Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive971

Julia Mora article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Julia Mora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone keeps editing this article ,writing unsourced stuff. It seems as if Mora is writing it herself. Look at the hundreds of edits over the past few years. It says in past edits she has been married to a Dennis Peterson and a Alejandro Andrisani. It may be block evasion by someone previously indefinitely blocked(who had edited this page before) Someone keeps writing she was born in 1972. That simply can't be true. The Miami herald wrote she was born in 1962 in 1985. It's impossible a 12 year old competed in Miss El Salvador contest. Most likely at least half the content on this article is untrue. I think this article needs edited by a administrator and locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is she even notable? Winning Miss El Salvador doesn't confer automatic notability, and nor does merely competing (as oppposed to winning) Miss Universe. All the sources are/were unreliable so it's effectively an unsourced BLP at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Al hotties are notable...

So, it seems to me pretty likely that the WP:SPA obsessing over this article is a sockpuppet of the blocked WP:SPA that started it, Intelectual123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Treasure55555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may also be a sock. See also Andreslorca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The current one, Daquan7474 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is either a stalker or the subject's PR, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

More socking in the AfD.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hey gang, there's more! [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Daquan7474, may I ask why this is the only article you have ever edited or commented on on Wikipedia? Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Somebody has left an obviously biased comment on Daquan7474's talk page. It is not signed, but I will find the username. (Somebody obviously doesn't now what a revision history is.) TomBarker23 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Got them. 2600:8801:2B01:1A0:809F:585A:2176:1425| (talk, you're nicked. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What now?

I need a little help now. I don't know how to add a diff yet, and I don't want to delete the comment on Daquan7474's talk page until I have diff'd it.

I have left a level 1 warning about false info, NPOV and including your name on talk pages about the IP concerned. Can somebody do the rest while we see how they react? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomBarker23 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, instead of diffing it, here's the offending comment: "Daquan7474, it seems like you have something "personal" against Miss El Salvador Universe, Julia Mora. You keep deleting her information. She is all over the internet. I appreciate it if you please stop. We understand that when someone wins a tittle like this, there are always people that cannot get over it and harass beauty queens but please leave Julia alone. She is a great woman." There is no way this is allowed. I will clean the talk page. TomBarker23 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at their contributions. This is crazy. Accusations of harassment, no edits not about the subject, offending edit summaries- basically, this user looks like a fairly simple NOTHERE account. [[2]] TomBarker23 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Julia Mora
• Julia Haydee Mora Maza
• Julia Haydee Mora
• Julia Haydee Mora Alfaro
• Julia Mora Andrisani (past edits indicate she was married to a Alejandro Andrisani in 2008)
• Julia Mora Peters or Peterson (past edits indicate she was married to a Dennis Peterson in 1988 and divorced in 1990.
• date of birth October 10th 1962

Not sure why someone keeps writing I am jealous? I am sure Mora is a great person,but some editor keeps writing she is 10 years younger than the 1985 Miami Herald indicates. The radar online video said she was the mother of one child. In a youtube video entitled Julia Mora her life exposed,it chronicles a marriage ceremony to a Alejandro Andrisani.

Just to clarify, I never nominated this page for deletion,i simply said the phantom editor/sock puppet that keeps editing with fake birthdates,etc needs to be blocked. I was suggesting the page be locked,not deleted.

It would be great if Miss El Salvador could publish a video in Spanish with English sub titles detailing all her romantic realationships,marriages and any children.

user prcelebrity keeps leaving biased comments on my talk page.

I agree with user TomBarker23

I think the best solution would be to redirect to the Miss El Salvador article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

As for the "obsessed stalker" opinion, Daquan7474 has started to edit other pages than this one. See his recent AFD (and its incorrect placement below!) TomBarker23 (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wrong edits of 202.62.17.244

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

202.62.17.244 continue the disruptive edits (0 source and so strange informations) of 202.62.17.51 on Rail transport in Paraguay; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive970#Cross-wiki vandalism of 202.62.17.51 for more details. I would like a new block for 202.62.17.244.

--NB80 (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary, Votre imagination n'a rien d'encyclopédique, presumably means "Your imagination is not encyclopedic." Keep it in English, and avoid personal attacks, s'il vous plaît. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Ajraddatz, the Steward that did the global block before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

These IP abuse and abuse. Please block it please (it's the better solution). --NB80 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've globally blocked this individual IP as well, as it is continuing the pattern of some good, some disruptive edits across multiple wikis. @NB80: if you are requesting global blocks for IP addresses, the best place to do that is at m:Steward requests/Global. Regards, -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: OK. Thanks! --NB80 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block for dynamic IPs which never learn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

71.174.127.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also had 71.174.133.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 71.174.129.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the IPs were blocked several times for disruptive edits. By disruptive edits I mean supporting a ludicrously preposterous thesis (namely that Muslims are idol worshipers) with crappy sources, then repeating arguments which fall under WP:POLEMIC. Those IPs show they have learned nothing from their previous blocks, reinstating the same WP:POLEMIC argumentation which got them blocked and even made unable to edit their own talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this person evading a block? I noticed some of the latest edits were reverted for block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, their block had already expired. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not the Muslim basher you are looking. Pardon me if I don't do the Jedi handwave as I say that, as that would imply that I am the Muslim basher you are looking for.

I was blocked twice for 2 Edit War which were started by Tgeorgescu. I might point out that he never received a warning for starting those edit wars. I repeatedly asked for a discussion with him and he kept refusing, first to even discuss anything while reverting my material, and later refusing to answer even simple questions. He doesn't seem to like my points and is using underhanded ways to basically get rid of me. I'm assuming that bringing me up here is just another way to make life miserable for me so that I will go away. That Tgeorgescu started them both can be easily confirmed. That I kept asking for discussion, can also be confirmed

Both blacks have expired and I can post. I have different Id's becasue I turned off my DSL modem. I was moving stuff around the house and I unplugged it, and on startup/reboot it gave me a new IP number.

Substantial material that I posted on the Abomination of Desolation has been undone by Wasell, with the explanation given as "block evasion". Since Tgeorgescu states that I am OK to post, I hope that my reversal of this bogus reversal will not start another edit war.

If it does I will report it here.71.174.127.2 (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also would like to point out that one edit war was over material I posted on the talk page of the article that he doesn't like, and he reverting it to get rid of it,instead of engaging in discussion of that material.71.174.127.2 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

And I just blocked you for a week for disruption on the talk page. It is patently unclear what you are trying to achieve there. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock request - 2804:14D:7284:8EE8:*

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am requesting a rangeblock for 2804:14D:7284:8EE8:*. For the past few months, this user has disruptively edited or vandalized various cartoon pages. Most commonly, they are entering false dates or change episode ordinals. Example diffs: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Let me know if it starts up again (it probably will). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abdulrahman Elsamni

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have tagged Abdulrahman Elsamni for speedy deletion because it is a cross wiki hoax that has been placed in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Swedish. The Italian, Swedish, Dutch and Portuguese versions are deleted yet, the others may follow soon. The person is not notable. However, the writer of the article is acting as an activist and is removing the speedy deletion tag again and again. Please can an administrator take over the control of the page? Thank you. Ymnes (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

He now continues with an IP user. I think the page should be deleted right away, just like it was don in Italian, Swedish, Portuguese and Dutch. It is clearly a hoax of a non notable person. Ymnes (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone block the page until the speedy deletion tag has been cleared? Ymnes (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the article because of lack of notability. It does not seem to be a hoax, some of the cited literature mentions one work of A. Elsamni, but the work appears to be a master thesis, which is way blow our notability standards.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: After you deleted Abdulrahman Elsamni, he put it back there. Pleas can you delete it again and block the page space from being republished? Ymnes (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted again and blocked the uploader for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Knowing his perseverance for months yet, it's probaby best to block the article space too from being rewritten for several years. Ymnes (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It crossed and has been done yet. Ymnes (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Colonies Chris

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Actually, for US places article titling conventions generally control how cities are referred to in articles -- see MOS:PN#Place_names. Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate. I'll also say, however (stimulated by one of the diffs you supplied) I'm pretty sure we almost never use the two-digit postal abbreviations for states (e.g. CA) but rather the older-style abbreviations instead (e.g. Calif.), where abbreviation is warranted; but I don't recall if that's said anywhere or just implicit in MOS:PN combined with WP:USPLACE. [Later: Well, see MOS:POSTABBR ]. EEng 05:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

...my observation has been that the abbreviations are the opposite. I've seen , FL; , GA; etc. used reguarly but never the "long-form abbreviations" to my recollection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly the sort of topic on which lots and lots of articles might be doing the wrong thing, but like I said I can't recall a MOS provision on point; I could be wrong. What I'm vaguely thinking is that, while we expect most readers to recognize states of the US, provinces of Canada, and counties of the UK, we don't expect them to know all the postal abbreviations. Hell, even I get MI and MO and AL and AK mixed up. EEng 05:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

USPLACE most certainly does not mandate ALWAYS dropping State after major cities. The right move would be to try and change/clarify the guideline if one is passionate that this SHOULD be the case. What would not be the right move is to bludgeon 100s of articles with your interpretation of how the guidance should be applied in the face of multiple editors disagreeing with your interpretation of the guidance over the course of years. Sports projects have the leeway to include State for major city in tables/infoboxes for consistency and scannability (I leave it alone in prose). Let’s focus on the editor behavior here. Rikster2 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, upon review, MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers. “New York” vs. “Nueva York” is addressed, but “Cincinnati” vs. “Cincinnati, Ohio” is not and both Cincinnati variants are correct via language or history. It also doesn’t address tables or infoboxes where internal consistency may be desired. I don’t see the value to the reader to drop the State from 3 out of 35 entries in a college sports schedule, just because an article is named “Minneapolis” instead of “Minneapolis, Minnesota.” Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nobody said anything about "mandating", so calm down.
• As for "MOS:PN#Place_names specifically talks about alternate place names due to language and historical naming, not the use of modifiers": No, what MOS:PN#Place_names says is In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which in turn gives detailed guidelines on when to use modifiers, and which. As for tables and infoboxes, I already said, "Naturally common sense should be applied, and consistency in a table or infobox certainly might be a reason to deviate", so again – calm down. Given that someone's now pointed us to MOS:POSTABBR, that leaves the question, when abbreviation is warranted as in an infobox, of whether the two-letter modern postal abbreviations should be used e.g. CA versus the older Calif. and so on; for non-US readers the latter gives them at least a fighting chance of figuring out what's what. But that's just off the top of my head.

