Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:E-960

Problematic POV pushing. Page blanking against WP:Consensus at Blue Army (Poland). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected. This'll give the users involved an opportunity to discuss everything fully on the article's talk page and work things out. I see back-and-fourth reverting that goes back at least a few days, so this appears to be the right and fair way to stop the disruption at this time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - there is a longer term pattern of abuse here. E-960 has been attempting, against consensus, to excise coverage (in the lede and body) of anti-Semitic attacks by the Blue Army (which reliable academic sources treat at depth, often as the primary subject of their coverage of the Blue Army (or Haller's Army)) for years - e.g. 17:51, 24 November 2015 (shifting blame to Ukrainians along the way), 06:31, 6 March 2017, 15:07, 25 May 2017 (an edit summary full of OR - referencing a PRIMARY contemporary source - which was composed in 1919 - 2 years prior to the peace of Riga in 1921), 15:30, 26 May 2017, 21:37, 20 October 2017, 08:26, 22 September 2018, .... 06:09, 8 October 2018, 17:17, 9 October 2018. All this - against talk page consensus and RfCs - e.g. Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia from May 2017 which discussed the language used in the lede. They have engaged of canvassing of editors involved in WP:EEML - 13:25, 8 October 2018, 13:21, 8 October 2018 (this after - 07:56, 8 October 2018 a highly non-neutral stmt to NPOV/n apparently attracted the wrong sort of editorial attention). An editor that thinks that 200-300 casualties in 3 years of fighting and 200,000 soldiers, that's insignificant, and only confirms my concerns that some editors just want to stack this article with biased one sided statements (again - wrongly referring to Morgenthau's mid-1919 number (the Morgenthau commission did not have a crystal ball) which estimated 200-300 killed through 1919 (casualties - including wounded and abused - would be much larger of course). They have also misrepresented sources - 06:01, 9 October 2018 (not only is Lvov in the Morgenthau report, using David Engel (1987) to rebut a 2005 book is a tad odd - and in this case completely unsupported by Engel (who actually, in his footnote addressing Morgenthau , writesthe opposite). An editor acting against consensus (on the same issue) for years, and who considers widespread antisemitic attack by an organization to be "insignificant" (despite widespread coverage - to the point that some sources primarily cover the Blue Army in the context of antisemitism) - should not be editing the topic area. Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, where you have no arguments and are trying to deflect from your own disruptive behavior then... you bring up "EEML", a ArbCom case from freakin' ten years ago that has nothing to do with this article. You know that's just more evidence that you're not editing in good faith, right? Volunteer Marek 14:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make a critical statement, thought not in an effort to point fingers at anyone and not in bad faith, however a frank dialogue needs to take place. There is a persistent bias on topics related to Polish history, how can any one that is truly for Wikipedia neutraliry say that an article is balanced when it contains 3,100 words 900 (30%) are devoted to just one issue and this also happens to be a contriversial topic. When a few days ago I opened a disscussion on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to see if the disputed text can be condenced, cynically user Icewhiz responded by adding two more paragraphs to disputed section (also pls see user Icewhiz history, as he has been accused of POV pushing on topics related to Polish-Jewish history in the past). Also, the disputed text is almost all exclusivley the work of one editor user Faustian, who over the years blocked any attempt to make the section more neutral or balanced. Now, Wikipedia guidlines clearly state that undue weight can include depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of text and article structue. So, how can anyone argue that one issue taking up 30% of the article is ok. In no other Wikipedia article would that be allowed. Instead you have artificial "consensus" where the same few editors jump in to support each other, and establish "consensus which clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines. I as that sevral admins to actually look at the Blue Army article and say that the text meets Wikipedias neutrality standards, when the article focuses on just one ethnic group which sustained the least casulties in the war as a result of the army's actions (around 500), while other ethnic groups count their casulties in the THOUSANDS and there is just one passing statement devoted to them. --E-960 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It would seem neutral, reliable, secondary academic sources treat the Blue Army's antisemitic atrocities against civilians (abuse, cutting of beards, pillaging and robbing, maiming, and killing) at great length in comparison to their performance on the field of battle. We follow sources - not editorial opinion that such atrocities are "insignificant"(diff - 10:33, 8 October 2018). Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making that statement user Icewhiz because it unmasks your POV pushing, since there are pleanty of sources which say the Blue Army turned the tide of the war and that is the center of their material. However, the sources you champion just focus the the abuse, besides this is not the first article you are trying to impose your POV to the objectin of other editors, no sure what the point of that link was since we are talking about UNDUEWEIGHT.--E-960 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it's pretty clear that if anyone is trying to use Wikipedia to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS", it's not E-960 but you. E-960 is making a straight forward policy based argument about DUE WEIGHT. You can disagree with that (the real question is whether this article should spend 1/3 of its space on this issue even though the subject is notable for other reasons, or whether that info belongs in a different article), but there's no need to attack them or insult them or falsely misrepresent their actions, like you're doing by accusing them of RGW (I don't see ANYTHING in their comment which would suggest that). On the other hand, pretty much everyone familiar with your editing history has a pretty good sense of your WP:ADVOCACY and pattern of POV pushing in this and other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that if E-960 really was concerned about undue weight, he would have taken all that time he spent trying to get this information about atrocities against Jews removed, and instead applied it towards building up other aspects of the history of the Blue Army. Instead he has, for years, just tried to get this information removed. So his actual motive is to remove information he doesn't like, and not make the article weighted as he sees fit. The percentage of the article devoted to these atrocities would have been much smaller had E-960 spent a couple hours in the library doing research and adding other information to the article, rather than spending hours trying to remove information. So let's not pretend that he cares about undue weight. He just wants to remove referenced information that he doesn't like and engages in edit warring and blanking (see here: [1]) while doing so.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Faustian, what you are doing is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, literally no changes have been made to the disputed section in YEARS, because you sit on top of that article and revert all attempts to change the text or even seek a compromise solution (that's not even an exaggeration, the text has been frozen for YEARS due to your stonewalling). --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By "no changed" in the disputed section you mean, your repeated attempts to remove information without consensus. If you are concerned about undue weight, why not build other sections rather than remove reliably sourced info from this one? I doubt you really care about undue weight. You just want information that you don't like to be removed.Faustian (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article does indeed have severe undue weight issues. Interestingly I have also checked the sources used and for example Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books by Blue Army soldiers and explanations of the situation have been cut out by the editors adding the information about killings.I compared this article with the article about West Ukrainian People's Republic that exised in the same time and area which engaged in mass opression of Polish population, up to setting up internment camps for Polish population. It is quite interesting to compare the two articles.While here we have almost half of the page devoted to these events, the mass persecution of Poles in WUPR is passed over and blamed on "Polish sabotage". I can't help but notice the radically different treatement the two articles about similiar events in the same time and area and conflict receive.So to summarize-I do believe there is undue weight here and comparing this to other articles on the conflict with similar events there seems to be bias involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And what matters is not what our articles say, but what RS say. So if there is an imbalance maybe this is due to an imbalance in reliable sources saying something. Again if there is information left out of an article that is relevant and can be sourced add it, do not remove sources material from another article in the name of balance.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• We are back to the theme of trouble in articles on the subject of Polish-Jewish relations. As far as I’m aware there are three editors banned from the area at the moment, and E-960 was editing with them, on the same articles. Whether or not one agrees with this editor on article content, what we're required to do here at ANI is consider conduct. This particular case comes within a context, which I'll start to show some of here.
• For the record, at WP:AE the administrator NeilN has already advised E-960 “to be more careful when reverting” in the conclusion to a WP:AE revert-warring case: [2]
• This came after another WP:AE revert-war case where administrator NeilN asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future: [3]
• MyMoloboaccount has recently asked E-960 to “chill out”. [4] .
• Slatersteven messaged E-960 in May to say their conduct was starting look like WP:TE: [5]
• K.e.coffman messaged E-960 last month to say: Hi, I am leaving a quick note to let you know that I did not find these Talk page comments to be helpful: [6]. Talk pages are for discussion of content, not contributors. I would appreciate it if you did not unnecessarily personalised disputes. This could potentially drive off other editors if they find the atmosphere too unpleasant. Thank you. [7]
• I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with E-960 around 15 months ago, at the Poland article here: [8]
• In December, E-960 by their own account alleged a "Planned POV attack on the Poland article" which goes a long way to explain the perception issue here, which seems to motivate the behavior. User:BytEfLUSh responded by saying "I fail to see how someone saying that they intend to improve the article could be viewed as POV-pushing. Also, regarding 3RR, you might want to check the article history and look at the timestamps of your reverts... " Unable to leave alone an editor who had swam away from the WP:BAIT, E-960 added: "This reminds me of several incidents in the past where an editors/suck-puppet dumped information on unusual topics/minutia (normally not covered in other country articles) such as traffic fatalities in the country." I am the editor who had added road deaths to the Poland article (because no matter how embarrassing to the country, they are notable in reliable sources - including Polish news coverage and political discussion - because they are the highest total in the EU), before leaving it per WP:DISENGAGE. E-960 produced no evidence that I am a "suck-puppet". [9]
• Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE), named Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, in response to an edit by E-960 there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, E-960 reverted [10] my addition of sourced content [11] which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which François Robere had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning E-960 was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; E-960’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if E-960’s knows the universal truth.
• At times E-960's Talk page discussion has been misleading. For example, at the same article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies, their "I agree with Chumchum7... Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to..." is not an agreement at all but a case of putting words into someone else's mouth, because I had made a general statement about how we might be able to build consensus and stability, and I had not taken sides against the editor E-960 happened to disagree with: [12] Similarly misleading communication has been witnessed by Paul Siebert: [13]
• The common theme with all these articles is that E-960 has an axe to grind about Poland’s reputation and Polish-Jewish relations in particular, but they do this with the appearance of trying to intimidate, win and control, and often with projections of bad faith and a personally disrespectful tone, which is at odds with the ethos of our community. While I happen to agree that the allegation of Polish antisemitism is sometimes exaggerated and has led to stereotyping and is an aspect of prejudice against Poles, it is equally true that Polish antisemitism is sometimes downplayed, denied, justified or whitewashed. The solution in Wikipedia is to try to find a consensus solution which represents the sources fairly, because it is a fight which will never be won: those who insist on fighting about it will be stopped.
• This has gone on too long. It’s stealing our time and warnings are not being heeded by the user in question; it may even be that our tolerance is feeding their conduct. This ANI needs to be seen in the wider context. Similar sanctions as those applied to User:Icewhiz, etc, may be worth considering. As far as I recall, veteran administrators on issues such as this are Sandstein and User:EdJohnston, who might be available for consultation as well as NeilN .Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 - I'm sorry but comparable "evidence of misconduct" could be constructed against anyone who edits Wikipedia. I will highlight that you spent over 3 hours (from 5AM until 8AM [14] - [15] [16]) on scanning for and picking anything that may appear to look perhaps actionable, causing otherwise a standard editor look bad.GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you're one of the three aforementioned editors topic-banned from the same subject area of Polish-Jewish relations in WWII (in your case for misrepresenting sources) where E-960 has been editing. This includes the article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, mentioned above. You're very much involved. Please bear in mind the possibility of appealing your ban in December. Your position that the same things here could be said about 'anyone who edits Wikipedia', and your allegation that my use of diffs is 'causing otherwise a standard editor look bad' is understood. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate here and the topics are E-960, WW1, and Blue Army Chumchum7 and thank you for recognizing that similar data could be found in most editors edit history not only E-960. Nothing extraordinary there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not recognize that similar data could be found in most editors' edit history. I said I understood your position, which is a different thing. For the record, that position and your subsequent misrepresentation of what I said indicates that you are not learning from your topic ban, which will be dealt with elsewhere. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Chumchum7 Now I understand what you meant by saying " my position is understood" I would also suggest to assume good faith and restrain yourself from issuing threats.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved, but well... I agree with what Faustian, Slatersteven and Chumchum said, and regret the latter's decision to stop contributing to said article. I just have two things to add:
1) As you can see, this discussion already pulled in a user previously topic-banned from "history of Poland during WWII" for anti-Semitic comments and edits using a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles - [a form of] tendentious editing [that] is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV [17] (the other admins had more harsh words on the matter, but that's the gist of it). The ban, I'm afraid, was ill-defined: The user should've been banned not from "history of Poland during WWII" but from "history of the Jews in Poland", which would've included both world wars. A ban that allows a user to join in on exactly the same kind of discussion because the events took place 25 years earlier is flawed.
2) E-960 tends to assume others have hidden agendas, and too often for my tastes "casts aspersions" (see admin's comment here), and blocks benign changes because they fear they're intended to malign the Polish nation. Some recent examples:

1. [18] A simple CE blocked because it looked like material was removed.
2. [19] A simple CE - accusation of "massive change" and trying to "sanitize" text.
3. [20] A list of reversals with accusations of "POV pushing" and the like. Notice that despite the length of the discussion, little is actually discussed - most of the changes are just blocked without further explanation. They're later joined by two other editors, but those two don't offer explanations (in fact, one of their comments is so out of place it refers to something that wasn't even discussed). Despite further "stonewalling", 3/7 changes were eventually accepted when other editors became involved, and I suspect others will pass in the future.

