or edit filter. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See also[110]. Admin eyes on Filter 877 pls. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lagarto-spock and his Disruptive editing on defying MOS:flag

    The user was told in here: User_talk:Lagarto-spock#MOS:FLAG and Talk:2016–17 Primera División (women), but keep on add back (SPAMMING) regional flag to the article(s), such as this edit Special:Diff/811964685. What should the community do? As rest of the edit were good faith. Matthew_hk tc 12:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For more revert, such as June for 2017–18 Primera División (women) (twice). For 2016–17 Primera División (women) 1 & 2. The most recent edit in November in Spain women's national football team, indicated that he just stubborn. Matthew_hk tc 12:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Block or topic ban requested -- User:Drdbkarron

    Edward E. Kramer, after a long legal battle, pled guilty to multiple counts of child sexual abuse. Drdbkarron has been repeatedly removing accurate, solidly referenced content related to the conviction from the article, describing it as "libelous vandalism".[111] Enough is enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have requested special supervision for this page to insure it complies with Wikipedia BLP policies of people facing legal challenges. Lawyers are vetting my history of Kramers legal challenges. No, your material has dead links to popular press and blogs, which are not court documents and primary sources such as pleadings. Gwinnett county does not yet have its court docket items publically viewable on the internet. I am working on publishing the primary court material on the internet archive and linking it to the court docket. It is a lot of material and it has to be vetted by a number of people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia will not use any primary court documents as references in a biography of a living person. So your time will be wasted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drdbkarron: You can work out sourcing issues on the article's talk page (keeping in mind what Only in death said) but do not disrupt the article itself. --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that, this is an issue with ongoing court cases or where someone has appealed. Until its worked its way through, secondary sources may be unavailable. I have just removed a couple of the sentences at the end which were sourced to primary documents - but essentially the subject is claiming his alford guilty plea was coerced/improper and wants it set aside. There is a bias in media to avoid covering appeals in depth where they have previously sensationally reported on the subject - in case it turns out they were wrong. Which means in cases like these, appeal coverage is sparse compared to the plethora of sources on the conviction. I am sympathetic (in general rather than this specific case) as given the amount of unfair convictions the US has... but our policies do not have any leeway here. Quite a few of the online links are dead as well - which doesn't exclude them from being accurate, but if anyone has time to update them. It looks like the AJC ones were lost in an website upgrade by the host (or moved). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the critical point I am working on sourcing to primary materials (as a paralegal). After 11 months in solitary confinement, Kramer was offered a deal to get out of prison by making a deal involving two apparently attractive options: Make an Alford Plea under the Georgia First Offenders Act, which would have made the entire matter 'sealed' and would NOT be considered a conviction. I want to site the plea agreement that supports the defendant making the plea. It is recorded by the court. Or should be. Ths issue is not guilt or innocence, but did the prosecution renege on its plea bargain? I understand the terms included immediate freedom, no record of a conviction, and other elements I'm researching. False convictions and false confessions are a big problem, as witnessed by the number of convicted rapist and murders who confess falsely when coerced and manipulated into make these deals only to discover they were effectively lied to. Child Molestation is a horrible crime, and too many people are being coerced into making uninformed pleas and don't realize this plea will have lifetime adverse consequences. For example in many cases, a non citizen who pleas guilty to a misdemeanor does not realize that that conviction means INS/ICE confinement and deportation. These plea bargains are being reversed on that basis (uninformed coerced consent). I see lots of templates for inclusion of primary court documents. If we want to establish as a matter of fact. That the crime is jaywalking on the grass or murder/rape/cannibalism/ritual disembowelment (for an example of the extremes) is not the issue. The plea agreement contained specific terms that were adhered to or ignored by the prosecution, one would seek to have the primary documents as sources. I am working on a way to publish primary sources and make specific citations into specific paragraphs in immense documents without hiding the context. Pro Publica does this in their document cloud, but you need to be a registered investigative journalist and have their support to use their precision primary publication tools. I should source this all the details but I'm busy with the sources, not the argument here. This is an intricate case and the truth is hard to discern without primary reliable sources that are both admissible in Federal Court but the court of public opinion. People yelling and threatening banishment when simple supervision by a responsible adult would seem to be the proper solution as the truth and primary sources emerge. As a scientist I try to get the evidence to "speak' facts, not other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The short answer is: Unless a reliable independent secondary source comments on this, we cannot include it in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)...And that's a perfectly valid way to analyze a topic. The trick here is that that sort of analysis is entirely unsuited for encyclopedic writing - because we don't do original research. We don't determine, from the facts in evidence, whether the prosecutor's office engaged in shenanigans. We state what reliable sources state - no more, no less. I agree that this is an intricate case - which is another reason why we should not be providing our own analysis. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) As a scientist, trying to introduce the results of your experiments as "evidence" in an article would not be acceptable either. We use secondary sources like reputable newspapers, academic journals, etc., to "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material". --NeilN talk to me 15:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so it's made completely clear: the most relevant alphabet soup is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which explicitly says, with emphasis in the original...

    Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person

    ...although WP:OR is, as noted, also relevant, as may be WP:VNT. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Film Fan and edit warring to restore synthesis

    In January 2016, Film Fan (talk · contribs) was put under a voluntary 1RR restriction because of extensive edit warring. I don't know whether this is still binding, but it follows an indefinite block for edit warring in October 2013. About two weeks ago, in Peter Rabbit (film), Film Fan reverted me when I removed an unsourced country to the infobox (diff). After I warned him for this, he added a citation that labels one of the production companies as Australian – not the film itself. I explained on the talk page that this is synthesis that ignores the instructions in the template. The discussion went nowhere. On 19 November, Slightlymad asked me to intervene at BPM (Beats per Minute), where Film Fan was edit warring to restore what he believed to be synthesis. I said that due to my previous dispute with Film Fan, it would be best if I didn't get involved and suggested bringing the concerns here to ANI. Today, Lugnuts (talk · contribs) also asked me to intervene. Lugnuts raised the issue of sock puppetry, but I don't think there's any. I want to be clear that I have not run a checkuser, though. What I see is multiple experienced editors saying that something is synthesis (see this talk page discussion for a brief exchange and, unrelatedly, this archived discussion I started a while ago about the same issue). Film Fan once again brushed off their concerns and continued to edit war, while hypocritically telling others to use the talk page. He's already made three reverts in the past 24 hours at BPM (Beats per Minute), and he shows no sign of stopping. His contributions are similarly full of edit warring, including Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (1, 2), Mom and Dad (2017 film) (1, 2, 3), etc. I would recommend restoring the indefinite block for Film Fan because of a long history of disruptive edit warring despite the 1RR restriction, which was supposed to stop this behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I used the talk page. What are you supposed to do if other users refuse to? I thought the revert rule was stop and take it to the talk page, which I did. The edit was then made again weeks later, without any further addition to the conversation, which remains with the last two of my comments unanswered. I tried to direct the other user back to that conversation with no luck. Also, I did suggest the second user was a sock puppet, and I do believe that whether or not that's the case, there must be a link between them because I've never before come across an editor trying to claim that labelling a critically acclaimed film as "critically acclaimed" is somehow problematic. It's sourced, and there are many articles that correctly state that the subject is "critically acclaimed". Regardless of that, I engaged in a debate, or at least tried to. By the way, the nationality of the production companies of a film denote the nationality of the film.
    That said, I admit I have been a little eager to jump the gun in recent weeks, and signs of my previous short temper have appeared again, which I'll unashamedly admit is due to being recently bereaved, but would like to point to my many useful edits, and the fact that until recent weeks, I went on a long run of good behavior (two years), which I can commit to returning to with a strong warning. That's the required wake-up call. I have a lot to offer the community. — Film Fan 15:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: do you know if that one revert restriction ever rescinded? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michael 182, WP:DE to award list articles

    As the user has continued to disrupt the articles after this ANI and warnings, I have blocked them for a short time. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Michael 182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated WP:DE on award-related articles without participating in discussions.

    User has repeatedly added directors to and changed article format of Academy Award for Best Picture without participating in discussion related to these changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability.

    Edits to Academy Award for Best Picture:

    I reverted edit in bullet above 15:25, 27 November 2017‎, and article was protected 17:49, 27 November 2017‎ for persistent WP:DE.

    Further edits:

    User has engaged in similar WP:DE table formatting to the following articles, most of which has been reversed by other editors:

    User was also asked twice to participate in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability:

    User made unsigned edit to WT:FILM stating "The changes done to the article are necessary in order to achieve a better understanding of the text." [112] However, this does not address the coding, formatting or blank data being added in the user's edits.

    AldezD (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This could probably be resolved through an RFC, which I'm pretty sure I already suggested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe--but I just reverted on [Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor]] since I do not believe their color changes comply with MOS:COLOR. Moreover, it seems to me they are editing disruptively against consensus (User:Brian W. Schaller? User:Rburton66?) or at least against a very good argument: don't make wholesale changes to a featured list. They're making the same color changes to Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series (and elsewhere, I suppose), and their rather asinine and unexplained summary, "This format allows a better comprehension of the text. Do not modify since the rest of the categories from Primetime Emmy Award will be changed into this format", indicate they attempt to take over an entire area in a way that runs counter to our collaborative spirit. They've only been here a month, so many they don't know we're supposed to work together--but seriously, their talk page contributions are lousy. I would support blocking if they continue what is simply edit warring against a bunch of editors over a wide spread of articles. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its an accessibility issue with blue-on-blue. WP:COLOUR - the accessibility page has more detail. If they are doing these changes en-masse they need a block.Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just chiming in to agree with Drmies. I've reverted numerous edits to the Primetime Emmy pages where User:Michael 182 changed the color scheme on the major acting and program categories without discussion. No interest in participating in an edit war. Rburton66 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jewishownership

    NOTHERE, and no longer here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Account has made only 9 edits, most of which have been pure SOAP. The username reflects an antisemitic canard. Pretty clearly thiks WP is reddit or something. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given them an indef block for WP:NOTHERE. Their edits, with the username, is pretty telling. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request block

    Persistent Vandalism and harrasment. Tommy1933 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alansohn