EEng 20:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I am calm, and you should be too. I am not even contesting the use of abbreviations, as I said in the first statement. I merely said that others have contested this and have experienced the same editor behavior in response. the ANI is about how a user responds/behaves to content and guideline differences of opinion. It’s doubtful we are going to set/clarify guidelines in this discussion. The point is that there is not clear line that this user is correct, so it’s inappropriate to cast it that way. How we come to agreements about gray areas in guidance is a central part of how Wikipedia operates. If I just wanted to debate and clarify policy this isn’t where I would have taken it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• You said he is doing this via script? WP:BOTPOL should apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• First, to clarify what I'm actually doing. I make a lot of minor gnoming edits, and among those - not on their own but as part of a larger package of changes - I also expand US state abbreviations (in line with the MOS at MOS:POSTABBR) and remove the state where the city is well-known, according to the AP convention described at WP:USPLACE, which is used widely within WP. A reader gains nothing from the non-news that New York City is in New York State, or that Los Angeles is in California. I find the argument about visual inconsistency in a table pretty unconvincing - is a reader really going to find their understanding disrupted by the omission of the state from cities known worldwide like Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Chicago? Nor am I convinced by the argument that 'a basketball fan could easily see how widely a team travels for games by scanning states in the schedule table' - how many readers can locate relevant cities without reference to a map? And a trip from one side of a state to another can be far longer than to a neighbouring city in another state. In summary, Rikster2 may say I don't listen to objections - what that really means is that he and I have different opinions and I don't choose to stop making improvements simply because he doesn't like them. That said, I do generally try to avoid basketball-related articles, simply to avoid this sort of hassle. (In contrast, I've made a large number of similar changes to football-related articles - a question about whether this was acceptable was raised; only one editor seriously objected but gained no support from other editors). Colonies Chris (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• well, not really an “I don’t like it” case. More of a “I expect if someone is mass-implementing changes that they will stop doing so once a difference of opinion is raised about a non-consensus set of edits” thing. I am not the only editor who has talked to you about this issue over time and, as I pointed out to you in October, you never stopped making the edits in question long enough to have a discussion before continuing to move forward. Per WP:CYCLE, my typical experience has been that an editor would pause in the disputed editing to have the discussion and Drive to some sort of agreement. You never have done this. Also, while I question if ANI is the place to talk policy, there is no question that your propensity to remove State is not clearly in WP:USPLACE today. There is a reasonable discussion to be had as to if State should always be removed, but pushing through edits is not furthering it. I never said a reader can’t figure out Cleveland is in Ohio, but removing it from a list slows down the scannability of those tables. And, yes, states are important to college athletics - coaches are evaluated by how well they recruit their home state (which is harder to scan for the reader if removed from some). Just because YOU don’t think they are needed doesn’t mean there isn’t value for including State in some cases (like tables and infoboxes). Also, in my opinion, consistency of like pages matters for aetsthetics and general reading of like pages. Regardless, you act like there is a bright line guideline that you are enforcing where this is not the case and I am not the only editor to call you on it. Also, I hadn’t thought about it but User:Only in death is right about WP:BOTPOL. At that guideline it clearly states that part of the criteria in using scripts/bots is that edits being driven should only be performing tasks for which there is consensus. There is no consensus to remove State in every instance. Rikster2 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables, and make it a sortable parameter. That would be easier to use for the purposes you describe, and the question of removal would not arise. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That is worth discussing for schedule tables. Now I have a suggestion for you - just take the removal of State out of your script. It’s not a change for which there is clear consensus, has been disputed, and if you remove it you are making edits for which it seems like you have better backing from a policy perspective (like full State name vs. abbreviation). Would solve 90% of the issue. Rikster2 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The same behavior can be seen at American football and ice hockey pages. Nobody is against removing the state in the text ("New York City" instead of "New York City, New York"), but tables and infoboxes are a completely different story. This has been objected not once and not twice, but Colonies Chris just ignores it. We list "City, State" for consistency reasons, and it should stay that way. It is very strange and not consistent when you see "Toronto" in one column, while other columns list "Toronto, Ontario", and people that are not editing Wikipedia might get confused and either remove the state from every instance containing it or re-add it. Furthermore, sometimes the bot he is using makes wrong edits. Such as, "GA" stands for "Goals against" on ice hockey's pages, but his bot corrects it to "Georgia", which is nowhere near the intended meaning. As for "If the state has that much importance, I suggest your priority should be to put it in a separate column in the relevant tables" – some tables are already huge so we do not need another column to make it even more problematic, and that is why some tables contain abbreviations. However, I do not really care about the removal of states' abbreviations, but common sense should be there when removing them. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• • RE; inappropriate conversion of GA; when this happened, did you notify me about it? (No, you didn't.) If you had done so, three things would have happened (a) I would have fixed it (b) I would have apologised (c) I would have fixed my script. But since you didn't bother to notify me (just stored it up for later use against me, it seems) none of those things happened. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have had a quickish look at their contribution history and it appears it does fall under BOTPOL due to the automated nature of the edits. Which requires consensus *before* making these edits by automation. Since I havnt seen any such consensus anywhere, I am going to page an experienced BAG member to take a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was archived with no administrator action or moderation. Now that the discussion was archived, the editor is back at it (note the removal of “Indiana” from “Indianapolis, Indiana”). And also, another editor has voiced concern with the practice. We need a call here. Should the script have to take out the provision removing State as has been suggested? Rikster2 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• In previous comments, you have claimed that the state is important because of tabular consistency - but none of the changes I made in the article you link to were related to tables. You have also complained that you need the state to judge coaches' performance in recruiting home state players - but none of my changes concerned that either. Fine, bring in an admin if you like. I made about 65 improvements to that page, of which 6 involved removing the state on major cities - all entirely in accordance with guidelines, as I've described above. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Removing State after city is NOT MOS and there is NOT consensus to remove it in all cases. As has been pointed out, WP:BOTPOL applies and this should not be in your script. Also, I find it interesting that you waited until this discussion was archived to start running this script again after sitting out for awhile. What’s behind that? I want an admin to weigh in - you and I have gone as far as we are going to on this issue. Rikster2 (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, don’t pretend like some of the edits don’t deal with exactly the issue I was talking about. But the point is internal consistency (within an article or across like articles) of templates and infoboxes is certainly something that has value to many. I am frankly not concerned if I revert a number of edits I don’t disagree with in the process of reverting edits that we have discussed time and time and time again. Why is my time less valuable than yours? It takes me twice as much time to revert only the edits in dispute when you are able to just remove the disputed changes from your script (and you should). Rikster2 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As I am the editor that most recently raised the concern on their talk page, I think Rikster2 has a point. It is not necessarily the fact that Colonies Chris is using the bot, but it is that they dispute when people question their use of it and sometimes seems to have a bit of a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude about it. ("My edits reflect agreed community guidelines. I don't need to provide further justification. You need to have a clear reason for overriding those - so far, all I've seen is an appeal to 'consistency' and nothing to explain how this consistency is any help to our readers. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)" in response to other editors disagreeing with the removal to consistency in a table.) While most of their edits are great, I also think the bot should be subject to review. As I pointed out in This edit, the bot arguably made the league member table visibly worse, leaving all different styles of naming. There is no guideline about place names specifically for usage in list tables and infoboxes, except for where projects have agreed upon one, that I know of. Specifically for tables, I feel WP:NORULES should apply and just use common sense as most editors prefer the consistency in the tables. As pointed multiple times by multiple parties, I think we are just asking for a little more cooperation and less condescending reactions (calling our criticism "petty harassment") from Colonies Chris. Yosemiter (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rikster, have you opened a discussion at an article or project talk page about this? ANI seems premature. And some of your reverts are quite puzzling, like this one where you edit summary misrepresents the change and moves back toward the less-preferred postal codes. Perhaps you can find a case where your version is defensibly better in some respect, and put the discussion there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, over a year ago (in addition to the multiple times I have addressed this with the editor in question directly, links to at least three of these comments going back about 18 months are in the first statement). Also, the template documentation (example) shows City, State as preferred for basketball templates and infoboxes. However, I am not the person trying to force non-consensus edits using a script (which sounds like it goes against WP:BOTPOL) - it feels like the person who wants to add this to a script involving a number of other more non-controversial edits is the one who needs to Drive a consensus before doing so. Chris has never tried to start an article/policy conversation on this topic and in my opinion hasn’t undertaken a conversation on the matter in good faith even when brought to his talk page (did not stop making the same types of edits when called on it, even long enough to have a discussion). As for my edits - I didn’t at all misrepresent the edit. I said the removal of State wasn’t consensus or MOS and that he should fix his script and try again. The time/effort to pick through his script’s edits to fix the one piece that doesn’t have consensus should not be pushed to users like me just because someone is too lazy or stubborn to take the controversial item out and instead plows on. After 18 months, ANI is not at all premature. Rikster2 (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rikster2 What do you expect to happen in this ANI case? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already made the suggestion that Colonies Chris should be compelled to remove the part of his script that removes State from his script per WP:BOTPOL, as this is an edit type that does not reflect consensus and has been disputed many times by many editors. Rikster2 (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Youy do realise that you have accused me of both continuing to make edit despite your objections, and - as if I had some sinister plan - stopping making edits while it was under discussion here! Yes, I paused making those edits while this discussion was live. But when it ended up archived without reaching any conclusion, I resumed. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know about a sinister plan, but it is demonstrably true that you have continued to make these sorts of edits despite my (and other editors’) objections over many months. And you just said yourself that you stopped editing then resumed when this ANI was archived by a bot after 72 hours without comment. Is there a complaint in there somewhere? Rikster2 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AWBRULES states: "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. @Colonies Chris: Please demonstrate that consensus exists for any further removal of states from tables and infoboxes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

There is already a consensus, as evidenced by MOS:POSTABBR, WP:USPLACE and MOS:PN#Place_names. The fact that some editors chhoose not to accept that consensus doesn't invalidate it. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

POSTABBR is irrelevant as no one in this discussion is disputing use of full State name vs. abbreviation. The other two guidelines do NOT indicate consensus that State is dropped in all cases, including tables, templates and infoboxes were consistency is desired. This is like saying that “Bill Clinton” can never be referred to as “William Jefferson Clinton” in a list because the article is called “Bill.” If a template or list has a CIty, State format there is nothing in those guidelines that mandates (or even explicitly suggests) dropping State for the handful of cities that don’t list it in their article title. If you want the guideline to explicitly call this out, then the burden is on you to facilitate that discussion before plowing forward with hundreds of articles. You have made a significant assumption about what is and is not consensus here. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which includes WP:USPLACE, states: "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus." Moreover, WP:PG reads: "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." As multiple editors have given similar good-faith rationales to keep the states, the WP:AWBRULES policy places the onus on you, the AWB operator, to gain broader consensus to follow the guideline for this case and disallow the "common sense" exception. What is the urgency to bypass policy to force an MOS change via automation? If there is consensus, the changes you desire will happen soon enough.—Bagumba (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: If an editor manually turned a table with a cities column from this:

City
Buffalo, NY
Raleigh, NC
New York City, NY
Philadelphia, PA

to this:

City
Buffalo, NY
Raleigh, North Carolina
New York City
Philadelphia

on a highly viewed page such as the National Hockey League it would have been reverted in an instant. Your bot is making questionable stylistic edits to tables and infoboxes, while also making the good edits in prose. No one is arguing against POSTABBR. We are simply asking you to review your bot's edits because as seen in the above table, it is considered unacceptable by consensus. It is therefore creating more work for other editors because then we have to through and cleanup after your bot (much of which has fallen on Rikster2's interests, hence their frustration). Yosemiter (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've looked into the NHL page that you complain of; it wasn't at first clear to me how some inconsistencies arose (e.g. "Buffalo, NY" on one line, but just a couple of lines below, "Sunrise, Florida", expanded from "Sunrise, FL". Then I realised that the source of the problem was the already-present inconsistency; the first was encoded as "[[Buffalo, New York|Buffalo]], [[New York (state)|NY]]" (two separate links, disregarding the advice at MOS:LINKSTYLE "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link. Consider rephrasing the sentence, omitting one of the links, or using a more specific single link") The example you provide above has the same internal inconsistency. So you're complaining that my actions have made visible your inconsistency and disregard of good practice. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yosemiter appeared to be saying that your edits took a consistent format of using state postal codes and converted it to use a mix of postal codes (Buffalo, NY), fully expanded state names (Raleigh, North Carolina), and no state names at all (New York City). And you seem to be saying that your scripts were limited to producing garbage in, garbage out.—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba is correct, I was trying to point out your script, while correctly trying to fix POSTABBR, took NOTBROKEN and consistent links and a typically understandable format, and made it an ugly hodgepodge styles (I pointed out the four different versions that ended up on the page instead of 31, I know about the Sunrise expansion, I just used the Raleigh example instead). It was NOT inconsistent before, so not "already-present" (they all had the "improper" format you point out). It was something that could easily have been fixed, by you, if you actually reviewed your bot's edits (something that I ended up doing while keep it consistent and not using abbreviations). Yet you continue to argue that your bot is just fine and perfect. My complaint is that you are causing other editors to clean up after YOUR bot instead of just realizing and accepting that there is an issue. Yosemiter (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, cutting through all of the above: the "bot" Colonies Chris is running is AutoWikiBrowser. And WP:AWB rule number three states:

Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale.

• Q.E.D., these edits are controversial, and, therefore, according to the AWB terms of use, must be stopped until a consensus to make them is established, and by 'them' that is 'these specific edits, by Colonies Chris, using AWB' - i.e. the claims by Colonies Chris that "MOS:POSTABBR, WP:USPLACE, and MOS:PN#Place_names" give him consensus are not sufficient for these automated edits to continue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with The Bushranger. Chris is no doubt acting in good faith but depending on AWB to get the job done is a bad idea. I've seen errors on numerous occasions, and I've seen controversial edits, on numerous occasions discussed on his talk page. I would go with The Bushranger, and perhaps currently limit Chris' AWB use to simple format fixes, typos etc, and not changing wikilinks etc for the time being. Whether Chris should then be allowed to use AWB going forward is another discussion. But to solve the current issue (which is recurrent) we should limit Chris' AWB scripts to nominal and completely uncontroversial changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• So, where are we with this? - Since Bushranger had his “admin hall ht” on with his comments is taking state removal out of the script the verdict here? I’m not going to let this fall off the page without resolution until there is closure, so I have to ask. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It was in fact my intent to make that a resolution of the issue - I left it open to allow Chris to respond; he chose not to, so I'm going to go ahead and "properly" close this now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with The Bushranger and The Rambling Man. These are controversial edits and should not be done with AWB. As for what happens next, someone will have to close this at some point and document the consensus - for the moment, I think that just requires waiting (and keeping the section open to prevent premature archiving). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• More: Expanding state abbrev w/o consensus Chris also continues to expand state abbreviations despite objections raised earlier to them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_College_football#Schedule_tables:_State_Abbreviations_vs_spelled_out. MOS:ABBR allows for abbreviations in tables, but Chris feels they can use their own judgement and continue with the disputed changes on AWB. They need to understand that tables can be treated differently from body text, and the AWB operator is responsibile for establishing consensus when there is a dispute.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing from the congress IP

Today, an anonymous editor has disruptively edited pages Bears Ears National Monument and Knights Templar leaving rather inappropriate messages such as ...all sexual harassers in congress should resign... and other. This has been reflected on the https://twitter.com/congressedits bot page. This user is most likely trying to troll the bot, as he realized, that anything he does from the IP is going to go on Twitter. I believe the user should be blocked, as their actions compromise th bot. The editor also threatened to go to other IP addresses, in case they are blocked. Diffs - Knights Templar and Bears Ears National Monument - Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 17:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It honestly looks like garden-variety vandalism/trolling. I did send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee in the event a block might be warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I second this motion to block. The troll also accused a Nintendo character of starting ISIS. Mannydantyla (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No edits for two hours - no need to block -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Different IP, same prefix. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The troll is back again. Different IP address, completely, not the same subnet at all. However the twitter bot https://twitter.com/congressedits is tweeting them out non-the-less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/156.33.241.41 -Mannydantyla (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and WP:OWN behavior

• Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been very persistent in replacing the images in this list with images they took, for example [10] and [11]. They have also been reverting other users' edits to the article without explanation, including readding information deemed unencyclopedic and removing citation needed tags without explanation. Attempts have been made to discuss on the article talk page and user's talk page, but the user has refused most attempts at discussion. There have been numerous 3RR violations, and two blocks were issued as well as a full protection of the article involved, but the edit warring has persisted. I'm requesting here that some sort of more extensive action be taken, whether it be an extended block or a topic ban. I have notified the user in question - meanwhile, pinging other users interested in the case: @Pi.1415926535, Mtattrain, and SportsFan007: – Train2104 (t • c) 00:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

> Admittedly, the user in question has contributed positively in some ways, such as removing much trivial information and providing some reasonable images, but once he/she started replacing almost every image and reverting any edit that did not agree with his/her edits, the line was crossed. Mtattrain (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

He just hit <SAVE>.

• Tell me again why we have fancrufty articles on every model of bus in a given city (including notations on specific individual buses that are out of service because e.g. they were in an accident), on individual but stops, and so on? We even have an editnotice for this kind of thing: {{railfan editnotice}}. EEng 01:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I created said editnotice in an attempt to stem the expansion of such content. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Not working, apparently. Do we have the technology to send a painful electric shock to these people when they hit <SAVE>? EEng 02:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

All electrical shocks aside, Olsen24 has shown no indication that they understand why they are being reverted, nor why much of the information they have been adding is trivial. I don't see them likely to suddenly start engaging productively, or stopping their habit of adding their own images. (I've dealt with a similar issue of vanity images on MBTA Bus, and that user also refuses to accept critiques of their photographs.)

Mtattrain, I think you need to calm down some, and you also need to think more about the relevance of the information you are adding. Lists such as these should be a high-level overview of a fleet. Production year, fuel type, total number of buses, and an indication of units saved in museum collections are appropriate for that. Powertrain details, daily updates of which buses are in service, and a listing of units removed from service due to accidents are not. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Dearchiving this as it has not been acted upon and the user's behavior continues. Forgive me if this is against ANI practice... – Train2104 (t • c) 17:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support block per OWN and repeated refusal to get the point. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a long block is needed. But, I think that a block of about a week is needed, in addition to the implementation of a topic ban from bus-related articles if they edit war again in the next six months on bus articles. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Oops, forgot to read something. Anyways, I don't think a long block is needed; the only thing that is needed is a topic ban from buses, appealable in six months. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is about their uploading of grainy unneeded images, inability to communicate (even now, looking at their talk page they seem to be in denial about the quality of their images)) and editwarring. A block is needed here to stop this pattern of behaviour; past blocks have proven futile. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

> Pi.1415926535, I suppose that what I have been adding isn't needed, it is just very strange that such trivia is now being pointed. If administrator editors don't think of such information highly, though, I'll start removing the specific details. Mtattrain (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

>> I guess I've been venting too much steam over Olsen24, admittedly. To be fair, however, as many users have been stating, the mentioned user hasn't been contributing the best content. Mtattrain (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

>> Even with multiple (sometimes seemingly forceful) administrators warning user Olsen24, the user is failing to discuss on article talk pages. Someone should either let user Olsen24 know about the function of talk pages on articles, or take some other kind of action. Mtattrain (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Moscow metro - WP:RMT logic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Year-old consensus is "X Line" for Moscow Metro lines. There are 16 lines, cf. Category:Moscow Metro lines (one article page currently lost), each line has a category page, and a route-template. The line names are per convention used as disambiguator for station articles if "Stationname (Moscow Metro)" is ambiguous. Since non-Moscow Metro articles also link to these there might be 1000 occurences of these line names.

Then 2017-12-08 02:10 to 02:20 User:Dicklyon hopped in [12] and moved

• MOVE: Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line to Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line - the line article does not exist anymore, the page currently contains the content of former Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line)
  • Talk:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line to Talk:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line
• MOVE: Template:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line RDT to Template:Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line RDT
• MOVE: Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) to Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line)
• MOVE: Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line) to Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line)

A "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" was posted at WP:RMT, the names complying with year-old style were restored for:

• MOVE: Template:Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line RDT to Template:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line RDT
• MOVE:Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line) to Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line)

• MOVE: Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line) (station!) was put at Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line (line!) and the line article disappeared. [13]

2017-12-09 03:37 User:SMcCandlish hopped in and moved [14]

• MOVE: Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) to Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line)
• MOVE: Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line to Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya line

2017-12-09 03:58 User:AlexTheWhovian stepped in and moved Template:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line RDT a second time to a name against year-old convention for Moscow Metro. [15]

• MOVE: Template:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line RDT to Template:Kalininsko–Solntsevskaya line RDT

User:Dicklyon is OK with restoring the page names as they were before his moves [16]. But User:AlexTheWhovian refuses to restore the names in the style that existed for years. Also he does not undelete the line article, despite being asked on his talk after he wrote at WP:RMT that he will deal with the pages.

What is "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" for if the single-handed controversial moves are not reverted? And how can English Wikipedia get back the article about the Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line (a line, not the station "Aviamotornaya")? 77.180.170.123 (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that User:AlexTheWhovian resorted to remove content from the user talk page [17] 77.180.170.123 (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian is permitted to remove content from his talk page. I think this is the same dispute that SMcCandlish posted about recently at WP:VPP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• RfC already opened at WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Russian railway line article titles, and cross-referenced to the ongoing essentially duplicate but earlier discussion there about Chinese railway lines. This ANI is basically a WP:TALKFORK. On the substantive matter: Some one-country wikiproject is not in a position to make up its own "rules" that directly conflict with policies and guidelines (see WP:CONLEVEL policy and WP:PROJPAGE). The fact that some obscure articles have had bad style, against the article titles policy and the Manual of Style, for a year or so doesn't magically make them immune to correction and does not indicate a consensus about them at all; that's just a WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:CONTENTAGE argument to avoid.

  What the vexatious anon is not telling you is that just over a day ago, "an" anon (likely the same party, but who knows) unilaterally moved these articles, via WP:RM/TR [18], to names that do not comply with WP:AT, WP:NCCAPS / MOS:CAPS, or MOS:DASH. Those were the actually controversial moves, but cannot easily be undone because the original titles were immediately changed from redirects to disambiguation pages. Dicklyon later corrected these title problems, then the anon (bouncing around on various IP addresses, mostly in the 77.179.*, 78.55.*, 85.180.*, ranges) challenged that as "undiscussed". People patching up a mistake someone else made is not the mistake.