Bottom line: When simple CEs are blocked because someone, somehow feels they're driven by ideology, they're showing "battleground mentality" that isn't helpful for Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere - I'm assuming good faith, and I will accept that you are unfamiliar with the judgment and why I was topic banned [21] - could you then kindly cross out this false story composed by you above? --> topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII for anti-Semitic comments and edits. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel unease about Chumchum7 using my comment to E-960. To be frank I said to E-960 to chill out, because I have feeling other users are provoking him into making statements that will be used to push for sanctions. Seriously at this moment some users are doing what can only be described as spamming numerous articles with every exaggerated detail about alleged atrocities by Poles, leading to situation where 30-40% of the article lenght is being dedicated to every claim that can be found, no matter how outlandish.I don't mind covering these topics at all, but at the moment it is getting out of hand and seriously is getting non-neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Article was protected. E-960's proposed changes and opinion of the article were discussed here: [22] Two editors supported him, six editors disagreed. So consensus was 3:6 in favor of not implementing E-960's proposed changes. Protection was lifted. E-960 immediately made the changes that were rejected by most editors. I restored it (talk here: [23]). So it goes.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In E-960's revert, not only did he defy consensus, he also introduced WP:OR -- The Jewish Yearbook of 1920 does not support In an effort to curb the abuses- the source says JULY 2. Warsaw: Anti-Jewish riot; fifteen Jews wounded, and one killed.—Warsaw: General Haller publishes proclamation in the Poranna, signed by Polish, English, and French representatives, ordering his troops to stop the cutting of beards of Jews.. - Haller order his troops to stop (before foreign representatives), however nothing in the source says this was an actual effort to effect a stop. Even, worse Soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions. To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press is not supported at all, and is in fact contradicted, by the cited source - page 227 in Carole Fink's book (who scare quotes "immediate investigation" on the Polish government response to reports of violence by the Blue Army, and then describes a Polish publicity/propaganda campaign). Beyond source falsification, attributing such a statement to Fink (via citation) is a rather serious WP:BLP issue vs. Fink. The issue of misrepresentation was clearly conveyed on the talk page and in the edits that modified content attributed to Fink. Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Faustian this text was added by Icewhiz on 05:26, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [24] and 05:59, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [25] in the middle of the edit war, there was NO CONSENSUS on the talk page to include this NEW text in the article — this is NOT long standing material, see last stable article version form 02:19, 9 SEPTEMBER 2018 [26]. --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Incorrect - both on lack of consensus, and regarding the claim of addition. In both cases - as evident in the diffs - [27][28] - this was content that was long standing in the article but which cherrypicked/ORed (the Jewish Yearbook) or grossly misrepresented to the point of being defamatory to the cited author (Carole Fink) - which was corrected to faithfully represent what is actually written in the cited source. I will note that the gross misrepresentation was retorted by E-960 in a blanket revert on 21:31, 13 October 2018. WP:Verifying sources is important.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This sequence - beginning with 10:17, 3 March 2018 is symptomatic of E-960's editing - with the false edit summary of "moved training company photos down" E-960 modified the section title from the long-standing Anti-Jewish violence to Reports of anti-Jewish violence. Subsequent consensus on the article talk page section - is clearly against this title (raising of false doubt and NPOV issue - and one should note - no credible source disputes the Blue Army's widespread violence against Jews - at best some marginal sources dispute the scale). Subsequently, and against consensus - 07:22, 15 October 2018 and mis-marked as a WP:MINOR edit (a personal attack? Seems to be insinuating vandalism) - E-960 restores the title he previously sneaked in with a false edit summary. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Although Icewhiz has a history of conflict with E-960, if their allegations above prove to be accurate, for what it's worth I would support a 3-month topic ban for E-960, based on the precedent of the simultaneous ban for Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek [29]. This is now a matter of (i) helping a disruptive editor to learn, (ii) fairness to previously-banned users, (iii) restoring discipline as well as (iv) the ongoing credibility of the process. If for bureaucratic reasons a filing needs to be done at WP:AE, I would support whoever does it. But I would urge administrators to finish this here and now. If as MyMoloboaccount points out, it is true that E-960 is being goaded, the tormentors need to be rooted out and assessed themselves. But they provide the disruptive editor here with no excuse. Responsibly for behavior is held by the individual who conducts the behavior. One always has the option of WP:BAIT and WP:DENY instead of allowing oneself to be provoked. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To the extent that it takes two to tango, and considering that E-90 is not the only one with a "history" here, and that as has been pointed out, users like Icewhiz are goading him, a similar sanction on Icewhiz - basically an extension of his previous topic ban from Polish-Jewish issues during WW2 to ALL Polish-Jewish issues - would also be in order. Volunteer Marek 06:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented for any such "goading". Ample evidence has been shown for edit warring (over a period of years) by E-960 against consensus, canvassing (e.g. [30]), misrepresenting sources, and using misleading edit summaries. I will also note this personal attack by Volunteer Marek against @Winged Blades of Godric:, and VM's very long "history" in this topic - harking back to WP:EEML and his recent ban as well. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no remote interest in the topic area but I'm all for assuming good faith and that VM, certainly did not intend it to be a personal attack against me.∯WBG^converse 07:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, I would recommend the said topic ban apply to all Poland-related content, not just Polish-Jewish relations. After all the problem appears to be extreme personal attachment to Poland's reputation in general, rather than anti-Semitism or a particular obsession with Jewish matters. This would also be to avert what François Robere identified above: that if the topic ban covers too small an area, the flow of trouble just redirects elsewhere and we all have to go through all this time-wasting again. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. François Robere (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't kindergarten, boys. You don't get cookie points for being "goaded", and you risk getting your cookies taken for falsely accusing someone of being a goad. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think much of this discussion, but read through - one of the editors is pointing out a pattern of modifying maps on Wikipedia such that they under-represent German presence or influence (though at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit). You'll notice this bears some similarity to another discussion from some weeks ago. François Robere (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh... removing an WP:OR map created by a indef banned user [31] - who was indef banned for extensive sock puppetry, long term abuse, and pro-Nazi edits - ... and you, have a problem with this Francois? Care to explain why? Volunteer Marek 05:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, which is why I wrote that at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit. "On that occasion", as later in the thread another case is mentioned which isn't so justified. What bothers me is what's in common for both discussions: the emphasis on ethnicity, misunderstanding census data, and disregarding conflicting sources. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder whether the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY could be helpful reading. Perhaps troublesome editors in the WP:ARBEE area could all get together and agree that they love their grandparents very much, wherever they came from (it could even be an entrance requirement). And that it is high time to get out more [32]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The barnstar for a good sense of humor to you Chumchum7 (lol). GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the issue of the map of German language use, pointed out above by Francois, on enwiki at Talk:German language#E-960's edits ceased after E-960 was blocked at commons on 17 August. Looking through their contributions (and record on various admin boards) at commons, it seems that much of their contributions there involve removing ethnic minorities from maps involving Poland - in the modern era (e.g. German - 1950, or various deletion requests (rejected as in use) - [33][34][35][36], Russian -[37]),, but also at 1 AD. Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960 just blanked more info that he did not like here: [38]. Faustian (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User Faustian, did you not read what I wrote on this false claim in an earlier comment when it was first raised above, and the talk page disscussion, or you just ignore all that? You are talking about text added by user Icewhiz in the middle of an edit war, inserted with NO CONSENSUS. Pls, pls read the relevant disscussions before throwing around accusations of blanking text. --E-960 (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User Icewhiz, it just comes across as if you are tying to get me blocked, showing bad faith towards me in you comments, before you accuse me of "removing minorities" on WikiCommons map pls look at the history of the editor who created this original map user Michael Postmann, who was banned for, quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia (POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia)". So, I'm not sure what you are accusing me of, that I created a new map based of national census data from Poland, Czech Rep. and Slovakia, is this what you identify as removing minorities, using reliable reference sources to back up my material? --E-960 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This may be somewhat unrelated here (and I apologize if this strays too far off topic), but would perhaps imposing a 1RR restriction on Blue Army (Poland) be beneficial here? I'm seeing a lot of back-and-fourth reverting in the article's history, and perhaps this should be considered. Thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Go for it, provided you don't avoid the wider problem and do objectively review E-960's diffs and Talk page comments. Otherwise the problem will arise elsewhere. Your 1RR could help distinguish (i) content disputes from (ii) behavioral issues, which still need to be resolved here. On that note, I happen to agree that there was a WP:OR map added showing German minorities in Poland that do not exist (Poland's only generally recognized German minority is in a small part of Silesia, not where it is dotted in turquoise all over that map of Poland), and that the allegations of E-960's anti-German sentiment (and support for ethnic cleansing of Germans) behind the removal were false if not actionable per WP:ARBEE. But that in no way justifies E-960's aggressive unilateralism and their failure to understand the basics of Wikipedia's civil and collegial consensus-building process, as evidenced above. The German-Polish map incident doesn't contradict E-960's need to change, in fact it provides further evidence of it, and I maintain that at this point they need to be sanctioned in order to learn. When you do the 1RR, please remember that revert-warring is not the article's fault, it's the user's. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User Chumchum, why not restrict user Icewhiz several users in the past complained the he puhes POV on Polish related topics. We opened a talk page discussion on how to condence the disputed section in the Blue Army article, and all of a sudden in comes user Icewhiz trying to add even more text. So, I do feel you are not objective when you just make arguments against me. --E-960 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Complaints or aspersions? François Robere (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record I don't see a huge difference between the editing behavior per se of Icewhiz and E-960. I do see a difference in their civility, in that E-960 tends to combine the aggressive reverting documented above with getting very personal in response to disagreement, as evidenced above. More importantly, and unless I'm mistaken, Icewhiz has already been banned from a large part of the topic area while E-960 has not, and therefore unlike Icewhiz has not yet been provided with the tangible communication of their wrongdoing from our community that is meant to encourage behavioral reform. This said, I have just seen that E-960 is already in fact under a very serious three-month block regardless of topic area at Wikipedia Commons [39] where the administrator Эlcobbola _talk declined their unblock request by stating very clearly, and I bold the last sentence:

"Blocks are preventative rather than punitive. Characterisation as "severe and harsh" suggests you've no understanding of this objective. Further, there is no prescribed block duration, or progression of block durations. Indeed, durations are to be "proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour." (COM:BLOCK) You were previously blocked for edit-warring on 16 July 2018. As of at least 17 August 2018, more than a month later, you were still edit-warring (to say nothing of during that time). Clearly you've not familiarized yourself with our policies or adjusted your behaviour, but have rather demonstrated 1) having learned nothing from that previous block and 2) no improvement in more than a month. This supports at least a 3 month block. Being "right" ("I was informed that I can under WikiCommons rules create a new map since old maps no matter how incorrect should not be changed") is not an excuse. Jonny84's edits were wrong, but not vandalism. In such circumstances, you are to attempt to address the issues on the image talk page. If that fails, you may bring the issue to a notice board and wait for those discussions to produce a result. You do not get to edit war in the meantime. Further, as someone blocked for attacks and failures of good faith, to respond to this block with "This is extremely bias Sebari, it is clear that you have an anit-Polish agenda" [1] only supports the notion that you do not seem capable of adjusting your behaviour during shorter block durations. If the edit-warring and personal attacks continue after this block, the next will be indefinite."

It may be that for one reason or another E-960 is actually attracted to the idea of going out fighting like some mythological hero. Because this is either going to end up as an indefinite block or they immediately make amends, right now, with self-reverts and inviting difference of opinion by meeting their opponents such as Icewhiz on Talk pages to work at consensus in the name of WP:WIKILOVE. Real heroes have done it before [40] -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

user:Chumchum7, I will say this, that perhaps admins are overlooking a very effective tool, inserting a formal WARNING (template) on an editor's talk page with a clearly defined next step/consequence and reason. In the spirit of constructive criticizm, I need to say that the way I was treated on WikiCommons was simply unfair. User:Elcobbola you yourself said that Jonny84 was clearly in the wrong and his edits were disruptive (though not vandalizm), yet you or the other admin involved did not formally warn Jonny84 that his editing was wrong and that he needed to stop re-inserting the reverted material and disscusd instead, you simply smacked a 3 month block on me for reverting those edits. This despite the fact that I raised this issue on the admin noticeboard. You did not formally warn user Jonny84, yet this simple act might have averted an escalation, and prevented any peceived grievances or misunderstandings. In the end I do feel that the action to block me was rather reactionary. --E-960 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This is utterly disingenuous. You have received numerous warnings over many years both here and on the Commons related to personal attacks and edit warring (certain edit warring only: [41], [42], [43], [44], etc) . You've routinely ignored them, and found yourself blocked as a consequence. This is not "simply unfair"; this is shameless obtuseness on your part and a repeated failure to act maturely or to take responsibility for your own actions (edit warring is edit warring and disallowed regardless of who is "right".) Indeed, here, again, you blame Jonny84 and admins for not using warning templates. Why en.wiki hasn't banned you from all Polish topics by now, I'll never know. Эlcobbola _talk 15:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Elcobbola, this is not really the place to discuss past issues form WikiCommons. However, I'll say this, that I'm not sure, why no one reacted when I was called out as a "polnischer Benutzer E-960" (Polish user E-960) and "seine xenophoben Fantasie-Karten so richtig auf die Nerven" (his xenophobic fantasy maps really get on my nerves), by user Jonny84 on a WikiCommons Forum in the German language [45]. Calling me a Polish user and a xenophobe — why? because I challenged the use of maps created by Postmann Michael, a user who was banned for quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia" and you have an editor accusing me of "xenophobic fantasies", when I at least provided some reliable reference sources such as national census data form Poland, Czech Rep, and Slovakia to disprove those maps, those are my fantasies, census data? --E-960 (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds of garbage articles created by blocked user