    Alansohn has been edit-warring on the Millville Senior High School page, and just followed that up with a litany of personal attacks against me, when I was attempting to discuss my changes to the page. The personal attacks can be found in this edit, which he summarized with "Reply to WP:DICK". In this one edit he stated, "I've dealt with abusive editors like you before" (I have not been abusive towards him), said I was "a genuine WP:DICK", and finished with "get lost and fight some other edit war to impose your bullshit preferences."
    To give some context, I originally removed a sports blog as a reliable source, and replaced it with a Philadelphia Daily News reference. He reverted that, and when I tried to engage him in discussion about why blogs aren't as good a source as a newspaper, he reverted back and later claimed he was reverting because of WP:CITEVAR and WP:DATEVAR (my reference was in vertical format, and my dates were a different format). I changed the dates to the format of the rest of the dates on the page in an attempt to mollify him, but that apparently wasn't good enough. I also pointed out this RfC, which clearly and unequivocally stated that vertical and horizontal cites could co-exist, but he apparently ignored that as well, and continues to use the citation style excuse as a reason to revert a valid change.
    I was baffled by his insistence on using the sports blog as a source, but after his personal attack, I dug a little deeper and found two things. One, Alansohn edits a lot of New Jersey-related pages, and while the vast majority of what he contributes is excellent and valuable, he does tend to display WP:OWN behavior rather often, as he reverts a lot of changes to NJ-related pages that he regards as "his." Two, I recently nominated Claudia E. McCarthy for deletion, and he weighed in on that deletion discussion with a "Keep" vote, so there may be an element of WP:BATTLEGROUND at play here as well. Either way, I did not expect to be attacked in this way, as its been years since his many blocks for bad behavior, and as he doesn't seem to want to discuss the changes further, I thought it best to ask for intervention here first. Rockypedia (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rockypedia seems to be having some challenges with projection here.
    He has been edit warring to insert his preferred citation format. As I've discussed with him on multiple occasions, both via edit summary and talk page discussion, his changes violate both WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE, as discussed in the RfC he cites. I told him to walk away from this edit war -- as I already had -- and his next step is to perpetuate his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and manufacture an incident, all over his efforts to insert a source that already exists in the article in question.
    As to his assertion that this has something to do with an AfD for Claudia E. McCarthy, I voted earlier this month and haven't been back since. It appears that Rockypedia is the person who has been editing that article (I haven't since this edit in September) or the AfD he created (since this edit two weeks ago). Alansohn (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the closing admin for that RfC stated: "There is a clear consensus that the usage of vertical and horizontal templates does not fall within the purview of WP:CITEVAR." In other words, if you read the entire RfC, vertical and horizontal cites are style differences, not format differences, and can co-exist. But this is just a distraction; I already said you should go ahead and change the format to horizontal if you really want to (in this edit on your talk page); that was two hours ago and I think is pretty clear proof that "He has been edit warring to insert his preferred citation format" is a false accusation, and I'd appreciate an apology acknowledging that. Rockypedia (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So now I see the confusion. The issue I raise per WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE, as cited in both, is whether or not citation templates should be used. Rockypedia believes that this has something to do with the use of citation templates in either a vertical or horizontal format, an issue that isn't the case here. The RfC is clear that citation styles should *NOT* be changed, and the remainder of the article for Millville Senior High School does not use citation templates. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said multiple times: change the style if you want. I don't care. And thanks for not attacking me this time by calling me a "DICK" in caps. I suppose that's progress? Rockypedia (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling someone a DICK over a minor dispute over sourcing and formatting is quite uncivil, and a symptom of ownership. While this editor has a long record of incivility and personal attacks, they seemed to have been getting along better with others lately. Maybe I was wrong, perhaps other editors have just abandoned New Jersey articles. Name calling is wrong, even if someone succeeded in having an essay by that name for a time.Jacona (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rockypedia, per CITEVAR and CITESTYLE, I did make the citation style consistent in this edit, two weeks ago. Isn't that what you want me to do? Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You've conveniently left out the part where you re-added a sports blog as a source. You also ignored Coal town guy (talk) when he told you the same thing I was trying to remedy: Yahoo sports blogs are not reliable sources. This is more gaslighting on your part, and honestly, I can't understand it. It's bizarre. Rockypedia (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rockypedia, there is no issue with using a moderated blog as a source and Yahoo Sports meets that criteria. You've conveniently left out the fact that you kept on changing the citation format in violation of both WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE. I am not going to be drawn into an edit war over your misunderstanding of an RfC. Your "remedy" created its own problems and you have persistently refused to fix the problem. If you want to fix the problem you created, revert the edits to the status quo. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing by and must chime in, dismissing Yahoo Sports as just "a sports blog" is disingenuous. The front page right now had columns by Pat Forde, Kevin Iole (who should have an article, being an award winner), Shalise Young from the Boston Globe, and so on. These are real, credentialed journalists, not a guy in his "home office" tapping out rants. It is as reliable as ESPN. ValarianB (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying all of Yahoo Sports is a blog. The piece in question is clearly marked is part of the blog section, and merely summarizes stuff that's in two other reliable secondary sources, links directly to them, and even attributes to them! ("According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer and other sources...") It's a tertiary source piece, and there's nothing in there that isn't in the secondary sources, one of which was already there, and the other which I added myself. Rockypedia (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ya'll need to go the the respective talk or user pages. This won't be going anywhere here unless one of you is goaded into losing it. Arkon (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Arkon, I did first go to the talk page. That was when I was called a "DICK" and various other things, and I saw no further progress coming from that route from this editor. Interestingly, coming here seemed to create progress, as suddenly Alansohn became very civil, completely reversing how abusive he'd been before any administrators got involved. It's why I came here, so I guess I'm glad I did it. The other choice would have been to abandon the edit and just let Mr. Sohn continue with his bullying. I'm not okay with that, and I'm even more resolute after two other editors emailed me to let me know they're watching this case because they too have had similar dealing with Mr. Sohn, and gave up because, in the words of one of them, it raised their blood pressure too much. I encouraged them both to post here as well, but I totally understand why they wouldn't want to. Rockypedia (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I suppose it did seem like I said ya'll hadn't tried before, it's just that I don't think this section is going to go anywhere, or if it does will burn all parties involved. I see editors getting really annoyed with each other, sucks, but happens. I don't have a solution either, but don't think AN/I is it currently. Arkon (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Per ValarianB above, there is no issue with use of Yahoo Sports. Effectively acknowledging the issue with WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE using his own phrasing, Rockypedia has already largely self reverted his edit (see " reformatted cite style in an overbundance of trying to mollify an OCD editor"). The only outstanding issue is the use of Yahoo Sports, and I will take that to WP:RSN before reinserting the other source Rockypedia has removed as "a sports blog". Alansohn (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Per ValarianB"?? I think ValarianB might take issue with you taking a statement out of context like that. The Yahoo blog piece in question is a tertiary source, merely summarizes what the secondary sources state ("According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer and other sources..."), and as such isn't necessary at all, since those secondary sources are cited in the article. Your fight to have it re-inserted is based purely on WP:OWN - you added the source originally, you wanted to fight about my replacing it with the secondary Philadelphia News source, and now you want to "win." You've displayed this behavior many times before, although you've been smart enough to not get blocked in recent years. You called me a "DICK", an "abusive editor", and told me to "get lost and fight some other edit war to impose your bullshit preferences". Enough already. Rockypedia (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jose34683

    Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 03:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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

    User:Jose34683 has been warned multiple times on his talk page (dating back to September) to not remove AfD notices from articles. A level 4 warning was issued here. Afterward, he once again removed a notice from an article here. Please block accordingly. Thanks. Nikki♥311 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given a 31 hour block for disruption. They were told to stop a number of times and continued to do so. Also, this may have been appropriate at AIV as well, since it was continued disruption after a final warning. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring

    If anywhere, preferably WP:ANEW; if not anywhere, then preferably nowhere. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Context: Singer Zayn's song was nominated for a Grammy Award, but he isn't nominated because he didn't write the song. User TruthSource insists he did write it, however, she doesn't show any source. The user keeps adding the name as composer even though she read the edit summary and her Talk page warnings. The Recording Academy listed the songwriters. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cornerstonepicker this is a content dispute and - at this moment - there has been no discussion on Talk:I Don't Wanna Live Forever. Please post your concerns there. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Young Sheldon

    Question asked, question answered. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi all. This is really not a serious incident, and apologies if there was a better place to take this. It's been a long time since I have been involved in a contentious edit. I just want to get an opinion from experienced editors in this area and prevent an edit war from happening. I recently updated the article's inbox episode count to reflect the number of episodes cited with sources in the body which I think is in keeping with WP:MOS. User:Brojam reverted it citing Template:Infobox television. It seems a little odd to me that the infobox of the article has less articles listed than in the body of the article. This creates a discrepancy in information which personally doesn't sit well with me since fundamentally the infobox should be an accurate summary of the content actually in the article. Comments would be appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't change the episode number count until it actually hits the air (it can be scheduled for the date but news events or last minute changes can change that count easily, thus we don't change it before then), so Brojam was correct here. I think the value personally should be changed to "No. of episodes aired" to make this more transparent, but that proposal is something for Template talk:Infobox television. And I don't think you did anything wrong; this is a good venue to take a question for an admin or experienced user's opinion. Nate • (chatter) 22:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    4meter4 (edit conflict) IMO this is not the venue for your question as this is not an "incident" nor is there anything requiring admin action. I suggest you ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. There maybe another place to ask (and anyone should feel free to add it) but I would start there. MarnetteD|Talk 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did post something to the template talk, so we can continue the discussion there. In the meantime I think this can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 22:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both. I agree this can be closed.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk page spamming

    BLOCKED
    72 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Keeps repeating messages on every thread of the talk page despite warnings ([113], [114]). Example diffs of a recent message reposted on each thread (the same as before which I removed except one instance): [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] (Signbot also obviously missed most of those unsigned posts, but two). Another issue is that this editor calls non-conspiracy theories about 911 "the 911 narrative" which is rather strange. I will personally ignore further posts, so any help is welcome. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest telling Dotyacd that any further multiple posting of the same text within that talk page will lead to a block. (And that minor variations to what is essentially the same text won't work either.) Actually I'd tell Dotyacd this right now, but as the matter has been brought up here I'll first let others have their say. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User JudeBob123