  Regardless, given that the number of articles this would affect one way or another is larger than the four at issue here, and given that this is a WP:CONSISTENCY matter that should be resolved in concert with another ongoing RfC about similar names, the RfC linked above is place for the community to come to a consensus about this.

  PS: "Another" anon (in 80.171.*, and probably the same party), continues to push the Russian rail line overcapitalization moves at RM/TR as we speak [19]. This needs to stop, since it's an RfC matter now. Surely the same party (now in 92.231.*, and a bit earlier at 213.39.186.16) is making WP:ICANTHEARYOU arguments at the RfC after they were already addressed at RM/TR. This is getting disruptive, even aside from the rapidfire IP-address hopping making it look like multiple editors (and avoiding WP:UWT warnings, {{DS/alert|at}} notices, and other usual process). This user was already warned by uninvolved parties they were being disruptive at RM [20], and also made repeated false accusations that those who disagree with this person are liars [21] including after the warning [22]; did it again here [23], and there was another of these somewhere, but I got tired of diffing.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC); updated:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Short-term range blocks requested: The disruption continues (as 92.231.182.37 then 77.179.78.253), now with a barrage of WP:BLUDGEON text-walling to derail the RfC [24]. I've refactored this mess to the "Extended discussion" section where it belongs [25], but the anon will not comply and is flailing [26], and did it again [27], received a 3RR warning [28][29], but just hopped IPs to 77.179.100.51 and did it again [30]. (At least there can no longer be any doubt they're all the same person.) The material is simply rehash of the points the anon has already made in the original !vote, and which (so far) 100% of RfC respondents are discounting. Further false accusations of dishonesty [31]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• It's continuing further, with a revert of part of the RfC itself (we're way beyond 3RR now), plus injections of the anon's "evidence" into the RfC wording [32], and yet another false claim I'm a liar [33], couched in WP:SANCTIONGAMING terms – believes it's okay to call other editors liars as long as the word "liar" isn't used. Additional IPs in use: 85.182.27.83 and 92.226.217.125 (that one to interleave personalized objections into the RfC intro [34]). It's time this was shut down. A complete mess is being made of this RfC by one WP:BLUDGEONer, and I would have a 3RR issue myself if I attempted to do anything further about it, so I ask an admin to refactor the anon's extraneous and redundant commentary into the "Extended discussion" section again, and remove the non-neutral material the anon injected into the RfC wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Anon (now as 80.171.194.5) did it again, at least the 5th revert on the same material on the same page in the last couple of hours [35]. This is now a mandatory 3RR block.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a section named comments and to that policy/guideline specific subsections have been added. SMcCandlish moved that content downward. Re "yet another false claim I'm a liar" the provided diff showing the IP edit, does not contain such a claim. User:SMcCandlish claimed the untrue once again. The articles about Moscow Metro lived in peace - no move-warring. User:SMcCandlish hoppes in, makes false claims about capitalization, cf Category:Rail infrastructure in New York (state), Category:Monorails in the United States - a lot of upper case... 80.171.194.5 (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever excuses you think you have for revertwarring, they don't apply. WP:ANEW has been made aware [36] of this ANI thread, in lieu of opening a redundant ANEW form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Moscow metro - WP:RMT logic (part 2)

• To clarify what the argument is about, there seem to be these points:
  1. "Line" versus "line"; if a railway line goes to Xtown, is "the Xtown line" a proper name (the Xtown Line) or not?
  2. Hyphen versus en-dash versus em-dash: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes.
  3. Disambiguating when the same place has stations on two or more railway lines.
  4. And what else?

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

That's the content dispute, which will be settled by the RfC. This ANI is about behavior. The anon opened it without an apparent focus (seemed to just be irritated about the situation), but has since then gone on a revert-warring and RfC-disruption rampage; the ANI is now about this behavior problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So, this was pretty inevitable. The IP has a history going back about a month or so of running about making move demands in multiple places , assuming that what they wanted was utterly unimpeachable and then becoming a bit hostile when they don’t get their way.[37]. It seems the IP has become more assertive recently and moving to make pretty broad demands across the system. As soon as things didn’t quite go their way, the response has become a bit more hostile and uncivil ranging from unsubstantiated charges [38] to insults in edit summaries [39] to the generally disruptive edits on the RfC as noted above. It might be worthwhile for an experienced editor preferably with some knowledge of Russian topics to at least take a shot at mentoring the IP. In this case, I think we’ve had a case of giving an inch leading to taking a mile. Some early success in getting requests approved without much resistance created a bit of a sense of undeserved self-righteousness. Now we may just have to tug the leash a little bit. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two ambiguous names involved, which were disambiguated by Anthony Appleyard (thanks a lot!):

• Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Metro) to Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) // WP:RMTR
  • stated reason = There is another one Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Central Circle)
• Aviamotornaya (Moscow Metro) to Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) // WP:RMTR
  • stated reason = There are two, see Aviamotornaya (disambiguation). Precedent for disambiguator: Delovoy Tsentr (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) Afterwards the old name should redirect to Aviamotornaya (disambiguation)

User:Dicklyon later moved the pages again. This was opposed, since it introduced a new type of disambiguation "X line" instead of longstanding "X Line". User:Jenks24 restored - against year old consensus - the ambiguous names. If you want to change the naming system, go for it, but do it via discussion. As long as there is not agreement the old system should be used. User:Jenks24 - why don't you restore the current consensus way of naming for Moscow Metro stations? 92.226.217.9 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shiftchange's continual personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Shiftchange is continually making nasty personal attacks against a number of users, alleging them of "paid editing" and/or baseless sockpuppet allegations for having disagreed with him about content issues. This has been progressively getting worse over the last couple of months, but it is starting to get out of hand. Today alone: [40] (against Kerry Raymond), [41] (against various editors), [42] (against me for the first time), [43] (against Kerry Raymond again). There was also a string of serious attacks against Kerry and others on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board beginning on around 16 October which appear to have been removed from that page's edit history, and for which he was requested to stop at the time. His edit history over the last couple of months demonstrates an escalating history of lashing out with personal attacks (if not overtly, very thinly veiled) against anyone who disagrees with him, even people (as Kerry and I have) who have worked with him fine in the past.

He has also just launched a nonsense sockpuppet request against Kerry Raymond, having continually (and baselessly) alleged for some time that she is the sockmaster of B20097, a difficult conservative editor with whom she has absolutely nothing in common with, in edit histories, political views or otherwise. He's also been abusing Wikipedia's email function to send nasty messages about other editors, as I received one about Kerry some time ago (happy to share to admins if need be, but not posting here).

Admin Nick-D suggested earlier today that these warranted a block (but that he couldn't impose one himself due to past interaction with Shiftchange), and I agree that this is necessary and have gone on long enough. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a content dispute which might warrant discussion, but Shiftchange's accusations of paid editing appear baseless. Unless Shiftchange has additional evidence to present, or is willing to back down, administrative action appears to be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. we must discuss the propaganda, intensely. The quotation of political statements. Its so pure and obvious. This is what I have been doing, discuss the propaganda, intensely. That hasn't happened adequately, so I have escalated my response, demonstrating what I know. We can still see the neutrality tag on Safe Schools Coalition Australia. Still unresolved. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on my experience on American Politics, there are always people who will make partisan edits without pay. Separately, your statements are somewhat incoherent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• There's nothing prohibiting filing SPIs (if anything, it will most likely disprove his accusations), but Shiftchange, you must immediately stop these baseless accusations. Keep such comments/accusations/reports on WP:COIN, where they belong, and stop WP:HARASSING other editors with these accusations and aspersions, either on-wiki or off-wiki. Pinging Nick-D. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, I think that Shiftchange should be blocked for repeatedly making baseless accusations of paid editing against good faith editors and disrupting articles. This has been a long-running problem, with attempts by multiple editors asking them to stop it being unsuccessful - I'd include diffs to examples from the October discussion noted above, but the edits were oversighted by @Mailer diablo:, which by itself provides an indication of how out of line the comments were. Such accusations are among the most serious kinds of criticism which can be made against established Wikipedia editors, and Shiftchange is making them recklessly. For instance, in this case they're accusing The Drover's Wife of being a "paid operative" posting "propaganda" for reverting their disruptive attempts to remove a simple and neutral summary of a political party's policies (example) They are also threatening to turn up in person to disrupt a Wikimedia meet up to raise this issue [44] which seems to be a further and potentially quite serious escalation. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to the above as I'd missed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kerry Raymond. This report started by Shiftchange is an utterly baseless slur. There are no similarities between the editing patterns of the two accounts, and Kerry is pretty much the definition of a Wikipedia editor (and Wikimedia contributor more generally) in good standing. This report is also a significant escalation, and grounds for a block in its own right. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

How can someone threaten to turn up at a meetup and have a discussion about paid editing? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is how you threatened to turn up at a meetup and have a discussion about paid editing. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

After that we talk about how to systemically remove the propaganda from our articles according to our policy of what Wikipedia is not. Why is that threatening to you? Can you see our policy on soapboxing? Not all expression, some is excluded. Banned and excluded from inclusion unlike my attendance at the meetup. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If I didn't have a COI in the sense that I know Shiftchange in person and have socialised on numerous occasions with Kerry, I would be blocking for this and the recent sordid history of aspersions as outlined above by User:The Drover's Wife. There's nothing wrong with raising an SPI case, but there is something wrong with raising one simply to harass with no valid basis, as it is occurring here. I am very disappointed by this turn of events, as until recently Shiftchange was an editor who I held in very high regard. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC).

