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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Born2cycle

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I really don't want to be here, but I think we've reached a point where we need to evaluate whether or not he needs to be sanctioned. For those unaware, Born2cycle was indefinitely blocked by Dennis Brown for what I can only classify as long-term disruption in the RM area (see this AE thread started by me.) He was then unblocked without any discussion. After his unblock, a new AE thread was filed by Black Kite due to continued disruption in the RM area after being as unblocked (see thread.) It was closed as being outside of AE action, and nothing was brought to ARCA or ANI afterwards.

B2C is now fixating on Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, arguing that BLPCRIME should not apply if someone has confessed to a crime but hasn't been convicted and that if sources believe someone is a murderer without a conviction based on a confession, we should call them a killer and say that they killed someone. That is of course a content dispute, but given my history with B2C (see this user talk thread), I felt that alerting them to the BLP discretionary sanctions was appropriate in case it became needed on the kidnapping article. I gave him the alert without comment, and it clearly stated that it was simply informational. His response was to revert me calling me a jerk. I then explained to him why I alerted him: he'd never had a BLP alert, and they need to be given if DS is in effect and may be needed because of conflict. He then responded by calling me unplesant. He then further clarified by accusing me of incivility, apparently for letting him know that BLP sanctions existed.

While I normally have pretty thick skin, I think what we have here is a long-term tendentious editor, who really never should have been unblocked to begin with given the clear consensus for a block at AE the first time, who knows how the AE system works, and responds to people following it with incivility and aspersions. On the whole, I think he's pretty clearly a net negative to the project and think he should be blocked again, but I'm obviously involved, so I'm bringing it to the community to discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony Ballioni that the unblocking of Born2Cycle, a long-term tendentious editor, should never have taken place. AGF and hope springs eternal and all that, but there is nothing in B2C's long history to indicate that there was any possibility that they were going to change their ways. Their modus operandi is fundamentally contrary to Wikipedia's working model, and problems such as Tony Ballioni brings up here will continue as long as he is allowed to keep editing. I strongly suggest that the community consider a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• The issue can be seen here and at WT:BLP. TonyBallioni should not need to work this hard when pointing out the obvious—there is no reason to identify a relatively unknown person as a killer and child kidnapper before a court conviction. Previous disputes with B2C show they are impervious to other's views and will continue pushing forever. Unless someone can point to major redeeming features an indef would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I just asked the question on a talk page and at least one person generally agreed with my point. So I’m in a civil short talk page discussion about a BLP issue/question that started a few hours ago and is essentially over already, and yet we’re here? Confused... —В²C ☎ 06:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Just noting for everyone else that the above as this post on my talk is virtually identical to your response the last time I alerted the community to your long-term disruption. This is either a case of just not getting it, intentional obliviousness to how others perceive you, or lack of competence. In any of these cases, the only option is a site ban or indef. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, so I’m consistent. Is that a crime now too? I’m equally bewildered this time as last time as to why anyone would start an AN/I without first at least trying to work it out with the other. —В²C ☎ 07:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I did try to work it out with you, I explained that DS alerts are mandatory, and you responded with personal attacks and aspersions. Given my past interactions with you, I decided that nothing more was going to come of discussion unless the community was alerted. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I’m beginning to sense your long-standing prejudices about me, largely based on misunderstanding, inhibit our ability to communicate and work together effectively. I’m sad that you’re so quick to write me, or anyone else, off. I’m going to continue working on improving the encyclopedia where I can. Good luck to you. —В²C ☎ 07:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Summoned the unblocking admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• This member of the community has lost all patience with B2C and his complete inability to accept that any view other than his own could even be a legitimate interpretation of policy. The hours of everyone else's time that B2C has wasted with his crusades would be hard to count. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Regarding Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, B2C appears to have said (paraphrasing) "I disagree, but am willing to drop it", a day before Tony started this thread. We do not block editors for having different opinions. I am tired of saying it, but we are not the Thought Police. If you can give me one disruptive edit (as opposed to describing Tony as a "jerk" and "unpleasant", which is not on but is not cause for a site ban), I'll change my mind. I don't see edit warring to restore his (ludicrous and incorrect) perspective on the topic, I see one edit, reverted by another editor, and then discussion on the talk page. Fish+Karate 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fish and karate, as a note, he did not post that note until I had already opened this ANI thread.

On the issue here is as Guy points out, there is a long-term trend of B2C going on endless crusades to enforce his view on what is Right (tm) (see Sarah Jane Brown and Yogurt.) This had not reached that stage yet, but was going there by all indications, and then he decided to resort to petty name calling after being given a DS alert it was clear nothing was going to be accomplished either at the talk page or on his talk page.

I’m not trying to censor someone: I’m raising the case of someone who is simply unable to work in a collaborative environment. This is early in the process this time but as has been pointed out at both AE threads and above, this is a disruptive editor who doesn’t quit until he gets his way (or on the flip side, is looking at a serious chance of sanctions.) The community shouldn’t be forced into these choices every time he has a new fixation: letting him win, arguing endlessly, or seeking sanctions. That is disruptive, and when taken as a trend over years is enough for an indef imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You're right, my bad, I looked at the wrong date. I've struck that bit out accordingly. B2C has, though, in this instance, agreed to drop it (or said he will). As all the issues seem to be with BLP, or a significant misreading thereof, would a topic ban from BLPs work? I'm always keen to try and retain editors in some way unless they become a complete and total negative. Fish+Karate 11:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The thing I was thinking of as an alternative to an indef last night was a “1 comment per page in the Talk or Wikipedia talk namespaces per 24 hours” restriction. There are questions as to if we’d want that. I suppose my reason for saying they should go back to being blocked is that they clearly learned nothing from their last block, when the community had already indicated that it had lost its patience with B2C, and now he’s managed to move from RMs to BLPCRIME, which shows it isn’t just a problem with moves. Yes, he’s agreed to drop this thing after being brought to ANI, but the question is whether or not he’ll agree to drop the next one, or the one after that, or that... TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. We should try to assume good faith, though (WP:PACT notwithstanding), and hope he's learning (albeit slowly). Fish+Karate 11:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Slowly? He's been here for just shy of 14 years and he has over 27,000 edits. How much time do you think he should be given to bring himself into alignment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact this time he agreed to let the matter drop suggests to me one is never too old to learn. Fish+Karate 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Fish and karate: "a complete and total negative" is not the correct standard. Rather, it is whether they are a net asset or detriment to the project. By your standard, all 27K of the user's edits would have to be problematic, which I can't imagine ever happening.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If you take it completely literally, then yes, well done. That wasn't really what I meant, though; let's go with "a significant net negative" then. Fish+Karate 15:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• keep, b2c has transcended annoying user status, or cautionary tale of misspent focus, he is an unimplacable, irrepressible, and irreplaceable archetype. cygnis insignis 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Folks, I do sometimes tend towards thinking that might be a little bit unconventional or out-of-the-box. I feel some of you do not recognize and appreciate that, and I’m being punished for it. This BLPCRIME discussion is a perfect example. I made one edit that was reverted and then I took it to the article’s talk page where the broader issue was uncovered (wording/reasoning at BLPCRIME), so I raised the question at the policy talk page where I think there is a reasonable and self-explanatory discussion, that also spilled back to the article’s talk page. Where exactly is the problem? When consensus changes on WP, isn’t it exactly through discussions like these? If anyone else did what I did, would they have been taken to AN/I? Seriously consider that, please. I hate to pull the persecution card, but I do feel persecuted here. In fact, everything was going reasonably until I decided to weigh in on another dispute that TonyBallioni was involved in regarding adding a link to the See Also section of the same Kidnapping of Jayme Closs article. I happened to agree with the other user and I think TonyBallioni took it personally. That’s when he shocked me with the BLP notice on my talk page (but not on the other user’s talk page - speaking of feeling persecuted) and then, instead of trying to work it out on my talk page, it quickly escalated to here. This filing did prompt some discussion on my and TonyBallioni’s user talk pages that I do feel has been productive, but filing this ANI was not necessary to cause that to occur. —-В²C ☎ 14:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I make no suggestion about what action (if any) to take this time around because I wasn't directly involved in the current cycle and haven't pored through all the relevant posts. I just note that there's an apparent pattern that has repeated through several cycles over a number of years: stick-like behavior that toes up to the line of tolerability, sometimes crosses it, sometimes leads to some kind of sanction, followed by a period of comparative quiet, and then a gradual return to the original behavior. Insofar as Born2cycle has many years of experience and a good understanding of many guidelines and policies, his input is beneficial — but that benefit is often offset by his insistence on certain interpretations/applications of policy that are at odds with community consensus, his persistent advocacy for those views to an extent and volume that can be considered tendentious, and a determination to prevail through persistence rather than to accept compromise and move on to other areas. That's just my view based on what I've observed, and I don't know the best solution, but I do agree that it is a concern. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• A few years ago В²C and I were in a bitter dispute over an article title issue, and while I've noted any time since that I've seen this come up that В²C does tend to badger and stonewall and relitigate and all the other tendentious behaviours until they get their way or are sanctioned (and so I endorse those observations in this thread) I have never felt along the way that this rises to the level of a site ban. Frankly В²C is a valuable resource in terms of interpretation and criticism of policy, sometimes on very contentious issues. On the present dispute over whether BLPCRIME should apply to someone who has admitted to but not been formally convicted of a crime, there's probably a point to be made there. If the community feels that a sanction is required I recommend it be something which allows them to still participate here. I don't have time today to suggest something so I'm just leaving this here as a comment.

We should very likely also rethink our DS notification guidelines. Being warned by an administrator that you're in a dispute with that administrators have authorization to unilaterally dole out sanctions on a topic is an inherently belligerent gesture even if not so intended (and I'm not suggesting that was Tony's intent), almost rising to the level of using administrative tools to win a dispute. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That's certainly how it felt and what escalated this particular discussion into a dispute, unnecessarily in my view. I would hope all administrators involved in discussions know it's not prudent to dole out such warnings to other discussion participants themselves, but, if appropriate, ask an uninvolved admin to do so, for precisely these reasons. Being involved they may be biased and so asking an uninvolved admin to take a look is an appropriate level of precaution. I would think that would be standard practice for admins. --В²C ☎ 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I strongly disagree that an admin giving out a DS alert as a normal editor comes anywhere near tool misuse: the template clearly says it implies no wrongdoing at the time, it is not an administrative action as anyone can hand it out, and I have never once taken any action in regards to B2C precisely because I am involved with him. Simply being an admin does not mean that people you are in a content dispute with don’t get to be notified of DS by you. It means that the admin doesn’t get to use them. I think B2C should be sure banned, or at the very least restricted so his unique form of disruption isn’t allowed to continue, but I have never once abused the tools with regards to him and have always asked the community or other administrators to take action. Comparing following the policy to the letter on how to deal with an entrenched disruptive editor who you are involved with really shouldn’t be competed to tool abuse. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how delivering the DS alert is tool misuse since as noted anyone can issue them (including non-admins). The only requirement is that involved admins cannot impose sanctions themselves (which Tony hasn't). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I don't mean to suggest you did anything wrong and I probably misspoke with my comparison to tool misuse; what I'm saying is that the DS alert process itself is sub-par. Of course anyone can pass an alert to anyone else, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, excepting that you may not alert an editor who has already been alerted within the past year. But by their nature, the alerts are only ever issued in the midst of conflict. I mean, sure, the text of the alert reads "this is just a message for your information" but the action implies "I'm getting my ducks in a row so that a Bad Thing will happen if you don't immediately concede". I apologize for implying that you intended any of this, that's just my general feel for how the alerts are commonly interpreted. Anyway that issue is kind of tangential to this thread, but if you want to chat about it you know how to find my talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I am an editor like B2C who has a large interest in page titling and page moving. While I would definitely oppose to B2C being banned altogether in RM discussion and similar activity, due to the fact that they clearly have a vast interest in this area and can bring a net benefit. I don't however oppose to some lesser ban of B2C, like no closing RM discussions (this was supported by several editors) and no editing policy talk pages (since that appears to be somewhat what this is about). I don't know enough about the BLPCRIME issue to make any comments about it specifically so I'll duck out otherwise there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I stand by my RM closes. I have had hardly any complaints, no more than average for RM closers, I'm sure. Not saying there aren't one or two questionable exceptions, like with most any other closer. I mostly help out with non-controversial ones anyway. Do you perceive a problem with my closes? What? --В²C ☎ 19:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I personally don't have a problem with you're closes but I am aware that several other editors do (I think you have had more complaints than most closers, though I do see that many have been from people who frequently disagree with you) and that a RM closure and policy discussion ban would at least be a better outcome than a full RM ban. I'm not saying that I support that you are given a RM closure and policy discussion ban but I don't oppose to it based on the concerns of multiple editors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your support. We've had our differences too, but have worked them out amicably, I think. Yes? Please don't pile on because a few others who were not able to do so are blowing the wind in a certain direction. If you look at what they're complaining about you'll see that I'm not doing anything different from others, as you already know. A good example is in that AE discussion started by Black Kite linked at the top of this discussion. See my statement there in which I point though I was persecuted for saying too much in a particular discussion, several others said much more. But I'm the one who is "tendentious"? Why me? These are the kinds of things I'm persecuted for. It's really unfair. --В²C ☎ 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes we have indeed managed to work things out, despite sometimes having different views (mainly on long-term significance and ASTONISH). Remember that I'm not supporting anything, I would much prefer to oppose to any restrictions but I can't ignore the concerns of others, which I don't think are entirely invalid. Please continue to participate in page titling discussions etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Crouch, Swale: I think the idea of a ban on closing RM discussions would probably be worthwhile, for a variety of reasons. There's a general principle that closures should be undertaken only by someone who's neutral to the debate; someone without a horse in the race, so to speak. B2C devotes nearly all his time either to specific RMs or to matters of titling policy. The fact that he has a very long history of firmly advocating for his own unique interpretations of such policies as the only acceptable ones, often in ways that have led to disruption and sanctions, does unfortunately raise the question of impartiality in most any closing. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• * First of all let's consider that this is an editor that doesn't really contribute much to an encyclopedia - They have 27,000 edits, of which only 9% are in mainspace, of which most are related to page they've been involved in moving or otherwise discussing. 75% are to talk pages, mostly involved in arguing and/or discussing page moves. Frankly, B2C should never have been unblocked without a community discussion in the first place - it was a utterly terrible unblock given the persistent disruption in the RM area since (see the AE filing linked in the opening paragraph) - however that is now past history. At the very least, however, he should be barred from closing Requested Moves (there was consensus for that in the first place), and if he has moved onto causing issues (especially BLP related ones) at policy pages, then that needs to be looked at as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:57::18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • We don't all contribute in the same way. Because of my interest in title stability on WP (see my user page and FAQ), I tend to get involved in controversial matters about titles which necessitates many (some long) discussions on talk pages to develop consensus (that's how consensus is developed on WP). That's why so much of my activity is on talk pages working this stuff out. I was recently thanked for a good typical example of this; see Talk:University_of_Klagenfurt#Requested_move_26_December_2018. That some of you choose to persecute me for this approach while others are sending me wikilove notes for it, is disappointing. --В²C ☎ 20:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I make no comment about when/how B2C was unblocked being correct but I would dispute Black Kite's statement that User:wbm1058 "unilaterally unblocked B2C", the unblock was discussed at User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 14 where it appears several editors favoured unblocking B2C (though apparently with restrictions). I would agree that wbm105 may have been better off posting at AN or asking the blocking admin/AE filer though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I'm involved here since I unblocked B2C and have been pinged; frankly I'm annoyed at having to look into his edits again so soon. A distraction from an otherwise productive day for me. I can't really say much more before I read all through this, but two points. (1) SMcCandlish's comments on B2C's talk prompted me to unblock, so I'm pinging them now, in case they wish to review the current drama and add input. (2) I count 15 B2C signatures on Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs – I think you're over your quota there. You should realize that article is running on the center rail; please take some time out to tend to outside-rail maintenance where you have much less risk for receiving electric shocks. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You're annoyed? Sorry about that, but imagine how I feel! The discussion at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs has nothing to do with titles. I'm not sure what quota you're referring to. As to my 26 talk page edits, there are several of us who are working on that article, and discussing various issues as we go. Yes, I have 26 Talk page edits. Joseph A. Spadaro has 40. TonyBallioni has 12. I have 17 edits on the main article also. I don't think that's such an unusual ratio for main/talk article edits considering the care put into a current event article with BLP considerations. Ballioni is 4 main/12 talk, for example. My question: How is anything I'm doing wrong or problematic by any reasonable standard, much less warranting an AN/I? --В²C ☎ 22:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Still reading through this (not that much fun, so bear with me please) but one initial comment. Template:Ivory messagebox (changed to |bg=#E5F8FF) is documented as for use in system messages. Personally I don't care to see it being used on user pages for this purpose. The notification about ArbCom sanctions can be delivered without using a loud colorful message box with exclamation point icon and Important Notice section header that will draw the attention of any passerby that visits the user's talk page. Giving the notice in a more "friendly manner" may not have prompted the kind of response it got. I'd prefer sending the message without bothering to use a template. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Um... wbm1058 ... the DS template isn't the problem here. The behavior of Born2Cycle is, and your unilateral unblock of them wasn't in the least helpful. Please take ownership of enabling this problematic editor to keep disrupting the community -- a situation you could alleviate by re-instating Dennis Brown's block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not to pile on, but this is exactly why it isn't good for an admin to unilaterally unblock someone after there was a community discussion and sanction. I did the original block and I was already very familiar with B2C (for a few years), and not every reason for the block was spelled out in that AE discussion. I did the block as outside AE to make it easier for him to get unblocked, but not to be unilaterally unblocked without discussion. The unblock was a mistake; perhaps an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless and B2C had not even requested to be unblocked, so technically, my admin action of blocking was a revert, which is a different animal altogether. B2C is not an unlikable person, or some ogre that sets out to wreck the place, but there exists some peculiar habits that are disruptive to the project on the whole. I don't think it is intentional but it doesn't matter. Having a lack of self control that bleeds into disruption, is still disruption. I haven't been very active since the unblock, so I can't speak to the recent behavior, but I'm not shocked that we are back here, wasting words discussion it. As for what to do now, I'm not up to pouring through diffs. I will leave that to the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• For a current example of how my friends hold my behavior to unfair madeup standards, see User_talk:Born2cycle#Please_reopen_RM. Why do I have to endure such harassment? —В²C ☎ 15:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• By the way, and not to excuse the inappropriateness of the behavior, but just to point out I'm not the only one to do it, though probably the only one to be taken to AN/I for it, here is another example of someone referring to a poster of a discretionary sanctions notice on the talk page of an experienced editor as a "jerk" [1]. In other words, another example of me being held to standards others are not held to, by those who are biased against with me due to a history of disagreeing with me. --В²C ☎ 21:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment For the record, I will note that I have no long term history with В²C, I only had one long interaction with В²C a month back over an RM/MRV discussion. I appreciate his contributions but dislike his conduct with others on the talk pages. I have been watching this discussion and В²C's conduct during this thread. TonyBallioni has proposed a solution, but it seems people are divided if it will solve the problem or not. Nevertheless, people are unanimous in their thoughts that В²C's conduct has been problematic. While I was hoping that В²C will accept the concern raised, acknowledge it and propose self improvements. That should have been the ideal closure for both В²C's and community's benefit. Instead lately all I have seen is В²C playing victim card here, for example, his lines right above this comment and on his talk page where in his edit summary [2] he has noted that, "Removing factually incorrect (referenced AN/I isn't even about RMs or titles) persecution statement from person biased against me due to a long history of disagreeing with me". The real problem here is that the person concerned is not even acknowledging the problem, and instead pointing fingers over others and calling them biased.

During my interaction with В²C over the RM discussion of Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and subsequent Move review I was really appalled by his behavior towards everyone who opposed his view point, and especially his conduct towards the closing admin ErikHaugen which can only be described as "'harassment' of Erik" for Erik's perfectly valid closure, simply because B2c wanted to close the RM discussion in way that differed with, how Erik had closed it. During the MRV discussion, SmokeyJoe suggested В²C on his talk page to "dial it down", saying [3] "Erik does not deserve this grief". The harassment was so much, that even ErikHaugen (who I guess is a cool tempered admin) had to put up a question [4] on В²C's talk page, stating in his edit summary "b2c what i do to you??" and in the comment Erik noted some example comments from В²C, and asking "really? Why am I getting this from you?", В²C never responded back [5].