    The user JudeBob123 (talk · contribs) has been making a lot of edits (mostly unsourced) over many months in what appears to be an effort to big up particular racial groups or speakers of particular languages such as Tamil. These can range from the innocuous by moving that group of people to be the first mentioned, to those that are deliberate introduction of false information. His edits may give random statistics, compare for example two of his edits here, [125], [126] (both about the same people in the same country - sourced figures may be found here [127]) Other false information added examples include - [128] (Tamil is not an official language of India according to the Official Language Act of India), [129] (Vietnamese is the most spoken Asian language in France - here), [130] (not according to source - [131]). He also deleted other people or language group and valid information for no reason, Hindi appears to be a particular target - for example, [132], [133] [134], [135] [136] [137] [138], [139], as well as making other unhelpful edits. When challenged, the editor is unable to produce valid sources, instead revert valid edits -[140] Others have fixed his edits, but many of his minor alternation and plausible but false information (considered sneaky vandalism per WP:SNEAKY) are missed in poorly curated articles (many are plausible but difficult to check), and it is very time-consuming to check sources and undo his many edits. Hzh (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    More than enough misinformation; more than enough warnings. I'm amazed that JudeBob has never yet been blocked. Start off with a block of a week or so, and if JudeBob resumes this editing pattern thereafter, make it indefinite. -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user Hzh (talk · contribs) (a native disgruntled Hindi speaker) has been making a lot of edits over many months in what appears to be an effort to big up particular racial groups or speakers of particular languages such as Hindi in a page or article. These can range from the innocuous by moving that group of people who speaks that language natively to be the first mentioned, to those that are deliberate introduction of false information. Hindi language is an official language in India and Fiji (known as Fiji Hindi). Urdu is an official language in Pakistan. This native Hindi speaker (If I'm not mistaken) is trying to vandalize that page by creating India is a country which has only an official and sole language, which is Hindi. Tamil language in that page is being targeted by that user. The page List of countries by the number of recognized official languages should be protect immediately from that person (Hzh (talk · contribs)) to avoid any vandalizing problem. I'm so amazed that he has not been warned by any editor until now. I think he should be given warning or should blocked for at least a week. Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeBob123 (talk • contribs)

    Hzh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    JudeBob123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    The dispute appears to be at List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    JudeBob123, your message above doesn't present any incriminating diffs. Would we be correct to infer that you'd be unable to do so, and instead are merely fantasizing? -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can give some diffs of my and JudeBob123's edits - the first revert I made of JudeBob123's edit on that page is this - [141] because the changes are unexplained - it contains the apparently wrong information that Tamil is an official language of India, and he also removed Fiji as a country where Hindustani is an official language (it is according to the Fiji Constitution). When challenged, he produced sources that show Tamil is an official language in individual states, not the country, and that I removed - [142]. He persisted in re-adding it, so I added a citation needed tag - [143], which he then removed - [144]. As it was still unsourced, I removed it and add the sources for the other countries - [145]. In the latest one he removed my sourced edit, claiming that Hindi is not an official language of Pakistan - [146], note however his subtle change of Hindustani (which is broadly speaking Hindi-Urdu) in the original edit to Hindi (all the valid sources are removed as well, including the one on Fiji Constitution that specifically mentions Hindustani). I don't speak Hindi nor am I Indian, and have no interest in what appears to be a war between speakers of different Indian languages, but only become drawn into this after I noticed the tendency of some people to randomly change demographic data (either to boost or to reduce the numbers) and other information in a number of articles. My original concern was that such misinformation may get spread around as I've seen before odd populations figures given in blogs and other sites, which I suspected originated as unsourced numbers in Wikipedia and are then used as sources in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RichardBennett and FCC net neutrality

    BLOCKED
    60 hours for personal attacks. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone please look at the comments of this user in these edits (to a talk page), this edit (to a mainpage), and these comments in edit summaries here and here, and intervene as necesssary?

    This kind of behavior runs afoul of our rules on civility and personal attacks. I've asked this user not to make personal attacks. He has not substantively responded but has continued to spam these uncivil (and untrue) remarks. I try to have a thick skin, but I feel that this kind of stuff should be dealt with before it becomes more disruptive.

    This fits into a pattern with the same user persistently introducing text that (1) isn't supported by the cited source and (2) is blatantly POV. Some examples:

    • In this edit, removing text supported by source and introduced text not supported by source - i.e., describing all three founders of a group as "socialist" (not supported by the cited source, and a BLP issue)
    • In the same edit, removing sourced text and introducing unsourced POV text - i.e., changing "Ajit Pai and his support for reversing the net neutrality rules" (supported by source) and "Ajit Pai and his support for free enterprise" (not supported by source)
    • Introducing a label to an article based on a random self-published website
    • Adding the same label again with a citation that does not support the text (and in fact contradicts it)

    I've reminded the user that every statement has to have a cited source that directly supports it pointing to WP:V, and also pointed to WP:SYNTH as something that we don't allow (here, here, here, here). I've seen no indication that he has read any of it. Neutralitytalk 23:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been notified of this discussion here. Neutralitytalk 23:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutrality has made repeated biased edits, ignored or misread my citations, and added unsourced material to the page to promote his/her POV that the organization in question does not have an authoritarian/socialist agenda. The person even removed a direct quote from the Chairman of the FCC. Neutrality should not be allowed to edit the Free_Press_(organization) page as he/she is either an employee or a supporter. RichardBennett (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Colonies Chris