John Carter (who is currently blocked indef) has created 655 pages. So far, 103 have been deleted and another group are at AfD. They are nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal ad Dayt for an example. I clicked on some of the notices on his talkpage about other creations that were deleted and they are nonsense as well. It would probably be a good idea for someone to review all of these articles, because this is a pretty poor track record. I do not want to go through 500 pages on my own. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Alexandermcnabb is meticulously combing through these. There are several threads on A's talk page regarding these including this one User talk:Alexandermcnabb#A cup of coffee for you!. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a saint. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I accept the beatitude with grateful thanks. Mind, I could use some help. There IS some good in there, the odd nugget, but there's an awful lot of total rubbish and over the past ten years it's spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of WP-derived web pages in/about the UAE. Each of those damn stubs has, in ten years, created a virtual universe of non-existent places offering tours, trips, car hire, shoes - maps citing WP, WP citing maps. He made his whole own UAE on WP. I've been AfDing the articles individually (which has caused some irritation, I know, but a) I didn't know how to bulk AfD and b) I was scared of WP:Traincrash. There were a few of the 'settlement' stubs which had their staunch defenders despite the places totally lacking in notability, for instance this Dahir, Fujairah and this one, which is a residential block in the city of Ras Al Khaimah Al Mataf). I'm now trying to bulk AfD them where relevant but have to admit the task is Augean. I didn't know he'd created 655 pages and do fervently hope they aren't all UAE stubs because it's caused an immense amount of confusion and damage. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I reached the end. He's created thousands and thousands of categories and redirects, but appears to have only (relatively) briefly focused on the UAE's geography. Someone may like to take a look at the rest of the creations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dang... that's a lot of articles. Thank you, Alexandermcnabb, for going through them. Looking at the user's contributions and filtering to show only mainspace edits that are page creations, there's... wow... a ton of redirects that go many years back. If I can be of any assistance, or if any tools like Special:Nuke might make anything go faster, let me know and I'll be happy to help. We just want to make sure that we don't go crazy and delete anything that is legitimate and shouldn't be. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah but I'm done with my bit - I got involved when his edits touched geography in the UAE and I stumbled on the considerable mess that got left behind - and that's what I've been cleaning up, article by article and AfD by (sometimes contested!) AfD. But I'm no good on the Wiki procedural stuff (what's a valid redirect, what's not? Are all those thousands of categories necessary/needed?). I'm a little concerned that if all that other stuff is of the same quality/utility of the stuff I found, and where I have occasionally dipped in while paging through his edits to find if he'd done any more UAE stuff I hadn't so far found (I didn't see that he had) it was of dubious utility as far as I could see. But I am no WP procedural wonk, I have to leave that to you guys! Even making a bulk AfD work had my head bursting... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts, given the scale of the issue here, why don't we simply nuke first and ask questions later ie delete them all, and if any turn out to be notable (unlikely) in the future they can be restored? GiantSnowman 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: it seems like Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987; see Google Books profile) was cited, but without page numbers. I think Wikipedia:RX might be able to supply a copy? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have took a couple more articles of the UAE stubs that are not notable to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Did you find any of the articles to be correct or were they all garbage? Natureium (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: There were a couple of names were right (but they were still nine-word stubs with wacky pins), a couple of the settlements scraped through AfD. 98% cruft, I'd say. Are there any left to nuke? Thought I'd got 'em all. It's the non-UAE stuff I thought might need a bit of scrutiny!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree all of the UAE stubs need to be mass nuked. It's exhausting AfD and exhausting the time and patience and research of many users to have to deal with them. I agree this is a Neelix-level cleanup, but unfortunately unlike the Neelix creations, since these are articles (as opposed to redirects), the hundreds of inaccurate decade-old stubs have created a massive amount of misinformation spread all over the internet. This is, literally, a Wikipedia's worst nightmare scenario. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of slightly changing the title of this thread to emphasize the scale of the problem. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support a mass delete, to make it crystal clear/easy to see for reviewing admin. GiantSnowman 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment even though he cited the Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987), he never cited page numbers, ISBNs, etc. There really is a Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates published by the Defense Mapping Agency so hopefully someone gets a copy of it and actually uses it... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Gazetteer_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates I am checking to see if I can get the table of contents and/or the index from this book. That way I can share it with other Wikipedians and it can be determined which pages are needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• support nuking all the articles. I will go through all the creations after 18 hours from now. If something that exists and is notable, someone would create it again eventually; and these creations can be reviewed as they come in. There is no point in wasting time and energy veryfying everything that this editor has created. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I do think people are scared away of re-creating deleted pages, even if the topics do turn out to be notable. However I am not opposed to a mass-delete as John Carter did a poor job of citing things. By getting the index it can make verification much easier. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Funnily enough, I took another one of these stubs to AFD as John Carter pin-pointed the location directly in the sea. This is absolutely awful and the creator said that it is "a location in Fujairah". I support a careful mass-deletion of these stubs. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • All valid arguments. But I still feel this is the best option. Or maybe we can draftify everything? Upon verification, it can be added back to mainspace. Is there any way to avoid deletion of drafts after the inactivity period? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        • We've already gone through and sent a number of these to AfD. I think we're nearly done. No reason to nuke everything now. A pinpoint into the sea for a coastal area is common where the point is only accurate to degrees and minutes, between 1.1 and 11km... see: Decimal_degrees SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we need to be careful not to delete anything that has survived an AfD. A few of these places really do exist. The errors in the pin positions are largely due to rounding (not using enough decimal places) and are easily corrected. It would appear that an entry in the Gazeteer cannot be taken as proof of existence. That same data is also in online databases like geographic.org which contains all the many entries we now know definitely don't exist thanks to Alexander's work on the ground. SpinningSpark 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: do you think draftifying everything can be an option? (Kindly see my reply above.) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • No. It will just lie dormant for six months and then get G13'd. SpinningSpark 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• WhisperToMe Asked me to share how I think this all happened. In 1959, the Trucial Oman Scouts did a survey of the area by basically wandering around and asking people where they were (imagine a couple of Brits in short trousers bombing around in a Land Rover Defender). So if they stopped (and they often did) at a well with a couple of tents by it, they'd ask 'Where's this?' and the locals would shrug and say 'Well' or 'Wadi Helou' (literally, BTW, 'sweet wadi') or whatever. As far as I can tell, the Brits also used data from John Lorimer's 1915 Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf which is compendious, but contains some very quaint spellings/transliterations from Arabic. So we have a couple of VERY out of date sources (given that in 1959 the interior of the Trucial States was still bandit country and even the oil companies were having a hard time getting access to the interior and then the breakneck development of here since then, it's safe to say 99.9% of things have changed. Some haven't, which is always nice to find!). ANYWAY, that survey was picked up and used as the source of a Gazetteer in 1974 by Abu Dhabi and that source was in turn picked up by the American Defence Mapping Agency in 1987. Hope they don't use that data for targeting otherwise a bunch of wells and seasonal Bedouin encampments are really going to know what's hit 'em. So the info you're looking at is at least 59 years out of date and features mad transliteration. We still have issues with transliterating from Arabic today and place names in the UAE can often be spelled 2-3 ways on different signs. I remember going to the village of HabHab and seeing a sign on the police station 'HebHeb Police Station'. End result? Mr Carter would appear to have happily banged all those place names into WP along with 'is a city in Sharjah' or 'is a location in Ajman' or 'is a mountain' or 'is a tribal area in Dubai'. I'd say the mess is pretty much cleared up now, but the above is how I reckon we got here. What scares me is the information STOOD FOR TEN YEARS mostly unchallenged. I mean, good grief. Best to all Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And I could understand someone saying "well the Defense Mapping Agency has to know what they're doing!" Yet it turns out they had bad data. This is why I'm glad I inquired on the source: that way people can learn from this and take more due diligence on their sourcing. While I could understand Carter believing in the verifiability of the agency's work, I still think there should have been an effort to get page numbers, and also to get some background info on the source before using it. That's also why I have Wikipedia articles written on books being used by Wikipedia as sources: so people know about the sources they're using. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I think he batch-created these articles from a geographic database which already had input the outdated information. I highly doubt he actually had the page number of anything in the gazetteer. SportingFlyer talk 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      • wow. Under these circumstances, I think we should not keep any margin for error. What I mean is, we should not have articles about towns-settlements and similar things if they dont exist. And we have no way to verify these articles; as most of the usual RS are now flawed (and/or based on something which is flawed). As I said in my fist comment, we should delete everything. If it exists, and is notable; someone would eventually create the article for it. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
        • It should be cleaned up now. Someone might want to page through the thousands of JC's redirects and category creations and decide whether they're valid, someone might want to close the UAE AfDs now (the bulk ones, of course - after some complained loudly about the volume of individual ones - have attracted few votes) but the UAE geostubs are gone, baby, gone. We've retained the few valid/semi-valid ones. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Assuming John Carter did just batch create it... it's too bad. Anyway I got scans of the original Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987) and according to that work, these are the "principal sources":

• The United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, GEOProjects (Beirut) in association with Oxford University Press, 1981.
• Joint Operations Graphic, 1:250,000, U.S. Defense Agency or U.K. Director of Military Survey, 1966-1984
• United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, Abu Dhabi, 1974.
• Trucial States, Muscat-Oman, 1:100,000, U.K. Director of Military of Survey, 1959-1971.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated uncivil verbal abuse in film articles

Seems like some people are really frustrated. The Mohanlal v Mammootty fan wars has gone one step ahead, now a weird version of it is taking place in Wikipedia. Since 13th October, an IP (or IPs) was persistently trying to edit Mohanlal's name in Odiyan (an upcoming much anticipated film in the industry) cast list and replacing it with extreme foul language (Malayalam written in English letters). An otherwise less edited page, on that day there was at least 120 edits, warring to add the profanity.

Some IPs are:

• 2405:204:D105:E05F:EC1F:93DF:BBAB:3519 (14 edits) - most disruptive (also edited Kayamkulam Kochunni)
• 2405:204:D302:3DB1:D9AD:D0AA:A5B6:FE55 (3)
• 86.98.84.7 (1)
• 2405:204:D48B:93CF:346A:3D8C:26FE:8EF1 (2)
• 2405:204:D308:7024:5208:43DF:5B9E:8A86 (4)
• 137.97.155.163 (10) - most disruptive (also in Mohanlal regular collaborator Antony Perumbavoor)
• 49.15.207.246 (1)
• 42.111.228.116 (1)
• 78.100.162.226 (1)
• 2405:204:D401:C999:A711:D1EB:E234:868F (2)
• 2405:204:519E:B978:3F78:3C0A:BEDB:40E8 (2)
• 2405:204:D08B:9642:0:0:1E85:E8A1 (2)
• 43.239.55.13 (2)
• 2405:204:659A:E1A6:904D:6515:3C4D:FB90 (2)
• 83.110.229.77 (1)
• 2405:204:D206:94C3:79CD:B692:225B:ED5A (1)
• 2405:204:D282:32E5:0:0:2480:B8A4 (1)
• 45.125.117.2 (2)

Finally the page was protected for disruptive editing. Unable to vandalize Odiyan, the target shifted to Mohanlal's Pulimurugan (the top-grossing Malayalam film).

• 27.61.41.50 ([46], [47]) - vandalizing box-office data
• 27.97.28.205 ([48])
• 2405:204:D10E:F29C:2487:7A45:2113:988C ([49]) - profanity
• 27.61.22.115 ([50]) - profanity and box-office vandalism
• Fayismuhammed ([51])

The page was soon protected. If you observe here, 27.61.22.115 and Fayismuhammed edited in 1 minute gap with same edit summary. Fayismuhammed, an otherwise inactive user came at the same time ? You know what I mean. Check his contributions, it's all box-office vandalism, adding inflated numbers in Mammootty films (Rajamanikyam, Pokkiri Raja) and diminishing them in Mohanlal films (Drishyam, Pulimurugan). Same obscene words used by IPs here was also seen in Odiyan, so it's possibly the same person.

Then other IPs began returning the favour, doing the same in Mammootty films. But is less occuring when compared to the vandal spree in Odiyan and Pulimurugan. On 17th October, Frz latheef undid such an edit in a Mammootty film [52] at 21:29 UTC. Just a minute after, this IP went savage adding profanity in a number of Mohanlal films. It was from 21:30 UTC to 21:39 UTC just after Frz latheef's edit. Maybe his retaliation ?

Instead of protecting the pages and preventing good faith editors too, blocking the problematic IPs/Users will be more effective. After all, how many pages can you protect. Both the M's has acted in more than 300 films each. 2405:204:D483:E219:BC9B:BFD2:524F:F1C1 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've done some blocking. I think an edit-filter would be useful here, and I'm going to request it. Can you let me know on my talk page of any further issues? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the diverse IP ranges and edits made, I agree with Black Kite that an edit filter will probably be the best solution to this matter... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the tightest range here is an IPv6 /32, which is much too large to block. It's regrettable but this is why we have semiprotection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree; semi-protection will be helpful, but it won't stop further disruption from spilling over and spreading to other articles and we'll essentially be playing "whack-a-mole", which would be both beneficial and convenient to avoid if we can do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, Oshwah, Ivanvector. Why are you not blocking them ? Today they have started it in Mohanlal's upcoming films Drama ([53], [54], [55], [56]) and Lucifer (film) ([57]). You think this is going to stop ? Unless you apply a range block, I don't think so. 2405:204:D18A:ACC0:A859:7843:4744:8F26 (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocking individual IPs has already been an active task performed as noted by Black Kite above. Given the ranges available to the user and what I calculated from the IPs listed here - they could just hop onto another IP and continue with their "business as usual". The IPv6 range (2405:204::/32) is much too wide to block and it would result in a lot of collateral damage as seen by the range's edit contributions. The IPv4 addresses listed here all come from different ranges and would be useless to try and pursue. I just applied semi-protection to the two articles you listed in your response above. Are there disruptive edits continuing to actively occur at this moment in time and on other articles or pages? If so, can you list these articles and pages here so that I can take a look? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I did rangeblock a smaller subset of that IPv6 range because all of the recent contributions appeared to be about this subject. However as Oshwah says the IPv4s are just popping up all over various ranges and I can see no rangeblock for any of them that would not cause significant collateral issues. Semi-protection and/or edit-filter is the main way to proceed here. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Edit: the 42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x range appears to have very little collateral so I have temporarily rangeblocked that.) Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with applying a useful range block, IP, is that it would also block your IP. That's the "collateral" problem here, we can't technically sort the good edits from the bad. We're doing the best we can. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite's block on "42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x" translates to 42.109.128.0/19 in CIDR notation, for those who don't know how to calculate those. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, Oshwah, now it's in Neerali ([58], [59], [60] - this page was vandalizing since 17th October, I forgot to mention) and Janatha Garage [61], also Untitled K. V. Anand film. Any blocking possible ? 2405:204:D489:DA38:79C2:3D18:F628:DB52 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection to all three articles listed here, and blocked 188.236.128.0/19 due to their disruption to them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite & Oshwah, the person has now created an account User:Itheillu and started abusing Mohanlal in Villain (2017 film), 1971: Beyond Borders, Velipadinte Pusthakam. Also in IPv6 - Villain [62], [63]; 1971: Beyond Borders [64], [65]. It is now clear that Fayismuhammed is the guy, you can see the user abusing Mohanlal here at the same time with IPv6. It's a vandalism-only account and should be blocked. Please do what is necessary for the IPs. 2405:204:D306:848F:F16B:4C84:1F6F:8D15 (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite and Oshwah:, repinging for the IP ——SerialNumber54129 10:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

One more: Shajil_369.2405:204:D286:3C77:ECD7:174:E1ED:4AA6 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014)