TonyBallioni has indicated that this thread will also likely get archived with yet another warning and then we will be back again. IMHO if TonyBallioni's proposal is not acceptable, something else should be proposed. This should not be left without addressing. Problem has not disappeared so far while ANI kept ignoring it and sweeping it under the carpet. And for sure, the problem will not disappear, even if we ignore this once again. --DBigXrayᗙ 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray:, believe me, I hear you! I agree my conduct especially towards ErikHaugen was inappropriate in that discussion. I did acknowledge and apologize but then I blew it again. I did not mean to be insulting or disrespectful. In my head I'm just ribbing and having a friendly debate, but in writing without body language and voice intonation I forget it comes off as being harsh. Not that it's an excuse, but, I don't think I was the only one who went off the rails a few times in that heated discussion, and I don't think I deserve sanctions any more than anyone else for it. That discussion finally died down, and you and I were among all of us involved who all stepped back and dropped our proverbial sticks (though I never equate in my mind debates with battles), eventually. So there's that. I'm sure our future encounters will be more congenial. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 01:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

NOT RELEVANT TO *THIS* DISCUSSION

@Born2cycle: I am not sure that why DBigXray is trying to be an opportunist when he has been most disruptive throughout that page move and the move review with his repetitive nonsense. On MR, you were always on the point and managed the discussion better than what I was expecting given the bludgeoning that was going on there. I don't see if you were wrong anywhere. Qualitist (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC) I appreciate that, and I think that illustrates how much being in agreement or not colors one's perception of how words are interpreted. I think you saw my comments as I intended - well meaning ribbing in a friendly dispute. That said, ideally I should be thinking of how anyone who disagrees with me might reasonably interpret my words, and I could certainly do better in that department. Though I understand going too far can also be not productive. For the record, I do disagree with DBigXray's characterization of why I disputed Erik's close, but this is not the place rehash all that again! --В²C ☎ 02:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC) I see that Qualitist is here as well with his usual lies and deception against me. Looking at the number of comments at Move review of Jaggi Vasudev from all participants, where Erikhaugen had to respond to all 3 of these editors В²C, Paine Ellsworth and Qualitist who were objecting to Erik's RM close. The number of comments clearly speaks for themselves on who was disrupting and bludgeoning. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Username !Vote at Jaggi MRV Number of comments ErikHaugen Endorse (closing admin) 44 В²C Overturn 34 Paine Ellsworth Overturn 32 Qualitist Overturn (Nom) 23 SmokeyJoe Endorse 23 DBigXray Endorse 23 This what I meant from the fact you have been "most disruptive throughout that page move and the move review" with your repetitive nonsense. You haven't addressed your issues, including your "repetitive nonsense" that flooded RM and MR, not just MR. But you don't have to worry because you will get the opportunity for it one day since it is very usual to see some editor dragging you to ANI because of your recurring CIR. Qualitist (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Phew, glad to know that I don't have to worry. Qualitist may I suggest another third correction after 2 that you already, made to your line above to include "...since it is very usual to see some editor (from the same group that includes Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, D4iNa4, Orientls, Rzvas, 123sarangi, and their friends) dragging you to ANI..."--DBigXrayᗙ 04:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC) You are paranoid with your fantasies. You have to learn many things but for now you should better know that you must not be commenting on others conduct by pointing to an incident where you have been most disruptive. Qualitist (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Since Tony Ballioni's proposal has been closed with no action, I have posted two additional proposals (#Proposal 2 (Born2Cycle) and #Proposal 3 (Born2Cycle)) below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I'm familiar with this editor through their participation in WP:RM discussions; I also reverted a diff of theirs here that I feel would have been strongly non-constructive. B2C is clearly an opinionated editor, which is no sin; without opinionated editors we would not have an encyclopedia. They do seem to have a tendency to get into trouble when they make dozens of comments on a topic; I'd recommend that they refrain from making more than 3 comments in any 24 hour period on a specific thread on a talk page. (That's a good rule of thumb for everyone, by the way). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal (Born2cycle)

This proposal is unlikely to reach any consensus. Leaving the main discussion open for potentially another proposal as raised issues are ongoing. Alex Shih (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, given that opinion is split on a indef/site ban, but there does seem to be consensus that B2C's way of interacting with others on this site is disruptive, I'm proposing the following: Born2cycle is indefinitely restricted to one edit in 24 hours per page in the Talk and Wikipedia talk namespace. This sanction may be appealed no earlier than 6 months, and then every 6 months thereafter. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Support As proposer. I think he's a longterm net-negative to the project, and should not be allowed to continue to contribute, but that is unlikely to happen without an ArbCom case, and I don't think anyone wants that. This sanction addresses the problem that people have identified above that he is completely unable to drop the stick or consider the views of those beside himself as legitimate, while still allowing him to participate on Wikipedia and not overwhelm discussions. I think it is a good middle ground, and for those of us who think he falls into net-negative territory is an exercise in WP:ROPE: either this works and he becomes a productive editor, or it fails and it becomes evident to the community that he is not able to reform. Either way, the problem will be solved by this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose To namespaces other than WT namespace (and also exclude from RMs in the project namespace, since they occur at the WT namespace), I don't think there has been sufficient problems there. This seems to have been the views of the September AE case, there didn't appear to be much support for banning B2C from individual RMs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as the persecuted and accused. I deny the charges which are extremely vague anyway, and not even attempted to be proven. I find it ironic that the editor who started this AN/I is accusing me of "interacting with others" in a disruptive way. Who has been disrupted by anything I've said or done? What have I said or done that disrupted anyone? Now look at how many were disrupted for this AN/I. And this latest squirmish all started, by the way, when TonyBallioni jumped in at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs with this surprising edit and edit summary about which he still can't explain the basis at Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jayme_Closs#Joseph_E._Duncan_III. That sure looks disruptive to me... --В²C ☎ 22:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC) You are not a victim. The links to previous discussions about your history have been provided above. You only backed down on that page after the possibility of an indefinite block and you continue to cast aspersions even while this is going on. Coming to a page after you posted about it at WT:BLP and then finding other BLP issues and insisting that they have consensus for inclusion before being restored in not disruptive. That is policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I was and remain bewildered by your objection to inclusion of that link in the See Also section (Joseph A. Spadaro and I await your responses to our questions at that discussion section, especially considering what WP:SEEALSO says and the similar examples of See Also inclusions in BLP/criminal related articles I listed), but I admit that it was a mistake and premature to revert your revert, and I apologize. That was out of character for me if you look at my history, but I truly thought you made an error and consensus for inclusion was implied. I won't do that again. --В²C ☎ 22:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC) oppose, mildly, "It is a highly active species. Always on the move and is very squirmish, if handled. " this is the only hit I got, so I want to see that word used more often : ) never change mate. cygnis insignis 22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Too many potential squirmishs in some new approaches, will support a consensus on some form of community pressure to inhibit unhelpful dissent. cygnis insignis 12:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose unless we're going to penalize all overly active participants in requested moves and related discussions the the same way. Although I don't think any action is necessary at this point, I urge B2C to consider this a warning and consider dialing back his participation in said discussions. Calidum 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I appreciate that but please know this issue with TonyBallioni was at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs and had nothing to do with RMs or titles. I honestly think he (and a few others) just unfairly judge my behavior through a prejudicial lens and see problems where if others did the exact same thing it wouldn't be an issue at all. --В²C ☎ 23:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC) While I have argued for many years that B2C needs formal restrictions, this suggestion of edits per page per day is not it. Words per page per week might be a better measure of tendentious verbosity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Frankly, I'm not understanding the hesitation to indef him. He's been a net-negative for a long time. Hasn't he "exhausted the patience of the community" yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Wow. Net-negative? Thank you for sharing your hateful and hurtful opinion. Why is this acceptable? —В²C ☎ 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Don't be disingenuous, it's hardly the first time you've been evaluated as a net-negative to the project. And it's acceptable because AN/I is where the behavior of editors is evaluated for the possibility of sanctioning -- which you totally know, because you've been discussed here before -- these are all AN/I reports: Feb 2009, May 2009, June 2009, May 2010, Aug 2010, Oct 2010, Oct 2010, Dec 2010, Dec 2010, Jan 2011, May 2011, Aug 2011, Oct 2011, Dec 2011, Dec 2011, Jan 2012, Feb 2013, May 2014, Jan 2016, Oct 2016, April 2017 The majority of these AN/I reports are specifically about Born2Cycle, while others show his tendency toward being tendentious and disruptive. Note: I stopped when I got to the third page of this. There were at least 2 more pages of listings after it. So, yes, a net-negative, very much so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC) That’s still a tiny fraction of all the discussions I’ve been involved in over those years and in every AN/I case it’s brought here by someone who disagrees with me about some issue, but complains about my behavior which is usually actually pretty typical/normal on WP, and not against any rules, as is made evident when objective uninvolved editors look at it and see nothing problematic to sanction. The bottom line is some people unfortunately take disagreement personally and develop animus towards the person who disagrees with them. I mean, look at how are political leaders are behaving. Some can disagree amicably (I can), but others get pissed off. It’s what has happened with Tony, you, and many others. I should not be faulted or penalized for disagreeing with others. But that’s all that this is about. —В²C ☎ 05:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Total outsider who have just kept an eye on this - You don't seem to understand this is not about the fact that you disagree, but how you express yourself and behave when you disagree. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC) @MPJ-DK: Okay, I agree with that much: I don’t understand that this is about how I express myself and behave when I disagree. The reason I don’t understand is because, as far as I know, how I express myself and behave when I disagree is respectful and appropriate per normal standards and applicable WP behavioral policies and guidelines. I’m not perfect, but my perception is my behavior is generally above average in terms of avoiding personal attacks, not being belittling, being civil, not showing disrespect, AGF, etc., when discussing with someone with whom I disagree. Not perfect. Not the best. But above average. So, total outsider, please help me understand. If I’m wrong and it’s not just about people griping about my behavior simply because I disagree with them, but it’s something substantive about how I express myself and behave, please, tell me what it is that I’m doing wrong. Help me understand, and I’ll stop. (By the way, I think this reply exemplifies how I typically express myself and behave when I disagree - can you identify a problem here?). —В²C ☎ 07:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC) MPJ-DK posts 35 words. B2C replies with 180 words, denying the observation and demanding MPJ-DK follow up with an extensive reply to his 180 words. I would call “escalation of verbosity” the central problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC) @Born2cycle: Comment from another uninvolved outside observer: one issue I see reading this thread is that you're responding to nearly every editor's comment. Though the content of the responses may be civil, the sheer volume of responses can have the unintended effect of "choking" conversation, making it difficult for the editors to talk to each other about you, rather than just talking to you. The community may want to see that you know when and how to step back, including maybe now. (Up to you.) Levivich? ! 07:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I have no doubt whatsoever that you do not understand what it's all about, because if you did, there wouldn't be so many complaints about your editing, because you would have changed the way you edit in response to the piles and piles and piles of complaints. The fact that the complaints continue after at least 9 years, is testament to your lack of understanding, I think. The only alternative is that you do understand what everyone objects to, but you don't give a damn about their objections and complaints, you just want to edit the way you want to edit, no matter what the rest of the Wikipedia community says. Those are really the only possibilities: either you don't understand, or you do and are giving the rest of us the finger. Either way, you're a net negative to the project, because you suck up way too much time and energy for the contributions you make (only 12.6% of which go to improving articles, while 51.2% go to talking about them on article and user talk pages). [6] Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I support “net negative”, although I note some improvement, if we exclude the recent affection to close discussions (actions that must be throughly scrutinised and are frequently found faulty) and attempts to reword policy (including BLPCRIME). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose this particular restriction as well as a site ban (which is not being proposed). I don't see a perfect solution here. Somehow, В²C has to move beyond the notion he is being persecuted and adjust his behavior but I'm not sure how to do that as blocks are meant to prevent misconduct, not punish editors. I don't think this proposal will solve the problem here which is one of attitude, not number of edits. But just because I oppose this restriction and a site ban (again, spoken of but not being proposed) doesn't mean I champion your behavior, В²C. Can you acknowledge that there are issues with your editing behavior and accept that sometimes your editing can be tendentious? Can you tamp that down? Because while there are some who oppose Tony's proposal, you're unlikely to get off without any restrictions at all as Tony is not alone in his criticism. Can you state how you might change how you respond to those you disagree with and give assurances that we won't all be back here a month from now? Because that is why, usually, editors call for indefinite blocks because they don't want to repeat all of this again and again. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Just now reading over the the AE discussion from March, it strongly resembles this discussion, with pleas to change behavior and promises to, which is unfortunate to see again, 9 months later. Apparently, we already have been through this same discussion before. I'm not going to change my Oppose right now but I now think some editing restrictions are called for. If В²C didn't pick up the message being given at AE, what assurances are that this will change now? Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Take a look at some of the AN/I reports I just posted links for, and see if it doesn't change your mind. Basically, B2C has been like this from the beginning, he's been in trouble for his behavior from the beginning, and he just never changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Support, for what it's worth. I find it astonishing that we can be here, on the - what - 15th or more noticeboard report, and hardly anyone seems to think that such a perennial time-sink needs a sanction that will stop there being a 16th or more report, and a 17th, and an 18th ... Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Attempts to muzzle someone simply for disagreeing with them (whether they realize that’s what they’re doing or not) rightfully should not succeed. —В²C ☎ 07:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC) More content-free argument. A net negative. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Oh, goodness, the Free Speech gambit. Well, you say you have a right to hold your rally, and I say, sure, but you're not going to hold it in my living room, fella. Another clear indication that you have little or no understanding of what's going on here. As my mother used to say to me, "It's not what you said, it how you said it" -- and you say it disruptively and tendentiously, over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Ugh, not cute anymore. I'm starting to agree with the idea of an enforced break from RM, certainly from closing them. Nevertheless, I consider my exasperation with the user to be my problem, and interaction with this type of editing is a rite we have no means or right to insulate ourselves from. A sort of continuity in our community's history, I suffer from nostalgia on occasion. And he is a good guy, I'm sure, just another stamina junkie is all. cygnis insignis 12:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC) B2C: The problem — which you seem determined not to hear — is not with the fact that you disagree with others. Disagreement happens all the time, and can be quite healthy. The problem is the tendentious way in which you do it, and the fact that (as others have rightly noted) it's turned into a disruption a great many times over the past many years. That you continue to characterize concerns with your behavior as "muzzling" suggests you're not understanding that point. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose sanction. With all due respect to Tony who, as I have said on many occasions, is one of our finest and most even-handed admins, I do think this ANI thread is undue escalation. It is clear that B2C has a style of editing that rubs some people up the wrong way, and I can fully understand why that is. He has strong opinions on particular topic areas, and finds it difficult on occasion to WP:Drop the stick. On the flip side, though, he understands our article title policies better than almost anyone and most of the time he is absolutely right about the points he makes. User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle is one example - it accurately describes a phenomenon on Wikipedia which has happened in numerous places over the years, where a bad title is eventually replaced by a better one despite many years of failed move requests. New York (state) and Hillary Clinton to name just two. In itself the "Yogurt Principle" is harmless and often useful, yet B2C gets massive criticism for it. Sarah Jane Brown is another case, which Tony mentioned as a "bad thing" in the thread on his talk page. But there are many people, myself included, who think "Sarah Jane Brown" is a dreadful title for the article. It doesn't match our naming conventions, and B2C makes very cogent arguments to that effect on the occasions the matter has been debated over the years. Is that annoying to people who disagree? Yes. Is it against the rules? I don't think so. He doesn't edit war in article space, and he accepted last year's close on the SJB RM. On the actual issue that led to this thread, obviously it is a content dispute, and I can see both sides of the story. Tony felt he was sticking to the BLP rules, and of course B2C should not have called him a "jerk". But then again, as wbm1058 says above, it is possible to convey a message to an experienced editor without using templates designed for newbies, and I would have thought the discretionary sanctions notice could have been posted as a friendly message instead of a template? In summary then, the only crime I can see is that B2C has strong opinions, and sometimes goes too far in expressing them. When that happens, I would urge both sides in to please approach it in a collegiate rather than a combative fashion. B2C should try to understand why people feel annoyed by him, and similarly those who criticise should do more to understand his point of view rather than simply coming to ANI every time there's a dispute. I think calling him a "net negative" is very far from the mark. His presence here over the years has definitely helped our article titles be in a better shape. Thanks, and I hope this makes some sense.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC) He is oblivious to his own biases, and will put endless energy and devotion into arguing a peculiar blinkered view. You agree with him at Wikipedia:Move_review#Jaggi_Vasudev, but do you agree with the number and tone of his posts there? His “Yogurt Principle” is a justification for relentless disruption until the noisy group gets its way. My “net negative”, for the last year, assessment is based on the amount of review time needed for every move and RM close he makes, a fair impartial action can’t be trusted without review. You, Amakuru, appear to be the most respect admin who had time for him, why don’t you volunteer to play his “probation officer”, he needs someone on his side who can tell him when to back off or ease off. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC) The rules for discretionary sanctions are very strict: notifications must use the specified template before administrators can apply a sanction at their discretion for the topic area in question. isaacl (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose sanction. With no due respect to Tony Ballioni or Dennis Brown or any of the other process jockeys that spend all too much authority posturing and no actual project improvement. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC) No respect, although it is due? cygnis insignis 13:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC) No respect is due. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC) Govindahariahri, your deliberate ill-mannered disrespecting of Tony Ballioni and Dennis Brown -- both of whom have already contributed more to Wikipedia than it's likely you ever will -- reflects more upon your extremely poor judgment than it does on upon anything else. You might want to consider just editing articles and forebear from commenting on the noticeboards, where you constantly embarrass yourself with your ill-considered opinions. Born2Cycle should be worried, because when you show up in support of someone, it's almost inevitable that they're on the cusp of a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC) I wouldn't worry BMK, even without his ridiculous comments about Tony and Dennis, the community got to the point long ago where no-one takes any notice of Govindaharihari's comments. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC) I could have written the first paragraph writen by Ivanvector (18:33, 18 January 2019), although B2C and I also agree on other issues. I also agree with User:Crouch, Swale (19:48, 18 January 2019). So I Oppose this proposal--and also the site ban--but B2C please self-moderate and consider this ANI a shot across the bows and not a licence to kill (pun intended). -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose as not actually responsive to the issues that keep bringing B2C back here. I've gone from seeking an indef myself against B2C, back in the day, to more recently being highly critical of the reasoning for the indef imposed on him a year or so back. (I wrote a detailed analysis of why at his talk page some time ago [7]; the short version is that he was accused of doing the same thing over and over and not listening when consensus was against him or ever changing his stance, but that was easily disproved by the actual changes in what he was proposing and why, which were clearly directly responsive to the criticism he was receiving – he simply got railroaded anyway. And the block was invalid for unquestionable procedural reasons, including ArbCom limiting the scope of the case under which he was blocked to specific pages which were not the pages to which he was posting.) It would make more sense to use an RM-specific topic ban, than either a general block, or some weird 1RR thing across the entire site, since he never ends up at ANI or other dramaboards for anything not related to RM, from what I can tell, and he's productive outside that one problem area. Sanctions are to be preventative (of actual issues, not imaginary or hypothetical ones), never punitive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Yes, a topic ban on article naming was what the AE thread had consensus on, but then he was blocked indefinitely so the AE was closed - until, of course, he was unblocked and carried on with the type of editing that got him to AE in the first place. One of the many failings of Wikipedia's arcane processes, unfortunately. Black Kite (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Quick point: can anyone articulate exactly what I supposedly did that brought me here to AN/I this time, and how what I did supposedly violates anything? BTW, the discussion cited related to Kidnapping of Jayme Closs had nothing to do with titles or RMs. I was actually working in article space trying to improve an article I was interested in and got involved in a content dispute, followed WP:BRD, etc., which led me to informally (no rfc) proposing on a talk page a possible change to a guideline. I honestly don't see what the problem was, so my question stands. To anyone. Why are people talking about RM limitations? I've been (mostly) avoiding being tendentious in RMs. See my history! I feel like I'm being railroaded, again, though I won't rule out the possibility that I'm missing something. --В²C ☎ 01:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC) You were never "railroaded". Many editors have expressed concern about your editing over many years. You finally pushed far enough that you got yourself blocked. Your constant refrain of "I don't get it" doesn't help. Omnedon (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose, talk page sanctions are almost never a good idea. We want people to use talk pages to carry out any detailed discussions they wish to have. Having lots of edits on a talk page is not a Bad Thing in and of itself. I don't care if B2C uses a talk page to argue against policy when most think he's wrong, or to disagree with other editors about an interpretation of a guideline. That's what talk pages are for - talking things over. Annoying or not, I have not once been shown that this prolixity and tendentiousness is spilling over into article space and causing any kind of disruption in article space. Fish+Karate 11:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Just to be clear, I don't think anyone's saying that many talk edits by themselves are a problem, or that debating with others on talk pages is wrong, or that article space is being impacted. The concern centers mainly around the long-term tendentiousness of B2C's interactions in talk space, and how that negatively affects the relevant forums and community. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Support some form of action re B2C, but (like others above) I must weakly oppose this proposal. A sanction in the form of x edits per y time period strikes me as a little too arbitrary and unwieldy, and would presumably require constant policing to enforce — and having to constantly sink time into addressing issues caused by this user is one of the things I think the community's trying to get away from. I realize that B2C was blocked[8] for a period in 2018 for similar behavior, and that to judge from the continuing debate it hasn't affected the desired change. That being the case, it seems like another block, perhaps of a longer duration, may be necessary. However, something less severe like banning B2C from RMs for a period might be worth trying. Either way: without action, it seems likely we'll all be meeting here again in another six to nine months to re-debate it. My take on the broader situation: The very lengthy and regular history of problems that the community has had with B2C over many years (a portion of which was linked above by Beyond My Ken) should, I think, be of at least some concern to anyone interested in the overall health of the project. As I've said before, I don't think B2C is motivated by anything other than a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia... but problems arise from the fact that his views on how to improve Wikipedia are often at odds with the community's — or to be more accurate, the problem is that he takes his advocacy for his views too far, often turning to filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence to get a particular favored outcome, or other such tendentious behaviors. I feel like these things have a corrosive, negative effect on the nature of debate in the forums, and makes it less likely that users (particularly newer ones) will be willing to engage. Concerning though those problems are, the more disheartening part is that B2C rarely acknowledges the problems, and instead voices bewilderment at why he's yet again the center of dispute. I say disheartening because if he hasn't internalized the need for change after so many iterations — and with such similar concerns expressed by such a variety of editors across so many years — I fear that change may never happen. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Huwmanbeing, all of the people who complain about my behavior, including you, have a history of disagreeing with me. Can you blame for thinking that's not just as a strange coincidence? You mention "filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence" all of which I admit to being guilty of engaging in to some degree in the past, including arguably in this AN/I discussion itself, but it's not like I'm the only one who has made such errors (including you). More to the point, I was brought here to AN/I this time due to alleged misbehavior that had nothing to do with that. Certainly no examples of me engaging in "filibusters, stick-wielding, repetitious persistence" behavior were cited related to the article in question, Kidnapping of Jayme Closs. So why do you bring up all this unrelated baggage, other than as part of a persecution of me because of our disagreements in the past? How can I get you guys with whom I've disagreed in the past to realize you view my behavior through a different lens than you view others? That you often see issues in my behavior where you would not if anyone else was doing the exact same thing? --В²C ☎ 18:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC) It’s all related, it’s all the same thing. The detail of particular disagreements is irrelevant. It’s your inability to understand what others are saying, followed by challenging with escalation of verbosity while missing the point. This is why you should never be closing discussions (RMs or others), or striving to alter policy, because you don’t understand things that don’t fit your views. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Yeah, well, if I have a misunderstanding with someone I do try to resolve it with, you know, discussion. That's my big crime? And closing discussions and striving to alter policy? You mean like countless others do innocently in your eyes? But if I do it it's a crime? Because I tend to try to resolve misunderstandings with discussion? Your blatantly biased treatment of me is beyond belief, as you've made abundantly evident, again, today, here: User_talk:Born2cycle#Please_reopen_RM. --В²C ☎ 21:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC) (ec) Oppose. I do not believe that the proposed sanction would prove to be beneficial for В²C, for editors who are unhappy with his patterns of discussion, or for the encyclopedia. Dekimasuよ! 20:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Okay, I had left this for a few days as it had been frustrating me, but I can always see if there isn't room for a solution I've proposed, so I won't argue this one. I'm personally not sure where we're going here, and you can count me in the same camp as BMK and Black Kite as being confused as to why there's hesitation here: I've never doubted the B2C's heart is in the right place, I just think his long-term behavior is disruptive. All that being said, I do think what's being expressed here is that the community is tired of the refusal to get to the point or understand views other than his own. I'd personally be content at this point to have this report closed as a final warning to B2C that on a collaborative project, this type of behavior isn't acceptable. Maybe that will make it so there isn't a 16th or more report or that when the 16th or more report happens, we can have a discussion about another sanction that would prevent the 17th. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC) ....aaaaand... there's currently a discussion on B2C's talkpage about yet another poorly closed RM ... Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Support Every time someone says something bad about B2C it is met with accusations of bias or that the other individual has a history of disagreeing with them. This is clearly the behavior of someone who sees nothing wrong in what they do, and the numerous times this comes up have shown that nothing is likely to change until the changed is forced. Nihlus 00:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Oppose Seriously? We're talking about talk space edits? B2C's style may be abrupt, in the classic calling a spade a bloody shovel style, but he is engaged in discussing issues on the talk page where it belongs. He is not engaged in main space edit warring or making argument through repeated edit/revert edit summary cycles. Those who are annoyed by B2C might be best advised to grow a thicker skin and worry a bit more actual problematic editors disrupting main space. You may disagree with him but at least he is discussing policy issues on talk space which is surely one of the purposes of talk pages. This smells of a spiteful attempt to silence an opponent, I'm not impressed. - Nick Thorne talk 01:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Nick Thorne, disruption is disruption not matter where it occurs. And your aspersions thrown Tony's way are unwarranted. Nihlus 02:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Close w/final warning per TonyBallioni b/c it will make everyone happy: the editors that believe no sanction is warranted can be happy that no sanction issued. The editors that believe we will soon be here for a 16th round can be happy that soon sanctions will issue, and likely a more serious one than what was proposed here. After the final warning issues, either the editor's behavior will conform to community expectations, or soon the editor will be banned or blocked. Levivich? ! 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Born2Cycle)