• From the SPI: [45] "The editor personally admitted it to me, I don't have diffs" - good grief, is this actually meant to be taken seriously? That's...I dunno, like the inverse of WP:BROTHER or something, where the little brother says "he did it!". I'm honestly speechless after reading that, and the linked "proposal". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• The SPI has been closed and archived for lack of evidence: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kerry Raymond/Archive. Now we need a stricture on Shiftchange to stop his continued soapboxing, harassment, and personal attacks. He is currently disruptively litigating on WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and Talk:Katter's Australian Party with blanket accusations of propaganda: WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#All propaganda (trying to restart discussion in good faith); Talk:Katter's Australian Party#Paid editors and propaganda; WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Katter's Australian Party. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: nagualdesign

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Posting YouTube video of superman movie instead of a bots help video. TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not an incident, just a joking response to a nonsensical question that is probably {{minnow}}-worthy but nothing more. To be honest, given you contributions so far, you are not going to have a bot approved. And since you ran directly to ANI within 73 minutes of your first post, have you previously edited under any other accounts? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No other account associates with this IP TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Umm, WP:DNFTT would be useful: TheDeliveryGuy (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• @TheDeliveryGuy: It was obviously meant to mildly amuse you, and having read your original response I thought you understood that. Sorry I didn't reply but I was busy writing an enormous post about something slightly more important. I see now that you edited your response and have decided to take offense instead, and then waste everybody's time by bringing this to ANI. I suggest you stop being so silly and go do something else. nagualdesign 10:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Then the issues is that linked to this is nagualdesign is linked to other businesses in California and second proof is he may be a sock puppetry linked to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:32.218.36.178 also there more evidence against him that he may have a bunch of copyright warning in his talkpage. I will appreciate Every comment in this section. TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The guy in California is called Joseph Bortoli (not sure of the spelling). My name's also Joe, and I also trade as nagualdesign, but I'm from the UK. Joseph and I have exchanged emails in the past, many years ago. It's all very fascinating, I'm sure. The sockpuppet thing is just ridiculous, and not worth commenting on. There are no copyright warnings on my talkpage, only discussions about me, a self-employed designer, asserting my own copyrights. I hope you appreciate this comment. Now shoo! nagualdesign 10:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm getting a strong sense that WP:CIR may be relevant here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am commenting because this kerfuffle started on my talk page while I was asleep. I share The Bushranger's concerns about the OP's competency. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YMblanter abusing tools to subvert consensus to enforce his viewpoint, rude, belligerent, etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

on Death of Daniel Shaver, user YMblanter abuses his tools to enforce the viewpoint of 1 editor against a consensus, claiming to restore to "good version" that only one editor supported, against 5 times as many that supported the actually good version. Refused to give reasons for his administrative actions. Generally rude and belligerent; abuses his tools and they should be removed before he can do more harm. Admitted to giving no fucks about consensus.2600:1017:B404:BD76:E0B5:71EF:2B77:1EF6 (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the diff, to be specific.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Protection was probably warranted. I see no reason to assume it wasn't done in good faith, but the edit summary of "reverted to the last good version" leaves you open to questions like this.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter's protection was perfectly warranted. I was literally on the page history about to do the same exact thing, and Ymblanter beat me to it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you would have restored to the version other than the one that the silent edit warring IP had 4 RR'ed to restore against multiple editors, and which is entirely uninformative...2600:1017:B404:BD76:50C:5EA7:4313:48DE (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I see loads of edit warring and zero attempts to discuss on the talk page, protection seems appropriate to me. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Good (indeed necessary) revert by Ymblanter, and if the OP can't see that the pre-revert version was a mess of BLP violations, it was necessary to protect the article as well. --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

4 editors had restored that version; one vandal kept deleting it who was edit warring. Admin swoops in, and sides with the vandalizing edit warrior who had reverted to that version more than 3 timesover the 4 editors who had no made one more revert each. How does that possibly make sense? What is worse, he refuses to explain his actions. Consesnsus was for the version that this so-called admin reverted. He instead decided to reward the single, vandalizing edit warrior who kept deleting content without explanation over the objections of multiple editors and who remained within the rules. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:THEWRONGVERSION - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I indeed almost always keep the WP:THEWRONGVERSION, but since in this case there were heavy BLP violations in the last version, I reverted it, and this is exactly what pisses the OP off.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"So-called admin" is great. I should start using it. "So-called Wikipedia editor". "So-called IP user".--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

And yes, the "four editors" were restoring a BLP mess, and "the single vandalizing edit warrior" was following policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

here (again) are the Diffs of multiple editors restoring this material, a single tome each, all of which was ignored so the single vandal who kept deleting well-sourced material with cosnensus for inclusion and reverted at least 4 times can whitewash the article and make it entirely uninformative ny the deletion of content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Daniel_Shaver&diff=814526011&oldid=814525997 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Daniel_Shaver&diff=814524792&oldid=814524743 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Daniel_Shaver&diff=814525093&oldid=814525018

The IP started personal attacks: [46] (see the edit summary).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

May be it is time to block them and to close the thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

“hey asshole” in response to your rudeness is not an “attack”. Again, you were rude. You intentionally deleted my comment with the diffs. Still trying to evade scrutiny and abuse your tools, are we? Your conduct in this thread is deplorable. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks everyone for the “humor” post. I guess it doesn’t really matter what version the admins revert to, so they shouldn’t bother to read the page history or assess which side has consensus first. They should just do what they like. Is that really the message?2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you were pointed out to WP:BLP several times already, starting from my talk page. You just prefer not to listen.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

what exactly violates BLP here? You’ve never said. And even on the theory there were 1-2 BLP violations, why not delete them individually, rather than the entire text added by several contributors? Surely even if there were some BLP violations, you can’t possibly think that the entire text added by multiple editors in several sections of the article was a BLP violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The only citation in that "well-sourced material" that was removed in the diff in question was from Vox.com, which is not a reliable source. I'd strongly suggest you drop the stick before it comes back around on you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

wait. Vox is not a reliable source? Even so, I could find hundreds of sources saying the same thing. There is widespread outrage over this verdict and the way that dictator Ymblanter’s version presents it is a sad embarassment to the project. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:90A0:EEF:7868:DDA8 (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

And yet you didn't, you kept reverting to a non-RS, BLP-violating version. "Widespread outrage" isn't a reliable source either. WP:BLP is the single most bright-line policy on Wikipedia behind WP:V, and if an article is violating BLP there is no such thing as edit warring to remove the violating content. In a case where multiple editors were edit-warring to restore it, protecting the non-violating version is the exact opposite of "a sad embarassment to the project". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought the key policy was "inform the readers." No one who reads that article would learn anything about it if they didn't go read the sources themselves. The version of the lead which was restored is certainly an embarrassment, in my view. For example, this is an article titled "Death of Daniel Shaver" which doesn't even mention he was killed in the lead, for crying out loud. It just says he was "shot." How quaint. 2600:1017:B404:BD76:50C:5EA7:4313:48DE (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the version you insist on also does not say he was killed. It says he was executed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, let us ask them: @Tobias994:, @Alpha3031:, why did you revert the text to versions containing blatant BLP violations and strongly non-neutral language?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, It looked like an semi-accidental deletion to me, as the revision I reverted left a dangling "Tex" and there was no edit summary. I didn't revert the second time it popped up on my feed since it looked like more objective language that time. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 11:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saoirse Ronan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Davey2010 wants to revert to a poor version of the Saoirse Ronan article as opposed to a much-better version for reasons I can't fathom. When warned at this talk page, this was his abusive edit summary. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But it is not appropriate for you to just template him again after reporting here while you don't even notify him of this thread. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is clearly a content dispute; an editor with six years' tenure who doesn't know either that or what WP:DTTR is (over a phenomonally petty reason, might I add), should probably either read up on WP:BOOMERANG for wasting all our time. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I presume that the bigger lesson to learn on Wikipedia is to say fuck off to other editors and then walk away scot-free. Gotcha! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But it's appropriate to tell another editor to "fuck off"? And it's not okay for me to then tell that editor to not use personal attacks? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Torah has been adding various stuff to the article which was disputed (and she then was blocked for edit warring), I asked them to go to the talkpage to discuss their edits, I will accept fault for not adding your edits back the first time round but other than that I don't believe I've done anything wrong here, Also you were pointed to WP:DTTR so the very next thing you shouldn't do is template me!, This is a content dispute and as such belongs on the articles talkpage. –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not Torah. You can't blindly revert me, and then ask me to fuck off, when I call you out on your mistake. That's just not done. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I reinstated what I believed to be your edits, Well I can if you're going to template me with an Only Warning template, You didn't call me out on my mistake tho - had you said "Dave could you explain your reverts?" I then would've been more than happy to have a conversation with you but if you're only going to slap a pathetic warning on my talkpage without even trying to discuss it first then quite rightly I'm going to tell you to fuck off, Personal messages go along way in my book and they more helpful than a templated warning. –Davey2010^Talk 18:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate or not, it's hardly unsurprising :) Civility is not just about 'fuck' /et al,; see WP:CIV: Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with. Equally uncivil, some would say. Worth condidering alternatives, defintely. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It would have been a surprise if we treated others with a bit more respect. A warning template v/s an abusive message. If you consider the former to be a bigger infraction than the latter, then that's the big problem. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actions by User:Ckruschke may be in breach of WP:OWN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ckruschke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• O Holy Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Ckruschke has reverted several good additions to O Holy Night on the basis that "it is not meant to be added to". This is a ridiculous premise in direct opposition to the whole idea of expanding an encyclopaedia. I consider his/her actions to breach both WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The relevant diffs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. May we please have an administrative decision on the current status of the article, subject to any citations being needed. Thank you. CravinChillies 17:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think their edit summary is silly. As for citations, well, that list is terrible of course. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Imo that whole section "Notable Versions" is problematic and the article would not suffer from its being entirely deleted. Notable according to whom? It 's just a list of random editors' favs and devoid of encyclopedic value.Smeat75 (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    • While I quite agree with the animus against Josh Groban, I can't justify it encyclopedically. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Smeat75: WP:5P1 defines Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The recorded versions listed in the article are bona fide examples of the song and I cannot see how they could be deemed to breach WP:NOT, which is the only way content can be "unencyclopaedic". If there is no breach of WP:NOT, then a claim of "unencyclopaedic" is invalid and amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a pernicious syndrome that I see far too often on talk pages. In principle, the examples comply with WP:CCPOL except that a few more citations are needed per WP:V and these lines have been tagged accordingly to encourage provision of same. CravinChillies 14:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• This page used to be a mess with constant IP editors entering in their pet songs left and right. I inserted the comment "This is not a catch-all list - artists named only skim the surface - Do not add to list without a reliable source saying how it is notable." simply as a way to control the never ending IP editing and fancruft that people put on here. The songs/artists are all that have charted thus establishing some sort of notability - without some standard, it ends up being a catchall for every version (which is what it was five years ago). I've editted the page I think 35 times in 5 years. Most of it was keeping the wolves at bay. I guess if that means I "own" the page, then I apologize. That was not my intent. BTW, User:CravinChillies has edited the page six times in the three days he's been on the page. So I'm open to the administrators decision on this. If the page would be better served having someone watch it to keep the crap off, I can simply remove it from my watch list. No blood, no foul. I will say that it would have been nice to have User:CravinChillies contact me and discuss my edits or put something up on Talk first rather than running to put up an incident action first. I think that's usually how the process is supposed to work rather than cry foul and start to rewrite the page on your own... Ckruschke (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke
• WP:OWN seems to be invoked a lot by editors who meet resistance trying to add their "own" favorite content, against anyone who insists on standards and quality. We have way too much superficial and non-notable trivia – what I call "factoidism" – that cheapens the encyclopedia. Quite aside from CravinChillies being a bit quick to run to ANI, I think we should support anyone that insists on standards and resists trivialization. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• The appropriate page is not WP:OWN but WP:LAME. Talk pages are there for a reason. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the point of getting into an article talk page argument with someone who has made their position crystal clear by reverting bona fide content SIX TIMES. In my opinion, I thought administrators should deal with that but, so far, I am not seeing anything from administrators that comes within a mile of an actual decision. The most sensible and relevant comment above is by someone who isn't an administrator (but who doesn't necessarily agree with me). I have tried to improve the article by introducing some better quality into the intro and by providing citations. I have not seen any recent attempt by the other party to actually improve the article. And, btw, I am a lady editor – is this page some kind of boys only gathering? I have been warned about this by other editors, some of whom are disillusioned EX-editors. CravinChillies 12:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to get into an "argument" about it, you and the other editors can have a polite discussion and arrive at a consensus, which is exactly what article talk pages are for.Smeat75 (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It takes two to tangle, and if those six reverts are of the same content then there were six additions – yours? – and it's a matter of edit-warring. Even if it was different content, there is still a conduct problem. The underlying issue is whether specific content should be included, or not, for which – the point you don't see – the proper venue for discussion is on the Talk page. Which you have not attempted. If you will not discuss – or argue, which means to "give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action," etc. — for your desired edits on the Talk page then you have no basis for complaint when they get reverted. And no reason for coming to ANI, as the conduct at fault is yours, for not discussing the matter at the right place.