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014) has the same issues as Protests in Armenia (2018), which were discussed a few days ago, here. The article is unreadable and should not be made visible in this state. I attempted earlier to reach out to the user and help with formatting, but have not been able to start a discussion (nor have others); I'll try again now. Per that earlier thread, the errors seem to be the result of machine translation. This is far beyond my abilities (translation/linguistics/patience-wise), but I thought I should report it. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an existing article, Donbass general elections, 2014. It dealt with both the DPR and LPR elections at the time they took place. It was deemed sensible to keep them together. The new article should be merged back into the old one, which I've now done. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That fixes that article, but I have come to wonder whether Панн has difficulty with English. I have asked on his user talk. His global contributions and user talk page posts here suggest that Russian is his primary language. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Same situation, different article (let me know if I should start a new thread, but I thought it might be helpful to group the info): please see this version of Eduard Basurin, with Панн's recent additions. Runawayangel has just removed most of the article, which I fully support, because the previous version was unreadable. The situation has therefore been dealt with, but it's an ongoing issue that Панн is submitting content like this. Jessicapierce (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to bring attention to this page he has created, which seems to be confusing two different people. --Runawayangel (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be at least one more article with the same issue. [66] --Runawayangel (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Alexander Ananchenko article cites a reference in an edit summary without actually footnoting it in the text, so something odd is going on; but I suspect the wrong name in the text came from using another article as a template and forgetting to change it. This also doesn't seem to be an uncredited translation from another Wikipedia article; on the contrary, the Polish Wikipedia article seems to be derived from it. However, he has continued to edit without either responding here or answering anyone on his user talk, and if he does have serious problems with English, that's a serious competency issue. (His history on Commons and on ru.wikipedia both are also concerning; both have blocked him as a copyright violator; but he appears to be doing different things here.) So I'm going to ping in Ymblanter, the only Russian-speaking admin I can think of, in hopes he can talk with Панн. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I left a message at their homepage, I do not know whether it is going to help but at least then we have tried everything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: We still have problems. Since you left your message, the editor has added machine translated text to Alexander Ananchenko, probably from the Polish Wikipedia article, which they cleaned up only minimally; here's what I had to do a day later to make it readable. They've also yet again uploaded a film poster at too high a resolution, and have also uploaded another file with a possibly poor fair use rationale; granted, I have no idea myself how to reduce the resolution of a file, which is why I avoid uploading posters, and I would not know how to write a good fair use rationale for a screenshot, but they've been told about excessively high resolution many times and have yet to ask for help from you or anyone else, just as they have not made any statement here. Perhaps the next step is an ultimatum to stop machine translating and an explanation of how to reduce resolution? @Панн: you need to talk to us, either on your talk page or here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Added a note at their talk page which I hope should be pretty clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Refdesk vandal

Hi, the refdesk vandal is active again (Wikipedia:Reference_desk subpages). Can someone clean it up? Thanks, Henry^Flower 09:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

All reverted ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The vandal (bot?) somehow managed to reach autoconfirmed status before this latest spree. Do we need to increase the protection level of the Refdesks? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty obvious this ongoing disruption is not being solved. It would be a good idea to prevent the same user posting material more than once per minute or two as well. Just fix that up for us, it's destroying my watchlist all this nonsense, particularly when admins don't work Sundays.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am upgrading to extended confirmed, help will be appreciated,. I hope though that they are going to exhaust all the extended confirmed socks soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like they did, pls post here if disruption reappears.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

They had one more ec sock, and six of the subpages have been extended-confirmed protected for 4 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'm a little out of practice with this sort of thing. Henry^Flower 09:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

A similar pattern of vandalism has occured at various Village Pump pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Zzuuzz, might have something to add. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Some significant differences, not convinced, says I. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't answer this if it reveals too much, but are we talking about more outing attacks on a particular editor? Or is this something new? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

He's vandalizing the Help Desk and Teahouse too. He is really overwhelming our anti-vandalism network. funplussmart (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Really? In all my years here, overwhelming the anti-vandalism network is something I've never heard of being possible, much less having happened.  Swarm  talk  20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Particularly vitriolic LTAs consistently attempt to do so. I remember when JarlaxleArtemis was more active as his "Grawp" persona that he constantly attempted to recruit 4chan members to hassle random articles, specifically to try and overwhelm us; fewer and fewer people actually took him up on his offer, however. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I read the LTA page on JarlaxleArtemis. It seems to be a very similar situation here: Use of proxies, posting of personal infromation, repeated attacks. funplussmart (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean that this vandalism is forcing us to protect pages (like the Ref Desk and Help Desk) that anons and new users have a need to edit. And so far he has managed to get around edit filters and all other means to stop this. Page Protection is a last resort in many cases, and this guy has forced to 30-500 several essential pages for inexperienced users at this point. I mean we can stop the disruption from this specific vandal, but only if we take actions that cause a lot of collateral damage. I hope that this guy will get tired of this soon, but so far he has shown no signs of stopping. funplussmart (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon Yes, it's the same. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Threat? Strange edits and edit summaries on Edit filter request archive

• Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The latest three edits, a removal by an anon, a revert by L293D (talk · contribs), and a removal by an anon.

• The latest ES removing content was: Undid revision 865204250 by L293D (talk) Removing vandalism. Adding another user into criminal suspect accomplices list #893
• Previous ES removing content was: The users implicated in the deletion of content of this subject, evidenced to be involved in assisting suspects performing credit frauds, illegal hacking activities, criminal offenses and infractions. INTERPOL has been notified. International law enforcement agencies will be performing surveillance upon these users, according to international treaties. #45275867700ACA

The latest edit geolocated to Hong Kong, the previous to Singapore. Jim1138 (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some drama about this a while ago in the ANI archives. Looks like a sockfarm that performed similarly ridiculous legal threats got rooted out and blocked. I blocked the latest IP and semi-protected the archive, which should take care of it for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Santanu99: persistent disruptive editing, and obvious lack of competence

Santanu99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The reported user, whose main activity here is scr*wing up articles about Indian institutions of higher learning, should be shown the door ASAP, and not just for a short period of time, but for good, for being a huge time sink, and a net negative for the project. Their talk page is full of warnings for uploading non-free images, making copyright violations (adding copyrighted text found elsewhere; see revdelled entries in their contributions, and recent multiple warnings on their talk page), making repeated cut-and-paste moves of articles, making repeated attempts to redirect an article to another article that only covers a subset of what the article they're redirecting to it covers (see page history here) and repeatedly adding unsourced material to a large number of articles. It's also obvious that they don't know enough English to be able to read and understand the warnings they get, or communicate with others, with their response to getting a final warning for disruptive editing after their latest attempt to redirect Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology to Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur (their second such attempt today, showing they just won't stop...) being this post on their talk page: "GOTO Hell, Lets Try..You have no idea.Wikipedia Foundation will loose fund.", which IMHO proves my point about utter lack of competence. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom, your quote ""GOTO Hell" etc has the wrong diff, could you fix, please? I'd like to read the post, even though it may be kind of moot, as I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

Sorry, Bishonen, too many windows open in the browser at the same time. The diff is here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes (brought he from their talk, having just left a message there and seen an absolute kaleidoscope of warnings). I see some of them relate to the addition of copyright material; that's what took me there, as I stripped a load out of Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, which they have proceeded to restore. I wonder how many wasted editorial hours they have managed to consume in the last five years. ——SerialNumber54129 14:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The account was registered five years ago, but only made stray edits until early July this year, that is less than four months ago, but have since accumulated about 1,000 edits here, very few of them really constructive. A look at their earliest edits, from 2014 and 2015, is interesting too, though, since several of their earliest edits have been revdelled, including their very first ones, making it seem like they've been regularly adding copyvios here, from their very first day of editing here and up to today. Kazi Nazrul University, which they added now revdelled copyvios on a couple of days ago, was also the very first article they edited, with now revdelled edits made by them on that article also in 2014 and 2015, showing they haven't learnt anything during the past several years. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 15:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: You might want to— ——SerialNumber54129 15:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• This has to be the most stupid attempt at socking that I've ever seen, creating a new account named User:Santanu98 and then using Santana99 to redirect Santana99's talk page to the newly created sock... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Santanu98 also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• It wasn't registered? They just tried to redirect their talk to a non-existant page. Which does just about sum it up admittedly. Ah, TW's dodgy spelling there :) yes, that was a rather foolish manoeuvre, wasn't it. ——SerialNumber54129 16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Err yes it was - "Created on 23 October 2018 at 12:46" ... GiantSnowman 16:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I know; it was originally spelled differently though. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

IP posting "porn"

User 87.254.70.8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.254.70.8 is in a rampage posting "porn" images. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has been blocked by RickinBaltimore. TedEdwards 16:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Could we also RevDel the offensive edits? Altamel (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Already done by somebody.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the diffs, and added the soon-to-be-deleted-on-Commons image file to the badimages list. Raul654 blocked an earlier IP doing the same thing. I expect more attempts once they obtain another IP. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

We really need to get to work on some image-rec software to filter out uploads at commons of the usual suspects. This is not the first time I've seen this exact form of vandalism using the goatse image. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the image, now they will need to upload a new one.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Ymblanter:, @RickinBaltimore:, They had another image currently in 2018 Yilan train derailment, please delete the image and protect the article (despite it is a current event and some ip may do good faith edit). user:matthew_hk 17:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

They created a new account on Commons. Can we block the commons user and delete the image? Altamel (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

All done, pls ping me if there is more admin help on Commons needed, I should be reasonably active for three more hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: User:87.254.84.46, posting File:Nature 1.png. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: User:178.16.10.94, posting File:D8c.png Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm imagining that this IP is actually a spy, sending a secret signal by doing this, and that the pages and images were "chosen at random" by their superior who's had it out for them for a long time. So now there's some young CIA handler at an embassy somewhere pounding their forehead on the desk as they keep trying to let their field assets know their cover is blown, but the edits just keep getting removed.

Pretty soon, he'll give up, grab a pistol out of his desk drawer and start running across the city on foot while techno music plays in the background, hoping desperately to find his operator in time.

Across town, said operator is looking at a cached diff of one of their assigned WP pages thinking "Is that the 'proceed with caution' butthole or the 'your cover is blown' butthole?"

Meanwhile, right outside his door, some foreign operator carrying a .22 pistol with a huge can is listening to his earpiece telling him "the butthole is live, move now!" in Russian. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm billing you for a new keyboard for the one I just ruined laughing at that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work That was awesome! I will save the diff where you wrote that, as it is now one of my new favorite things ever. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• @RickinBaltimore and ONUnicorn: Most of my jokes seem to go over like a lead balloon. I'm glad this one made someone laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Just, let's please not read too much into the fact that I'm rewarding that particular comment with an image of a grinning face superimposed over the shape of a star; we're treading pretty close to the line of appropriate wiki-commentary as is... Snow let's rap 23:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you seriously go with a Porn Identity joke? Bravo, sir. Blackmane (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Acroterion: the image you added to WP:BIL has been deleted so it can be gone from the list. Sorry to hear this vandal is back again. Home Lander (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder, I was going to go back and declutter the list. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Continued, the latest incarnation was 80.65.245.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Again, if admin help on Commons is needed pls ping me. I will be around for half an hour, then half an hour not available, and then again around for four hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It seem they vandal articles that appears on the front page, as the train accident is a current event, while Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 is today featured article. Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ad hominem at homonym

Please fill this space with a relevant humorous image of your choice. BMK (Sorry, trout was trite) BMK

Add hominid at "Ad hominem at homonym", at home with them

Homina, homina, homina

Hominy, hominy, hominy

Hominy home

Harmony, harmony, harmony

Homily, homily
homily

Did someone say tripe?

This whole homonym thing is a fluke.

[67]. EEng 18:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

An ad homonym? erm, no, what I meant to say is: We are very busy here doing very important things. We have no time for frivolity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, Eeng. Look at the thread above this one and ask yourself if we really have time for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

When I saw this pop up, my question was going to be "Really? Did Eeng put you up to this? Otta known I have plenty of time for frivolity, and maybe some fishing...-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Damn you EEng! Damn you. We don't have time for this. We. Don't. Have. TIME. This post has wasted precious volunteer resources, and frankly, I'm not sure how long it will take to recover. Every minute people spend here, precious, precious work is being done, and you have stolen that from us. Propose BOOMERANG TBAN on the use of any and all humor, broadly construed.  Swarm  talk  19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is kind of a reminder to close this thread. I've outdone EEng with puns on this one. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• This thread is succeeding beyond my wildest imagining. EEng 21:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your imagination is obviously deficient, so sad, so sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A mind is a terrible thing to... wait, what are we talking about again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

???????????????💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As one of the late 20th century's greatest philosophers put it, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What's this about hominy? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I hereby block the electrical engineer for a microsecond. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

On what charge? Battery? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If convicted I hope they put me in a dry cell. EEng 18:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If they do, quite a few admins will get a charge out of it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, watt are we talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohm my! Resistance is futile. You're impeding discussion. etc etc etc. What have I started? EEng 16:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, but I just saw a Volts Wagon Beetle pulling a mobile ohm. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the bus, if I don't have to make too many connections. EEng 00:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I amp not sure where this discussion is going. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE Block Requested

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

---

User:Ceneezer has created several incomprehensible drafts (Draft:Ceneezer and Draft:Omniverse Theory). He is not responding well to efforts to delete them [68]] claiming this nonsense is his life. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an odd case. Special:Contributions/Ceneezer shows what look to be constructive contributions in late 2016, then a 1.5-2 year gap that ended with a flood of nonsense. Compromised account? A four-quadruple-screwdriver night? Hmm. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Note however that even those half-dozen useful edits a year and half back were actually a POVFORK of an article that already existed, so I would describe them more as apparently good-faith than necesarily constructive. And given those six edits were the only ones that were even in the ballpark of being WP:HERE, I'm inclined to agree with the suggesting course of action; an admin warning would be a nice first stop, but if this user doesn't stop this quasi-vandalism, a block is the best way forward. And frankly, though I'd like to see the warning so that we are being pro forma about this, I don't have much hope that this user is suddenly going to change gear into a useful contributor. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not getting the message [69] Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• User indeffed. Pages deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Calls for executions by firing squad in edit summaries

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

---

• PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) has made some extremely hostile edit summaries:

1. "Which incel put that here?"[70]
2. "Transphobes to the wall"[71]
3. "Antisemites to the wall"[72]

"To the wall" is dogwhistle (or rather, pretty much a straightforward call to be honest) used by the recently quarantined subreddit r/FullCommunism. They themselves explain what "to wall" means here: "Being walled means to be lined up in front of a wall and shot by a firing squad."