On the basis of the evidence in the previous two sections, Born2Cycle is topic banned from anything and everything to do with moving pages. He may not make page moves, he may not initiate RM or page move discussions, and he may not participate in RM or page move discussions anywhere on en.wiki. He may not solicit RMs or page moves from other editors. The only thing he may do in relation to page moving is to request a move at WP:RM, which request must consist of a single statement with no follow up comments. He may appeal this ban in 6 months.

• Support as proposer. Second choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The above discussion which was a lesser proposal than the above was met with clear consensus against it. The strength and policy seem clear to that that lesser proposal was clearly opposed. A few editors suggested a lesser ban like no closing RM discussions or editing policy pages but this proposal is clearly not going to happen per WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, particularly since it's time-limited and allows Born2Cycle to remain an active editor in other areas, which I think is reasonable. Per the evidence, it's true that nearly all these disputes about B2C's behavior originate from behavior in RMs, and have led to more discussions like this than I care to count. That we continue to have to debate this year after year suggests past sanctions haven't been effective, so IMHO an enforced break in this particular area is worth trying. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. Shame on you for proposing this Beyond My Ken. I hope whoever closes this reads the previous sections and does not read this section in isolation and it is unreasonable of the BMK to want people to reitterate the opinions they have already given and IMHO there is no consensus among those who have expressed an opinion for this proposal -- PBS (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per PBS. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on the whole, honestly because following this issue for the past couple days has left a bad taste in my mouth. I began this comment observing that less than a year ago I suggested basically the same thing regarding the dispute Tony mentioned in his original post. In my view the situation has improved somewhat, but I regret to observe that this improvement seems to be driven by a small number of users who appear to me to be showing up uninvolved whenever Born2Cycle is in any kind of dispute, which is behaviour many ANI regulars know I find distasteful. Born2Cycle, I do hope you take on board some of the constructive criticism offered in this thread and especially consider backing off of some of your more assertive policy wonkery. Take Johnuniq's comment here to heart: "The alleged benefits of the perfect title are not worth the years of dispute". It's especially not worth finding yourself banned by the community, and in my experience on this board this discussion looks like a last chance to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Do you have an alternate solution? 'Cause I'm all ears. Or do you think that there is no problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I definitely don't think there's no problem, just that it's not a problem of just one user. I don't have a solution, any that I have suggested for problems like this have been drowned out by partisan sniping. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it essentially is a problem of just one user. When multiple disruptions occur, and B2C is at the middle of them all, BLUDGEONing left and right, then B2C is the problem, and B2C is the locus of where the solution will be found. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, on which talk pages do you see examples of B2C disrupting or bludgeoning, in January? I don't see it at Kidnapping of Jayme Closs. ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll ask you a rather more pertinent question: in your long history on Wikipedia, haven't you seen this behavior from Born2Cycle over and over again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken :-) No, that's kind of the point. I've been here two months and while I see problems in the sense of "you talk to much", that's a very common problem (both you and I suffer from that same problem, for example). So where is the diff of him doing or saying something that necessitates this ANI report in the first place? It's not at Jayme Closs. It's not at anything I can see in January. And F2K asked the same question some days ago... where's the diffs? If there aren't any diffs of disruption in the past 30 days, doesn't that suggest just closing this and moving on? Honest question BMK: are you judging this editor based on stuff that happened 6 months or a year or more ago, or are you judging this editor based on their recent behavior, as in the last 30 days? ^Leviv_ich? ! 19:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am judging this editor based on the totality of their behavior over more than a decade on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a big problem. I don't think it's fair to judge people based on the past decade of their behavior. People change. People grow. Imagine judging a 25-year-old based on their past decade of behavior. Grossly unfair, wouldn't you agree? People should be judged based on how they've behaved lately. If you can't point to recent examples of disruption, perhaps you should reconsider your stance here. The sine qua non of "not getting it" behavior is an absence of change after complaints have been raised. If there is no recent disruption, that proves an editor is getting it. ^Leviv_ich? ! 22:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, based on your two months on Wikipedia, I don't believe your judgment is sound, and your conclusion really ought to be ignored as uninformed, as the opinions of newbiew usually are.

We are not here to be "fair" (whatever that means in the circumstances), we are here to write and improve an encyclopedia, and it's the needs of the encyclopedia and the community that improves it which are paramount, not "fairness" to any individual editor.

When an editor has been disruptive for over a decade, and has been sanctioned for it and yet continues their behavior, then the only thing that matters is "Is this editor helping the encyclopedia, or hurting it?" As I've said, and a number of long-time editors and admins have agreed, B2C is, overall, a net-negative to the project, and the question of what sanction should be levied against him is not a matter of what happened in the last 27 days, but of what he has been responsible for in the past over a decade of disruption. I'm fed up with him, and he's exhausted the patience of a number of other editors as well. Why he's not exhausted the patience of the community as a whole -- including some very fine editors and admins I respect very much -- is quite beyond me, but that's what makes horse racing. My proposals are based, as I said, on the totality of B2C's disruption of Wikipedia, not on a minuscule portion of it.

As for B2C "getting it", I suggest you consult the editors complaining about the RMs he closed within the last week or so, and pay close attention to Tony Ballioni's comments throughout this very long discussion. There is absolutely no indication -- despite the hopes of some editors -- that he's got any more clue now than he ever had. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

"...and yet continues their behavior..." seems to me to be the key part of what you wrote. If the behavior doesn't continue, then it's not a problem, right? Hence why what happened in the last 27 days matters, and perhaps that's why some editors you respect more than me are not agreeing with you. I haven't seen any recent disruption. Is the Proteza koniecpolska close the only disruption all month or are there others? ^Leviv_ich? ! 00:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose this doesn't solve anything. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Power-enwiki: Then what will? I'll withdraw my proposals in favor of one which (1) will control B2C's behavior, and (2) has a chance of being supported by the community. However, I'm not of the mind that there is no problem to be solved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Corrent ping @Power~enwiki: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• If something along these lines were necessary, the exact opposite proposal (that B2C is banned from everything except move discussions) would be better for the encyclopedia. RM is sometimes contentious, but trying to remove all the contentious editors from that process will not improve it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don;t follow your thinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above. That proposal didn't gain consensus, so quite why anyone thinks a harsher punishment will is beyond me. I suggest people stop beating a dead horse and move on to something else.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed this is like trialing changing someone for murder after being found not guilty of manslaughter. When a more appropriate trial would be a lesser offence like OAPA 1861 would be more suitable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ivanvector, specifically the comments regarding the small number of users who show up when B2C is subject to ANI. IMO this is evidence of a personal war between editors, and that's disturbing and unconstructive to building an encyclopedia. RandomGnome (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support something like this, though the exact wording of this one is self-contradictory (someone can't be simultaneously banned from RM them told that their only RM recourse is to open an RM – Beyond My Ken, please consider revising). Almost all of B2C's troubles have been RM-connected, and are more particularly to do with bludgeoning the process, so a better-written restriction that curtails that activity is the way to go. Prevent the problem behavior without treating the otherwise productive editor like a vandal. Some simpler wording might be something like "prohibited from moving pages directly, or making repetitive comments in an RM discussion", though some middle-ground revision might work, if that's too concise.

  PBS and Crouch,_Swale seem to be missing something important in their above assumptions that proposal 2 (in some wording or other) is more restrictive, more heavy-handed, than the rejected proposal 1. It is far less so, being circumscribed to a particular topic/process, while the original would have curtailed B2C's ability to edit and even to communicate in all topics and all processes without reasonable cause for doing so (as would proposal 3 and then some, being a flat-out siteban). Meanwhile, if you work your way through the contradictory wording, even proposal 2 as initially written doesn't prohibit B2C from participating in a process (RM), it just requires any participation in it to be within some constraints. It is narrowly tailored (though needs better wording) to fit the actual B2C-related problem we keep coming back to at ANI and other noticeboards.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I can be convinced otherwise, but I don't think it's contradictory, per se, it states the broad condition first (i.e. topic banned from everything connected to RM or page moving) and then gives the sole exception (to go to the RM page and request a non-controversial technical move). Big cloth, with one hole in it; brick wall with one window. If there's a better way of expressing that, please let me know and I'll consider revising. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: Unless I've missed something the proposal in this section is "Born2Cycle is topic banned from anything and everything to do with moving pages" while the one directly above was "Born2cycle is indefinitely restricted to one edit in 24 hours per page in the Talk and Wikipedia talk namespace", since B2C doesn't make many (let alone multiple within 24hs) comments outside RMs, the last proposal was less than this one (nothing at all to do with moves apart from nominating at RM). Nothing indicated that either proposals were merely suggestive wording, but rather the proposed letter of the sanction. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support (with corrections for self contradiction pointed by SMcCandlish) I feel we have already passed the warning stage. Based on the history of ANI and AE threads and a previous block for same reasons, the warning stage was long gone. Criticism via previous threads and self enforced restrictions have all failed thus far. The discussion in the section before proposals and closed proposal have actionable evidence diffs that merits some sort of restrictions. staying away from RM might give him a chance to contribute elsewhere. So I feel this is a reasonable choice.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per PBS. This far too punitive. Calidum 19:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't think silencing an editor is a good thing, and for the reasons stated by Ivan. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support with corrections per DBigXray. There are demonstrable problems with B2C's behaviour with RMs and it's time for it to stop. The only way to do that is to separate him from the process. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my oppose in the original proposal, and this also seems to be unrelated to the issue he was brought here for. Dekimasuよ! 21:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Born2Cycle)

On the basis of the evidence provided in the previous two sections, Born2Cycyle is site banned from editing English Wikipedia as a net negative to the project. He may appeal this ban in 6 months.

• Support as proposer. First choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my comment above, this is even an even greater restriction than the one directly above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as alternative to #2 (my preferred option). I observe in posts above that B2C still seems to be leaning on accusations of bias and claims not to understand why others' are concerned about his behavior. While it's unfortunately a very familiar response, it doesn't inspire confidence that either one of these proposals will make him internalize the need for change, but it's still worth trying. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support only choice (though I won’t oppose the RM one.) while proposal 2 would limit the RM related disruption, as we’ve now seen B2C is perfectly willing to find other positions that he’s willing to crusade over. The BLPCRIME discussions would still be ongoing about how we should ignore the BLP policy for confessions if this ANI wasn’t started and he had to shift his energies here. As some have pointed out above, the problem itself can be seen in this very thread where he overwhelms discussion, doesn’t get it, and casts himself as a victim. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. Shame on you for proposing this Beyond My Ken. I hope whoever closes this reads the previous sections and does not read this section in isolation and it is unreasonable of the BMK to want people to reitterate the opinions they have already given and IMHO of there is no consensus among those who have already expressed an opinion to support this proposal. There is a clip on youtube about Brexit that could apply to these two new sub-sections -- PBS (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hmmmm.... I suppose your "shame" also applies to Tony Ballioni, isaaci, Arthur Rubin, Swarm, Thryduulf, Huwmanbeing, SMcCandlish, and DBigXray, each of whom supported at least one of the two proposals you "shamed" me for. In actuality, of course, the only shame is in allowing Born2Cycle to continue their disruptive decade-long behavior. What, exactly, do you propose be done about it, or do you think consistently WP:Bludgeoning other editors is just fine and dandy? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Applied to the situation as a whole, the clip is on point. This seemingly is something like the 15th such discussion just at ANI... ╠╣uw [talk] 19:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as per PBS. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment in the first proposal. This seems to be a more serious version of that proposal, and so I am likewise more seriously opposed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. That proposal didn't gain consensus, so quite why anyone thinks a harsher punishment will is beyond me. I suggest people stop beating a dead horse and move on to something else.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per PBS. Reading through the comments from some of those very keenly involved in this effort to permanently eject an editor from the community, I can't help but think this is part of an ongoing long-term personal war between editors. RandomGnome (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, we should not be afraid of people with opinions other than our own, nor should we want them to be removed just because we don't like that they are prepared to argue with us. B2C does not cause disruption to articles. A tip for all - whenever you see someone being described as "editing tendentiously", this is almost always a faux-polite way of saying "I find this user annoying". Being annoying most assuredly does not warrant a site ban. Fish+Karate 10:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Although tendentious behaviour is not mutually exclusive with annoying behaviour, the real hallmark of tendentious editors is they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. (taken from the essay on tendentious editing) As described in previous statements and seen in this discussion, this is a common behaviour of the editor in question. This can lead to budgeoning discussions, also discussed in previous statements, which is disruptive to the community decision-making process. I support any action, including this proposal, to help provide incentive for more collaborative behaviour, rather than continuing to dismiss criticisms as being other people's problems. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. Support (almost) any sanction considered (as I don't frequent ANI) that much. I've been involved with a number of his move wars (I think, back in 2015), and, if he hasn't learned not to do what led to his block, he needs time off to reconsider. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as excessive. A far less restrictive original proposal was strongly rejected, so this has no chance. This looks like a labeling exercise, and it isn't actually supported by evidence, anyway. B2C's issues have almost entirely been confined to one area (RM); he is not a "net negative to the project", just arguably to a single process (though actually less so over time).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Except that at least 90+% of what he does is involved with that process, so the overall is a net negative, in my view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as too excessive when weighed against the severity of the problem. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Per BMK. I really don't see any strong argument whatsoever that this user is not a net negative, but plenty of reason to ban.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support'. Something needs to be done to prevent B2C engaging in the same disruption to the project he has engaged in for a decade or so, if a site ban is the only way to do this then unfortunately a site ban is required. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my oppose in discussion of the first proposal. Dekimasuよ! 21:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Born2Cycle)

Given that the two previous proposals seem destined to fail, I would like to propose another possible solution that I think addresses the issues raised without placing an unreasonable restrictrion on B2C.

Boorn2Cycle is limited to one comment per thread per day in RM discussions.

• Support as proposer. This will prevent the alleged bludgeoning without unreasonably restricting B2C's ability to express his opinion.- Nick Thorne ^talk 09:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Of the 3 issues people have brought up about B2C (closing move discussions that he/she appears to be biased on, editing policy talk pages and making multiple comments in move discussions) the making multiple comments in move discussions seems to have been the least problematic. In addition if you look at this post, you can see that many others do this also. As I pointed out before, there was some consensus to prevent B2C from closing move discussions and editing policy talk page but little on making comments (even repeated) at RM discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• oppose per Crouch, Swale. Also, that's inherently unworkable in a discussion. Wouldn't the most effective/least restrictive "solution" be that B2C not move pages as the result of RM discussions or close RM discussions? I don't see that as a proposal.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as this is basically the exact same thing I proposed in the first place, but limited to RMs. I still maintain that now that he's found other hobby horses, the disruption is just going to spread, but okay, let's give this a try. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - third choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment in the proposal 2 discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. (my first choice is RM topic ban) Based on the history of ANI and AE threads and a previous block for same reasons, the warning stage was long gone. Criticism via previous threads and self enforced restrictions have all failed thus far. The discussion in the section before proposals and closed proposal have actionable evidence diffs that merits some sort of restrictions. I doubt this proposal may stop the problematic behavior but will certainly be helpful for the RM participants. This can be tried.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Ivanvector. RandomGnome (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ivan's comment in Proposal 2, and my oppose there as well, based on my general opposition to muzzling editors. Also this is unpractical. You'll get one giant wall-of-text per day in any discussion in which B2C takes part, because he'll have to respond to 24hrs worth of comments in one shot. It will also get in the way of other editors taking part in a discussion with B2C because they'll have to wait 24 hours for any questions to be answered. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - As a bare minimum.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I only came across this discussion by accident and my first response was "Is he still here and still getting away with disruptive editing?" Deb (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this will just slow down the tendentiousness not prevent it so would be pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I have not seen any problematic contributions in to RM so far. Kraose (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Born2Cycle)

Sigh, as this was what I had proposed at the end of the first proposal before it was shutdown, I'll propose it formally: Born2cycle is warned that excessive comments in discussions can come across as bludgeoning, and that the community considers this to be disruptive. He is given a final warning that if he exhibits these behaviors in the future, he may face sanctions.