    There has been a long-running tendency of this editor making a number of edits using a script, some of which are disputed. Specifically, the practice of removing State/province after city even in cases where City, State is used for consistency (like tables and infoboxes in basketball and other sport-related articles see example here). He cites WP:USPLACE as the basis for these edits, but that section does not address dropping “State” except in the case of naming articles. For sport articles, keeping State intact does serve a purposes for the reader. In addition to adopting a consistent format that makes infoboxes scannable, use of State in college recruiting tables allows a reader to discern how national or regional a school’s recruiting base. A basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table. My issue with this user is that he applies these changes with minimal policy backing, against existing consensus, and as yet to isten to the several editors who ave objected. I have been involved in discussions at least back to July 2016, then again in October of that year. The editor stopped this behavior, but then started up again recently. The editor never listens to objections, despite multiple editors expressing similar concerns, so I feel like ANI is the last resort. I was warned that this editor does listen or change behavior, but I have tried to discuss directly at each instance. I would like this editor to stop removing State after city in sport infoboxes and tables. One of the issues is this editor edits via script, so he may make multiple changes with one click. It is undue burden for editors like me to sort through all of these changes to revert the one area in question - he can remove it from his script. Worth noting that other editors have a similar concern about this editor converting State/province abbreviations to full names in tables, but I do not have a strong opinion on this. At issue, though, is the same type of response - not listening and “enforcing” non-existing (or open to interpretation) policy. Rikster2 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, for US places article titling conventions generally control how cities are referred to in articles -- see MOS:PN#Place_names. Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate. I'll also say, however (stimulated by one of the diffs you supplied) I'm pretty sure we almost never use the two-digit postal abbreviations for states (e.g. CA) but rather the older-style abbreviations instead (e.g. Calif.), where abbreviation is warranted; but I don't recall if that's said anywhere or just implicit in MOS:PN combined with WP:USPLACE. [Later: Well, see MOS:POSTABBR ]. EEng 05:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...my observation has been that the abbreviations are the opposite. I've seen , FL; , GA; etc. used reguarly but never the "long-form abbreviations" to my recollection. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is exactly the sort of topic on which lots and lots of articles might be doing the wrong thing, but like I said I can't recall a MOS provision on point; I could be wrong. What I'm vaguely thinking is that, while we expect most readers to recognize states of the US, provinces of Canada, and counties of the UK, we don't expect them to know all the postal abbreviations. Hell, even I get MI and MO and AL and AK mixed up. EEng 05:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    USPLACE most certainly does not mandate ALWAYS dropping State after major cities. The right move would be to try and change/clarify the guideline if one is passionate that this SHOULD be the case. What would not be the right move is to bludgeon 100s of articles with your interpretation of how the guidance should be applied in the face of multiple editors disagreeing with your interpretation of the guidance over the course of years. Sports projects have the leeway to include State for major city in tables/infoboxes for consistency and scannability (I leave it alone in prose). Let’s focus on the editor behavior here. Rikster2 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, upon review, MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers. “New York” vs. “Nueva York” is addressed, but “Cincinnati” vs. “Cincinnati, Ohio” is not and both Cincinnati variants are correct via language or history. It also doesn’t address tables or infoboxes where internal consistency may be desired. I don’t see the value to the reader to drop the State from 3 out of 35 entries in a college sports schedule, just because an article is named “Minneapolis” instead of “Minneapolis, Minnesota.” Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody said anything about "mandating", so calm down.
    • As for "MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers": No, what MOS:PN#Place_names says is In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which in turn gives detailed guidelines on when to use modifiers, and which. As for tables and infoboxes, I already said, "Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate", so again – calm down. Given that someone's now pointed us to MOS:POSTABBR, that leaves the question, when abbreviation is warranted as in an infobox, of whether the two-letter modern postal abbreviations should be used e.g. CA versus the older Calif. and so on; for non-US readers the latter gives them at least a fighting chance of figuring out what's what. But that's just off the top of my head.
    EEng 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am calm, and you should be too. I am not even contesting the use of abbreviations, as I said in the first statement. I merely said that others have contested this and have experienced the same editor behavior in response. the ANI is about how a user responds/behaves to content and guideline differences of opinion. It’s doubtful we are going to set/clarify guidelines in this discussion. The point is that there is not clear line that this user is correct, so it’s inappropriate to cast it that way. How we come to agreements about gray areas in guidance is a central part of how Wikipedia operates. If I just wanted to debate and clarify policy this isn’t where I would have taken it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said he is doing this via script? WP:BOTPOL should apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, to clarify what I'm actually doing. I make a lot of minor gnoming edits, and among those - not on their own but as part of a larger package of changes - I also expand US state abbreviations (in line with the MOS at MOS:POSTABBR) and remove the state where the city is well-known, according to the AP convention described at WP:USPLACE, which is used widely within WP. A reader gains nothing from the non-news that New York City is in New York State, or that Los Angeles is in California. I find the argument about visual inconsistency in a table pretty unconvincing - is a reader really going to find their understanding disrupted by the omission of the state from cities known worldwide like Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Chicago? Nor am I convinced by the argument that 'a basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table' - how many readers can locate relevant cities without reference to a map? And a trip from one side of a state to another can be far longer than to a neighbouring city in another state. In summary, Rikster2 may say I don't listen to objections - what that really means is that he and I have different opinions and I don't choose to stop making improvements simply because he doesn't like them. That said, I do generally try to avoid basketball-related articles, simply to avoid this sort of hassle. (In contrast, I've made a large number of similar changes to football-related articles - a question about whether this was acceptable was raised; only one editor seriously objected but gained no support from other editors). Colonies Chris (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • well, not really an “I don’t like it” case. More of a “I expect if someone is mass-implementing changes that they will stop doing so once a difference of opinion is raised about a non-consensus set of edits” thing.” I am not the only editor who has talked to you about this issue over time and, as I pointed out to you in October, you never stopped making the edits in question long enough to have a discussion before continuing to move forward. Per WP:CYCLE, my typical experience has been that an editor would pause in the disputed editing to have the discussion and Drive to some sort of agreement. You never have dimes this. Also, while I question if ANI is the place to talk policy, there is no question that your propensity to remove State is not clearly in WP:USPLACE today. There is a reasonable discussion to be had as to if State should always be removed, but pushing through edits is not furthering it. I never said a reader can’t figure out Cleveland is in Ohio, but removing it from a list slows down the scannability of those tables. And, yes, states are important to college athletics - coaches are evaluated by how well they recruit their home state (which is harder to scan for the reader if removed from some). Just because YOU don’t think they are needed doesn’t mean there isn’t value for including State in some cases (like tables and infoboxes). Also, in my opinion, consistency of like pages matters for aetsthetics and general reading of like pages. Regardless, you act like there is a bright line guideline that you are enforcing where this is not the case and I am not the only editor to call you on it. Also, I hadn’t thought about it but User:Only in death is right about WP:BOTPOL. At that guideline it clearly states that part of the criteria in using scripts/bots is that edits being driven should only be performing tasks for which there is consensus. There is no consensus to remove State in every instance. Rikster2 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables, and make it a sortable parameter. That would be easier to use for the purposes you describe, and the question of removal would not arise. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    False vandalism reporting by editor