I figured it isn't worth it to bring this up with the person on his talkpage if he's calling for executions in the first place and giving sarcastic replies to others.[73] --Pudeo (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not a tankie, I just like Pink Floyd. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The wall" isn't a dogwhistle since there's nothing else it could be used to mean. It's been used to refer to firing squads long before that subreddit existed. The edit summaries are indeed aggressive (even though they're clearly intended as humorous) but it's worth noting that the edits themselves are simply removing vandalism/POV-pushing.
  However, the user did recently make this edit in which they revert the closure of an RfC with the summary "Disagree. No consensus for removing this in RfC." PeterTheFourth didn't try to bring this up with the closer, or even revert the RfC close on the talk page; they simply added the content back. I brought this up on their talk page, to which PeterTheFourth tells me sarcastically "Thanks so much for sharing your valuable opinion" and then throws a temper tantrum on the talk page.
  These behaviours are concerning, and indeed the latter undoing of an RfC closure is one of the most rude things I've seen on my time on Wikipedia (yes, I tend to avoid ANI), but unless there's further problematic behaviour, I don't think action needs to be taken against the user unless they continue to make these sorts of toxic edits. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I never undid an RfC closure. I did undo an edit to the article after the RfC had closed, which removed something. The RfC closure that the person removing the material wrote that there was 'no consensus' as to whether the material should be removed. Perhaps you should revise your comment - no hard feelings. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This is false. The RfC was closed with consensus to reduce the paragraph to a sentence (or two). To reinstate the full paragraph is to edit war against consensus. Pinging the closer (@Feminist:) in case they wish to comment. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have nothing to add. feminist (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the RfC, he has been "cautioned to be more careful when making edits concerning living people" on October 5. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive242#PeterTheFourth --Pudeo (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree that the "to the wall" comments are not just inappropriate and hostile, but indeed have an outright violent cast to them. Peter, it would go a long way to forestalling this discussion heading towards unpleasant territory if you can genuinely say that you understand why these comments are received as unnerving and completely antithetical to a collaborative and respectful work environment, and commit to not using the phrase on-project again. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, though I do have to note that the "antisemite" one was made in response to an obviously antisemitic post (see the edit summary), and the "transphobic" one was reverting a, well, transphobic rant. But yes, some better wording would be more appropriate. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, precisely. Because even given that context, it's just not feasible for this project to allow responses to editorial conflicts that take the form of a threat of violence--for a variety of policy, pragmatic, and even legal reasons. Even if the circumstances seem to suggest the person is just talking histrionically, it's a problem. People have been indefed for it before without there even being enough time to take it to ANI, frankly. That said, I don't want to sell Peter short without his having a chance to respond to concerns. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: the key complaint here is that PeterTheFourth got overly salty with vandals inserting racist, sexist and transphobic statements into contentious articles? Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if taken in the context of alluding to The Wall, it's a poor choice of words given Pink's state of mind in "In The Flesh". Not everyone would recognize the possible self deprecating humor angle. ANd not everyone (sadly) thinks of Pink Floyd. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Having said that-- the irony of the allusion-- it burns.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• What is the point of this thread? Sure, two of those edit summaries (aimed at antisemitic and transphobic vandals) were overly aggressive, but unless he really needs to be punished for his transgressions, or we're seriously worried that Peter is literally calling for the murder of antisemitic and transphobic people, there's nothing for us to do here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The thread is certainly a bit of a trial; I can't decide whether to sit comfortably and watch, leave, or just wait for the climax... ——SerialNumber54129 13:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:NPA: I don't believe there's a real threat of violence, but for the reasons already stated by Snow Rise above, normalizing threats of death or violence is harmful for several reasons, even if directed at vandals/ranters. There's no exception for that in the stated policies, either. But after the Pink Floyd reply I feel like we're just entertaining some trolling, so yes, it might be pointless. --Pudeo (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a real threat of violence Honestly, even if there was, is Peter wrong? Should we tolerate editors who ascribe to belief systems that advocate for the genocide of entire races? Humanity has demonstrated over the past few millennia that killing each other is in our nature, so which is the better channeling of that nature, killing Nazis or killing Jews? And more importantly, does that translate to Peter actually following through?

Go look at my user page. There's some right-wing moron who likes to make accounts whose names are threats against me. I know his ISP, IP range, home town and even some PII about them (thanks to some poorly-worded threats left on my talk page). I know enough to find out more, and I know of multiple ways I could go about putting a stop to it. But I'll never do anything about it, because even though I have no doubt this idiot would like to follow through, I damn well know he couldn't even if he knew where to find me. It's not a credible threat, so instead of treating it like a threat, it's best to treat it like you would any other bit of shit on the internet; just ignore it.

So yeah, from a purely bureaucratic perspective, Peter's comments violated a policy. But I have a hard time working up sympathy for the poor, terrified Nazis, huddled in their basements, frantically trying to figure out if Peter can track them down by their IP addresses and put them up against a wall. Almost as hard a time as I have picturing those edit summaries as anything more than simple venting against the injustice of a system that allows such fucking wastes of humanity as neo-nazis to spread their crap all over the internet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, after the whole "attempted genocide of an entire ethnoreligious group by fascists" thing, there shouldn't really be a debate about whether to "tolerate" anti-Semitism. It's a scourge which should be eradicated from the planet by any means necessary. I didn't think I'd ever see the day when Wikipedians would be debating whether someone was too impolite to a white supremacist in the course of reverting anti-Semitic vandalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

WP's not here to right great wrongs, so while I and most other editors would agree we shouldn't tolerate anti-Semtism, we cannot attack other editors just because they hold anti-Semitism views. Same for a whole host of other extreme positions. Someone may admit to being 100% a white supremacist, but as long as they edit and behave within policy and do not push their POV, we should not care one iota and certainly should not hold the editor to the fire because they say they are a white supremacist. (The leading diffs here of course were not good edits, but still the diff summaries pointed to attacking the editor, not the content). That means other editors have to learn to tolerate these other positions as well, even if it is a diametrically opposed position. As soon as WP starts discriminating on editors only due to what beliefs they hold, that's when the openness of the project breaks down. --Masem (t) 13:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Then you advocate the repeal of existing policy. We already discriminate against editors due to what beliefs they hold. Specifically, as per Wikipedia:Child protection, Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked or banned indefinitely. Wikipedia isn't a debate club, it's not a free speech platform and we don't have to accept the presence of people who believe that abhorrent and depraved conduct should be normalized. That goes for people who advocate pedophilia, and it should go for people who advocate genocide. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Pedophilia is illegal in most of the world, including the US, so obviously yes, we cannot tolerate those that actively promote it. But that's a necessary legal barrier. There is nothing illegal about being a white supremastic yet, or holding most other extreme views. Just because one might think those groups are morally wrong does not give one the right to attack other editors that profess to aligning with those groups and on the basis of no other editing or behavioral problems. --Masem (t) 14:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. In a number of countries, advocating anti-Semitism is illegal. And if you think it's wrong to attack anti-Semites as anti-Semites, well, I think you have a very misguided view of what this project is about. We aren't a debate club or a free speech platform. We're a project to write an Internet encyclopedia, and the participation of people who believe that Jews are subhuman actively damages that project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We really shouldn't be normalizing threats of violence, even if spoken in jest, even if spoken against Fascists or antisemites. It violates the Fourth Pillar of this website as well as ordinary morality to be threatening to line people up against the wall and shoot them, even if intended as a joke. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be normalizing threats of violence, even if spoken in jest, even if spoken against Fascists or antisemites. I disagree wholeheartedly. There are qualifiers that change the fundamental nature of something, and "spoken in jest" and "spoken against fascists or antisemites" are exactly those sorts of qualifiers. I honestly worry about the level of pedantry here: The assumption that ignoring something that is best treated by being ignored is "normalizing" anything is rather ridiculous on it's face.

Threats are already "normalized" on WP. We, as intelligent people, should be able to discern the difference between an editor mouthing off and an editor actually making a threat. Anyone not capable of discerning the difference should not be involved in these discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to dealing with self-professed anti-Semites and transphobes, I think this is one of those situations where WP:IAR applies. No one actually believes this is a credible threat of violence.--WaltCip (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally feel uncomfortable reading these posts. It does nothing to create a welcoming inclusive environment for me or for any other user or editor. The posts could potentially be read by anybody, not just the intended target. People need to feel safe while editing or reading here, and such posts are counter to that aim. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable reading people opining that not doing something here is a dangerous precedent. I'm dead serious, too, not just rhetorically flipping your words. The notion that WP is the place where we blindly follow our structures out of fear of what will happen if we don't is far more disturbing to me than "antisemites up against the wall". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think this is a grey area; our policies specifically prohibit such stuff. There's some sorta-related content at Wikipedia:Community health initiative. I am going to work now, won't be responding here further at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

We also have policies specifically telling us not to get worked up over this kind of tripe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work, if the inability to make, even joking, threats of violence or personal attacks prevents them from improving Wikipedia, I would suggest this isn't the right hobby for them. IAR being invoked to justify this is just sad. zchrykng (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I never said anything about Peter being unable to contribute without threatening people. I never even hinted at it. Don't expect me to explain further, because I have better things to do. Hell, the only reason I responded to Diannaa was because I didn't notice the closure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work, seeing as WP:IAR, which you cited, says If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it., I don't know what else you could have meant. zchrykng (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What part of "Don't expect me to explain further, because I have better things to do." was unclear? Stop pinging me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Scriptions disruptive editing

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Scriptions
• {{Infobox Chinese}}
• {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}
• Template:Infobox Chinese/doc
• involving user
  • Scriptions (talk · contribs)
  • Primefac (talk · contribs) (closing admin)
  • matthew_hk (talk · contribs) (myself)
  • other user in the discussion thread in previous ANI and template?

The user Scriptions made controversial (disruptive ) edit in a template . The closing admin "would also strongly suggest that Scriptions revert to the previous reversion since their changes were contested, if only to show good faith"

However, the user refuse to agree on reverting his change (see template talk), and made this comment in the now closed thread. (Special:Diff/865481962)

:That's not possible because the protection level of Template:Infobox Chinese/Chinese has been changed in the years since my edit – by you. Scriptions (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)}}

It seem there is no hope he wish to cooperate with other user. Matthew_hk tc 13:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Your previous reporting of me for disruption was considered to be in bad faith by the closing admin. Nevertheless, you repeat the bad-faith accusation of disruption above. This is a pure content dispute; nothing nefarious has been going on. Scriptions (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The template was coded this way. pinyin data stored in |p= Cantonese Yale in |y=, Cantonese Jyutping in |j=. The |showflag= was intended to trigger what the code in |showflag= to show which data from hidden collapsible list. Thus |showflag=p was working was as intended to show pinyin. Same logic applies to |showflag=j and |showflag=y. If you want every Cantonese article to show |showflag=y instead of |showflag=j , you change the {{Infobox Chinese}} template in the articles one by one, as well as fixing the backend code of the template by adding the codes for |showflag=y (and other combination involving |y=). Not sabotage the template codes for |showflag=j and |showflag=gd (Guangdong Romanization).

I don't wish to paraphrase again. Matthew_hk tc 13:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As has already been pointed out by the closing admin, this is not sabotage but a legitimate way of doing things. Your idea that this is against some rule is without basis in reality. Scriptions (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

To other admin that not involving the thread. I don't see it is not vandalism that if someone like mdy date format, then edit {{birth date and age}} |df=yes to show MDY instead of dmy. Matthew_hk tc 13:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not comparable. Scriptions (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing admin comment my only mistake in my previous close was not realizing that the page protection prevented Scriptions from reverting their edits. Regardless, I did not force that change and they would have declined anyway. Recommend this be closed (again) and the discussion allowed to proceed on the template talk page. Further disruption by Matthew hk might be considered, well, disruptive. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User randomly reverting my previous edits.

There's a user 2A02:A31B:8444:A800:B4B3:713A:BFB4:B995 who keeps reverting an edit I've made to the page on Heaton Moor, ignoring my contribution to the Talk page, and has now taken to randomly reverting edits I've made to other pages. Who should I report this to, and how do I get him to stop the intimidation? Thanks.

C0pernicus (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It does rather look like stalking. But it is a new account, so it may just be (an odd) coincidence. More likely (given the time frame) is an account you have had interaction with in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a new user that only ever reverts things, and it's already gone over 3RR on one article from the looks of things. Malfunctioning bot?Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

However you should have properly informed them of this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What's the prescribed format for informing them? C0pernicus (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

See the text in red in the blue box at the top of this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with now, I informed them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Upon second look it does possibly seem retaliatory. See the edit history of 2a02:a31b:8444:a800:514d:b5dd:6b18:2486. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of useless to notify IPv6 editors, they generally rapidly switch between addresses on a /64 CIDR so pinging them on any one of the addresses has about a one in 18 pentillion chance of notifying the right user. This one, 2A02:A31B:8444:A800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), seems to only revert except when they're vandalizing, and has been specifically reverting C0pernicus since about the end of August, and while it's mostly occurring on Manchester-related topics they're also following editors to completely unrelated pages like fricative consonant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. They're clearly reverting indiscriminately, reverting edits as old as March, and never with an edit summary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's apparently a long-term problem, so a 31-hour block of the range is rather short. We'll hope it helps, but, @C0pernicus: if IPs beginning with 2A02:A31B:8444:A800 continue to stalk you after the block expires, feel free to come back here, or to tell me directly on my page. Or perhaps tell you, Ivanvector? Bishonen | talk 21:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

Many thanks, it's useful to know who to turn to. C0pernicus (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

user:2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:D16C:D88C:E83D:7B31

On 29 July this year (and only on that day) 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:D16C:D88C:E83D:7B31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a large number of edits, all related to merges. The majority of them were to turn articles that had at some point been nominated for merging (almost without exception these proposals had not been documented on a talk page or if they had then no subsequent discussion had taken place) into redirects and removing merge-from tags on destination articles, all without actually merging any content.