• Support as the thing most likely to achieve consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support, simply because ending this with no action whatsoever is totally unacceptable, and my two proposals above aren't receiving much traction (although more than it appears on first sight). I support this as the very least acceptable action -- in other words, my fourth choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because this feels like a witch hunt now, and also my comments in the second proposal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I had proposed this a few days ago in the first proposal, and it had gotten some support before it was shut down. I didn't propose it formally because of the other sanction proposals above, but did now in hopes of getting some sort of closure to this thread that could gain consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm striking my oppose since no formal sanction is involved, and this is also basically the gist of my proposal 2 comments that I keep referring to. I fear this warning being used as a sword of Damocles by some people who probably know who I mean by now, though, and for that reason I will not support. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support This is the bare minimum that should be done if this ANI thread gets closed, even though I feel we have already passed this warning stage. Based on the history of ANI and AE threads and a previous block for same reasons, I think the warning stage was long gone. Criticism via previous threads and self enforced restrictions have all failed thus far. The discussion in the section before proposals and closed proposal have actionable evidence diffs that merits some sort of restrictions.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a bare minimum, though I do suspect that even if this passes, we are going to end up here again. Or, more likely, at AE. Still, worth a try. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• I (as someone who has supported B2C) would be fine with this, however I'd largely change excessive comments in move discussions to closing move discussions that B2C is likely to be seen as biased for the reasons I gave in the above section, TonyBallioni do you agree with this? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Note that I don't see a problem with B2C closing controversial RMs just those that are borderland on what the best title is and that he/she is likely to be seen as biased, if both don't apply I don't see a huge problem. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I generally agree with B2C in most things related to article titles, but I support this because he has exhibited the behavior described above. It’s not block worthy at this point though. Calidum 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Define 'excessive'. Is it excessive, or just oppositional to editors who don't like what he has to say? B2C's comments don't exist in isolation, so are those opposing his views also being 'excessive' in their commenting? This prop seems open to trouble from the get-go. I think this would be better phrased with a clear definition of the amount of commenting/number of comments - which was done in the previous proposal, though my opinion is that Prop 4 is too restrictive on B2C at this point. RandomGnome (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The community is typically very tolerant of minority opinions. I have many of those, and can be verbose, and I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone want me to be sanctioned for it. The fact that even those opposing sanctions have negative B2C stories and experiences shows that he pretty much steamrolls over the line between vocal dissident and WP:IDHT/WP:BLUDGEON.
    In terms of defining, that’s difficult to do, but it’s a definition that the consensus/comments at ANI and AE will help define if another report is ever made. The take home lesson here should be “stop repeating yourself over and over until others give up or people just don’t comment at all.” TonyBallioni (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Question 1: It's very common, perhaps even occurring more often than not, that whenever I comment a lot in an RM discussion, at least one other editor is commenting more than I am. Why am I being singled out for this behavior? I think context matters, and I realize I have been problematic in this area in the past, years ago. But that was brought to my attention, and I've tried very hard to not be bludgeoning, in particular by avoiding being repetitive, as I was prone to do in the past. I'm a bit confused as to why this is being brought up now, as the alleged misbehavior on my part this time was not excessive commenting nor bludgeoning, nor even in an RM discussion, and no recent examples of such behavior have been cited, as far as I know. Where is the recent/relevant evidence supporting such warning to me today? Can anyone clarify? --В²C ☎ 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Question 2: In the real world, a key characteristic of our justice system is that judges and jurors don't personally know the accused. I mean, Rand Paul doesn't get to be on the jury of the neighbor who body slammed him. Jayme Closs won't get to be on Jake Patterson's jury, of course (and not just because of her age). But here on WP, while I don't have a problem with involved editors making a case against another editor as has been done here, and "testifying" about their experience with the accused, it seems to me that only editors previously uninvolved with the accused editor (and, ideally, with the accuser(s)) should be able to determine and !vote about whether there is actual wrongdoing by the accused and what, if anything, the "sentence" should be. As the accused here, it feels really unfair to have all these people with whom I've had disputes in the past, many of whom have expressed animosity towards me, weighing in about whether and how I should be sanctioned or warned. Anyone know why it it is like that here, and/or whether an "objective judge/jury" approach has been proposed and considered before? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia is not a court of law and we don't operate on presumption of innocence or anonymity of the jury or any of that (good!) legal stuff, we operate on a consensus model of community-moderated decision making. It works well, but we also tend to get old enemies coming out of the woodwork shouting "'e turned me into a newt!" whenever old conflicts are triggered, and in my opinion that's a weakness of the whole thing. However, we also have the Arbitration Committee for more complicated disputes, which this really isn't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

In this discussion, I count ten times you've expressed your view that those expressing concern about your behaviour have been in disagreements with you. In addition to being repetitive, it isn't encouraging to those trying to provide feedback on your actions, as it feels like the feedback will be swiftly dismissed. Regarding who should be involved in a community discussion, in a volunteer environment, those completely uninvolved with a given situation are a lot less likely to want to invest the time and effort in learning the complete context and then weigh in. (You can consider how many times you've chosen to provide an opinion on a matter in which you were previously completely uninvolved, versus the number of times you've provided opinions on matters in which you were involved.) In the legal world, judges are paid to adjudicate and jury duty is mandatory. isaacl (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support, as I had supported it per Tony in Proposal 1 before it was closed, and to Ivan's point, I support this because it's a Sword of Damocles, which is what I feel is needed, based on B2C's excessive (in my opinion) posts in this thread, and also the content of those posts, which don't give me hope that the message is being heard. For example, Questions 1 and 2 just above here. My answer to Question 1 is: "other people do worse" is never a valid argument for anything, and this is not "being brought up now" but has been brought up, from what I can tell, many times before. B2C, I really can't believe you'd make such an immature point as "other people do worse" or "why am I being singled out?" You really, after all this time, don't understand how your behavior differs from the norm? If so, you better start paying attention to what people are telling you! For example, you didn't need to ask Question 1 or 2. Those questions aren't questions, they're defenses, and they're focused on the behavior of the community, rather than being focused on your behavior. My answer to Question 2 is: this is not the real world; in courtrooms, people's rights are at risk; here, only privileges are at risk. In courtrooms, the government is taking away rights. Here, there is no government, it's a self-organizing consensus-based community. It's an entirely different situation, and I worry that B2C doesn't understand this very basic aspect of Wikipedia. My concern is B2C is more interested in defending himself and being proven right than in really changing his behavior in response to community concerns. I wasn't going to !vote in support of anything but I strongly agree this needs to be closed with some kind of action, this is most likely to get consensus, and a Sword of Damocles will at least help prevent a second lengthy discussion like this. I'm OK with the word choice "excessive", because what's excessive will vary from case to case. I trust an uninvolved reviewing admin can make that judgment call if the need arises. I hope it won't. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Striking out my support !vote after reading this detailed analysis of B2C's original block concluding it shouldn't have happened, which led to his being unblocked, along with the AE that led up to it, the AEs since, a couple of the past ANIs, and a bunch of stuff on various editor's talk pages. At those AEs, ANIs, etc. I see the same names over and over again. Looking at the thread cited in this ANI, Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, I don't see anything objectionable that B2C is doing. Dropping a DS template on an editor while in the middle of a talk page dispute is, if not jerky behavior, certainly unpleasant, and that would be true no matter who does it. The Jaggi Vasudev RM and MR that was pointed to did show problematic behavior, but that was back in November–why would we issue a warning based on that now? I don't see any recent behavior that justifies this ANI thread, or a final warning, or any sanction. I think B2C's tendentious arguing behavior was brought out in this thread, and folks are alarmed because of it (I was one of them), but after having a fuller understanding of the history, I believe B2C has essentially been provoked. I don't know if I would oppose a final warning or just stay neutral, but I'm coming around more to the opinions expressed by Ivanvector (witch hunt) and F2K (show me the diffs) on this matter. ^Leviv_ich? ! 06:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That “detailed analysis”, one person’s take, which you must note includes a lot of points one what B2C could be advised to to better, must be noted was an opinion that could not be responded to without perpetuating the already bad grave dancing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support this symbolic reminder. Next time: B2C is weak on nuance and subtlety, big on objective, so I think he would need an objective constraint. The central problem is tendentious verbosity, and which only escalates when he is cornered. The counter rule: A maximum of 1000 words per week on any single topic in dispute, across all pages, with the exception of his own user_talk and other own userspace. No limit on edits, because he should be encouraged to edit his own posts to improve concision. Also, due to unclear trust in judgement of reading consensus (a very nuanced, non-objective skill), no more admin actions (closing discussions, closing RMs, even relisting) without a formal admin mentor. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a minimum. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support If you haven't made your point after three or four posts, it's time to move on and spare the rest of us. Write an essay on how unfair life is, but give the community a rest. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Question 3. What constitutes “excessive comments in discussions“? In most discussions I comment only once or twice, but often I’m part of a negotiation towards a consensus and that can take considerable back and forth to come to a mutual understanding and to work out any misconceptions and differences. Here, for example, is a recent RM discussion where I commented five times in a classic WP consensus building process. Was that excessive? Who decides, how, and how am I to know whether I’m close to the line, much less crossing it? Some discussions require more to get there. Often it can look excessive at first glance, but when you actually read the discussion closely you can see how it develops, or is attempting to develop (not always successfully!), consensus. As to SmokeyJoe’s insinuations about my consensus reading, I believe I have as solid a record as any other RM closer. Of the dozens if not 100s of closes, I don’t recall ever even being taken to MRV, much less overturned there. I have had two closes reverted by an admin, that I can recall, one of which was subsequently closed by another admin almost identically to how I closed it. I think the other went the other way. Nobody is perfect. —В²C ☎ 07:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • At that RM, User:Cambridge51 could be accused of excessive verbosity and badgering, but it takes a trend, and he is vindicated by actually succeeding in persuasion as opposed to ineffective repetition. You’re going to dig your heels in as the exemplar closer are you? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - I feel this remedy is below the bare minimum, but if it's the only feasible progress made by this thread, I must begrudgingly support. The above question, in which the user demonstrates a lack of competence to even accept a hypothetical warning against WP:BLUDGEONING behavior, is, alone, enough to convince me to support this. I would like to see stronger measures, but if this is all we're going to get out of this, so be it. However, I strongly reject SmokeyJoe's use of the word "symbolic". IMO, the emphasis is on "final warning".  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Consider my use of that word to be intentionally provocative for the next time this happens. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• minimal support for a minimal remedy Recommend that B2C step away from the computer more often each day. Clear the mind. Smell some roses. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• question 1 from-- Dlohcierekim (talk)Are we seeing an example of the problematic behavior in this discussion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

2604:4080:1300:8031:1483:60cf:3474:35d8

Yet another WP:NOTHERE on US road articles. 2604:4080:1300:8031:1483:60cf:3474:35d8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly adding uncited info without consensus. When asked to stop reverting by an editor, they essentially mocked said editor, claiming that we should not revert their edits without a discussion, since "facts and citations don't matter". Cards84664 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks familiar.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: You want to give it a go? They're still going. Cards84664 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'd recommend asking for WP:RPP. Semi-protection would prevent IP and dynamic IP editors from editing the page, and typically they get bored and move on. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it anyways since I was on the page. Hope you don't mind. :) ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that this editor is the same as an IP that removed Interstate 605 (Washington) from the same page, based on their assertion that a former (but serious) proposal should not be listed. SounderBruce 02:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I invited them to this discussion and Semi'd the page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It is the same editor - see the contributions by 2604:4080:1300:8031::/64... IPv6 addresses are commonly distributed dynamically at the client level and at the /64 CIDR range. In many cases, this IP change can occur as often as every few hours. It's typically beyond their control and in most cases is not a deliberate attempt to hop IPs in order to evade blocks or to cause more disruption (such shenanigans do happen by users who know this, but it's usually very obvious when you see it). If you see edits by different IPv6 addresses in a situation like this and where the left-half of the IP blocks are the same but the right-half of the IP blocks are different, this is very likely why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User:MCazenave/WPFOOTY

Hello all. I'm unfortunately here to report/start a discussion about User:MCazenave and their edits regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Football articles. First time I've done one of these, so apologies if anything I've done is incorrect.

MCazenave has been an editor since 2017 and has continuously edited a variety of association football articles, mostly in regards to Chilean football. While their edits are welcomed as that part of WPFOOTY is under-edited, they are constantly adding content to articles without leaving a reliable source to back them up - from what I've seen, they rely on an external link (Soccerway and/or BDFA - both reliable) having the correct information at their time of edit. It seems MCazenave heavily edits based on transfer rumours, a few examples here:

→ Tobías Figueroa (diff1)

→ Iván Sandoval (Chilean footballer) (diff2)

→ Mariano Barbieri (diff3)

I've reached out via their talk page and via edit summaries when I've reverted but have had no response at all. With the Iván Sandoval article, I asked for a reliable source and they (kind of) provided one. I say kind of as it was a source that stated a deal was almost completed, which I had already mentioned in my initial revert edit summary that it wasn't sufficient. I let that slide as I didn't want to get into a silly edit war over something that was indeed close (the deal has since been completed but my points stand). It seems my issues with MCazenave have been an issue for a while, User:GiantSnowman contacted the user via their talk page back in 2017 about unsourced content (with no response?) and it seems nothing much has changed.

Lastly, I must state that I do not believe this user is a bad editor. As I mentioned and have mentioned to them, their edits to the Chilean side of WPFOOTY are certainly needed but I feel it's becoming disruptive - if unintentional. I'm not sure what the right course of action is. R96Skinner (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner, if you want anyone to take action here, you need to supply diffs, that is, specific edits that this editor has made, that you believe are disruptive or troublesome. It's not enough to point to an article, administrators want to just click links to see what is going on, not search them out themselves. More work for you but it will more likely result in action. Look at other reports on this page that have received some replies to see what I mean.209.152.44.201 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

On it. Thanks! R96Skinner (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Much better! 209.152.44.201 (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner - I have a few important things to note in this discussion:

• First, the use of "edit summaries" do not count as attempts to reach out or communicate with other editors or users, contribute to discussions, or warn other users regarding their violations of Wikipedia policy or their noncompliance with certain Wikipedia guidelines. If somebody violates a policy or otherwise causes some issue or problem that needs to be corrected and addressed, you should always reach out to the user directly and each time this happens. Be civil and descriptive in each of your messages and include all relevant links to help the user (such as the diff to the edit in question, a link to the relevant policy or guideline, and other links necessary). When addressing content disputes, you need to start the relevant talk page discussions (if an active one doesn't already exist), ping the user involved, and follow-up with a message on their user talk page pointing them to the discussion. Aside from bringing the issues to their attention and doing what's outlined in Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol - if anything, it creates a trail of documentation so that later, you can start a noticeboard discussion like this one and you can easily report repeated issues involving another editor by supplying diff links demonstrating all of your attempts to reach out and notify the user, discuss the problem, and talk to them about it to no avail.
• Second, I see that this user makes a lot of edits in the football topic area (particularly to BLP articles that involve football). Spot-checking the user's contributions show me that this user doesn't add any references to support their edits (most I checked were changes to the information contained in the article's infobox). Depending on the content being added or changed, adding unreferenced content to a BLP is a big no-no. However, the diffs you provided point to an edit the user made yesterday, but the others point to edits made back on the 13th of January. That's fine, but for me to consider administrative action (if needed and/or applicable), I need to see diffs of recent or current edits that show repeated violations of policy, and repeated attempts to talk to the user (I do see that you've talked to them directly in two separate discussions, but I don't see warnings of increased emphasis or severity such as a 'final warning'). I'll also note that this user has made zero edits to the talk or user talk Wikipedia namespaces, so there's obviously a failure to communicate here. I'll do some more digging and add more note as I find them, but it would be very helpful if such information could be supplied next time.

Do know that I'm not trying to rip you a new one, tear you down, treat you like an idiot or a new user who doesn't know anything, embarrass you, or discourage you from reporting issues or violations of policy when they need to be reported. :-) I'm just trying to explain what things we look for in noticeboard reports and exactly why they're important so you understand and will be able to keep this in mind should you face issues or disputes like this in the future. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood, Oshwah. I wasn't sure what order to do things as this is the first time in five years on Wikipedia that I've seen the need to report a user. I should've been more thorough in looking at the way to do things, my apologies! I presumed edit summaries in reverts would be OK as it notifies the user when the revert occurs, but as that isn't the case then I fully understand and will remember that for the future. In recent months, I have started to contact users via their talk pages whenever I revert so we can understand each other - in case I'm wrong too. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to explain things to me clearly - I appreciate it. R96Skinner (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

R96Skinner - No worries; this is why I try and take time to explain and help. :-) If you're able and if you can, do you have diffs of very recent edits by that you can provide that clearly show where this user has added unsourced content and where it was blatantly problematic? There's a lot of edits to go through - it would be a great help if you could go through, locate diffs from the user's edits today or yesterday, and provide a list of them so I can take a look. Let me know :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure! No edits since yesterday, but:

→ 23/01 - Santiago Wanderers - diff1 - They added a section a little while back to the football club's article for "2019 Summer transfers" (diff2), which lists ins and outs from this month but they are unsourced. They have done that for all other clubs in the Chilean Primera Division and Primera B de Chile, as seen over at Club Deportivo Universidad Católica (diff3), Club Universidad de Chile (diff4), Deportes Iquique (diff5), O'Higgins F.C. (diff6) and many others - none of which are sourced.

→ 23/01 - Agustín Parra - diff7 - They've added to the Agustín Parra article stating the player has retired, no sourcing. BDFA was already listed as an external link but it doesn't say Parra has retired, or even left.

→ 23/01 - José Luis Jiménez - diff8 - According to their edits, he is now a player of Santiago Morning. However, no sources have been left and the article itself doesn't even have Soccerway or BDFA listed as external links. Similar story at Francisco Piña (diff9) and Francisco Lara Uribe (diff10) (both 23/01), though them articles had the ext. links listed which confirm the transfer but it seems that's a coincidence given what I mentioned with José Luis Jiménez.

→ 23/01 - Hugo Bascuñán - diff11 - Same as the above, no sort of sourcing added - they seem to be relying on BDFA which doesn't have the player at Santiago Morning.

→ 23/01 - Francisco Pizarro (footballer) - diff12 - Arguably a sign of this user's potential disruption. No source given for the player's departure from Santiago Morning, nor even for the player's arrival (and subsequent four appearances) back in August 2018 when they edited (diff13). External links BDFA and FootballDatabase have no evidence of said stint with the club, though the NFT link does but doesn't specify any appearances.

If any more examples need to be added Oshwah, I will do so.