    The editor of the New Mexico State Guard is filing false warning to ensure that the government Public Affairs Officer is the only person allowed to make post in Wikipedia. The additions added are accurate and have references, which the government wants to censure and is misusing the claim of vandalism

    DELETED BLPVIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:B4CD:CFF0:DEB:3D85:16A4:3653 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Facebook and random blogs aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. While not vandalism, repeatedly using such sources is disruptive editing. --NeilN talk to me 02:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor, the proper place to discuss this content dispute is Talk: New Mexico State Guard. This noticeboard does not get involved with content disputes. You will get nowhere on Wikipedia if you try to use Facebook and blog posts as references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And let it be noted that WP:BLPPRIMARY is relevant to this. Also...honestly I'm getting a twitch towards the revdel for the above with the allegations and claims against living people that are not backed up by reliable sources. I've collapsed it for now, but can somebody take a look and see if this meets the criterion for revdel? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. RD2. Bye. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AZAL QSC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Left a message on my talk page including: As we have a Legal department, so they can explain to you why it happened.. AZAL QSC is an wp:SPA repeatedly removing content from Silk Way Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding weapons which appears to be well-sourced. Jim1138 (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There's conflict of interest issues in play here, which seem apparent when they leave edit summaries of "Silk Way Airlines Management" and "Weapons for terrorists" is that it's not a true. If you would like to know the real facts of deleting, then please give us an e-mail & we can send the document with full information attached". -- Longhair\talk 10:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer this edit left on my talk page where the editor identifies as 'CMO of Silk Way Airlines'. They don't seem to want to take any notice of COI notices left on their talk page but have since stopped edit warring over the weapons related content. -- Longhair\talk 11:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. This doesn't seem to rise to the level of a WP:NLT-violative legal threat, but throwing out a mention of their "legal department" isn't a good thing. Anyway, a WP:DOLT analysis suggests there's real concerns with respect to the content added to Silk Way Airlines. The phrase in the added content, the leading Bulgarian daily newspaper Trud, which has a reputation for investigative crime reporting strikes me as reading like advertising copy or of being essay-like, and the source cited for the point that Trud has a reputation for investigative crime reporting strikes me as adding a WP:SYN flavor to the paragraph. I think this needs a deeper look, particularly given the claim that there is "investigative crime reporting" going on for something that the paragraph in the article itself appears to concede was undertaken in compliance with IATA regulations. I could also easily argue there are WP:UNDUE problems in giving two huge paragraphs in what's about a six-paragraph article to this development. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OPNsense promotion and harassement

    I am watching the relevant pages. If the OPNsense editors actually get their act together and write a GNG-compatible article for the distro, then great. At the moment, they are simply being disruptive, and there will be sanctions if they continue to pursue that path. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • netfitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is main developer for OPNsense project. He appears here after long inactivity to defend his sock or meat puppet account that has been harassing me and other editors. Netfitch has been promoting his own project under pfSense and sever other pages. OPNsense is a pfSense fork and user is directly associated with OPNsense project, which is a clear conflict of interest.
    • Joswp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another user directly associated with OPNsense project. Also has been inserting his own project into several pages, including pfSense page. If you check his contribution history you can see work on OPNSense draft as well. Netfitch and Joswp are directly associated with OPNSense project and have been behind a long period of constant self-promotion of their project on Wikipedia.