I think I have now cleaned-up all the mess they made by restoring articles without prejudice to a merge (some of them look like excellent candidates for merging), except Qaum which is currently being discussed at RfD (how I became aware of the issue) but I'd appreciate someone else taking a look as well, as there were some useful edits in the mix (e.g. removing merge tags from a nomination that received opposition and no support several months ago). It would also be useful if someone who understands IPv6 ranges could take a look to see if any similar edits have been made by similar IPs as it seems very odd behaviour for someone brand new to Wikipedia to do on one day never to be seen again. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

ps: I haven't left a notification as it seems highly unlikely any message left on the talkpage of an IP that hasn't edited since July will be seen by the relevant human being. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) the ip was stale (last edit in July). For those merge, if controversial, then revert. For finding the range, the super large range is on whois (Sky Broadband) 2a02:c7d::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You can narrow the range by looking at the contribution, then use {{IP range calculator}}. Matthew_hk tc 13:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hate to tell you, Thryduulf, but the user is still up to the same thing as of 2 days ago as 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so you might yet have work to do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that it took me about an hour to clean up the mess from one day this is going to require more than just me. Especially as I don't have time to look right now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Judging by their last 50 I think they're now just removing old merge tags, and in at least one case they actually carried out the merge. I think it's safe to say they've learned what they're supposed to do, but like Thryduulf I haven't time to check in detail (and there are a lot of edits). I'd like to get their input on this discussion and ideally have a conversation to reassure us that they are carrying out merges properly, and I'm going to ping them on their most recent IP but pings with IPv6 don't work well and they've been idle for nearly 8 hours now - they'll likely have a new discrete IP by the time they come to edit again. I could use help from other users to keep an eye on the range especially around 06:00-12:00 UTC, and if you see them active please leave a note on their current IP's talk page referring to this discussion or referring to my talk page. I'd rather not use an "attention-getting" rangeblock here, but it's an option. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

BLP violations, hate messages, trolling

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

---

• LAQueens (talk · contribs)

Please block and revert/delete all edits. Thanks. JNW (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

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

---

The user USN007 has repeatedly been making legal threats which can be seen clearly on the law project page (see closed discussion: Objection over definition of the practice of law) [74]. A more concrete threat that was posted to my talk page this morning apparently indicating that such a complaint as previously threatened had been made: [75]. Île flottante (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The comments look to me like discussion of a real-world legal matter, not a threat to take real-world legal action. Simply discussing issues with possible legal implications is not a violation of the no legal threats policy, and if USN007 has a concern about a legal matter concerning the WMF, forwarding that issue to the WMF is the appropriate course of action. By the way, what is UPL? Our UPL redirect is somewhat unhelpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Unauthorized practice of law.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Unauthorized Practice of Law". This seems pretty unambiguous. The editor is making claims that "Wikipedia is not above the law". Frankly I'm not seeing anything except hostility from this user. A topic ban might be helpful but in all honesty, I think we're going to see an indef block sooner rather than later. --Tarage (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, UPL -> Unlicensed practice of law. It is illegal in most, if not all, states in the US. USN007 has a strong opinion of what that means that appears to be completely off-base from everything that I know about how the law works. They have been saying that they are required to report Wikipedia and other editors for UPL violations unless editors submit to the changes they want to make. zchrykng (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Praxidicae, want to comment on what we were discussing earlier? zchrykng (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) To be a little bit more specific, discussing whether or not it may be a violation of a statute to discuss particular issues with possible legal implications is in and of itself not a legal threat. It's something similar to suggesting that writing yellow text on a green background probably violates accessibility statutes. Advising the WMF of the issue is also not a legal threat, it's simply advising them to respond if necessary (and they do address potential legal issues on the project from time to time if you specifically ask them to). On the other hand, saying you're going to report an editor to an enforcement agency because of what they're discussing on Wikipedia is a legal threat sanctionable under our policy, in my opinion. I don't think USN007 has quite crossed that line. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

e/c with 3-4 people who all type faster than me: I'm not really convinced this was a legal threat, and certainly not a legal threat against any individual editor. If anything, it's a misplaced "threat" against WMF. But it's so toothless, it isn't worth fussing over. But thank you, User:Île flottante, for bringing this user to our attention; certainly editing like a bull in a china shop, aren't they? I've added their talk page to my watchlist, and if things get more disruptive maybe we'll need to take some kind of action. But not, IMHO, right now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat or not, they're obviously editing logged out (this is only one obvious occurrence, there's a ton more):

• 71.91.178.54 edits Talk:Acceleration (law) following USN's request with: I would agree for the reasons given by USN007. The citations tag is inappropriate in the context in which it was used.
• USN007 edits Talk:Infection_control following the IP's request with this nearly identical comment: I would agree with immediate removal of the content. USN007 (talk) 9:59 pm, 6 October 2018, Saturday (18 days ago) (UTC−4)

Also, Unkownzero might be of interest to everyone and this too ;). Praxidicae (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oh for crying out loud. I don't understand the link to Unknownzero (if there is one, perhaps go to SPI, or ping our resident workhorse checkuser User:Bbb23, who has already commented here and may have already blocked everyone before I hit "save"), but the link between USN007 and 71.91.178.54 is obvious. I'll go block both now. Thanks, User:Praxidicae. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unkownzero (unkown, not unknown). That tripped me up too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::CU isn't going to help for a SPI that hasn't been active for a year and has almost exclusively used proxies. There's a behavioral precedent here. Praxidicae (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

• I love it when they're stupid. EEng 22:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Francis March

I am not sure where to post this, but I hope it gets the attention it deserves here. I noticed a ton of edits to the page Francis March today, all by different redlink users whose only contributions to this site are through editing that page. After running a copyvio, mostly everything "they" have added is a violation of copyright from another source. Requesting an admin take a look into this. I'm assuming they are all socks of the same user but am unsure how to open an investigation into that, and if possible I'd like all their revisions deleted and hidden since they contain copyrighted information. Thanks for the help! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This looks to me like a class project or similar rather than sockpuppeting. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into it now. If there's copyvio involved, the affected material should be deleted. Deor (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool, just wanted to make sure the IPs weren't all the same. The usernames were following the same format which is what set the red flag off in my head. I'll fix up the references. As long as the IPs aren't the same I guess this request can be closed! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They can be the same if it was a class-project. It seem a good faith meatsock. All need to do is tag copyvio for individual edit and sent a nice (templated) message to them for not just c&p source expect an essential need to have a direct quote. Matthew hk (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclined to agree! Copyvio checks out now, the first problem I had with it was a site that pulled directly off Wikipedia. Since it wasn't updated to reflect the current page I didn't notice it at first, but it looks OK now :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not that terrible when using wiki mirror site as circular referencing. It sometimes terrible that primary source (e.g. Italian football club) had c&p it-wiki content, that make you misjudge the text was authoritatively correct. Any way, if those are good faith, then there is no urge to continue this thread in ANI, but may be some venue in teahouse or the talk page of the article. Matthew hk (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rude & Conflictive User:Mystic Technocrat

I have engaged in editing and talk with this user and they use extremely rude and conflictive attitudes with all their issues and communications. Request Administrator review conduct and/or warn user. Some of their action also border on edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirsentence (talk • contribs) 2018-10-24T20:37:16 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) report edit warring here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. And it would be good if you provide which sentence in User talk:Mystic Technocrat or User talk:Sirsentence are specifically personal attack. Matthew hk (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unamused by both of your conducts. Use the talk page, stop using personal attacks, and assume good faith. --Tarage (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a parody? Two joe jobs? Don't comment if you aren't logged in, either of you. If one of you has been in touch with "many admins over the years", contact them privately. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No. This is a major compulsive obsessive troll who has been using multiple IDs and IPs over the years to disrupt a variety of articles. he's been warned MANY times by maany admin over the years. Toxic material. There is NO goods faith here. Period.95.236.216.152 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Isn't it a bit unwise to accuse someone of using 'multiple IDs and IPs' while editing logged off in such a way that everyone can see that you've been doing exactly that? 86.147.197.124 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC) no it's not, the admins I have been in touch with for years are well aware of teh issue. Now here's your signature so you can sleep better. 95.236.216.152 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

non-scrutiny-evading edits go here...

This is some double-edged comedy. Was I rude? Perhaps. I have attempted to engage the user to discuss an issue on the talk page, and he hasn't...and then tells me to stop edit-warring without discussing on talk page...even though I attempted to engage on talk page OVER A MONTH AGO.
As for the IP clown above...he has some weird paranoid belief that I'm involved with some actual vandals who took an interest in a page he edited, despite no evidence whatsoever. For the past 2 to 3 years, his only activity has been trolling every single edit I make. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
As for the issue at hand, all I want is a meaningful discussion on talk page. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You could have at any point, instead of being rude and aggressive, come here, or spoken to an admin you trust. You did neither. And it doesn't excuse your behavior either. Both of you need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rival Sons Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC) (that went down in flames) Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Unjustified level four warning, etc

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

---

This came very much out of the blue [76], followed by this elaboration [77]. After following up, the response I received was this [78]. An unmerited final warning, followed by an inaccurate interpretation of my edit history as vandalism, hasn't been sufficiently explained; 'sorry for your inconvenience' is what one might expect from a corporate phone message. There may be some competence issues; secondarily, the significance of acknowledging an error, especially when flagging someone mistakenly, could be explained by an uninvolved editor. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The user who left those comments is banned from the site, and their sockpuppet account has been blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user is indeffed by a checkuser. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And here I was WP:AGF. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Kokborok language / topic ban for editor

Editor Abel Tiprasa has been active since March 2018 on topics relating to the Indian tribal language Kokborok. My first interaction with the editor was during NPP reviewing his article Kokborok script. The article had hallmarks of POV fork soapboxing while at the same time being poorly sourced. The deletion discussion led to the article being redirected to the main topic about Kokborok. By way of background: a) the Kokborok language is a tribal language spoken by various tribes in India; b) the written system of the language has been lost since the 19th century; c) the official writing systems are Bengali or Latin scrip; d) the choice of script is a contentious issue along a political and tribal divide; e) there is a faction within the native speaker group proposing to revitalise a native Kokborok script; f) since the ancient script is lost, the new script is at this point mere proposal, there are many proposals, none of which are adopted. This is supported by these sources: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6). In this diff the user expressed his view that the deleted article about Kokborok script would serve as platform for editors to share ideas about the future of a new script and develop a script. This is clearly not a purpose of Wikipedia. Other disruptive edits include the arbitrary change of native speakers here, addition of a proposed script from a self-created file here, unsourced POV edits such as this. I appreciate the editor's good intentions, however his edits amount to Soapboxing. In line with WP:CASTE I therefore request a topic ban on Kokborok language and script for the editor. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure we're at the point of a topic ban right now. He was warned about the discretionary sanctions on October 23 [79]. Since then, he has conducted just two edits, both of which are non-disruptive [80][81]. It's worth keeping an eye on, but I do not think action against him is warranted at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: the second of the diffs you provided may be considered disruptive: he re-instated the POV-esque content that was previously removed and which he was warned about. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe. I'd get discussion going with him and see where that leads. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been a number of conversations, such as this, where he called an edit "nonsense" assuming the other person does not speak the language and should therefore refrain from edits. This is continued here. Clear in-article soapboxing here. There is this conversation on my talk page in April about the same topic, referring him to key principles of Wikipedia. Yet the edits along this line have continued. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with you, but since the notification about discretionary sanctions was made, there's only been two edits. Other opinions may vary certainly. But, I don't see there's a need to topic ban him under the discretionary sanctions when he's barely edited since being notified of them. If the pattern continues, perhaps. For now, I think it's too early. I'm not the final arbiter here. I'm just suggesting trying to engage him in discussion again, given that he now knows about the discretionary sanctions. It's worth a shot. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

need help; editor blanking article repeatedly

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

---

the article MasSpec Pen has been blanked more than once by the same user. it pertains to a scientific news item of importance. they are consistently blanking the page and refusing to accept mainstream news sources. please help!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please notify the user. I assume you are talking about Doc James. Also, he is not blanking the whole page, but redirecting it. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You mean an administrator has reviewed the 'article' and found it to be non-notable, problematic, and promotional? I see no problems. If you disagree then raise at WP:RFD. GiantSnowman 14:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article was correctly redirected, as it was making medical claims that were not backed up by sources compliant with WP:MEDRS. Do not edit war to reinstate the disputed and non-compliant content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute. Your first step in resolving this dispute is not this noticeboard. I encourage you to begin a discussion either at Talk:MasSpec Pen or Talk:Cancer. The latter is likely to generate more input from interested parties. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for tips on how to proceed with dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:MjolnirPants