As an aside (because ANI is not the place argue content issues) I point out that being bona fide (whatever that is supposed to signify in respect of content), or even verifiable, is not sufficient basis to guarantee inclusion of material. But that is a matter for the Talk page. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@CravinChillies: That something is true does not make it encyclopedic. It must have sufficient notability, see WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Paul August ☎ 21:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jytdog Ban breaking/request of Enforcement and further actions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Case:

Jytdog has recently raised a ruckus in chitosan related articles. Specifically, he has arbitrary deleted some articles and included blatantly erroneous and flawed technical information in others. Chitosan is a natural molecule used as agricultural biopesticide and fertilizer (link). His editions where reverted by another user and the reasons for the reversion explained in the editions and on Jytdog talk page (link). As a consequence Jytdog started a harassment campaign in the name of COI against the user(link).

Reasons for ANI:

- Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted(link), that includes chitosan articles.

- His misuse of COI policies against other users to harass them seems to be a recurrent and not corrected behavior, even after sanctions (link)

- Jytdog's modus operandi based on deleting/merging articles to promote biased and personal opinions has been a recurrent topic for ANI (link)

- His deliberate or unintentional vandalism of chitosan related topics has resulted on a quality detriment of those articles, as reported by other users (link). This implies the loss of abundant work form many other users with the expertise and the willing to improve WP.

- In the light of the events, there are no indications that the edit pattern of Jytdog or his past attacks to other users (link) (link2) (link3) have changed after sanctions.

Requests:

- Immediate enforcement of the ban on agricultural chemicals on Jytdog

- Investigate other possible articles and users affected by Jytdog's none neutral edits and aggressive use of COI.

- Investigate possible actions to prevent further damage to WP by Jytdog and his attacks to other users, taking in consideration the (limited) results of previous bans and warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that posting this complaint are the first-ever edits by this IP. Considering the above, and the editor's obvious knowledge of Jytdog's past history, as well as Wikipedia "inside baseball", I suggest that nothing be done about this report until the IP has indentified what IPs they usually edit under, or what their regular account name is. I make this suggestion because the report reeks of retribution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@104.193.226.178: I think the link you posted to this alleged "harassment campaign" may be wrong. Can you check if you linked to the correct page? I see a COI template and polite communication. I do not see harassment, and certainly not a campaign. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I think that Jytdog goes in a little too hard, but this is not harassment. I'd even be tempted to describe it as model behaviour when approaching a suspected COI situation. I am also not convinced about the link between Shrilk and "genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals". While Shrilk is made from a substance sometimes used as an agricultural chemical, if this were a valid link then Jytdog would not be able to edit articles on say, beer, since both beer and pesticides contain water. Like BMK, I am also curious as to how a fresh IP managed to stumble onto this case and be concerned enough to bring it straight to ANI. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

@104.193.226.178: please log in to your account if you wish to attack users on this noticeboard. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unfair close of previous ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm an unregistered user collaborating on WP for the last 8+ years with small editions here an there, mostly on organic chemistry. Recently I raised an ANI (link) about a user "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted;" who was editing "Chitosan", a compound used as fertilizer and biopestizide.

The response to the ANI was closing it without investigation because I don't have a user. Is worth noticing that the user closing the topic has a strong opinion on the contribution of unregistered users like me and he is author of this (link). While I respect the decisions made on every arbitration, I believe this closure without investigation is strongly unfair. There is no rule about unregistered users not asking ANI and there is no report of edit wars or similar requiring to know past grudge between users.

I, somehow, was expecting an unbiased investigation of a ban break, not an scrutiny of my ideas about anonymity or a discussion on the polices about unregistered users (Shooting the messenger). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• In that case, I'll just add a note I didn't have time to add before the "Jytdog Ban breaking/request of Enforcement and further actions" thread above was closed: As Jytdog has pointed out on his page, the IP 104.193.226.178 geolocates to the workplace of Javier Fernandez, the inventor of the substance at issue above, Chitosan.[47] So does the IP 202.94.70.60, which Jytdog supposedly "harassed" by posting a COI notice. 202.94.70.60 has acknowledged a connection: "Prof. Javier is my math professor."[48] 104.193.226.178, do you have a similar connection? Are you the same person as 202.94.70.60?

About your complaint: I think the reason people assume you have an account is the wide and deep knowledge you demonstrate of Wikipedia history and conventions ("Wikipedia inside baseball", as Beyond My Ken says), which is hardly compatible with "collaborating on WP for the last 8+ years with small editions here and there". Bishonen | talk 13:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

I have no idea what is "Wikipedia inside baseball", and I didn't know that knowledge was required to edit articles on organic chemistry.

An user banned to edit agricultural chemicals is editing chitosan, an article on an agricultural chemical. How come the discussion is about COI or no COI of a different user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs)

Quote: "There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny.". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the dispute here exactly? I reported the edition of an article by a banned user, I don't see the dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs)

It may be a good idea to retract your false allegation about a "harassment campaign". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

When you have a discussion on "notability" of an article and a user starts requesting other participants identifications, transforming the discussion on the content of an article and its notability on COI or no COI of the participants, and in particular of those challenging his ideas... how do you call that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. Read WP:SIGN for more information. Lankiveil wrote: "I'd even be tempted to describe it as model behaviour when approaching a suspected COI situation.". Lankiveil is not wrong. Maybe you are unfamiliar with Conflict of Interest cases on Wikipedia and the way they are usually handled. In this case, asking about conflicts of interest was a reasonable thing to do, and it was done politely. You overreacted, and falsely accused someone of starting a "harassment campaign". I would recommend retracting that false allegation. If you want more information about conflicts of interest on Wikipedia you can read WP:COI. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your view that on a discussion on notability of an article, the "thing to do" is neglect the discussion on notability and conclude that the is no notability because one of the participants might have a COI. There are two invalid arguments there: One is a clear example of Ad hominem, because you are using a characteristic of the user (his COI) to demonstrate his arguments are wrong, you are not discussing his arguments. The other one is a Non sequitur, because you are producing conclusion on the notability of a topic based on arguments of COI of a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained changes and incomprehensible changes

LisburnThePriest (talk · contribs) has been creating new categories, many of which are simply wrong and against good logic. A band or performer may be of one genre at one point but to assume that they will remain in a genre permanently is not logical. This has been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and related projects in the past. Also adding categories to subjects which don't apply such as these two for a band that has not been listed with the genres. All of this is done without discussion and without explanation. Requests on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

LisburnThePriest is engaging in genre warring, adding unsupported genres to band article, and also adding those same genres to categories related to the bands. The user ought to be blocked unless they communicate a realization that this behavior is disruptive, and express an intent to cite reliable sources and stick to those sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

One other thing of note is that LisburnThePriest's edits are far too advanced to be that of an editor who has only been around for a few months. The editor immediately started with category creation and similar edits. This is likely an alternate account or a sock. I don't have enough evidence to prove WP:DUCK though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Civility and insults made by User:Nightscream

• Nightscream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Splatty Tomato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Nightscream and I got into a bit of an edit war (mistakes were admittedly made on both of our parts) on the article Splatty Tomato. I admitted to the mistakes that I had made and apologized for such on my talk page and instead of being civil, Nightscream decides to continue the personal attacks on me. His statements to me on my talk page is something I don't believe that any editor should have to put up with and IMO are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. Please review the statements made on my talk page, specifically the ones at User talk:SanAnMan#Splatty Tomato. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting frustrated with repeated instances of subpar prose is one thing, but the way he condescended your work (i.e. "nor am I writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing" and "All you're doing by fighting me ensuring the same illiterate, incoherently written gibberish of hit-or-miss clarity that tends to pass for content") was definitely unwarranted and out of line. For what it's worth, he did at least apologize for his tone, which is much better than showing no remorse at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: That apology looked to be tongue-in-cheek to me, did you not see his closing statement "But in the mean time, feel free to waste your time replacing good, clear writing with grammatically incoherent sentences, redundant add-ons, and passages of unclear meaning to the uninitiated reader, all the while employing logical fallacies to justify doing so, if you prefer." This isn't an apology, it's still an attack. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Must've somehow read it as a "I'm sorry but this needs to be said" sort of thing first time around. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And you brought this here why, exactly? To see how many of us agree with Nightscream? I agree with Nightscream. These comments were a bit tetchy, but nonetheless constructive and aimed at achieving a collaborative result. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding comment to avoid archive. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sergio Haziq

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

[49] Lots of disruptive editing. I recently spotted them when looking at the history of Rafael Coelho, which also features similar disruption by other accounts and IPs.2001:A61:370B:2E01:C43C:F690:D11B:206 (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Seems to have stopped editing 10 days ago. Also, next time, please provide WP:DIFFs, and describe the kinds of disruptive editing. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Failure to comply with WP:CITEVAR at Yugoslav coup d'état

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Yugoslav coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:CITEVAR

The subject article was promoted to GA in 2013 and has been pretty stable until November. For a number of years it has used the sfn template ({{sfn|Bloggs|2018|p=12}}) for citations, ie shortened footnotes linking to the full citation in the References section. On 24 November, User:Axxxion began to edit the article, adding material, apparently from a reliable source, and initially using the sfn template (see these edits). There was some argy-bargy over their changes to the article outside of the new material. Axxxion then began adding further information, some from at least one unreliable source but others that appear to be reliable, but now using the bare reference system (<ref></ref>) for citations (see here and here). I objected to this on the basis that the citation style has been established for this article, and Axxxion has failed to use it and therefore to comply with WP:CITEVAR. I believe it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to make the edits to do so in accordance with the existing citation style used in the article in question. I also believe it should not be my job to find the full details of the sources he wishes to use and then to create short and long citations using the correct style. I moved the new material and citations to the talk page of the article so that Axxxion could work on them there to bring them into line with the citation style already in use in the article, but he continues to reinsert them over my objections. I have even offered (here) to demonstrate how to do it using one of the citations he wishes to use, but my offer has been rebuffed. As it is turning into an edit war, I have asked for full protection of the article for a week so this issue can be resolved. I seek a consensus decision on this matter from uninvolved admins and experienced editors. I have advised Axxxion of this thread (here). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh sheesh. Adding valid encylopedic info to articles is far more important to the project than farting around with those templates. If the references are sufficient for human readers to find the sources, we're doing our job writing an encyclopedia even if we're not providing enough unpaid labor to satisfy the scraping companies. You don't have any responsibility to add the templates and it's fine to leave that task for editors who like doing that sort of thing. If nobody else wants to do it either, that tells me the templates are more trouble than they're worth.