As a side note, while looking through this user's edits, I noticed they joined within months of User:Durneydiaz's indefinite blocking. This is pure speculation on my part, but is it possible they are the same user? Both Durneydiaz and MCazenave have similar edit histories and tendencies, with little-to-no interaction. Only a thought. R96Skinner (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Central bank of iran vandalized by troll farm

Central Bank of Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Please keep watch of changes..and revert sock puppets. Thanks.66.87.85.155 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a revert war with THIS, by 66.87.31.105 with edit summary "(revert soutced uncontroversial edits: "user:Trustbanker" objective was hiding the fact that wether "Russian" or "British", Banking in Iran was/is controlled by Jews..)" followed by THIS by Cu570d14n0f7h3n0735 with edit summary "(Wikipedia is not a platform for anti-semitism. Only content supported by sources shall remain."-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I SP'd the thing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

except there is nothing "antisemtic" at all. The SOURCED long standing portion carefully removed shows exactly that FACT (i.e. National bank of Persia and Bank Eskerazi were owned by Reuters and Polyakov - 2 Jewish businessmen of their respective countries - UK and Russia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.85.155 (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Assertion of Jewish conspiracy theories involving the money supply of a country ARE anti-semitic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(WHERE do u see that? Answer:NOWHERE!)...U need to see a good doctor, Liz. Sorry, we can't help you.66.87.85.155 (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

That's enough. Your messages and comments toward other editors are expected to be compliant with Wikipedia's civility policy; personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you're making an assertion using original research or your thoughts and opinions to add content that's not explicitly stated in the references provided in the article, it's not in compliance with our policies and guidelines and will be reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit itself does not seem clearly anti-semitic. The edit summary does though. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You do look like con-artists, however!66.87.85.155 (talk)

Who's we? Is there a mouse in your pocket?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a NOTHERE block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like bad-faith all around: the IP's comments on one hand, and the deletion of removal of extensive well-sourced content on the other. You can't remove a lot of content on grounds of "content supported by sources shall remain", unless that content actually isn't properly sourced: this removal included a large table of data derived from the International Monetary Fund, which is definitely a reliable source for currency in circulation, foreign currency deposits, etc. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The IP user is blocked for 36 hours for their disruptive edits and continued uncivil comments made here - enough is enough. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

But let's not overlook it was Cu570d14n0f7h3n0735 who removed the table with the "(Wikipedia is not a platform for anti-semitism. Only content supported by sources shall remain" edit summary.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A further discussion regarding this user's edits and conduct here is expected (of course) - I'm not going to allow editors to make uncivil troll-like comments like the ones left above by the IP user; my block and comment above was simply added to note the action I took against the IP user and why. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, who left Cu570d14n0f7h3n0735 an ANI notification on their user talk page? ... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

damn!  Done. Got so much from the one I forgot about the other.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified Trustbanker, who I guess made the original removal of sourced content.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

They're accused of being the same editor but I dont think a SPI was filed. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:6CDA:320:FB33:BAE3 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

IP editor deleting categories

Hi, there's a single-purpose IP editor deleting a single category from articles DIFs, notification on their Talk Page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I reverted the current edits. Should be good for now. A Dolphin (squeek?) 17:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• They moved to another IP, User:111.94.132.166, and continued their efforts. All reverted now, but they're likely to simply shift again. Is there a way to protect categories from being removed from articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• It's Category:Political and cultural purges. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Now using User:118.137.15.222. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Any ideas that can be done here? Request semi-protection for the 2 dozen or so articles being hit by this IP? Blocking the IPs (but they'll just get another)? Range block (even to my amateur's eye I would think we're talk about 2 different ranges)? Blackout all of Indonesia? Edit filter to prevent deletion of the category by IPs? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Today they used User:111.94.203.124 and didn't delete the category, just commented it out. I take that to mean that they read my suggestion above of an edit filter to stop IPs from removing the category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Crisx284

• Crisx284 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm having trouble with this user. She doesn't understand English very well and keeps reverting edits (Edit Warring) I make on a page because she thinks shows like Dragon Booster and Pucca are produced by Disney, when they're not. I've tried reporting her to the Adminstrator against Vandalism, but it was rejected. don't bother going onto her talk page, as she'll just argue back. She also personally attacked me as well. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: It would speed/aid the process if you provided difs for the problem edits.---- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified user of this discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:LTPHarry#disney distributed the series okay provides insight into Crisx284's anger at OP. When told he was wrong, LTPHarry gave her a "yeah but". At this point I think the heavy-handed warnings did more harm than good.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Her reply at his talk page contradicts OP's assertion about what she thinks.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems like the user has been blocked by Black Kite for edit warring. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've blocked them for 48h (Dlohcierekim's comments were posted after I went off to do it). They're edit-warring against multiple people and don't seem to want to stop, and it also looks like they're the same 190.x.x.x IP that caused the page to be semi-protected in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Oooh... IP? This user might make sockpuppets during his/her block. I'd recommend keeping an eye on the semi-protected page to see if there are any new IP edits that follow this user's pattern. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

edit warring is always wrong even when you are right.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

She went back to harassing me on another Wiki just now, saying it was all my fault for it all. If you've seen, I tried to give her reasons but she refused to listen. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

LTPHarry - Which project? Where? Can you provide a diff to that continued harassment you speak of? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I wish I could, but I deleted the comment she sent me on the Wiki (it’s one I operate through FANDOM) so I cannot, sorry. If I didn’t delete it, I would have sent you the link. Just believe me that she really did say that. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia can you read all-caps bilingual personal attacks like this one [9], summarized as: Rolie Polie Olie is made by Disney, you son of a $#%^! The symbols are bad words in case you don't understand! ^Leviv_ich? ! 05:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this should go to a indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Just my opinion though. A Dolphin (squeek?) 16:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Nowiki for links to non-sources

For at least a decade I have been wrapping links to questionable sources in non-mainspace pages with <nowiki> tags, to assist with monitoring use in mainspace. Leyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just reverted about 70 of these edits with an edit summary of "this is nonsense: article name space may be easily monitored individually (if needed at all)", and calling it "censorship" on my talk page (a red flag in my experience, but whatever).

Leyo's comment that "article name space may be easily monitored individually (if needed at all)" is simply incorrect. There is no namespace filter in Linksearch (there was briefly, but it has been removed). Adding insource in a Wiki search is also problematic. In fact both linksearch and insource wiki search are frequently inaccurate and out of date, the search indexers do not seem to be working well at the moment.

A 2008 discussion of this exact process in the context of a site that was problematic for other reasons unambiguously endorsed it:

Removing links whilst not removing context or content from discussions does not violate any policies and is an efficient way of removing links to potentially problematic sites. BLP and Copyright policies come way above any policies on editing closed deletion discussions in any case, so Guy's edits are entirely acceptable. In short, Guy's edits are of no detriment to the encyclopedia - they directly and indirectly benefit the project. Any discussions on removing links and the right to link to material which violates copyright and policy here needs to be discussed elsewhere as it's not something limited to just this one storm in a teacup. Such a discussion would also be of intense interest to a large number of other editors, and should such a discussion take place, notices would best be left at various Village Pump and Copyright help desk boards. Nick (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

— Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive390 § User:JzG and the Post Chronicle

There have been other discussions since, with the same outcome, and I am not aware of any that have concluded otherwise. Using nowiki tags strikes a balance between monitoring the links using the limited technical tools available, while retaining the project and talk page content in as close as possible to its original sense and meaning.

But consensus can change. This is a thing I have done for a long time to keep the number of links down and simplify monitoring of link abuse, do I now need to either remove the links altogether or just suck up the time it takes to watch for links to dodgy sources? That would be quite boring. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hm. Leyo's editing does look problematic here. Ordering other editors what to do because I know best is not a good start, especially when you then threaten to block them for something that isn't in the slightest blockworthy. Then despite that discussion, unilaterally removing the nowikis in around 75 talk pages with a comment of removing "censorship" (Guy is right, this is always a red flag) while the discussion is still happening at WP:RS/N? I'm somewhat unimpressed, I have to say. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  The revert comment was NOT censorship but this is nonsense: article name space may be easily monitored individually (if needed at all). Only on the user discussion page I used that word. I may have used another one, but since I am not a native English speaker, I do not always find the best possible expressions.

  Monitoring the use of a certain website in the article namespace may easily been done using e.g. insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/. --Leyo 11:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC) PS. @Black Kite: "Then despite that discussion, unilaterally removing the nowikis in around 75 talk pages" is actually not the full story. JzG has added the nowiki tags while the discussion was still running (which I consider highly problematic). I just restored the versions to the status before that discussion. This is a standard admin procedure. --Leyo 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, yes, that is exactly what I said. Your comment on censorship was, as Black Kite said, on my talk page, where you said, and I quote, I reverted your censorship to talk pages, archives etc. Talk page contributions of other users should only be altered for grounds like linking to websites with dangerous content or such things. In addition, the article name space may be easily monitored individually, e.g. using CirrusSearch. As I pointed out above, this does not work. You may well not be aware of that as I am sure you don't spend much of your time monitoring bogus links (which obviously I do), but even if you were, you are dictating a dogmatic view of how others should go about their volunteer work without thinking to ask why they do it that way in the first place. Which comes back to OiD's comment: this looks like grudge-bearing, which is not an attractive quality. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"As I pointed out above, this does not work." This is actually not true (anymore): If the search query isn't too complex, insource: finds all occurrences, as it does in this case. I can assert you that I've been spending a lot of time with various maintenance work, even if only partly in the en.wikipedia. --Leyo 12:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

See below. I actually do this all the time, I can assure you, it doesn't. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually these reverts were not related to the RSN discussion at all - they were links to the website of to Environmental Working Group, an official-sounding pressure group (501(c)(4)) with a less than stellar reputation for accuracy. I cleaned out the mainspace links ages ago but only nowikid the non-mainspace recently, largely because wading through 100+ links to see if new mainspace ones had been added was getting boring. The RSN discussion is about alanwood.net, a personal website, and the Pesticide Action Network, another pressure group whose pages were being used as if they were a neutral reference source (last I looked there was no pushback on that at all, only fans of Alan Wood). And this is all good faith stuff, EWG and PAN especially deliberately set out to appear like legitimate authorities, it's not a surprise that good-faith editors, especially those with an environmentalist preference, mistakenly pick these up. I'd have been suckered too before I started specialising in sourcing and spamming on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

"Actually these reverts were not related to the RSN discussion at all" is actually not true: Two of the three are being discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Compendium_of_Pesticide_Common_Names, with diverging views (concerning the namespace) so far. The third, ewg.org, is certainly not that problematic that users and readers should be hindered to access the links that have been posted on talk pages by multiple users over the past couple of years.

"I cleaned out the mainspace links ages ago" is actually not entirely true, either. You've removed quite some (e.g. here) four days ago. --Leyo 12:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was the last time I reviewed the link list. I do that periodically. That is, in fact, the entire point. Your claim that people are "hindered to access" these links, mainly in archived debates, is, I would submit, without merit. The trivial additional effort required to highlight the text and right-click to open is not significant, and, as per the original discussion noted above, there is a benefit to offset that trivial inconvenience, which, it must be noted, we have no evidence anybody has ever suffered. We're supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not DMOZ. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Just add {{search link|insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/|ns=ns0=1}} (→ insource:/pesticideinfo\.org/) or similar to your website and you will get the same result. In fact, you even get a preview of the articles' source text. --Leyo 12:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I use that too, it is flaky. The index has been up to a month out of date before now, showing links that have been removed and omitting links that have been added. That's why I use both. It's the only reliable method I have found to date. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This is simply not true. This like that used to happen quite some time ago. --Leyo 20:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The last time I found it to be an issue was three weeks ago. This sounds a lot like trying to tell me that my experience is an illusion therefore I must do things in a way that you personally find acceptable, just in case someone has to take slightly longer to visit a site that is not usable as a source anyway. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I find almost all of the time, anyone who cries censorship has no clue what it actually is. That aside, while Guy says this is unrelated to the pesticide issue, this just looks like retaliation for them not getting their own way. I cant think of any legitimate reason for them to do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  See my reply above. --Leyo 11:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Personally I do not believe links should be removed simply because the sites aren't RSes. I think we should only remove them when there are actual problems with the links. E.g. malware sites, sites or links with copyvios, sites or links with BLPvios. The summary of the discussion quoted above doesn't seem to be saying anything different. Also sites on the blacklist may be justified considering the problems it creates editing the pages although if they're in archives there may be questions over whether it matters. That said, this doesn't seem to be the place to discuss this. 12:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) BTW I don't quite understand why it's necessary to nowiki links to allow monitoring their use in articles/main space. Is there some reason why the built in WMF search engine can't simply be used for this? Or if it is, is there some reason limiting to main space doesn't work? It seems we should work with the WMF to fix any flaws which prevent the built in search from being used to monitor unwanted additions inside mainspace. But if it's really necessary to use third party search engines, it also seems to me it may be better to work with the WMF to find ways to exclude other names spaces/include only main space, e.g. by including unique terms. That would surely help everyone including Guy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  I certainly agree concerning the examples "malware sites, sites or links with copyvios, sites or links with BLPvios". As the insource: search already works fine (see above), no further improvement of the WMF search engine seems to be required for now. --Leyo 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: There are two things going on. One is the existence of well known unreliable sources (e.g. American Renaissance, Blood & Honor and so on) where we have consensus they don't meet WP:RS. I (and others) remove citations to those sites. The other is links to those sites in talk pages and other debates. These show up in Linksearch (see amren.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com ). Linksearch is the most reliable way of finding links to a website, but the linksearch results are bulked out by talk pages and Wikipedia discussions, making it much harder to identify new links in mainspace. Thus I habitually - and for a long time - nowiki them in those pages. Not delete, they are still there, still visible in their original context, I just format them so they don't show up in Linsearch. That's the change Leyo chose to revert. He is the first person to do this in some years, to the best of my recollection, if anyone has ever done it at all. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• How does "[wrapping with] <nowiki> tags, to assist with monitoring use in mainspace. " assist this monitoring? A regex is going to look for a domain name, not a <nowiki>. Whatever else one might say about Leyo's edits here (and I can see the wagons circling already), they seem to have a point here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: It helps because Special:Linksearch only searches for actual links, not just URLs as text. See eg Special:Linksearch/forbes.com. If the links are only actual links in mainspace, then Special:Linksearch will only return hits in mainspace. I don't think this is the greatest way of tracking use of links. MediaWiki in fact has a facility to limit Linksearch by namespace, but it's turned off on WMF wikis because it makes the search quite expensive to run. If the `insource` method described above is broken, that should be put in a phab ticket and fixed. GoldenRing (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• The `insource` method is not broken. {{search link|insource:/ewg\.org/|ns=ns0=1}} found 21 articles a few hours ago. JzG obviously made use of that method to find these articles and remove the reference in all but three cases. This includes occurrences where his previous method (linksearch) had failed (Special:Diff/880119117, Special:Diff/880117415 or for some reason Special:Diff/880117378 (note that the section was added by Moreau1 back in 2017)). --Leyo 20:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It is unreliable and gives inconsistent results. As I think I might have pointed out, I do this all the time. Sometimes it's correct, other times, not. Hence I use both. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, none of us may prove his testimony. ;-) Have you tried mw:User:PerfektesChaos/js/resultListSort? Is allows to sort the results of linksearch e.g. according to the namespace. Depending on how it is set, the script does it automatically of after a click. --Leyo 21:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Leyo still hasn't answered the main questions; why do they think it's OK to threaten another editor with blocking for doing something that had consensus at previous discussions; and why did they revert 75 edits (claiming "censorship" - which they denied whilst the relevant diff, qouted by Guy above, is obvious) whilst the discussion on whether that was the correct thing to do was still ongoing? My inclination would be to mass-revert Leyo's edits until we can see an actual consensus on whether they're right to do so, or not. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  JzG removed all refs to two websites, Compendium of Pesticide Common Names and PAN Pesticides Database (without replacing them with other refs) that have been added by many different users as references for adding content to mainly chemistry-related articles over a period of at least seven years. He did this without seeking consensus beforehand, neither on WP:RSN not on any other page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. In the cases he was reverted by other users, he reverted them back. A discussion on WP:RSN#Compendium of Pesticide Common Names was started, with diverging views on the matter. For me it is a clear-cut case that during such a running discussion the removal of the refs under consideration may under any circumstances not be continued. It is a general principle that during a dispute no party may just proceed trying to create facts (see also WP:POINT).

  Unfortunately, Black kite hasn't read the text on JzG's talk page correctly (as explained above). As noted before, I should have used a different word than censorship. A mass revert as an admin action might only be an option to revert to the original state. This is especially true for the two links that are still under discussion. --Leyo 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I did indeed remove links to those two sites. One is a personal site with zero editorial oversight, the other is a political campaign and there's pretty clear consensus it should not be used.

What you did was to undo the wrapping of links to a completely different site, on talk pages, because in your personal view, having clearly not patrolled for this kind of problem, the wrapping is unnecessary.

When challenged, you have doubled down, asserting your own preferences as the sole valid view and dismissing the issues I have experienced with searches as invalid. Which is rude.

But the measure of a man is how he handles his mistakes. You made a mistake here. It will be interesting to see if you can admit it. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Leyo should know by now that they are WP:INVOLVED in the pesticide topic for violating the discretionary sanctions on 1RR and casting aspersions, especially being warned for doing that multiple times[10][11], so that they're threatening a block is even more problematic. This is really looking like attempts to continue disruptive behavior in the topic without getting it, but I'm not sure if here or AE is the better venue at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well … I think it's better if we try to avoid each other. --Leyo 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, you're hinting at the case at beekeeping where I was trying to work with a editor that wasn't working through talk page (outside the DS area at that) and kept reinserting edits without gaining consensus for them. Not going to work as WP:POT example, but it does outline the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior you're injecting into this topic. Please keep in mind this combative attempt to pursue editors is not very appropriate as others have outlined here with respect to your sniping problems at a minimum. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverted

• Comment Since Leyo has not answered the question as to why they threatened another editor with blocking for no reason, and have not explained why they performed a mass-revert during the discussion (against possible consensus), not to mention the fact that they are clearly WP:INVOLVED in the subject, I am about to revert all of their reverts of Guy's edits. And now a discussion can take place, at the point where we were in the first place. If the discussion decides that Leyo was right, then the edits can be reverted. But we shouldn't be starting from a point of a mass-revert with very thin reasons for doing so, especially from an admin. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  This is simply not true. And, reverting would only be applicable to the last stable versions, i.e. the versions before JzG edited them. --Leyo 23:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Nope. You don't get to do mass-reverts during a discussion, you don't get to threaten people with blocking for performing non-disruptive edits you disagree with, and especially you don't get to do those things when you are clearly involved with the subject concerned. The talk pages are your next (and only) venue for this issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Compendium_of_Pesticide_Common_Names started on 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC). E.g. Special:Diff/879848572, Special:Diff/879848531 or Special:Diff/879848518 were done after that. The same applies in the article namespace for Special:Diff/880027846 or Special:Diff/880027766. --Leyo 23:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Some of JzG's edits were made after the discussion began, but all of yours were. You're missing the point, though. No-one here is saying that JzG is correct, or you are correct. The point is that you have involvement in the subject, and you threatened to block another administrator for making edits you disagreed with - and then you reverted all of their edits. Some advice - I would stick with discussing this at the talk pages now, because you are on shaky ground. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I could have lived with your reverts if you had left out the ones JzG edited after the discussion has started. In retrospective, I probably should have reverted only those for the time being.

It was simply about the fact that he continued his removals in the article name space after the discussions started. Concerning WP:INVOLVED, I don't think I've ever added a ref to one of those website to an article myself. --Leyo 23:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Leyo, you seem to be unfamiliar with WP:INVOLVED and how that works for admins (or that an admin such as yourself is still expected to avoid some of the battleground behaviors you've been showing). You've already violated the discretionary sanctions in the pesticides topic, so you cannot behave as an admin in that area whatsoever. In that specific regard, even I would be less involved by degree if I were an admin even though I'm indisputably involved in the subject too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this whole thing really belongs on a Village Pump. The behavioral issues don't seem like they warrant any action. I have no strong opinion one way or the other as to the matter of delinking.. I guess I'm sympathetic to the idea, having wrestled with our various search mechanisms in the past, but that sort of thing doesn't need to be hashed out here. The behavioral issue just sounds like standard BRD fare, inflamed by a block threat. Guy made a bunch of edits. Leyo disagreed with them and reverted them. The burden in the discussion is typically on whomever made the change to find consensus. If the challenged edits kept going after being challenged, I would be unsurprised to see the reverts continue until consensus secured. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is more that Leyo threatened administrator action against me when he was involved, used edit summaries which were disparaging, and has generally refused to acknowledge that there might be any valid view other than his own. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Have you already been able to successfully test mw:User:PerfektesChaos/js/resultListSort, that enables sorting linksearch result, among others, according to the namespace? Just tell me if you need help. @Nil Einne, GoldenRing, and Andy Dingley: You might be interested in that script, too, according your statements above. --Leyo 12:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

How about: no. I have my own methods for sorting and working with links, this does not help at all with the simple and frequent task of quickly reviewing the list of links to a known unreliable source with a long history of inappropriate use. How about if instead of telling me how to do my volunteer work in a way you personally find acceptable, you choose instead to go about your business and not worry about it, because wrapping links in a nowiki tag when they are not in any way usable as sources is not a problem at all. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You may have your own methods as long as you are not hampering other users (incl. readers). This is not the case here. Nowadays many people are accessing internet with a mobile device. Copying/pasting the URL on a talk page may be quite a fiddly task and much less convenient than just clicking. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a one man show.

You seem not to even have tested the script. I am convinced that even you would prefer a filtering option for the linksearch results filtering according to the namespace would perfectly meet your demands. The additional ability of sorting the results according the URL may also be useful in some cases. --Leyo 21:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a neat script (thanks!), but it only sorts the current page, so it doesn't really work for multi-page result sets. Also, the insource:/regex/ searches do timeout a lot (see WP:INSOURCE), e.g. insource:/\[\[USA Baseball#/. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but clicking on e.g. "500" before would solve this issue for all websites concerned here.

Sure, some complex insource searches do timeout (I have experience with lots of maintenance tasks in various WMF projects), but not the simple cases discussed here. In your example, there seems to be an issue with the # character if not escaped (\#). Anyhow, the hash tag is never a part of a domain. --Leyo 23:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

In your obviously extensive experience of checking for links to a hundred or more websites that have been abused, how long does it take to open linksearch, click 500, and review, say, 250 links to identify new mainspace ones? I know the answer to this because I do this all the time. You keep telling me ways to patrol for these sites that you find personally preferable, but you're not the one doing the work and it's really not up to you do dictate, especially given that your responses flatly deny problems that I have personally experienced recently, suggesting that you are speaking in theoretical terms versus my practical ones. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there would be the possibility of increasing the Number of edits to show in recent changes, page histories, and in logs, by default: to e.g. 500. IMHO having the searchlink results sorted by (i) namespace and within them in (ii) alphabetical order is outweighing one additional click. --Leyo 22:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Paid or otherwise CoI editing by Bryanpower on Kellie Loder

Bryanpower (talk · contribs) started editing on Wikipedia with the edit, Updated photo and genres to reflect Kellie's age and image (2019-01-25T00:56:53), which I thought was an odd comment, but excused the "image" as reflecting the new photo. However, the removal of Christian music genres, which she's been nominated for awards in was concerning. I left the photo and restored the genres and welcomed Bryanpower then warned for potential CoI. Later, Removed unnecessary information about writing her first song which would be better placed in "Early Life". We wanted to make her wiki as coherent as possible. (2019-01-25T17:52:28) is full of problems. First, I'm concerned with the "we" part, and second the potential WP:OWN comment of it being "her" wiki (although I'm sure it could also be interpreted as "the wiki entry about her") but it's clear that this is either a manager or handler of some sort. Requesting at least a topic ban, making all edit requests though the article's talk page, if not an outright ban from the English project.