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

---

I have removed contentious BLP claims that the subject of the article is inspired by neo-nazis and white nationalists [[82]]. The specific line of which did not have any WP:V link at all and is unsupported by the body of the article. While there is no doubt that the subject communicated with such individuals to ask them what they thought, that doesn't mean he was inspired by them. When questioned about it, a source was given, but I do not believe that the source actually says what is being claimed, that this is at best an analysis of that source. As such, per WP:BLPREMOVE, we are required to Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1)is unsourced or poorly sourced; (2) is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research). Two minutes after I removed the text, explicitly invoking BLP and asking for consensus to restore per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, User:MjolnirPants used his rollback rights to revert my edits.[83] This is an inappropriate use of the rollback permissions which should not be used to revert good faith edits. Additionally this material was restored in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE without consensus that it is validly sourced. Debate on if this is validly sourced is currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Milo_Yiannopoulos. -Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute your next step is WP:DR not ANI. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the text should be added or removed, but the behavior of restoring the text without consensus and the abuse of rollback rights, both of which are appropriate for ANI to consider. He has now written a response on the talk page: Read WP:CRYBLP and either provide reliable sources disputing the claim, which has been thoroughly sourced already or fuck off. Seriously, dude, you're begging for an ANI report, and you're going to get one soon with this tendentiousness. [84] -Obsidi (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's still not an issue for ANI, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. If he is edit-warring, warn him on usertalk and report at WP:ANEW. If he is violating DS or GS, warn him on usertalk and report at WP:AE. If you feel it is a BLP issue, then ask/report at WP:BLPN. If it's a verification issue, then ask/report at WP:RSN. If it's anything else, discuss on articletalk and see what the consensus is, and if you don't like the consensus, then utilize some form of WP:DR. One/two edits is not a sufficient reason to open an ANI thread, because as MarnetteD stated, it's just a content dispute, and one lousy use of rollback (which is not sanctionable for one instance). Softlavender (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I cannot warn him on usertalk as he has banned me from his talk page. This is already on WP:BLPN. I would revert him, but then I will get accused of edit warring (so far I have only reverted once), see below here Writ Keeper is already saying I am edit warring with only one revert so far. -Obsidi (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Usertalk bans do not apply to mandatory warnings and notifications, which WP:ANEW warnings are, just like the usertalk notification you just gave him for this thread: [85]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"This is already on WP:BLPN." So you admit you are forum-shopping, apparently specifically to either/both (1) get MjolnirPants in trouble for a single edit (or at most two edits) (2) get your way – in a content dispute which is already being discussed extensively both on the article's talk page and at BLPN? Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit nothing of the kind. I came here to discuss conduct issues, not the content of the article which will be decided by BLPN, not here. -Obsidi (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I refer you to this: [86]. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You're missing some important context, which is that this material has already been challenged, answered, reverted, and restored recently, which is making this look like more of a slow-burn edit war than a simple case of BLP enforcement. MP was probably too zealous in reverting to the status quo--and definitely didn't need to use rollback to do so--but it makes it understandable. We're supposed to err on the side of caution when reverting for BLP, it's true, but MP's assertion that this is validly sourced isn't unreasonable, as evidenced by the BLPN discussion; this isn't a clear-cut BLP violation. I'd trout the both of you for edit-warring, with MP getting a slightly bigger end of the troutstick for the rollback, and call it a day. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The previous revert was not based on BLP (or at least no claim to that was explicitly made), my revert was the first and only to make an explicit BLP claim and it is the only revert that I have ever done to the page. As such, I do not believe I was edit warring. And I'm not claiming that MP's claims that it is valid are unreasonable, consensus might end up deciding that he is right. But until it does, I made a good faith removal of BLP material, and it should not be restored until consensus decides it is valid. -Obsidi (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. To quote the edit war policy: The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy (...) Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. (emphasis mine) Later in the same section: When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and, in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war and 3RR noticeboard. Given the earlier disputes about that line, which you were of course aware of, you knew that it would be controversial whether your reversion would fall under BLP, and given that discussion was already underway on BLP/N, your revert was unnecessary. So, no, I'm not buying that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The actual quote starts with Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. I have not used the exemption from 3RR, as I have only reverted once. My revert is necessary to remove what I in good faith believe to be BLP violating material until consensus has been reached. -Obsidi (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I have precisely zero expertise or authority, but Obsidi, I very much agree with Writ Keeper. You seem (to me, at least) to be very enthusiastically barking up the wrong tree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

...No, it doesn't. The section I quoted, Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions, doesn't mention the three revert rule anywhere in its body, except in reference to the name of the ANEW board. 3RR isn't relevant to this, as I never brought it up. Your revert wasn't necessary, because it's not clear that this is BLP-violating material, which is what the BLP/N discussion is for. BLP isn't a license to kill (read: edit-war) on BLP pages. I know you reverted in good faith, which is one reason among others I'm not considering a block at the moment. But that doesn't make you right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the similar language in WP:BLPREMOVE. I do not believe I was edit warring, so I do not believe that the exception applied. -Obsidi (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that before engaging in this forum shopping Obsidi was asked to provide one or two reliable sources that actually refuted the reliably sourced statement the page includes. They responded by providing a list of some 80 headlines tangentially related to the subject which they insisted they could not narrow down because it was all behind a paywall. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping, I came here to discuss behavior, not if the content to should be added or not. BLP does not require that those who dispute the statement provide a RS to refute the statement in the article. I said, in talk, that as far as I could find, there is no RS that ever uses that language. MjolnirPants said I was lying about that (specifically and I quote Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second.[87]), and so I provided the list of every single source I could find with those words so he could verify what I said (that none of the sources that use those words actually says what is claimed). I am not required by BLP to provide a RS that refutes the statement in the article. -Obsidi (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Was it a good faith revert? Or was it Obsidi following MPants around because they are angry about previous interactions? Grandpallama (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not "following MPants around" I regularly watch the noticeboards, including BLPN. Which is where I first saw this dispute taking place. You will notice that all my edits around this were originally exclusively on BLPN. I didn't care if MPants was there or not. -Obsidi (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming so, but your mileage may vary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm struggling to even see this as a good faith report. You tangle with MPants in a few places, write a whiny complaint on his talkpage (which is what resulted in him banning you from it), and then subsequently show up on a page you've never edited before just to undo an edit by MPants that is part of a minor editing disagreement a few days earlier. You should seriously take the advice GreenMeansGo gave you (even if you didn't like the way it was delivered) and spend some time doing more mainspace editing and less time bringing people to AN/I or in front of ARBCOM. Grandpallama (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• This was clearly a content dispute in which Obsidi is apparently using the BLP exemption to mask POV-based edits. If there is a behavioral issue here, it lies in that behavior, not in that of MjolnirPants. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also this seems like an attempt at pre-emptive reporting before you pulled a report. MPants said this to you at 14:33. Your very next edit, less than 20 minutes later was this. Which means you had basically exactly enough time to write your complaint after reading that MPants was considering going to AN/I if you didn't stop your tendentious WP:SOUP at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Honestly this seems so specifically retaliatory that a boomerang might not be the worst idea ever. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I was writing my complaint before I ever saw MPants write that (which is why when I noticed it, I posted it on this forum as a reply). -Obsidi (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would recommend to close the topic before it escalates into a boomerang.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day mate, I'd like to talk about this here throwing stick...

For starters, let me address the rollback thing: I didn't mean to. I was literally trying to check out something else and hit it, and there's no confirmation dialog (WHICH THERE SHOULD BE DAMNIT) so it went through. Now, I had every intention of undoing Obsidi's edit, because it was based on some rather bad-faith argumentation (see below), so instead of re-rollbacking or re-rollbacking and then undoing, I just left it and went to talk, where I edit conflicted and then changed my response to what you can see there now.

Next, this is a clear-cut case of WP:CRYBLP. Obsidi is lying about what the sources (notice the plural and see: [88], [89], [90] [91] [92] [93]) are saying: They are explicit that Milo solicited ideas from neo-nazis and white supremacists, and that Milo engages in neo-nazi and white supremacist behavior, yet obsidi is insisting that they merely claim he "associates" with neo-nazis and white supremacists. Obsidi then used that as an excuse to WP:CRYBLP, and announced his intention to edit against the consensus, and then quickly proceeded to do so.

But putting that particular issue aside for the moment, I'd like to say a few things about Obsidi.

• This is an editor who has proposed that we shouldn't call widely debunked conspiracy theories "conspiracy theories" because it's not fair to the people who believe them.
• He has also tried to argue that the conspiracy theory which gave rise to the Cigarette Smoking Man (remember that dude from the X-Files?) and the Men in black is actually true because a couple of Vox articles have sarcastically referred to it. Obsidi had also been slow edit warring over this at the article, see [94], [95], [96] & [97]. This seems to have stopped, but it still paints a picture of an editor unfamiliar with.. Well, how to read a source.
• Obsidi has also started an RfC that he then immediately opposed, which other editors noticed looked suspiciously like Obsidi was trying to make a point rather than actually accomplishing anything.
• This is also the same editor who has made fewer article space edits in his entire (11 year!) wiki-career than I have since August. Of this year. And not even the beginning of August, but, like, around the 23rd or so. And when he does edit article space, he always, takes a right wing POV [98] [99].

I'm not above suggesting that Obsidi is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and is, instead here to indulge in their desire to stir up drama and WP:ADVOCATE for various right-wing causes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Obsidi is indeed a problematic editor who is probably going to end up with some sort of topic ban if he continues on his current course. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but what topic? And even with a topic ban, if they just continue to go around on the back-end, stirring up drama about policies they've never used in practice and consensuses they don't know how to read, then how does that help? I'm usually all for substituting a topic ban for a block, but in this case, I think the best interests of WP are just to block this guy and be done with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear you, that's why I didn't mention a topic. If a topic ban cannot cover all of his disruption, then an indef for DE, POV-pushing, and TE, etc. Softlavender (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No disagreement, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not lying about what the sources say. None of the sources say that Milo was inspired by neo-nazis and white supremacists. (Go look at them!) Yes, he solicited ideas and asked them questions, but I do not believe that means he was inspired by them. Saying someone is inspired by neo-nazis is a horrible claim to make against someone who merely asked them for their ideas on a piece to be written about them. I was not editing against consensus, there was not yet consensus on this subject.

To respond to the other issues that MPants brought up:

• I strongly believe in NPOV policy. That we shouldn’t say something is a conspiracy theory (which says there is no reliable evidence for that belief), unless it is fringe to believe there is such evidence. A minority view, on the otherhand should be respected. This is NPOV policy and all I have advocated for.
• What I argued is not a conspiracy theory is that there are “government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy.” For which I believe this New York Times article provided the proof. This is the same view publicly expressed by the House Majority Leader in the Hill [100]. I do not believe this is a crazy view fringe.
• I started the RfC after the sentence has been removed, and after I objected, it was forced back into the article . I started the RfC to establish consensus on if that sentence should be removed (for which many people agreed with me that it shouldn’t). Maybe I should have phrased the RfC so that I was supporting keeping the sentence rather than opposing the removal, but that difference isn’t to just make a point.
• I have 2,576 edits, most of which are in WP or talk namespaces, because usually I like to discuss the changes and let others actually add them to the articles. I’m not here to rack up barnstars or celebrate how many edits I have. I only get involved when I think the WP processes are breaking down and the policies of WP are not being enforced. My point isn’t to advocate for a viewpoint, but to advocate WP policies. Look back at my edits, you will see I am rarely getting involved unless I think there is a policy problem. I care about WP policies and that they are accurately enforced. That is why I am here.

Am I a right-wing person? Yes, but that doesn’t mean I am here to violate the NPOV and other policies of WP. Almost all my edits are to advocate FOR such policies when I think they are being violated.

I started this with a focus only on this one topic (the Milo page), and what I saw as violations of BLP policy. But if we are going to go beyond that to broader questions of behavior, then I would like to bring up the incredibly uncivil behavior of MPants. Just in this very instance he accused me of Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans.[101]. Or when he told me to fuck off[102], and said other people just bitched[103]. But this isn’t an isolated instance. Just go back through his talk page edits and they are FULL of him saying incredibly rude things to people all the time. -Obsidi (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And the appearance of "but MPants is mean to me" declarations absolutely vindicates my belief about where this filing came from in the first place, and why a boomerang is the proper course of action. Grandpallama (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about me at all, there are a ton of edits to all kinds of other people where he has been rude. Feel free to ignore all the comments he directed at me, and look at the rest of his history. -Obsidi (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• 40% of Obsidi's edits are to WP:space, and another 40% are to talk pages. While a high number of TP edits usually indicates a keenness for discussion, the concomitant 184 edits to articles in nearly 11 years' tenure—is less positive. ——SerialNumber54129 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to rarely edit articles directly instead relying upon talk pages, that is quite true. But also look at how many edits per month. You will see that sometimes I am very active, but usually I have other things to do than worry about WP and I have 0 edits for years at a time. 11 years isn't long when you don't edit at all for many of those. -Obsidi (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE based on the evidence I gave, above, combined with the fact that Obsidi is still insisting that the sources don't say what they obviously say in his response to the refutation I gave above; this is either a severe lack of competence or severe tendentiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block largely because this isn't the first time. Obsidi did the exact same thing - the tendentious talk arguments, the WP:CRYBLP and the slow edit-warring with regard to Tucker Carlson and the advocacy of the Daily Caller for the White genocide conspiracy theory. [104] [105][106][107][108] Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I only get involved when I think the WP processes are breaking down and the policies of WP are not being enforced. - this sounds very much like Obsidi is here to push a point of view, not to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps that user should try getting involved on non-controversial topics. I don't currently support an indef block, but agree that it looks like one will be coming soon if Obsidi's behavior doesn't change. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I propose a topic ban for both parties? Maybe just Obsidi? Indef block is a bit extreme. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block for persistent DE, POV-pushing, TE, and NOTHERE behavior which has disrupted Wikipedia too long at this point. Softlavender (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

---

Incivility

Have to comment here after the NAC. I was surprised to see no attention given to complaints about MjolnirPants's incivility by Obsidi. Quite something to see him regularly make comments and edit summaries like this: Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second, fuck off, Fuck off with this hypocritical butthurt, fucking bullshit, fuck off and don't come back, fuck off with that shit, bitchfit removed. Fuck your bullshit and your templates. Seriously; fuck off and don't post to my page again, If you disagree with it, you should go fuck yourself and pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person etc. ScienceApe was just indefinitely blocked and had his talkpage access removed for similar comments. So are you giving MjolnirPants some kind of a special privilege of not having to comply with WP:CIV by turning a blind eye? Any comments @Bbb23:? --Pudeo (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't what this thread was about. This was a quickly trumped-up thread to get MPants in trouble over one or two edits that had substantial support on the article's talkpage, and was part of a longterm pattern of disruption and POV-pushing and battlegroundishness on the part of the OP, who only under duress threw in some additional charges. If you want to open a new thread, on MPants and present a case for incivility, you are welcome to. I personally don't think it will get very far, but that's just my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The inappropriate comments were part of the complaint, but the complainer got hit with a boomerang. Such comments add nothing constructive to Wikipedia, offend other editors, and make the writer look like a low class fool. Better to stop them. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No, they weren't part of the original complaint at all. Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, second post by the OP Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"I know what I'll do! I'll express my dissaproval at someone's perceived incivility by calling them names! That'll show em!" Presumably Legacypac, soon before writing the above comment.

Seriously, dude, go look at the context of those edits. In every case, it was me dealing with some tendentious childishness. If you expect me to never sound salty about anything, you've got some wildly misplaced expectations. I can think of at least one editor (hint hint) who just succumbed to their frustration and lashed out with a personal attack worse than anything I said above, whom I just forgive for it because really, who cares?

P.S. That last diff was me referring to the claim "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing". And I stand by what I said in that diff 100%. If anyone reading this ever meets me in person and insists that the Holocaust was a good thing, I will very likely beat you to within an inch of your life, or die trying. Racism and genocide are kinda sore spots with me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not call you any names, I gave the same advice I give to the kids I teach - speaking low class makes you look low class. People take you more seriously if you speak/type in a respectful way. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You did call me a name, you were just careful to couch it as an opinion, which many people often mistake for carefully phrasing it as not being an insult. Just because it's opinion doesn't mean it's not insulting. What you need to do to avoid insulting people is to not say that they are "low class fools" in any terms. You might say that they have engaged in some foolishness, or that their comments lack class. But "I think you're a low class fool" is no more civil than "you're a low class fool".