I don't believe that the GA status of the article is in any way imperiled by the citation styles being inconsistent. Can you imagine a GA review decertifying the article over something like that? At worst someone who cares about the damn templates would fix them. As someone who doesn't care about templates, I'm perfectly satisfied if it never gets done. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:GACR: "Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style." (emphasis mine). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you taken this to dispute resolution, @Peacemaker67:? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bushranger, yeah, I understand that a perfect editor would add good content and format their citations in a consistent style, but we tolerate imperfection in this project. I'm much happier with an editor contributing good content with inconsistently styled citations, than one who gets all their templates formatted perfectly but doesn't contribute any useful content. My guess is that taking the matter to dispute resolution won't improve the situation and will probably make it worse. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bushranger, I have a fair amount of experience with various forms of DR, and essentially I did not think any form of DR would be useful here, largely due to the interaction I've already had with Axxxion on the page and his talk page. I would add that I have reviewed over 175 GAs, and I have always applied the standard that inline citations should use a consistent style. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how protecting the article will help either. I really just wouldn't worry about this. If you feel strongly enough about the missing templates to be willing to fix them, then fix them. If not, just leave the mixed style alone and maybe someone else will fix it later. I'd only escalate or protect the page if someone adds the templates and Axxion edit wars to take them back out. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, every one here. I find it quite indicative that some people on this thread are condemning arbitrary action in the article in question by Peacemaker doing so anonymously. Apparently they feel potentially intimidated by this admin. Fortunately, we are not here in Russ Wiki, where even such discussion, as I know very well from my experience, would be unthinkable. I believe his stance is obviously ridiculous and his action is so obviously disruptive and unproductive, that i only have to thank him for initiating this thread.Axxxion (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Naturally, I do not mind Peacemaker (or any one else) making references consistent in style as he sees appropriate, but clearly that is not what he wants. He just massively deletes perfectly legitimate sourced material (in the last round of deletions he deleted the whole section completely - [50]). The impression one gets is that such edits seek to achieve one′s ownership of the article and keep it intact from any one else′s edits, apparently using it as a fetish to boost one′s traumatised ego.Axxxion (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

In view of the above said, I see it imperative that @Peacemaker67: should be barred from editing this article. And his administrator′s status should be reviewed as well.Axxxion (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion, Peacemaker offered you help formatting the references here and you didn't take it. Why? Peacemaker has a great deal of experience writing high-quality content, and exposure to their editing techniques can only help you improve your own skills. I simply don't understand why you wouldn't take advantage of their knowledge. Also, I highly doubt they will receive either a topic ban or have their admin tools removed as a result of this one report, so proposing that won't help your case. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, he is welcome to fix the problem if he sees one -- I don′t. I do see a problem with his obvious finding some fault or other with my edits: look at the preceding deletions there by him: quite obvious he does not like the material itself, and just looking for a pretext.Axxxion (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• If I may: The sudden insistence on sfn templates, especially in GAs and FAs and by those who seek to improve articles to those levels, is a real barrier to content improvement. It's caused me to walk away from more than one article I could have improved. Those templates are impenetrable, and even more than the older citation templates (which are used in their "harv" variant for the citation definitions), they produce an output that is just odd to many of us in the humanities. That said, Axxxion was in the wrong here in giving up on using the established format in a GA, and in this pair of refs they added: <ref name="kommersblack">[http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2297059 „Черная рука" в Кремле (Black Hand in Kremlin)], Игор Бухаркин, Комменсарть, 21.05.2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.promacedonia.org/en/kms/5.html Die „Schwarze Hand" schlägt zu]</ref> the first is a complete citation, but the second lacks necessary information. Peacemaker67 should have gritted their teeth and either formatted the citations to match, or left the article for a few days to see whether some wikignome would come along to do so, rather than removing what they admit are valid edits. The IP is right, the citation format is subordinate to content, even in a GA. NODEADLINE applies, although it's best not to leave the article with a mixed citation style for too long. But Axxxion didn't give sufficient information in one of those references, and that's imposing an unjustifiable burden on other editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thanks indeed for raising pertinent issues: quite frankly it is all beyond my ken and i just do not want to waste time on fixing a problem that does not really exist (See also my post just above). AND - Yes, ″this pair of refs they added″ - in fact three, which long pre-date my edits: that did not trouble Peacemaker until now: See ″Development of the coup″ section, a cluster of refs at end of 2nd para.Axxxion (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Another peanut gallery comment: If the edits are well-supported with verifiable sources and otherwise comply with WP:CCPOL, then complaints about how those sources are cited strikes me as navel-gazing concern with process over product. The reference to WP:CITEVAR in the OP here is also a bit of a double-edged sword: ...editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike. The preference for a consistent citation style is merely that, a preference. Removing inconsistent cites and insisting on their being fixed to the remover's satisfaction is arguably more disruptive than putting them in in the first place. The assumption that DR processes will be non-fruitful before even trying them equally short-sighted. All in all, this complaint does not seem ripe for ANI. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Apart from the additions at this particular article, I must say that I'm concerned about some of what I'm seeing from Axxxion. Above the comment I referenced earlier, they put "apparently using it as a fetish to boost one's traumatised ego", in reference to Peacemaker. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but I find this commentary completely unnecessary and over the line. When they say to comment on content, not the contributor, this is exactly what they are talking about. And then they call for Peacemaker to be topic-banned and possibly desysopped? After seeing that, I must say that I wouldn't blame Peacemaker if they didn't want to collaborate with somebody criticizing them like this. In addition, I don't understand why Axxxion would say "Sleep well and have nice dreams" to Peacemaker on the talk page of the article in question, or why they would use the phrase "beyond my ken" here (perhaps in response to this?). It would be great if someone could (at a minimum) warn Axxxion against making personal attacks and urge them to work in a more collegial manner. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with this and would ask that Axxxion avoid personalizing the issue, per Giants2008. But I'd also urge Peacemaker to relax about the formatting. To the extent possible we should edit with a song in our heart, rather than gritting our teeth (subject ourselves to wikistress). If an inconsequential thing like this gets you stressed, it's easiest to just leave it alone. The project won't die from it. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Clicking the "index" link at the bottom of the "Die „Schwarze Hand" schlägt zu" (The black hand strikes) page shows that it's a section of the 1959 book "Der König muss sterben" (the King must die) by Themistokles Papasissis, Berlin: Heinrich Bär, o.J.). Web search finds many references to this book, which is about the 1934 assassination of Alexander I of Yugoslavia. So maybe the footnote could be improved by mentioning the book explicitly, but it wasn't much of a mystery so imho the citation is mostly ok and wp:sofixit suffices. Fwiw, there appears to be an English edition of the book,[51] that might be useful for the article. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

By way of clarification: all those three refs at the end of the sentence containing mention of the Black Hand had been added long before I began editing that article and those refs did not cause any objections on the part of Peacemaker THEN (as can be seen from the diff i quoted above). I personally think that the mention of Black Hand is a bit contrived here and would rather have it deleted; but the link to Kommersant article contains valuable info on Simovich staying in Moscow for a fortnight shortly before the coup, which should be kept. Apropos my being personal, I actually tried to be impersonal by employing the pronoun ″one′s″ (if one reads my posts carefully). The feeling I referred to is understandable and common to many and perhaps all of us, who created an article and invested much of time and effort into it. But I do suggest that Peacemaker may have been personal in his attitude, as how else would one explain his raising this issue (that pre-dates my edits in the article) only after I began editing? The first minor incident we had was in the Russian Protective Corps article that contained an obvious factual mistake (about Shteifon′s death - See TalkPage there), while the source cited said sth entirely different. After some initial squabbling, the dispute there was settled in a reasonable manner. But already then, I got impression that Peacemaker tends to present a GA status of an article as an infallibility certificate, whereas quite clearly no one took the trouble (when vetting the article) to check the baseline facts. Axxxion (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Behavioral issues aside, I agree with Yngvadottir, the use of sfn can be offputting to an editor who wishes to either add new content or in particular copy sourced material from an article that doesn't use sfn to one that does. It isn't easy to do and I also have just given up at in the past as I simply didn't have time. Being more or less required for GA or FA is an imposition on the average editor who relies on the citation templates in the toolbar. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • While I can't speak for FAC, for 'tis an undiscovered country from which no traveler returns, if people are requiring these to pass GANs then {{trout}}s need to start being handed out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but I see absolutely no problem with editors adding valid information to an article in which sfn is the current consistent referencing style, but not using sfn to reference the new information. As others have said above, as long as the ref is a valid one, and shows up in the notes, it's all good. I also see no problem with other editors taking that reference and converting it to sfn in order to maintain the consistent style, whether they're doing so for a GA or an FA or not. Like the Bushranger, I don't believe that sfn should be required to pass those standards, although a consistent style of any kind would be good. (And to note: I do not find the sfn style difficult to understand or use.)
      I have a particular referencing preference which seems natural to me, but I try to use sfn or cite templates if those seem to be consistently used throughout an article I'm editing - other referencing styles I'm not so familiar with. But, again, it's the content that matters, and the existence of a reference, not so much how it is expressed. (Except that I cordially dislike in-line external links, although I do use them occasionally, depending on circumstances) Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:ELPOINTS #2 applies to those. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where the idea that sfn is required for FAC came in. There is no requirement for any citation style at FAC other than it be consistent within the article. None of the FAs I've worked on use sfn - they all use a system normally found in history texts. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Ealdgyth is right, everyone. None of the content processes even require citation templates. If you can format references well without the templates, more power to you. However, we do expect the citations to be formatted consistently, and that complete information be provided. Several of the references in the disputed content don't even have publishers listed. I can't speak to how GAN would handle such formatting, but the article wouldn't be able to pass FAC in that state. Reviewers would probably recommend that the references be converted to sfn, but only for the sake of consistency. If sfn wasn't being using, the reviewers wouldn't insist on it, and even if one did it wouldn't be actionable. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks you two for clearing that up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
        • For clarity, I have never suggested that it is a requirement to use sfn at any class of article, only that articles should use just one style per CITEVAR and other policy/guidelines like MOS:FNNR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