    In this month OPNSense promotion has been strongest so far however it has been going on for some time. If you check the deletion log for OPNsense you can see it has been removed 7 times so far. Now I'm targeted by this project in attempt to portray me as bad guy. I can provide more information if necessary.--Mr.hmm (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the recent WIPO ruling that Netgate / pfSense acts in bad faith against the OPNsense project[1] that clearly indicates years of abuse and a business case driven misinformation campaign, this does not seem so unlikely, because a void of OPNsense information was created purposely by Mr.hmm (talk · contribs) here on Wikipedia. For all we know, Mr.hmm (talk · contribs) could be a Netgate affiliate given his years of similar actions towards OPNsense. If Wikipedia wishes to back his censorship attempts that have been going on through 2015 to 2017, that is fine with me, but I feel this is worth mentioning and I accept whatever punishment my actions back in 2015 ensue, although I fail to see the point. Netfitch (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Netfitch confirms that he indeed is directly associated with OPNsense project. I have no affiliation with anything of what he is mentioning. Netfitch is also "forgetting" to link official their blog post about the whole situation, on OPNsense website. Here you have the above listed Joswp attempting to further spread lies about how they were kept from Wikipedia. Notice he doesn't list that he and netfitch have been doing so for years. What we see here is poor attempt of OPNsense project and netfitch to clear their own malicious deeds and to portray me as someone with COI, despite obvious abuse of Wikipedia by him and his meat or sock puppet accounts.--Mr.hmm (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, Netfitch falsely claims that WIPO ruled that "Netgate / pfSense acted in bad faith against". In reality, OPNsense has been using a simple domain trademark dispute ruling to spread their own propaganda because WIPO did not rule that "Netgate / pfSense acted in bad faith". That further reveals how malicious OPNsense project really is.--Mr.hmm (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-1828
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request block

    User blocked. Reports for vandalism should be placed at AIV, as this is where these specific reports are handled. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Persistent Vandalism and harrasment.Jingiby (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Vandalism at Fish in culture

    A group of IPs are repeatedly editing the Fish in culture article. A little help would be appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Chiswick Chap - I see that a group of IPs are adding and editing a small addition to the article about literature ("fish in a barrel"), but I don't see obvious vandalism here. What exactly is the issue? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's been the latest attempt: whether it's humour or enthusiasm I have no idea, but it's certainly uncited and unhelpful (nothing to do with literature), and different IPs have been re-adding it, claiming they are "stopping vandalism". Not very clear what to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a group of friends playing about — note especially this edit, and they're geographically close. I've semi'd the article for 12 hours. Yes, I obviously hate children! Bishonen | talk 21:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

    Multiple questionable draft creation

    Drafts (that I know of):

    Inappropriate edits at various magic related articles were also done (and reverted). I would like an admin to look at those drafts; it seems to me that a race of creation and MfD is a waste of time. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    G3 hoax, NOTWEBHOST, IAR - pick one. No need to waste editors' time at MFD. All deleted except the one already at MFD. IP is quickly headed for a block for article edits. --NeilN talk to me 19:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by edits — user 136.61.198.171

    All edits to date are mere vandalism. The first one revealed some agenda, which the others do not, as being merely ridiculous additions, (as shown on their talk page, dated 29 Nov).

    I hope I've reported this and added tags correctly... please correct me, if not. Thank you. AHampton (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi AHampton. Thanks for reporting this but if you look at the contribution history you'll see their last edit was over ten days ago. The person using that IP has likely moved on. If you are interested in reporting future vandalism have a look at WP:RVAN. --NeilN talk to me 20:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi NeilN. Question: do I need to supply as much info as I did next time? In this instance, since the initial edit had not been reversed, I thought they might try again, and it didn't seem blocked already. After all, they're only 4.573 clicks away from every other Wikipedia page! ;)AHampton (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @AHampton: If you go through the WP:RVAN info you'll see it points you to WP:AIV as the place to report after the vandal ignores warnings to stop. Here is a sample of what AIV looks like when it contains reports. Point #4 in the green part shows you what template to use when reporting a vandal. If you want to help Wikipedia out in this area (vandal fighting) then a tool like Twinkle automates the warning/reporting process. If you have further questions, I'd be happy to answer them on my talk page or just use the Help Desk. --NeilN talk to me 00:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism by 171.33.252.84

    Persistent vandalism by user 171.33.252.84.[1][2][3] He was warned multiple times but that didn't help. It seems that he is pushing a political agenda. Page: Alexandr Zubkov

    Cskamoscow100 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandr_Zubkov&type=revision&diff=812665018&oldid=812512479
    2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandr_Zubkov&type=revision&diff=812668176&oldid=812665899
    3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandr_Zubkov&type=revision&diff=812806899&oldid=812723607
    @Cskamoscow100: The IP has now been warned that they'll be blocked if they keep it up so any further instances should be reported to WP:AIV. The last edit contained a serious BLP violation that had to be rev-deleted. --NeilN talk to me 00:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Excessive citations at WATL

    2602:304:cc34:87d0:d43e:8538:8b70:56d0 keeps adding unnecessary citations to the WATL article, resulting in WP:OVERKILL. Could someone edit the article to remove the overkill? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Sock 90.146.213.80 block evasion

    WorldCreaterFighter, banned for a year for using IP socks to evade bans, started using another IP, 90.146.213.80, to evade the one year ban. Please check [147]. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     IP blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    <nowiki>

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=812831341"