Also, as advice, it's really quite shitty advice (well, maybe not so much for a kid, but certainly for an adult), so forgive me if I don't take it. Perhaps if you tried thinking in adult terms instead of kid terms you might come up with some better advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh lawd. Arkon (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: "dealing with some tendentious childishness" is no excuse. Such language is never helpful, and should have no place here. Paul August ☎ 21:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. You wouldn't fight a fire by pouring gasoline on it, right? ansh666 21:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please look at the entirety of the posts and threads (not just the few words quoted), grasp the tone and venue and circumstance, and understand that on own's one talkpage such retorts are par for the course in such circumstances on Wikipedia, even for a large number of highly respected administrators and even arbitrators. Softlavender (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Being "par for the course" doesn't make it helpful. Paul August ☎ 21:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it is the norm, and therefore not sanctionable. Cussing on one's own talkpage when dealing with BS is not sanctionable. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying it's shameful, whether sanctionable or not. Paul August ☎ 21:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

All things being equal, if my saltiness at my talk page encourages other editors not post edits like those I was responding to, then mission accomplished. Note my big red edit notice. I'm not here to quibble and argue about who was being meaner to whom, and my usual response to being insulted or being the recipient of some rudeness is to either ignore it or lampshade it and move on. I would humbly suggest that more editors should be like me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Bbb23 doesn't get ping notifications (he turned them off). The issue was resolved by the disruptive party being blocked. Hence the close of this thread. If someone wants to open up another thread about MPants, please create a separate thread. His communications to the indef-blocked editor on his very own talk page (and a couple on the endless Milo threads) are not going to gain any traction, especially given tone and circumstance and context and venue. I suggest this matter be dropped unless someone wants to open a new and separate thread with some actually sanctionable evidence. Softlavender (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The first post is my "case". It doesn't matter to me whether the title has two or three =-symbols. And most of the personal attacks detailed in my message are not directed at Obsidian, but editors in good-standing, like admin Northamerica1000, who was also told to "fuck off" in the diff I included[109]. And what's alarming is that these diffs are just starting from September. --Pudeo (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If the first post is your "case," then I would move to dismiss for improper venue. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on what? I could have also reverted the non-admin close. Also ANI threads don't have to be formulated like ArbCom requests. The incivility is chronic and intractable and as such is within the scope of this noticeboard, and also mentioned in the above thread. --Pudeo (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Because this is not an incident, of course. This is you trawling through my contributs, cherry picking out those times that I got salty with someone who was being a pain to try and get me sanctioned because you don't like me (your opinions of editors with liberal political views is no secret, buddy). I would further note that I have made 1,882 edits since September first. If, as you say, this is just my incivility since then, then it represents 0.425% of my editing, assuming that my attitude has remained constant over time (it hasn't: I've been dealing with a lot more POV warriors the past few months than usual). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The message to Northamerica1000 was a response to being templated, which is known to rile some people. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, Northamerica1000 templated me and reverted me because I participated in a running joke with another admin. Ironically, me and the others (there was more than one other) were making fun of officiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I remember that. Came across to me as possibly being a potential tactic to potentially game the system. The user could then theoretically continue to engage in questionable behavior, and if warned about it by me, could then state that they didn't want me posting on their talk page. Of course, this may not be the case, with the rude response simply being an angry retort. A similar type of post was posted by the user in this diff, listed above. At the very least, hopefully MjolnirPants can consider the notion that such statements are uncivil, and go against the grain of assuming good faith. Running around and telling various users to "fuck off" all the time is quite sophomoric. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I will say this: I'm very unlikely to consider the feeling of an editor who singles me out for participating in a joke to revert and then template (without ever considering the fact that they just engaged in pompous officiousness in response to several editors mocking pompous officiousness) in the future. I'm far more likely to consider how pointlessly uncivil it is to revert someone and template them for participating in a running joke. And I'm very likely to revert them with an angry retort (well, a snide retort, really, but you can't be blamed for not reading the right tone into some plain text). Sorry, that's just my nature. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang for Pudeo? The OP of the original thread was the latest in a long line of bad-leground editors attacking MPants and opening frivolous ANI threads on him; re-opening the thread after it's already been closed as such is pretty disruptive at best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Certainly not a boomerang. MPants' comments on their own talk page probably are not sanctionable, but they shouldn't be encouraged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Meh. I was pinged. You know I love you MJ, but you're not gonna break anything if you tone it down about 1.7 notches. Maybe you get it right, but maybe you don't, and maybe someone you got it wrong on just gets the impression that Wikipedia is a place where a bunch of assholes act like a bunch of assholes to one another, so please go back to Facebook. Gallows humor doesn't translate well over text, and we're not in the freezing mud shooting the shit with the other sergeants, as much as I enjoy and loath those moments. At the very least, it will avoid threads like this, and if you don't think that users who are not so well integrated into the organizational culture would be long since blocked for the same thing, I think you're kidding yourself. GMG^talk 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"and if you don't think that users who are not so well integrated into the organizational culture would be long since blocked for the same thing, I think you're kidding yourself." I think you've hit the nail on the head, GMG. And to pick up on power~enwiki's comments above, these comments are very clearly sanctionable under our policies and the consensus of the vast majority of the members of our work community; if "Fuck you and you better hope I don't find you on the street someday" is not a violation of WP:CIVILITY, I can't fathom what comment would be, and why we'd even bother to have a civility policy to begin with. Surely even the editor who made such a comment would, if competent, recognize the inappropriateness of such threats and invectives--hopefully before they hit the edit button, but certainly at least once they have calmed down. If an editor can't even own up to such issues after the fact, there's an WP:IDHT and basic WP:CIR issue that will have to be addressed by the community eventually.

The reason it takes so long at present is two-fold: 1) the massive differential between what is tolerated (with little to no consequence) of long-term contributors and what would get a new editor immediately indeffed, as GMG notes, and 2) the fact that this single noticeboard responds to the majority of complaints about such behaviour, and there is a collective of editors here who have more or less set-up camp to push back against any efforts to contain such temper-tantrums--not because they are actively colluding to cover eachother's back, but just because they share an ideological belief that they should always be able to react to a situation and "call at as they see it", and as their perspective and emotional state inclines them, without any restrictions on their comments whatsoever. These editors steadfastly refuse to internalize any piece of WP:NOTFREESPEECH and decry any effort to reign in editors with a similar perspective and predilections as 'bureaucratic nonsense' or 'hand wringing by easily upset editors'. "But that guy really was a fucking asshole, so it's perfectly ok to call him that, whatever WP:NPA says" they insist, or: "When I say that I'm going to find somebody and make them regret what they have said, nobody really believes its a real threat!"

These sentiments are not just in conflict with the explicit directions of policy and community consensus, they demonstrate a kind of willful ignorance of the inexhaustible number of reasons that such comments corrode our established processes, undermine the work we are here to do (and make the work that does get done so much more onerous for everyone involved), drive experienced contributors off the project and discourage new ones from taking their place (contributing to an editor retention problem that has grown to an outright existential threat to our whole endeavor), create liability for the project, and frankly just debase our reputation for maturity and reliability, embarrassing the rest of us with their lack of self-control. That's to mention just a few of the possible consequences that take place on project; one only needs to look at the headlines in the news this week to see the broader consequences of what happens when unchecked hostility becomes a part of public discourse for too long.

Most of the (very small, but very vocal) minority who leap to excuse such comments every time they appear here (provided they come from the "right" people) come from others who are recognizably the same hotheads who have been the subject of a similar thread recently and probably will be again some time soon (though good luck convincing them there is a connection between their own propensity for being brought here themselves and their perspective on WP:NOTFREESPEECH/WP:NPA when defending others here). However, even for that hypothetical editor who just objects to any checks on violent or angry rhetoric on-project for purely philosophical reasons because "the greater good" demands unrestricted ability to speak ones mind, I would say the following: I respect your belief and believe there is some merit in it, but you're either going to have to temper that absolutist perspective in order to conform with the standards adopted by this community, or find somewhere else to volunteer your time, because we decided a long time ago (and most editors in good standing here continue to feel) that there must be limits in this work environment."

And this is a work environment, make no mistake, even if we are all here as volunteers; this isn't just us getting together with some chums for a hobby, and there's more at stake than our individual rights to blow off steam and tell others what we really think of them. And I highly doubt that most of our editors can get away with telling their co-workers in their professional life that they are going to come after them if given the opportunity. Frankly, if you're someone making those particular kinds of comments to anyone, anywhere, at any time, I hope you pay a consequence for it. It never helps a situation, whether at work, on the street, on facebook, or on Wikipedia; it only adds vitriol into the world. In any event, this community has rules, and we've been doing a bad job in recent years of holding editors to those standards (and applying those standards equitably to all members of the community). In particular, any threat of violence (whether conditional on finding that person first or not) ought to be grounds for an immediate block, and indef if it happens more than once. Any other course of action is infeasible and unsustainable for this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we close this? This is stupid. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Kintetsubuffalo

This is about User:Kintetsubuffalo's behavior using user warnings and his refusal to discuss it.

User:TheWowaDepp's very first contribution to Wikipedia was an apparently unconstructive edit to Kyrgyzstan[110]. It wasn't blatant, but it was worthy of a vandalism warning, so I left a level 1 warning on TheWowaDepp's talk page[111].

Twenty minutes later, a level 4 vandalism user warning appears on TheWowaDepp's talk page[112]. It has no signature. At first, my intention was to add {{unsigned}} to it, but then I see that there have been no further contributions whatsoever from TheWowaDepp since his first. I identified the edit as being from User:Kintetsubuffalo. I reverted it[113] with edit summary "Unsigned, no intervening vandalism." Then I went to Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page to explain. Before I could post, Kintetsubuffalo reverted my reversion with edit summary "don't edit others' comments. vandalism is vandalism"[114] and then made a subsequent edit to post-date and sign the original post.

I left two messages on Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page [115][116] Each was in turn reverted by Kintetsubuffalo with edit summaries "why belabor this? move on"[117] and "what part of "move on" did you not understand?" [118].

In the situation in which I encountered Kintetsubuffalo, he posted a level 4 vandalism warning subsequent to mine and with no intervening contribution, and it was unsigned. If done intentionally, this would contravene the behavioral guidelines Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

There is the larger issue of Kintetsubuffalo's behavior.

He has done exactly the same thing before. A new user makes an unconstructive edit. An editor (or bot) reverts the edit and leaves a lower level user warning on the user's talk page. Then, with no intervening edits at all by the new user, Kintetsubuffalo leaves a level 4 vandalism warning. He doesn't sign it.[119][120][121][122][123] This has the obvious effect of stepping on the editor actually addressing the vandalism, and unjustifiably warning the vandalizing user again when there is no cause to do so. An editor assessing whether a block is justified might think one incident is more than one. That the post isn't signed only compounds the confusion.

Kintetsubuffalo also makes a routine of creating user talk pages with {{vandalism4}}.[124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141] The correct template for giving a user an immediate assumption-of-bad-faith warning that their next edit will result in a block is {{uw-vandalism4im}}, so Kintetsubuffalo is using the wrong template. Also, none of these posts are signed either. Besides that, while there are certainly times when the highest level warning should be given immediately, Kintetsubuffalo hardly ever gives a user warning at a level less than this. It is just not plausible that Kintetsubuffalo is assuming good faith as required by the guidelines.

Regrettably, Kintetsubuffalo refuses to discuss his behavior. Not even that he is forgetting to sign his posts or using the wrong template. The result of Kintetsubuffalo plain refusal to discuss his behavior on his talk page is that we are here instead. --Bsherr (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking that the admins force Kintetsubuffalo to have a conversation with you about all the things you think he has done wrong? Because that's highly unlikely to happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No. --Bsherr (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to have happen? --Tarage (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the OP is raising this user's rude and unwelcoming behavior so a wider group can figure out a solution. That seems quite appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted clarification because there was confusion of intent. This is a common question asked on confusing filings is it not? --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac put it quite well. As for corrective edits, I think Kintetsubuffalo's duplicate user warnings should be reverted, and his unsigned posts signed. As for Kintetsubuffalo himself, if the community agrees that there is a problem, I want his behavior to change. As for how that should be compelled, I think that will depend on how Kintetsubuffalo responds, what the community thinks, and what the administrators here agree to be best. I think it's premature to propose anything specific, even though this is not the first time Kintetsubuffalo has been addressed here. --Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, if you're looking for specific corrective behavior, in my opinion it would be that Kintetsubuffalo should (1) sign his posts, (2) refrain from giving user warnings for edits for which a warning has already been given, (3) refrain from using {{uw-vandalism4}} as a first warning in contravention of its documentation, (4) have discussions on his user talk page, not in edit summaries and reversions, and (5) follow Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Bsherr (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with those recommended steps. I handle a lot of spam, vandalism etc while working with AfD. That is more Level 4 warnings posted in a short time than I've used in years of editing. Frankly if someone really deserves a Level 4 vandalism warning, the correct course of action is reporting them for blocking. This pattern of behavior is troubling. I'd like to see this user explain themselves. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. That collection of LV4 warnings is ridiculous. Look at User talk:74.218.186.106 - this user made a test edit, then reverted it. This one is probably a good faith edit. They got Level 4 warnings. Yes, admittedly most of the IPs are vandalising, but unless it's competely egregious we don't go straight to level 4 warnings. That needs to stop. However, given the "instructions" at the top of User talk:Kintetsubuffalo, I'm unconfident we will get an explanation. However, they've been informed of this thread, so we'll see. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy

Uncivility and namecalling at Talk:Anthony Bourdain after POV pushing. Edit appears to have a pattern of poor behavior here. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see a week long block, even though it's unrelated to the previous edit warring block, the user clearly has issues with civility as seen by the numerous warning on their talk page. --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For someone calling a jerk for them ignoring something they requested of me...? I admittedly lost my cool in a situation where a user wasn't being constructive. Must that warrant a block?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m involved. The pattern isn’t good and the editor clearly has no patience. Generally, I prefer to play out more rope in such situations. If there is a block, make it brief or consider a TBan instead, or just trout him with a warning. Albeit, I foresee a bad ending. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You made a request for another reason to include the quote, which I followed through on. I politely asked for a response, you ignored it and changed the subject to what would happen if I added the quote without consensus. Can't you understand why I lost my cool? You insulted me by not even considering the point I was making!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)