To address the argument that the subject has "long removed herself from the previous genres", is immaterial as articles on musicians are to reflect the subject's entire career. We do not remove content to make the artist more palatable to their current target audience: that's what press kits and the like are for. Adding new content is always acceptable, but removing old content because it no longer fits the artist's image is unacceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you started a discussion on the article talk page? That's usually the next step instead of seeking help at ANI. 2601:1C0:6D00:845:F040:DB16:1AD5:EDAB (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

KidAd, again

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

---

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

Previous thread.

I've just blocked them for violating their topic ban from post-1932 American politics by editing at Markos Kounalakis ([12]) and Jennifer Siebel Newsom ([13]).

I'm expecting that they're going to say that they got their block and ban confused. If they sincerely believed that, then why did they largely avoid politics after being unblocked, only slowly working into a few small edits no one would immediately notice, before building up to larger edits on the edges of the topic ban, before finally becoming rather involved in articles that are pretty clearly about politics?

Their previous failure to comprehend "do not edit any page relating to American politics" which lead to prior bans were flagrant enough to raise questions of either competency or good-faith. Slowly sneaking back in to the area of their topic ban after being blocked for violating it (during which time it was made beyond clear that they should not edit any pages relating to American politics) really makes it hard to assume good faith.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait, no, I see they're just straight up going to argue that political authors who are married to politicians somehow aren't covered under "do not edit any page relating to post-1932 American politics." If they're here in good faith, then competency is an issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Messing with the Ashley Feinberg page[14] is also a fairly blatant violation. Her tweets and columns rile up the MAGA crowd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

At this point, their utter refusal to understand that political journalists as well as family members of politicians and political consultants all fall under the broad heading of "politics" leaves me incapable of assuming both good faith and competence from them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Good block. Miniapolis 23:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty frustrated eight editors' time has been wasted on that AfD. The hope with TBANs is that they will prevent just exactly that kind of disruption while allowing an editor to keep contributing to other parts of the encyclopedia. But it only works if the editor can and will respect its boundaries. Failing that, a block is the way to prevent disruption. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankly after all the previous nonsense, I think they're lucky they only got 3 months. I can't be arsed looking into the details of the other case, but their inability to understand a role/title that arises exclusively from being the partner of (or very occasionally related to) a politician is clearly politics, indicates that they still lack the most basic comprehension of what their topic ban requires. (Or they do but just thought they'd escape unnoticed.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah and I see in this edit, the edit itself included a change from (emphasis added) [15] "wife (1980-) of influential political commentator and consultant Dick Morris" to "Married to political consultant and commentator Dick Morris". The actual edit seems decent if made by anyone else, but somehow despite a politics ban and being told amongst other things, "No edits on non-politics pages that in any way touch on post-1932 American politics", they somehow thought it was okay to make an edit where "political" was effectively part of the edit itself. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

BTW, KidAd if you read this. Don't think I'm saying you could edit any of those articles if you stayed away from issues like how to list their political spouse, or their title/role which solely arises from their relationship to a politician. My point isn't that it would have been acceptable otherwise, but rather even if you didn't realise editing those articles was clearly verboten, when you were actually making the edit you should have realised they were. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Requesting topic ban for User:Merphee regarding edits on The Australian

This shouldn't take too long. Merphee has been editing The Australian, an Australian newspaper, to portray its political orientation as "centrist", where the overwhelming consensus from Australian editors is that the political orientation of the publication is centre-right to right wing. Merphee has been brought here before regarding disruptive conduct in July and in August of last year. Examples include using a study that says its journalists are left leaning, cherrypicking sources, and listing only Labor and Greens party recipients of the newspaper's annual "award". For these examples and plenty more, and the constant getting nowhere of talk page discussions, Merphee is clearly not here to contribute positively. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Support topic ban.. Yes this guy is actually Casting aspersions, has a great mind of a perfect Battleground behavior.. On top of that he fails to achieve Consensus for his edits.. Moreover he blames others of not getting it correctly while using sources to imply original research.. Often lying with fellow editors even when diffs are provided.. Some diffs here as it goes "I didn't say it was centrist in the edits I made. In fact, the sources say it is centre-right. Never have said it was centrist. So on what grounds did you delete my two edits specifically. Aas I said why did you keep the 2007 quote but not include the bit about Paul Keating but only include the John Howard quote? You avoided that question as you and onetwothreeip both constantly do. Further evidence of tag teaming and tag team characteristics and block any changes and take ownership of the article. Can you please answer the content question? It's only you and onetwothreeip who are tag teaming to block any changes to this highly biased coatrack of an article." (emphasis added to bold it).. While admittedly not confessing to Being incorrect here.. See these diffs which exactly point out he fiddling with political views as "centrist": here he did just that, repeating that same stack similar to former.. Clear signs for clear disruption to this topic.. So yes support topic ban (even for 1932- politics, if possible).. This was just a behavioral evaluation from the start, NeilN blocking him for sockpuppetry and unblocking after insufficient (correct if it is wrong) evidence.. Enough.. 182.58.164.142 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. And this last comment is from an anonymous IP address is very suspicious. Is this onetwothreeip or Pinkbeast? Anyway, I have said all along it is centre-right and can show that. You and Pinkbeast have constantly blocked any new edits to this highly biased skewed coatrack article. In my opinion this is tag teaming. We cannot have Australia's largest newspaper painted as some extremist, radical publication, when it is certainly not. And most importantly the sources do not support your attempts to make this article into an anti-Murdoch, anti- coalition article. Disgusting. You and Pinkbeast have also constantly refused to engage in any discussion over content or proposed edits and deleted any attempts I've made to bring some NPOV to this article instead choosing to cherry pick quotes. You have both displayed every possible Wikipedia:Tag team Tag team characteristic and I can prove it. You onetwothreeip, have also been engaging in exactly the same bullying and forceful manner edit warring in other articles to get your way, under the most recent heading on your User talk:Onetwothreeip which I noticed when I was considering leaving you a message recently. You have been edit warring at 2017 in American television and as Fradio71 pointed out it clearly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. I propose an edit ban on your editing as you are not here to get along and build consensus but only skew political articles for the benefit of political parties in Australian politics before a federal election. Your blatant tag teaming with Pinkbeast shows that you are clearly not able to work with other editors if they disagree with you which Pinkbeast does with an exact duplicated attitude toward this article and a deep hatred for any conservative political party and Murdoch. Also you have openly lied about me in your comments above. For instance, The Greens, Labor politicians of the Australian of the Year award had been in the article for 8 years! I didn't put it in there. What a lie! Absolute arrogance and ignoring of Wikipedia policy showing 'ownership behaviour' of the article and bullying tactics including this notification on this Admin page now. Merphee (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks for that reference of this article 2017 in American television.. As you can see clearly in this diff: "Undid revision 879709234 by Fradio71 (talk) One editor supported splitting something, two others supported splitting this section in specific. There is a general consensus to split".. So that is a completely different half-cookie story provided by you.. Given a clear consensus @TheDoctorWho: just implemented it per WP:CONSENSUS it was actually @Fradio71: who performed an act of incorrect use of consensus harming it and the vital yet fundamental process of achieving consensus for it.. Now back to that topic, where does that editor(s) show a trait of "tag teaming"? Please explain and detail your diffs, correctly.. thanks 182.58.230.91 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

IP address, who are you? Why not just say your username? You are an experienced editor. Could you just say your username, no reason why you couldn't just say I am user xyz? Why are you hiding behind different IP addresses here? Merphee (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I evaluated your disruptive editing and behavioral conduct, and yes last edits are not suspicious at all.. I was referring to the block log of yours.. And connecting me to both of the editors because I showed your disruptive editing is not at all civil grab some editing habits from my range and see how it widely differs from this topics.. Thanks 2401:4900:1724:65B9:1:1:1B60:8AD (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not use your username? Why now use a second different IP address, given you admitted you are the person above? You obviously know a lot about wikipedia and are using different devices to login and add comments. Merphee (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Slow Internet connection for now, so continue your discussion 2401:4900:1724:65B9:1:1:1B60:8AD (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not just state your username IP address? You obviously are an experience WIki editor? What is wrong with just putting your username to your edits? Merphee (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I must suggest you to be more civil and stop being disruptive as stated above my connection was slow and the router restarted: Slow Internet connection for now, so continue your discussion.. Before making such accusations I strongly suggest you to evaluate my edits and connect the dots, do not forget to open an SPI if you are that suspicious, case closed.. Back to your disruptive editing and be on topic.. 182.58.230.91 (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Merphee: any diffs to support your said wordings about "tag teaming"? 182.58.230.91 (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment I have also found User:Merphee to be problematic. His tone is consistently combative and accusatory to anyone who disagrees with his point of view. But my comment refers to his assertion above of Anyway, I have said all along it is centre-right and can show that, this is not true [16] , [17] and [18], demonstrate Merphee has consistently claimed The Australian to be centrist (and maybe right of centre). Any editor makes changes to claim the it is centre-right is accused of painting the paper as right wing extremist or as hating Rupert Murdoch. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh gosh. Hughesdarren, you and Pinkbeast and onetwothreeip have all had identical points of view and have worked in unison to actively block my attempts to introduce any properly sourced edits into this biased mess of an article. I firmly stand by my accusation of team tagging.Your consistent combative behaviour could easily have ended here as i was going to report but realised I also was being uncivil at times, as each of these editors were toward me, so I was just as bad. I am not being allowed to edit this highly biased, entirely skewed, coatrack article. There is an ownership user conduct going on here. I have been trying to bring some NPOV to the article. and as soon as I edit one of the tag team reverts with no proper cause. Classic Wikipedia:Tag team Tag team characteristics. And yes, there are sources that talk of a more centrist approach! Crikey stated that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". This is what a centrist approach is, is it not! And then others have said more right leaning. But we cannot leave out what sources like Crikey say. That is giving undue weight to sources that say the opposite. We need a NPOV throughout the article and give due weight to all major sources. Crikey.com are a reputable, quality source as the three of you know. I was going to bring this to ANI for tag teaming and bullying. I cannot introduce any new sources or NPOV. This article has been hijacked. It is disgustingly biased and highly skewed trying to paint Australia's largest newspaper as some radicalised, agenda driven, extremist publication when it is read mums and dads of Australia. There is some very worrying use of Wikipedia here. But I fail to see what I have actually done here. My opinion all along is that The Australian is centre-right. But yes, yes, yes some sources like the Crikey source above, say it is more moderate. And you 3 and one other member of the tag team will not allow me to add anything to this biased skewed POV driven article. Disgusting. What exactly am I here for? Merphee (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

References

I think Merphee's conduct here proves further what I said in my opening. When more than one person disagrees with them, they see some sort of conspiracy in it. They've been warned multiple times, including here at WP:ANI. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

But it has just been you, Pinkbeast and Hughesdarren, the members of the Tag Team. And I stand by my accusation of 'article ownership' and tag teaming. It is well grounded. This policy explains it to a tee. Wikipedia:Tag team. The Tag team characteristics are all met. And the  Goals of tag teams are all consistent. Classic tag teaming in my opinion after reading the policy and highly disruptive and damaging to Wikipedia. Particularly on topics like Australia's largest newspaper. Trying to harass me further by bringing a case here for me simply trying to bring some NPOV to this highly biased and horribly skewed article and when you have been so uncivil toward me is also consistent with tag teaming. However I have also been uncivil toward you. Merphee (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, given his recent comment, it further proves the inability to reach a consensus when more than one editors disagree.. Moving on to point (User:Merphee's) inclination over this, he is also using original research he interpreted those words provided by the source [19] and used those sentences, to refactor and analyse a newer piece of statement not provided by the source itself; because of which a secondary source should also be given to establish it (those statements, in particular), if possible a explicit stating of a Tertiary source, as well.. Not only that is a real problem, he has a combative attitude, and approaching others with inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is a common thing.. One recent example would be this diff were he wrongly and woefully accuses without any evidence or proofs.. This is disgustingly incorrect by your side, hence I stand my support on this topic ban of Merphee.. 182.58.230.91 (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I should have also pointed out there have been similar issues with Merphee at Talk:Emma Husar, Talk:David Leyonhjelm and Talk:George Christensen (politician) and on their articles, all about Australian politicians. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC):

Why won't you just give your Username, IP address? You have obviously got a bias against me based on me having a different opinion than you. You are obviously an experienced Wiki editor. Why are you using your IP and not your username? Can't you just say I am username xyz. It would really help here. The only other editor I've had problems with was HiLo48, your friend onetwothreeip. But HiLo48 hasn't been around for a while.Merphee (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

See the way you approach others and accuse certain users of which no evidence is substantially given.. That is a completely false accusatory statement neither supported by diffs nor by strong contribution leaks, overlaps and/or/also assuming this: "IP address, who are you? Why not just say your username? You are an experienced editor. Could you just say your username, no reason why you couldn't just say I am user xyz? Why are you hiding behind different IP addresses here?" presuming a falsehood drenched under particular biases, and repeating the same claims: "Why won't you just give your Username, IP address? You have obviously got a bias against me based on me having a different opinion than you. You are obviously an experienced Wiki editor. Why are you using your IP and not your username? Can't you just say I am username xyz. It would really help here. The only other editor I've had problems with was HiLo48, your friend onetwothreeip. But HiLo48 hasn't been around for a while." A big sigh.. You have shown some serious breach of conduct, behaviourally plausible unsupported forth-set accusations which are accustomed to "?" That is "question marks", I see why the topic ban will help prevent further disruption to this project.. just drop the stick or stop this misconduct, if you suspect anything just file a SPI and do not assume unless evidence is presented, if no, then I am afraid this will only lengthen that topic ban of yours for extended periods which is well attributed to your egregious behavior; this unsettling inclination towards IP editors is not acceptable at all.. It may lead to a block due to personal attacks you have being making against me (that too, repeatedly).. 182.58.243.185 (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting how you talk about a sockpuppet investigation as I never mentioned that. I'm just wondering why you don't use your username and are hiding behind an IP address that has changed from 2 different parts of the world in the last couple of hours? The only editors I've had issues with are this tag team at The Australian and another editor Hilo48 who worked alongside onetwothreeip. Not sure if you know him IP address? Haven't seen him around for a while. Obviously you and I have had some differing viewpoints in the past though judging by your comments and hiding behind your IP address. Why won't you give your username IP address? That's all I'm asking for. Just your username? Merphee (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND at its purest, WP:POINT at its best, no one can change you, keep questioning like this and you may be charged for incivility.. As credited earlier my connection was slow, router restarted, hence connected to my neighboring router for connection.. Any diffs to support, present it, if no diffs are there, stop it.. I evaluated your behavior and conduct issues not personal views/opinions, address them below.. Topic ban is now a necessity to prevent further disruption.. Do not make further accusations, User:Merphee or else I have enough diffs to prove your issues with civility.. Also, stay to the topic, you are incredibly obsessed with this, eligible for another ANI, IMO.. 182.58.243.185 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as being uncivil. Wow, it has been awful. All 3 members of the tag team have been just as uncivil as I have. Disgraceful really. I was no better though. I also was uncivil. However I stand by my accusation of tag teaming here. Tag team characteristics to a tee. Goals of tag teams very evident. Classic teaming. This has resulted in a extremely biased, skewed coatrack of an article and no other editor able to bring some NPOV into it. Merphee (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So part of why you are her is because of your behavior while editing. As a totally univolved editor who has no read a single diff, I gotta say you are really helping make the case against you by how you act. (and if you accuse me of being part of a tag team can it be the Beverly Brothers?) MPJ-DK (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not just any tag team match, a 1AM Survivor Series. ^Leviv_ich? ! 02:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment This edit here, [20]then here for the full edit [21]to see how its been sandwiched in with added editorialising to puff it up and "rebut" something else- is symptomatic of most of their edits. Merphee then editwarred with two other editors to keep it in, (while telling them not to edit war). Of course "results from that study did not support the assumption in any way that The Australian was conservative in its political views"...because the study was not about the political views of The Australian. (it was a study on the personal political views of Australian journalists in general; all News limited journo stats were given as a single whole, nothing said about if this translated into the actual newspapers either) This was explained repeatedly on the talkpage, but they showed no signs of understanding, rather resorting to accusations of NPOV and tag teaming.

Merphee is exhausting to deal with. The construction of strawmen, with added hyperbole (noone has removed the crikey source, although there has been discussion ad nauseam as to its interpretation, noone is attempting to paint The Australian as an extremist newspaper, now this conspiracy theory)a Gish gallop of complaints regarding NPOV, with few or no sources to back up them up or constructive suggestions on how to resolve them, and repetitive bludgeoning are all visible on this page. Not to mention the seeming inability to stay on point. I'm not sure if they understand that NPOV means giving weight to the preponderance of sources, or regard it as meaning that for every statement, you need a rebuttal. They do not seem to understand or analyse critical analysis, seeming to equate it with criticism. Curdle (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Curdle, you are the final tag team member I was talking about. Had wondered why you hadn't commented earlier. My sources were good. My edits were sound. It's just that the four of you are a tag team in its classic form. There are no more tag team members. It was these four editors. The article is extremely biased and skewed in its current form. It is a coatrack article painting Australia's largest newspaper as some right winged, radical extremist publication. The four of you blocked any reasonable changes I tried to make in an attempt to bring some NPOV to the article. If there wasn't genuine tag teams on Wikipedia why would Wikipedia have a Wikipedia:Tag team policy. My last attempted edit is a perfect example. [22] This ganging up here to cover each member of the tag team is classic tag team behaviour as far as I can see in the policy. Tag teams are highly destructive. They leave extremely skewed biased articles full of POV, just as the policy outlines. Merphee (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What I also found telling was how each of you spoke about The Australian and newscorp with such personal hatred almost vengeance as if you were on some mission or crusade to make this an anti-Murdoch article. What's with that? I didn't say the Croikey.com source was deleted Curdle. That's a straight up lie and you know it. I said the sentence about Paul Keating and the fact that Crikey gave a more centrist opinion of the Australian was omitted. I added the full quote. But onetwothreeip and Pinkbeast deleted the full quote and left only the bit about John Howard. That's not due weight Curdle. What and the other two editors didn't also edit war as you have also done, Curdle? The full NPOV quote was Crikey stating that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". By including the full quote you are giving readers a neutral point of view. What the 4 of you did though was delete the sentence about Paul Keating who is an Australian Labor Party Prime Minister and only included the sentence about John Howard (the coalition PM). So the section read, "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". When I tried to include the full quote, I was blocked by the four of you. This has been one of many examples of the constant tag teaming behaviour at this article. I can give many examples whereby I have worked well with other editors on other articles and on Australian forums. It is just that this article there is no doubt about it a dedicated tag team who worked against anyone opposing the attempt to paint the Australian as a right wing agenda pushing newspaper. that is just not what the reliable sources say and we need to give due weight to what all of the major sources tell us. Merphee (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What I also found telling was how each of you spoke about The Australian and newscorp with such personal hatred almost vengeance as if you were on some mission or crusade to make this an anti-Murdoch article.

I have done no such thing; please produce diffs, or retract this statement. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

References

I agree strongly that Merphee's editing is, and has always been, problematic. I had not interacted with them when I first mentioned them on AN/I, so I didn't have any reason to be biased against them when I did so; but since then, they have consistently confirmed my initial impression (except inasmuch as they've switched from writing "fuck off" several dozen times to a constant stream of hypocritical platitudes about Wikipedia policies).

They are completely incapable of dropping any stick and every talk page discussion with them is a matter of being IDHTed to death. The spiel above is one we've had several times now at the article's talk page; and, like the last several times, it completely fails to take into account - even to acknowledge - any response made. Confusing an assertion that a Murdoch paper's a bit right-wing (no, really?) with one that it's far-right extremism; not addressing the idea that what a 2007 source says about the situation in 1995 isn't a great guide to what a newspaper's like today; simply ignoring the point that a survey of the paper's journalists doesn't tell you about its editorial policy.

They're not above making statements that are simply untrue; you won't see any diffs in response to my question above, because they don't exist. Another "classic Merphee" is this diff, where they say "I didn't say it was centrist in the edits I made. In fact, the sources say it is centre-right. Never have said it was centrist"... which, this diff aside, was in a talk page section whose title, written by Merphee, makes that assertion!

It's instructive to take a look at User_talk:Merphee#July_2018 and subsequent items there; even when Merphee's right (accepting for the sake of argument, as NeilN does, that their ignorance is not feigned) they have to produce an incredible diatribe, detailing how something a reasonable person might describe as a simple mistake is the worst abuse of power by any Wikipedia administrator ever, justifying an appeal to Jimbo, ArbCom, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees - frankly, I'm surprised we didn't get up to the Governor-General and the Pope. Such an editor is not well equipped to carry out a sensible discussion when they're wrong - and whatever one thinks about the current content dispute, every editor is going to be wrong sometimes.

There's no tag team here, no conspiracy; all that's going on is that the other editors involved happen to agree about something. We keep on agreeing with each other because every iteration of this involves Merphee digging up a source that doesn't really justify what they want to write (leaving aside any idea of trying to respect the preponderance of sources, and the general way that deciding what you'd like and going fishing for sources is problematic), and slamming it into the article anyway. The problem here is tendentious editing by Merphee, who is utterly determined to get what they want into the article no matter how many editors disagree with it. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The most recent example of a Wikipedia:Tag team operating at The Australian article is this Pinkbeast. And I don't make that accusation lightly. Remember this is australia's largest newspaper we are talking about. I tried to include the full NPOV quote from Crikey stating that "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture”. During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". By including the full quote you are giving readers a neutral point of view. As usual, what you then did was immediately delete the sentence about Paul Keating who is an Australian Labor Party Prime Minister and only included the sentence about John Howard (the coalition PM) which supported your point of view.

So the biased and totally skewed section then read, "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours". During the Howard years it has provided both turf and fuel for the culture warriors of the Right". You actually omitted the critical balancing sentence which gave meaning to Crikey's sentence "it has been in sympathy with the agenda of federal governments of both colours" By you choosing to delete the sentence in the middle "Under editor Paul Kelly it helped define Paul Keating’s “big picture” you completely skewed the point the source was ,making. This was the critical sentence in the middle, illustrating a fair and balanced approach to The Australian's reporting.

When I tried to include the full quote, I was as per usual blocked by you and prevented from being a NPOV to that section. Saying "there is zero support for your addition" I then asked you to explain why you deleting that middle sentence and skewed the meaning of the quote and you refused to talk about content. This is a tag teaming characteristic. You saying you are not tag teaming does not negate the facts. I believe your goal at the article and by deleting that sentence has been "Pushing a certain point of view in disregard of the neutral point of view policy either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint". There are so many other examples and the article in its current form gives far too much weight to The Australian newspaper being a right wing publication when the reliable sources do not support this. Merphee (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)  

How long does this section have to be open until we know whether a topic ban will be put in place or not? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, would you please explain why you also deleted that sentence giving a skewed and biased perspective to the Crikey source? You have constantly refused to engage in any constructive dialogue with me over content at the article talk page and instead only demeaned and intimidated me. Merphee (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Merphee has now reinserted the disputed edits without consensus,[23] shortly after leaving this not exactly collaborative message on the talkpage. Curdle (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually Curdle, no I didn't reinsert any disputed edit. I simply made 'an edit'. One single well based, well sourced 'edit'. Independent editor Kerry Raymond over at The Australian has not reverted it. If any other editor at Wikipedia has a good reason to revert it after reading the reasons I've detailed on the Talk:The Australian Something the 4 of you have not allowed me to do at the article. I do not make the accusation of a Wikipedia talk:Tag team lightly. Anyway I've moved on. If you have any problem with the simple well based edit I pinged you and the 3 other editors for your permission, please make your reasons known on the talk page and I will listen in a civil manner. But once again the 4 of you refuse to discuss in a civil and reasonable manner any content issues or edits. And sadly if it wasn't listed here or independent editor Kerry Raymond was now watching the page, one of you would have 'swooshed' in and reverted it within a millisecond without any reason and in typical tag team fashion. Wish it wasn't so. However Wikipedia has a Tag Team policy for a reason. Merphee (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

JohnThorne, fresh off TBAN, right back at the same sourcing problems

User:JohnThorne was TBANned indefinitely, with chance of appeal after a year from Bible-related topics due to years of unceasing and repeated failure to take advice from a large number of editors, as he created and edited hundreds of articles by copy-pasting a combination of poorly sourced, unsourced, plagiarized material, and copyright violations into them. The whole sordid affair is recorded in immense detail here. The messes have still not been cleaned up, though I and some others have done a great deal of work cleaning them up. He recently successfully appealed after convincing myself and some others that he now understood his mistakes [24].

On January 16, another user reminded him that when he cited offline sources, he needs to add page numbers where available [25]. This was smack-dab in the middle of his appeal (January 10 through 21), which probably should have been a red flag.

On January 21, he was cleared to re-enter the biblical realm and immediately began familiar bad patterns, introducing new poorly sourced content despite his stated intention during his appeal that initially he would stick to fixing his old errors.

On Jan 22 he added some quotes to Jeremiah 36, but cited the entire journal article in which they appeared, making it impossible to find the quotes reasonably quickly. I made him aware of the problem on January 23, and he added page numbers. See the talk page for more.

On January 25, he added highly specific material to Jeremiah 25, but cited it to an entire book.On January 26, I made him aware of the missing page numbers, at which point he added page numbers [26]. The page numbers he added in that edit, however, did not support the material that he had added.

Also Jan 25, he added practically the same material, copy-pasted, to Jeremiah 26, with the same Wurthwein source cited without page numbers. Upon being alerted to the problem, he added page numbers [27], but these were inaccurate in that they didn't support the information he had added to the article.

On Jan 25, he also did a similar page edit to Jeremiah 36. Upon being alerted to the problem, he added page numbers [28]. Some of the claims made were supported by the page numbers he added; some were not; and some were partially supported. Although all the actually correct information cited to the source could be found on pages 36-37, he cited pages 36-43, requiring extra reading to clean up the mess, which, as demonstrated in the last TBAN discussion, is typical of his M.O.

It is worth noticing that with all three of the January 25 pages he did this on, the material he cited to Worthwein was about Hebrew Bibles in general, not about the chapters specifically that he was talking about. So on top of the sourcing issues, it was all somewhat off-topic trivia being added.

So, at 3:07 Jan 26, I left a warning on his talk page [29]. He replied at 3:28, indicating that he had gotten the message, in his usual cheerful tone, with the usual promises to improve [30].

After his acknowledgment of the sourcing problems at 3:28, it took him less than twenty minutes to start adding new material again that is partially unsourced and partially misrepresents its sources. On the Jeremiah 26 page, at 3:45, he added that a manuscript named "4QJer^c has verse 10 "extant". But this isn't accurate. This manuscript, as can be verified by just looking at the source he cited, contains just two words in Hebrew (yehuda et), and according to the source it is uncertain whether these represent Jeremiah 26:10 or not. He took something that is acknowledged as guessword in the cited source and made it a Wikipedia fact. In the same edit, he told us that Hebrew manuscript "4QJer^c is also known as "4Q72". For all I know, this may be true, but JohnThorne didn't let us in on where he got this bit of information -- it's not found on the page cited.

Two minutes after fouling up his latest edit on Jeremiah 26, he edited the talk page of Jeremiah 26 at 3:47 to thank me for helping him and say that he had now "double-checked" to make sure "the latest edits have the correct attribution". But they didn't.

The user is consistently polite, consistently promising to do better, and after years of repeated warnings and an indefinite TBAN, is continuing the old pattern of rapidly propagating sourcing errors across multiple Bible-related pages, cheerfully acknowledging his mistakes when they are discovered, and then making more minutes later.

He consistently does not provide Google links to books — not that you're required too, of course, but hunting down all the relevant references takes time, and if he's going to keep editing Bible-related topics without doing large amounts of damage, we'd probably need a full-time editor to clean up after him. I don't think anyone is going to volunteer for that position. Alephb (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate here to ping all users involved in the discussion that reinstated JohnThorne less than a week ago: User:Beyond My Ken, User:JzG, User:DGG, User:Doug Weller, User:Cullen328, User:Wallingfordtoday, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, User:Alex Shih. This is because past knowledge of the situation is useful here. To avoid any appearance of "stacking the deck", please note that each of these users either supported bringing JohnThorne back or did not object. If anyone thinks it would be appropriate and useful, I'd be happy to systematically ping all the people involved in the original TBAN discussion, without making any discrimination based on viewpoint.Alephb (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

To avoid problems with a potential violation of WP:Canvassing, you should ping all participants. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I did ping all participants in the most recent TBAN discussion. I just wanted to note that it was not at all a collection of hostile people. If there's anyone else I should ping, I am completely willing to do so. Alephb (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

And had anyone been opposed to his reinstatement in the most recent discussion, I would have pinged them too. I hope I didn't give the impression that I had only selected part of the people from that discussion.Alephb (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I consider the above errors as very minor. There remain some much more important problems. (I need to first say I am not an expert here, but an amateur, and though I have been following some of the current literature on the OT, I am mainly interest in the books of Ezra & Nehemiah.) There are several subjects to discuss in any article on a verse of chapter of the Bible: the history of textual criticism, and its current state; the history of interpretations over the last 2000+ years, and the main current issues. . The goal should be to give the general reader an overall basis from which they can evaluate any discussion of the Bible they should see, and the perspective to know that there is not a single consensus interpretation. (The actual textual details are too complicated for a general treatment here, and the complete history of interpretation an order of magnitude more. The problem is how to present these without oversimplification. The first step is to realize that, except for the history of interpretation, nothing before the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts is of contemporary value. The next step is to recognize that most of the original transcripts and studies of Qmran texts have been by Roman Catholic scholars, that the Masoretic text does not go back before the 7th to 10th century CE (see the WP article for a good discussion) , and that schools of interpretation vary drastically.. I may not have ben explicit enough in my earlier comment: the reason these verses are important in a practical sense, not just an academic or scholarly sense, is because the prophecies in them have for two millennia served Christians as the key proof that the Hebrew prophets foretold the coming of Jesus, and thus prove the truth of Christianity. Since most Christians believe in the truth of Christianity without needing to reexamine the details, and most Jews or Moslems see no reason for examine the interpretations of other religions, the largest group that see these texts as a living issue is the [[Messianic Jews|Messianic Christians/Messianic Jews.

As for the immediate issue before us here at WP,, let the ed. under discussion continue his work, and let those who (in my opinion rightly) think it is inadequate, add to it. If he reverts other peoples contributions, I'd say only then would he be considered disruptive DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

My biggest problem with biblical articles on WP is the tendency to state that X is a philosophical position of the Bible, sourced directly to a Bible passage. That is canonical WP:OR. And it is absolutely rampant. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

JohnThorne is the editor who has created so many, many articles on single bible-verses, is he not? My problem with that is that the project is so pointless. The division of the bible into chapters and verses occurred some time in the Middle ages - he's taking arbitrary bits of text and constructing articles around them. It's harmless, but not a very good use of the project.PiCo (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

PiCo is right. As I pointed out (along with Alephb if I remember correctly), Wikipedia simply shouldn't have these hundreds of pages on biblical chapters and verses that exist. They're impossible to regulate for bad editing, and history shows that bad sources have consistently gotten into them for years without anybody noticing. I've probably fixed literally hundreds if not thousands of mistakes/problems with them and the problems are still rampant. If JohnThorne continues this problem, then re-banning him needs to be considered. However, I would like to see one situation play out -- all his problematic edits have consistently been on the same biblical chapter pages he created and a number of us other editors want to see deleted. Why don't we just delete all of them and then see what JohnThorne does elsewhere on other pages? I looked at his editing on non-biblical related topics a few days before his ban was taken off and they're actually pretty good. It might be this specific area where he really just doesn't know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallingfordtoday (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)‎

Just speaking as a reader on the question of whether there should be articles on chapters/verses, I'd argue that articles for chapters/verses are quite a reasonable way to organize the vast amounts of encyclopedic Biblical commentary that's out there. While it's perhaps arbitrary, it avoids the need to have everything in the main book pages. WP doesn't have the space constraints of paper, so there's the potential there to have very comprehensive coverage of the Bible (or other texts with massive amounts of commentary e.g. Quran, Daode Jing, etc). But yeah, since there is so much written out there covered in secondary sources (think historical context, interpretations, history of the way the text was understood, history of the transmission of the text, etc) I think there's a decent potential to consider at least some articles on smaller sections of the text. Admittedly as an inclusionist and a Christian, I may be rather biased though :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 19:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment When I was in high school, we were taught to cite down to column, paragraph, line. Citing page numbers is quite basic and essential, and not nearly as difficult.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment User:DGG says above "let the ed. under discussion continue his work, and let those who (in my opinion rightly) think it is inadequate, add to it". It seems to me the problem is that User:JohnThorne is creating massive amounts of work for other editors to do in tracking his edits and cleaning up after him, not really just "adding" to his "inadequate" work. I don't think we can count on Alephb to continue to possess the patience and the time to repair John Thorne's "inadequate" work indefinitely, or Wallingfordtoday who has also been pitching in. I also question the value of having all these articles on individual Bible chapters, perhaps only chapters that are extremely important in some way should be kept and the rest deleted.Smeat75 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've been waiting for him to respond here. He hasn't so far. I'm with Smeat75's post just above. So far it looks as though we made a mistake. Doug Weller talk 19:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Response Just back from a short break, I was taken by surprise that User:alephb had posted this ANI, while it seemed to me that we started to collaborate well. I can understand the frustration due to the articles on the Bible chapters that I started. It grieves me immensely, because originally I had hoped the articles would allow the brightest minds among the Wikipedia editors to work together, discussing the values and gems within each part of the books, following the spirit of editing in Wikipedia. Instead, it causes a lot of pain for some editors. I also don't want that the articles become wasted without proper editing for so long. Hence, I dared myself to apply for the appeal for TBAN, in order to amend the mistakes I made. As the first post has shown, I have tried to quickly revise my edit as soon as errors were found. That it results more issues, I am sorry. Here is what I can propose from my part to solve:
  • From now on, I will place the edits I plan to do on the Bible chapters in my sandbox, open for all to review, and ask the consensus from the community, before placing them in the articles.
  • For the Bible chapters that I started, I will place a {stub} tag, so the articles can be identified to be considered for deletion or improvement by other users. I am open for any suggestions how to deal with this.

Again, it is not my intention to take away valuable time from other users for this issue. I am contributing for the Wikipedia voluntarily with happy heart and open mind, by spending my own time. My goal is really to make Wikipedia a better source for information, not myself, but by working together with other Wikipedia editors. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Brianis19 (Copyright violations)

Brianis19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Copying within Wikipedia issues. In 1 March 2014, he has blocked by MER-C for Copyright violations. On January 2015, he was Unblocked by PhilKnight per Brianis19's unblock request. He said, I've read the copyright policy many times since the block and I think I'm no longer a threat and I have never hacked any website either. On 17 March 2016, he was splitting The Odd Couple (2015 TV series) without giving proper attribution, which was figure out by AussieLegend. On 25 September 2018, copying content from other Wikipedia articles, NCIS: New Orleans (season 5). Bennv3771 noted, You have been informed at least three times before to read and follow WP:CWW. Please be aware that copying within Wikipedia without giving proper attribution is a copyright violation. You said in your previous unblock request that you've "read the copyright policy many times" yet this is the fourth time since your unblocked that an editor is telling you to read and follow WP:CWW. And now, he created List of Man with a Plan episodes, copying within Wikipedia without giving proper attribution. Regard, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 11:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Brianis19 is a generally productive editor but I have had to revert him on several occasions through the years for making fairly basic errors that he tends to repeat. I'd have to go back through my edits to check the specifics, but as I remember, it was not one consistent problem. This is one editor whose edits I tend to review more thoroughly. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not seeing the ANI notice on his talk, I have notified him.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Polyresin - Is there a rule against being insulting in the change reason messages?

I tried to improve an article that was written quite badly with no chemical or legal definition of what substance it's actually talking about - Polyresin and user:Smokefoot comes and leaves a message saying "child-like writing" which seems pretty rude even if mostly insulting the previous writers (I'd like to try believe that anyway), but myself as well.

Then just wipes the whole intro instead of adding anything of use[31]

What seems particularly bad is just the idea that it's ok to just delete whole paragraphs without bothering to even try save any of the important points at all, e.g. the fact that while it's listed separately from items made of 'plastic' usually, the same term also gets used by regulatory documents and people selling it (retailers/manufacturers) to mean Polyvinyl chloride at times (with the citation links for that deleted too), it's a confused article because it's basically a meaningless marketing word being used to apply to so many different substances, some of which are genuinely harmful.

I had considered asking for it to be merged but went against that because of the way this term is commonly used all over towards the public in a misleading way, and given how some of this stuff can actually cause cancer, dumping the term polyresin behind a wall of text that no one can find the article easily (as I did since it came up on search) seems to help the objective of the companies that are using it to go out of their way of naming the sometimes harmful chemicals being used in their materials.

...While writing this they literally just wiped the whole article and did a redirect. Deleted EVERYTHING and deleted all the sources I spent several hours looking over. Thanks Wikipedia I remember why I stopped bothering to even try against the people who just delete everything without making any effort to save stuff now. Probably won't edit again for a while. --Archive everything do it now (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It was indeed so poorly written that it was sort of an embarrassment for Wikipedia. I could find no definition of a polyresin but guessed that it must be jargon for synthetic resin, which is an article in reasonably good shape. The references were either primary or to commercial sites. The redirect sends readers to something with WP:TERTIARY sources and explains the situation. It contains information on safety written by someone with technical expertise. Wiki-chemistry typically has high standards and some editors, me, can be bold. I apologize if this incident was insulting or disruptive. If you can find some good even WP:SECONDARY pass them on. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Archive everything do it now, As Smokefoot says, there's defintely scope for merging some of what you contributed into Synthetic resin, and that should take minutes rather than hours. Regarding the edit summary, it's definitely allowed to comment on content. WP:CIVIL is our civility policy, and it says to comment on content, not fellow editors. Since what was removed was by no means exclusively your contribution, don't take it personally. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking as an admin, I don't see anything in the edit summaries that concerns me. Speaking as an editor, I can easily see why it was converted to a redirect, and had I run across it, I likely would have done the same. Nothing for admins to do here, as this isn't a behavior issue, but instead, a content issue, which is not something admin decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking as an otter, then yes Archive , there are two rules against the insulting "change reason message" ('edit summaries' as we like to call them.) . These rules are WP:Civil and especially WP:BITE. @ user:Smokefoot - please don't bite the newbies!

@ Archive speaking as an editor with a science degree, there was nothing child like about your writing, and neither was the article crappy. As the article had been in place for 12 years, there was no need for Smokefoot to redirect only a few minutes after you'd took the time to make your contributions. Considering you're a newbie, your improvements were of exceptional quality. You look like you have the aptitude to become an excellent editor here. So I hope you don't let this discourage you. All that said, editing Wikipedia does take a while to learn even for gifted academics. This is especially the case with science articles. If you had edited another topic class, you would have had a much better chance of having your contributions accepted. I hope perhaps you might try making smaller edits to start with, as that is an easier way to learn.

On the other hand, your edits did have a few less than perfect qualities - for example the opening sentence you added to the lede was a little long. There was a policy based case for the redirect. And despite Smokefoot's rule violations, a review of their contributions shows them to be a very good editor overall. As they don't seem to make a habit of making uncivil edit summaries or biting newbies, admin Dennis is correct that Smokefoot does not deserve even the mildest sanction. Again, I hope you forgive us and return to editing some time in the future.FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Rejs12345

Rejs12345 (talk · contribs) has been making questionable edits over the past year. For example, he insists that the Fiat Freemont should have its own article, despite the fact that it is merely a rebadge of the Dodge Journey (see: Revision history). Since October 24, 2018, he has been instigating an edit war by turning the redirect into a carbon copy of the Dodge Journey article. Though he was not warned about this particular article, his talk page shows numerous warnings about edit warring on other articles and creating non-notable articles. I suggest Rejs should be given a time out while the Freemont redirect is to be protected from any further edits. - Areaseven (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Note: User talk:Rejs12345 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) was redirected to User talk:REJS H (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs), so Rejs12345 may not have been seeing may of the messages there. I've moved the ones intended for the former but placed on the latter. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Unregistered editor clearly not here

In this edit, an unregistered editor is impersonating another editor to game a discussion. This editor is clearly not here to productively contribute to this encyclopedia. Can someone please block him or her so we can get on with editing articles instead of wasting time in bad-faith discussions? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I feel as if I deserve the right to defend myself. I "impersonated" the other author to prove the point of the discussion so I believe this would fall under a kind of "fair use". It wasn't a real impersonation, which seems obvious, and there was no intention to "game" anything but I do accept the reprimand given.

We were discussing "reverse plagiarism" and it was intended to hopefully provide ElKevbo with a little push to consider the issue from a different perspective so I "Reverse plagiarised" him. In all honesty, I find his actions to be in "bad-faith" in attacking and removing edits that are at the very least worthy of discussion if not justified. I provided ample justification and sources, but the conversation divulged into a debate on whether or not the term "reverse" is able to be applied to a word, and apparently whether we are allowed to even use the english language without a source for basic definitions. I will add that there were ad hominen attacks on me as if I am here to "waste people's time". 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Just saw the whole "NOTHERE" to be productive - I find that highly offensive. Just because there are new users who are learning the ropes and figuring out how the editing process works doesn't mean we are "NOTHERE" to be productive. I believe this is an example of an old user that is being inconsiderate and highly disruptive and counterproductive to new users. I've received significant maltreatment since I am simply a number and not a "named user" and I feel that this is wrong. Most of the edits I have made are reversed for trivial reasons as opposed to valid justifications, and the people who are "wasting" time seem to be the ones who are so quick to remove contributions. I also opened the discussion but instead of "discussing" the issue, it was merely implied that "sources" would fix everything without real clarification for why sources in a definition are needed or an attack on specific words in a source instead of the source itself as a reference to the event in question. Providing definitions and reference events should not qualify as original research here, at some point I would hope that we could look at events as they are instead of requiring someone to publish a paper for simple basic situations and contexts. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why you were doing it: do not fake messages from another user. That is a quick way to get blocked. And stating that ElKevbo was "inconsiderate and highly disruptive and counterproductive" is not going to fly after you faked a post to look like it was theirs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I apologized to ElKevbo on the page in question and I would also like to apologize here for the previous comments. My emotions got the best of me. I'm "HERE". Definitely not "NOTHERE".

I hope this is all resolved, apologies again to all involved. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive User Comment

SounderBruce Is a disruptive user. A disruptive user is a Wikipedia user who, while not vandalising articles or engaging in "bannable actions" (such as death or legal threats) engages in behavior which is unacceptable for Wikipedia and causes a disruption. A disruptive user is primarily someone who is not attacking an article per se, but rather a user associated with the article. There is a fine line on Wikipedia between users offering critical analysis and advice on other users and their work, and people simply attacking other users and articles without warrant or cause. SounderBruce is attacking Talkinfool for items discussed with a third party on their talk page regarding Greenhaven, ga

SounderBruce has deleted multiple edits and removed external links on Greenhaven, ga for the opposition, but allows the external link for the organization that promotes it. SounderBruce never responds to request as to why these external links can't be added, however, you'll notice he starts accusations in bad faith instead. If you look at the edits on Greenhaven, ga:talk, you see this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

To summarize: TravelinFool is the third account that has tried to add an undue amount of information on the group "Neighbors Against Greenhaven" to the Greenhaven, Georgia article. After several aborted attempts, I wrote a short paragraph on the group using secondary sources and only recently noticed the editing patterns of the three accounts on the page, so I've rightfully opened a SPI. This user is repeatedly trying to throw around policyjargon to try and justify a certain POV. SounderBruce 05:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit history reveals a SPA which has already been forum shopping about this. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The short paragraph written by SounderBruce looks reasonable to me. If the addition of inappropriate material and edit-warring are going to proceed, page protection or a user block are certainly options to consider. --Leyo 08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• TravelinFool, it would appear the burden is on you to form a consensus on the talk page. SounderBruce's additions seem to cover the opposition group well with good sources. One of the primary goals of Wikipedia is to provide only verifiable information. It is understood it is better to have a small amount of high quality material than a great quantity of unverifiable material. Via WP:BRD, it is your burden to use the talk page, have a discussion and gain consensus for expanding that section, particularly since adding a lot of opposition material runs the risk of going against WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. If you continue to blind revert, you run the risk of sanction for edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The editing issue has been resolved. Only issue is the external links and that either and that why doesn’t both sides have an external link. TravelinFool 14:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

Trying to get a more equal view in the article for Greenhaven, Ga. If you look at the more recent citations in the article you will see that opposition groups are now included. See citations in the article for 1, 12, 13 and 14. TravelinFool 15:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

User:Kintetsubuffalo "so this is not a template" warnings

I recently reverted some unannotated edits from User:Kintetsubuffalo. I tried to politely inform them on their talk page that they should follow WP:FIES which lead nowhere. But that's not what brings me here. I got curious and snooped into the recent edit history and discovered a previous incident on these noticeboards in which Kintetsubuffalo was given a ban on using level 4 vandalism warnings. The summary of the support for this ban, at least to me, seems to be that it could potentially drive away potential new editors. Since that ban, he has left warnings like this, this and this and probably others which I have stopped searching for as I see a pattern. All of these assume bad faith by stating:

"Some here believe that you are somehow valuable to Wikipedia..."

Which implies that they are not valuable. This seems to be at odds with the previous decision and is a continuation of the problem. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The main problem I see with the message is that the IP is absolutely not going to understand "Some here believe that you are somehow valuable to Wikipedia, so this is not a template" - venting his frustration at his ban on templating rather than leaving an actually useful message. (By the way, the IP's edits look more like edit warring than vandalism.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the original ban, I see it uses this language regarding the warnings that he is allowed to give that: "directly addresses the behavior in question". It appears at least from the warnings I've seen from him now that they are not adequate (to say the least) and give scant details, so the warnings aren't "directly [addressing]" anything. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Though not a template warning, the language of the whole message is concerning: I have reverted your vandalism, for which you can and should be blocked. Some here believe that you are somehow valuable to Wikipedia, so this is not a template. The editor was notified but deleted the notification (and previous attempts to discuss at their talk page). [32] Pinging Black Kite. ^Leviv_ich? ! 07:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo is subject to an editing restriction against using vandalism templates, but there is another restriction:

"He may warn other users, but only insofar as his warnings are directly typed by him, and directly address the behavior in question." Emphasis added.

When Kintetsubuffalo leaves identical warnings, it makes no difference if this editor is cutting and pasting, or typing rote language from memory. This is functionally equivalent to a templated warning. Because these warnings mention neither a specific article nor specific edits, these canned warnings violate the requirement that warnings must "directly address the behavior in question". Accordingly, I believe that the community must now craft and agree on a more specific editing restriction. Perhaps the most straightforward solution is an indefinite block, and that outcome was supported by several editors in the last discussion, but I am open to another option. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo is obviously deliberately evading the spirit of and reason for the restriction, is clearly being far too aggressive in those first warnings, and is doing it in a deliberately pointy way. Those warnings are sticking a finger up at the community and are blatantly not trying to help the new editors understand the problem - if anything, they're worse than the level 4 templated warnings. I agree that an indef block (which can be lifted if we see a genuine appeal that makes it clear that Kintetsubuffalo will accept Wikipedia's collaborative and non-aggressive approach) is the way to go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo has made a great contribution to WP, particularly in the area of articles about Scouting, so I am not happy about an indef block. I have emailed him off-wiki. Please do not rush on this one. --Bduke (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bduke: I'm sure that KB will be treated exactly like any other editor here. But, rather than discussing with them off-wiki, you might advise them to join this discussion. It could be one of the few ways of preventing said block. ——SerialNumber54129 08:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, don't bother; apparently, civility and collegiality are "tiresome". ——SerialNumber54129 13:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no doubt that some of his edits are useful. But the manner in which he goes about it by generally ommitting notations for his edits and aggressive warnings needs to be corrected. Those aren't great contributions. Leitmotiv (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

+1. BTW: A few years ago, a similar behavior also resulted in him being blocks on Commons. --Leyo 08:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems the overall problem here is KB's inability to communicate or communicating properly, via omitting edit summaries, aggressive and excessive warnings that lack tact, or just generally refraining from communicating altogether like at his talk page. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Looking at the evidence, I would agree that a block is in order. We have too many here using signatures and such as a soapbox and this is definitely in that same category. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not make petty points about a sanction that was well deserved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• I was the admin who originally set the sanction, and I admit to dropping the ball here by not keeping an eye on KB's editing. If I had seen these warnings to IPs, I would have blocked him a lot earlier - they are, as Boing! said above, basically sticking a middle finger up to the community. I now intend to do so, unless there is a good reason for not doing so raised in the next few hours (I am going to be AFK for a short while and don't want to block and run). Obviously, if any other admin wishes to take action in the meantime, that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef block. I told y'all during the ANI thread three months ago that Kinetsbuffalo had all the signs of someone who defies sanctions and was going to defy that one. And so here we are. As I stated in the previous thread, for the sake of editor retention, he has to be stopped. Here we are again, and so that needs to happen now. Softlavender (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Please note that as this thread has grown, User:Kintetsubuffalo has continued editing while failing to comment here. The term for this unusual behavior is "ANI flu," where a reported editor wholly ignores a large consensus forming against their behavior in the hopes it just blows over. They're awake. Whether or not they get indefinitely blocked is looking like a foregone conclusion; an indefinite block at least until they promise to contribute to this discussion is so uncontroversial it can be considered a housecleaning edit. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:E5C3:DE64:E2F2:E776 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef Block - Not sure why that is on the table for a handful of mean vandal warnings, which is about a 2 on the 10-point scale of Wikitransgressions. KB needs to cut out the snark and threats if he's going to warn vandals at all. This all smacks of score settling... Carrite (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: in light of the last ANI from a few months ago, in which it wasn't a handful but many mean and undeserved level-4 warning templates, the result of which was to TBAN this editor from using level 4 warning templates (plus the restriction described by Cullen above), and in light of the editor now still using "mean", cookie-cutter generic warnings (same thing as a level 4 template, really), and adding to that "so this is not a template", which is a long way of saying "F U"... if not an indef block, what remedy would you suggest here? Another Tban obviously won't work, since the editor has proven they will follow the letter but violate the spirit. The editor won't engage with the community. The biting of newbies can't be allowed to continue. So what are the community's options? ^Leviv_ich? ! 18:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If he's willing to follow the letter of the topic ban, which he appears ready to do, the problem isn't with the editor so much as it is with the terms of the sanction. I'll show you. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

He knows what the current restriction is supposed to mean and what it is supposed to prevent, and if he insists on sticking a finger up at the community by deliberately following only the letter of it like a spoilt child defying their parents, then the problem *is* with the editor - and I don't see why we should have to bend over backwards to pander to such deliberate childishness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

Due to serial incivility with vandal warnings, Kintetsubuffalo is hereby prohibited from leaving talk page warnings of any kind -- templated or untemplated -- relating to vandalism or perceived bad editing. Vandalism should be removed silently, with a non-pointy, non-aggressive notation of the change in the edit summary. Any further incivility with respect to vandal warnings will be met with escalating blocks. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because talk page messages and warnings are useful for both the recipient and the community; this proposal would essentially require a bad practice (reverting without warning). Also, if an editor refuses to leave another editor a message without being an asshole, why would we indulge or tolerate that in any way? Civility is a pillar; it's not optional. ^Leviv_ich? ! 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment This would actually decrease their communication, surely; and talking to editors when you've just reverted them is not just informative—it's often mandated by policy. And, speaking of policy, it's hardly civil (also policy) to not discuss one's reverts. I'm sorry Carrite; but we seem to have an editor whom who we can't trust to communicate (perhaps indicated by the—deafening—silence noted above), and I don't quite see how that is conducive to our standard operating procedure... ——SerialNumber54129 19:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should expect editors to behave in a mature manner and comply with what they know the community wants without having to be micro-managed like a petulant child. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This does not address the underlying problem which is the chronic failure to communicate effectively with people they disagree with. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal exhibits no comprehension of the background of this issue and the underlying problem. Softlavender (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A solution is needed, but this would make things worse.

I suggest instead that they are simply prohibited from reverting vandalism altogether. They are not the only editor capable of doing this, and if anything is particularly egregious then they can still notify another editor to do it on their behalf. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Not unless we also prevent the user from undoing or reverting edits (which seems truly bizarre). As pointed out, this proposal does not solve the problem of inappropriate warnings. Now, can we get back to the short-circuited discussion of what to do with an editor who is clearly avoiding the spirit of his TBan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 21:26, January 27, 2019 (UTC)
  • no offense intended to Andy Dingley.. I'd already written the above when I ec'ed with him. Meters (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• We ban many editors from reverting vandalism. Usually as part of a more total ban. It's still an option. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

• I've held back on taking action as I said I would earlier, to see what the consensus was on User:Carrite's proposal. There is a fairly clear consensus that Kintetsubuffalo has (a) ignored the result of the previous ANI, avoiding it by instead posting sarcastic "warnings" to IPs - as a number of people have said "sticking a finger up" to the previous sanction (b) failed to respond to discussion, either here or on their talkpage, and (c) shown a distinct lack of collaborative behaviour (the banner at the top of their user talk page makes that fairly clear). However, whilst there are some calls for an indefinite block, I do not see an overwhelming consensus for this; however there certainly is a consensus that "something should be done". Therefore, I have blocked for 1 month, with a caveat that future failure to comply with the original sanction, or general failure to act collaboratively, may be met with a longer (or indefinite) block. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I find the outcome sad (150th top editor at Wikipedia), but unfortunately necessary at this time. I truly hope a break will give him some time to reflect. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:1DHNK1

• 1DHNK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account created on 21 December 2018;

• On 21 December 2019, "1DHNK1" added unsourced WP:OR to the Tajik mafia article, as well as clear non-WP:RS sources such as YouTube link[33]-[34]
• When I reverted "1DHNK1's" edits on 2-3 January (with a clear edit-summary as well as a warning on his talk page), he started to revert me on 15 January 2019 without any explanation or whatsoever.[35]-[36]-[37]
• I then left him another warning on 15 January 2019, to which he also never replied.[38] Per WP:VER and WP:RS and the fact that "1DHNK1" isn't interested in responding, I removed the unsourced material he had added to the article on the same day.[39]
• Today (27 January 2019), once again ignoring WP:BRD, WP:VER and WP:RS (as well as WP:WAR), "1DHNK1" reverted and reinstated the desired bogus information. Once again no edit summary/explanation.

Bear in mind that Oswah and Materialscientist warned him in the recent past as well. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

More:

• Added unsourced content to the Lebanese mafia article without edit summary/explanation.[40]
• Changed content on the Mohammad Gul Khan Momand article without sources.[41]
• Added unsourced content to the Tahir Badakhsi article.[42]
• Changed info on the Farzana Naz article, and calling it "fixed".[43]

- LouisAragon (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've left a link to WP:Communication is required and a short note on their talk page. I'm not ready to block just yet, but let's see how they respond to the note I've left. Now that they are officially on notice and have the information they need, if they are unwilling to respond and keep reverting without comment, it would pretty much force our hand. I would say leave this open a couple of days and see what happens. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Inability to use talk page at "Tropical year"

The article "Tropical year" is unprotected but it's talk page is protected (and rightfully so] due to a long history of edits by a banned user. Now a new IP, 213.48.233.51 (talk · contribs), has been making garbled edits, misrepresenting previous edit summaries, and complaining in an edit summary "I can't use the talkpage as it's protected." Arguments and constant changes by way of the edit summaries is intolerable. This must stop. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:Assume good faith. IMO, the first step should be to unprotect the talk page [which ought never have had an indefinite block in the first place, even twelve months is extreme]. The anon editor should at least be given the opportunity to present his/her case without the terseness imposed by edit summaries. If and only if it becomes clear that the proposed text is culpable nonsense, then there is a sound basis to request a block. [Which will not be easy because the editor seems to be using an ISP that does ad hoc IP address allocation]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(EC) Would it be possible to create an unprotected talk page? I think I know which editor you are talking about, and I imagine one problem is people in good faith engage them not aware of who they are. This is I would assume less likely on a page only frequented by those in the know. If this doesn't work, I wonder if simply protecting the article may be better. While I appreciate that minor copy edits etc and very occasionally even more major edits won't need discussion, there's always the possibility they will and it seems problematic if editors are able to make changes, but aren't able to discuss them. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

We try to be accommodating to IP editors, and on the whole that seems to work. But it hasn't worked for this article and talk page. Perhaps we should explain to the IP editor that due to past abuse in this article and talk page by a banned user who constantly evades the ban, it will be necessary to establish an account to discuss the edit on the talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

On reading the talk page archive, I realise that there is a long history to this so I regret my intervention but only just. It was a kneejerk reaction to seeing a talk page protected indefinitely but the main space left open! That to me is anathema. How else is wp:Communication is required supposed to work? I suggest strongly that tropical year be protected even indefinitely but the talk page block should expire and be renewed for a fixed time if needed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forcing people to create an account goes against the fundamental tenet of the project. The article could be protected (as being "front of house"), its talk page should be unprotected in order to allow anonymous editing; and as for V(X)fC, that's what we have WP:BMB and WP:DENY for, with short—very temporary—periods of semi-protection. Cf. the refdesks, where it happens every couple of days. But this is not a sufficiently high-profile page to warrant much more: the last 500 edits to the talk page go back to 2001. ——SerialNumber54129 17:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history, although some protection was necessary (the edit rate at the time was excessive), I think User:Jayron32 misread it when protecting. The page was actually unprotected for a whole year. [44]. So yeah it will probably be better to try short term protection. Of course it's possible that the sock is aware of this discussion and is going to take the opportunity to disrupt but we'll just have to hope for the best. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I do believe they are aware, yes. Compare this section on my page, near the end of the discussion. Pinging @Favonian: Bishonen | talk 19:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC).

They certainly are, and when the talk page is unprotected, as it probably should be lest the Pillars crumble, the endless wash–rinse–repeat cycle starts over again. Huzzah! Favonian (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's an employment program for admins :p  :) ——SerialNumber54129 20:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

IP-hopping block evader

에멜무지로~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for vandalism, and it appears that he has been socking and evading his block ever since. The IPs he seems to be using are from all over the world (Ukraine, Japan, Germany, South Korea...) but can be identified by three behaviors: a keen interest in digital typography, the various IPs edit warring to retain each others edits, and insults directed at me. I am hoping that a short semi-protection of his favorite targets will discourage him.

I asked for temporary semiprotection of my talk page, Windows Glyph List 4, and VSCII at WP:RFPP. The first two were protected, but VSCII was declined as not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection.[45] The socking continues on that page.

I would like a second opinion on temporary semiprotection of VSCII, and I would like some advice; given the IP hopping I am seeing and my theory that the sockmaster is using proxies, would it be appropriate to report the IPs as suspected proxies? Is there a good test I can do myself before reporting a suspected proxy? More generally, are our efforts to block proxy servers effective, or are there just too many of them, making it so that vandals can always find a new unblocked proxy on the first or second try? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean VISCII as VSCII has no socking I see, actually very few edits point blank. (And none are from you.) Note that you requested protection of VSCII so the decline was IMO correct. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I made a new RFPP for the right page since it may be handled faster there [46] Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realise that there was a similar named article and the original was a typo. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Entirely my fault. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Getting back to my other question, is there anything that a non-admin can do to help with whatever the sockmaster is doing (I believe that he is using proxies) so that he appears as different IPs from different countries? I am wondering about this as a general problem, not just this set of socks. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Report at WP:OPP? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the fact that the IPs are from all over the world and edit war to retain each others edits enough to justify an OPP report? Or would it be rejected for lack of hard evidence? And again I ask, is there some way I can do some of the preliminary checking for proxies myself so as to leave less work for OPP to do?

Reports typically don't get rejected from WP:OP if you explain yourself, though they can take some time, and not all blocks are worth extending to an OP block. My advice: Google the IP, and check the backlinks to the IP's talk page (some of them anyway). Someone might want to mention a blacklist tool, and there's also this guide. However these particular proxies are not so easy, so even seasoned OP blockers will typically use the DUCK test on them. And, there are always more proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

user Reesesantana300

• Reesesantana300 (talk · contribs)

Continuing to add unreferenced, BLP content after a final warning. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Concern about lack of timely SPIs

I'm concerned that two SPIs have gone without attention and would like to know if we need more admins reviewing them. I attempted to ask that at the second SPI that was closed because they were "too old" but Bbb23 reverted my questions without explanation [47] [48] [49], although the third came after he archived the lack of investigation and he then threatened to block me for doing so. I don't want to be a dick, but I do want to prevent from socks from thinking that they can "get away" with it. Not reporting Bbb23, but asking whether SPIs need help and how I can do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting way of not reporting me. I reverted the first time because of the "attacking" way Walter's comments were couched: "Are admins over worked or do you just not want to investigate some cases?" Cases involving IPs are closed frequently because the IP edits become too old. There's no point in blocking IPs who stop being disruptive. Are they getting away with it? Maybe so, but IPs often get away with things, but if they stop, then that should be the end of it. In this instance, I gave Walter a roadmap in case the disruption resumed ("If the disruption resumes, request semi-protection"), which is more than is usually done. After that, Walter started reverting me, which is not the way to handle his dissatisfaction. Eventually, I threatened him with a block. None of this is a good expenditure of my time - or Walter's.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining and assuming good faith. I really do want to know if the admins are overworked and why two SPIs were closed without investigation while other SPIs are frequently acted on withing an hour of being reported. So the reason is why are they not investigated as quickly? The roadmap would not work for the previous case as it affected a range of articles, not one. And quite frankly, if admins are too busy to investigate a simple WP:DUCK SPI case, I doubt that they will have the time to protect one or more articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The comment about protection was sound for this report. I don't know about the other one you refer to. Again, as to this case, my closure was based on an investigation. Finally, don't presuppose what will happen when you request protection - or any other kind of administrative action. You're making far too many baseless assumptions, both about SPI and about administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Brent Alden promotion again

Regarding previous disruption described at Rangeblock for Meg Maheu? (January 2018) and Promotion of Brent Alden, False Alarm band, rangeblock needed (December 2017), I have seen recent editing efforts by this person. They are using the IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• 99.203.74.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.203.74.103 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B139:ED10:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2600:1:B124:75C4:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2600:1:B128:5475:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))