COMMENT/REQUEST: As a matter of fact, I sought to use and did use the sfn style in that article and others for citations of books such as one by Sudoplatov -- I actually find it convenient for refs to books; but I fail to get my head around how it could be handled for refs to newspapers, etc. Likewise, I fail to understand how combining different styles impairs the quality of an article. Obviously, it is a case of mere nit-picking over WP legalisms.Axxxion (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Pls dont delete knowledge for our readers simply base on ref style as its not a valid reason WP:DEL-REASON.....fix it WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. ".--Moxy (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed with the comments here. The disregard of the need for clear and consistent referencing standards in our better articles is gob-smacking to me. The referencing by Axxxion is shabby at best, but it appears that I am expected to spend a considerable period of time "fixing it" or just ignore it and hope someone else does (clearly not Axxxion, who is clearly too busy to do it properly in the first place). That's of course assuming the sources are actually reliable and that I can even work out what they are, in a couple of cases given that they are in Russian Cyrillic with no translations or link provided. How anyone thinks that's acceptable is beyond me. But I clearly on my own here, so I withdraw. I look forward to the next article on my watchlist that Axxxion decides to "improve". Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm rather gobsmacked myself that an administrator, having previously demonstrated to the community that they have the trust of the community in their good judgment and excellent knowledge of the rules, is reacting so poorly to the community's expression of doubt in their position. Where is anyone saying that you, personally, are expected to fix it, for example? The references to WP:SOFIXIT and related guidelines/essays say nothing more than it is generally accepted that removing verifiable information over a personal preference for consistency in something 99% of readers never see or use is a poor solution. You may choose to do some extra work or you may choose to ignore it as you see fit. Attempting to ANI some-one into compliance with your preferences, however, is probably the worst approach short of taking them to ArbCom. Why do I care? Because I patrol edit requests often and I will therefore often add information to semi-protected or edit-confirmed protected pages that are at least as "stable" as the article in the OP and I nearly always use the citation toolbar to cite sources. No-one has ever raised the suggestion that this citation inconsistency is worthy of so much as a passing comment, never mind attempted discipline. One or two have been converted after I added them but no fuss was raised. Why should Axxiom's edits be any different? Yes, they have reacted confrontationally and even uncivilly to these questions but they can very justifiably feel that they weren't doing anything wrong in the first place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I'm 100% with you on this one. I've dealt with editors who have tried to change citations in articles with longstanding, stable citation formats, in violation of WP:CITEVAR / WP:CITESTYLE, even after repeatedly being advised about the policy. The small handful of disruptive editors who persist in trying to make changes -- simply because it's their preferred format or they've seen their preferred style used in some other article -- are accomplishing nothing other than creating problems. What's happening here is an unfortunate example of this widespread problem.

If an editor is unaware of CITEVAR / CITESTYLE, I understand and I'll make the fixes; once the editor is familiar with policy and ignores it, then it's on them, especially where the editor actively works to needlessly change a stable style to impose their preference. Alansohn (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Alansohn, maybe you can clarify with a diff, but I haven't seen any claim in this thread so far that Axxxion has changed the style of any existing citation in the article. The claim I see is that Axxxion added new citations that weren't in the same format as the old ones, and explicitly said it was fine if someone wanted to adjust the new ones so they'd match. And I see at least two good editors saying that sfn templates are hard to use and that the citation toolbar thingy doesn't generate them, making them nothing but an annoying obstacle from a pure content perspective.

So it's understandable to me if someone contributing encyclopedic info isn't also willing to jump through technical hoops to satisfy the desires of metadata or MOS fetishists. I'd say there's only an actionable conflict if someone updates Axxxion's new citations to use sfn and then Axxxion changes them back. Otherwise, it sounds like you're free to update them or leave them alone as you see fit. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The comments about sfn being hard to use are utter nonsense. It is simple and clean, far better than bare refs, eliminates duplicate refs etc etc. For Eggishorn, I came here to get a view from admins and experienced editors about this issue, not to have Axxxion disciplined. At no stage have I suggested any such action. If you are going to have a crack, get your facts right. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are 2 editors above who said they had walked away from contributing to affected articles because they didn't want to deal with sfn, and another (the person you opened the thread about) who goes ahead and contributes without using sfn (resulting in an ANI), so it's evident that not everyone perceives sfn the same way you do. Also there's apparently a toolbar pushbutton thing which(?) gets rid of the need to manually edit templates at all, but it doesn't do sfn. So if the toolbar's motivation (that people find templates complicated) is correct, then there's a huge difference between the toolbar and sfn.

Anyway, in the real world, good and bad things are said about wikipedia. Good things about its depth and completeness; bad things about mistakes in articles, conflicts between editors, etc. Nobody out there cares or even notices if the citations in an article don't all use the same format. So I still think the best approach is is to just relax, think of such inconsistencies as variety rather than as something that causes pain, etc. Fix it if you feel like doing so but it's not an obligation and it's not even slightly important: it ranks below an inconsequential but visible spelling error in my opinion. When I see spelling errors, sometimes I fix them and sometimes I don't bother. The project survives either way. That seems like a perfectly good approach to this citation formatting stuff as well. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Added: You asked for the page to be protected, and the idea of such protection is to prevent Axxxion from editing it until he or she is persuaded or coerced into using the sfn template, so that sounds to me like obstructing a productive editor. I'd oppose any such protection: rather, just treat sfn as optional. Use it if you want, otherwise don't. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

173 whatever. I asked for it to be protected so I could get a view here and stop the edit war while I did that. I think that was fair enough, you may disagree. I have already twice asked for the protecting admin to unprotect it so I can re-instate Axxxion's edits, per the consensus here that I am in the minority. That shows that I accept the community view, which I sought. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: As long as the editor has not changed any pre-existing citations, they are free to use whatever citation style for their newly added citations as they please, even bare urls. If someone then wants to take the trouble conform those new citations to sfn or whatever, that's fine, but there is no stricture on how new citations must be formatted. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• That is clearly in conflict with CITEVAR. What is your policy basis for that opinion? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, it is not. If you believe it is, please provide an exact quotation from the guideline. Wikipedia does not dictate how any editor adds a citation; in fact, most people add bare urls. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Have you even read it? "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Should, not must. The main point of WP:CITEVAR (which is a guideline, not a policy) is "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style" (emphasis mine); as long as an editor is not forcing their preferred style on pre-existing citations, they can be assumed to be acting in good faith. And of course, accurate and cited information should never ever be deleted or removed simply because someone doesn't like the way the citation(s) are formatted – that would clearly be tendentious editing. Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• I just love the pulpit preaching you get here when you are a content creator and not a drama board loiterer. That's YOUR point/emphasis, I choose to emphasise editors showing a bit of respect for the content creator(s) who developed the article to GA and not making work for them by using bare citations with next to no information. But, as I say, I am clearly in the minority here. I'll not bring anything similar here in future. And you'll no doubt be happy with that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• In other words, you WP:OWN that article and so what you say goes, policies be damned. I'm a content creator above all, and if someone adds relevant cited info to an article I've created or written the bulk of, I'm grateful no matter how they format the cite, or whether they format it at all or just provide a bare url. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, if they don't follow the existing consistent style, and it bugs me, I just change it.
  Peacemaker67, please don't play the "content creator" card, it's rude to imply that other editors involved in this discussion are not content creators as well, or that their contributions to the encyclopedia in other areas are not valuable. Not everyone who participates in the "dramah boards" are free-riders, although certainly some are.
  I'm sure that you're annoyed by it, but the consensus here appears to be against your interpretation of the guideline -- the "should" versus "must" issue -- and holds that Axxxion (with whom I've had disputes, so please don't think I'm their apologist) did nothing wrong. I suggest it's time that you WP:DROPTHESTICK and get on with you content creation.
  Perhaps someone would like to close this thread? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I also have to express my dissapointment with such poor judgment of an wikipedia admin. Massive removal of cited text explained with the citation style and avoiding to get the point and acknowledge the issue based on apparent consensus, WP:IDHT behavior showed also at the article's talkpage where Peacemaker67 avoided to reply (diff) to straightforward question I asked him (diff) are indeed indication of WP:OWN behavior, as pointed here. Being content creator and having admin privileges in this case is an aggravating rather than a mitigating circumstance. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note that a comment by this user was requested by Axxxion here 3 times. In the future, we could do without such posts that leave the appearance of canvassing. They weren't even necessary, since the discussion wasn't exactly going against Axxxion to start with. Anyway, Antidiskriminator, those comments are from several days ago and Peacemaker has already asked for the article to be unprotected so the changes can be restored. At this point, I don't see how leaving this thread open is helpful in any way. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify - my comment here is based on Peacemaker67's invitation (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Deltasaurus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Deltasaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user registered their account on 1 December 2017, barely a week ago. They have now created unreferenced and suspicious pages about historic animal/species/plant, and science related in large number. Many have failed basic verification if indeed they exist, I am not sure; but some might be hoax. 7 of his drafts have been nominated for deletion here and the discussion have some dissection of the verifiability of the draft contents by User: Lythronaxargestes. They creates articles both in draft and article spaces. They have already created six blatant hoax articles Draft:Lanternsaurus, Noelle 2, 2041 in film, Lanternsaurus, Draft:Wolverhampton Fossil Museum, and Draft:Frugis.Their talkpage is now full of speedy notifications, I think it is time for their contribs to be examined here before they leave what will take years to cleanup –Ammarpad (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

However, the user also has a number of other legitimate contributions. One of their creations, Ieldraan, was a curious mix of fact and fiction by the time I got to working on it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The user has yet to respond to any communications. Largoplazo (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The amount of clear hoaxes mixed into their productions so far indicates that we would be better off without their contributions, IMO. No one wants to have to wade through further offerings like Saldamosaurus, dutifully assuming good faith, when the bad faith has already been on display so blatantly. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to indef them. We really can't be wasting our time cleaning up after someone who might contribute something legitimate in among all the hoaxes. The lack of communication is also unimpressive - perhaps this will push them into responding. I'm not knowledgable about dinosaur topics so I'm not really in a position to evaluate their remaining contributions, however. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

comment: This user is a long-term hoaxer who has made several accounts and abused several IPs prior to "Deltasaurus," all of them have been banned for his hoax creations.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title of Pyotrch Wrangel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Pyotrch Wrangel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This may well be the wrong page for this, but I need attention from any Admin, as I am unable to rectify the botched (by me, incidentally) title of this article, nor address the issue on the relevant page. I was attempting to find a way to revert the title to Pyotr Wrangel, as this is the common practice for Russian names in WP, i.e. without patronymic (such as Vladimir Mayakovsky, Vladimir Putin, etc).Axxxion (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jean-Joseph Sanfourche

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The page Jean-Joseph Sanfourche to completely disappeared in English exists in French and Spanish it is an act of vendalism--88.140.18.15 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the vandalism is in the French and Spanish Wikipedias. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I’ve given this its own sub-heading as it appears to have nothing to do with the Asdfen issue/Doping in Russia article reported immediately above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It was an expired PROD [52]. Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack by Kleuske

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I'm currently in an edit conflict with Kleuske. The tone she uses with me, can hardly be called a hallmark of civility. I've not reciprocated the hostility, nor do I intend to do so, but I do want it to stop. This user has a long history of personal conflicts (block, ArbCom) on the Dutch Wikipedia, which she has since left. Now I wasn't a part of those conflicts and understand they should not play a role on the English Wikipedia, but I do think this information is useful for the bigger picture.

Following my request for more civility, Kleuske told me to "go like her ass clean" by way of a link to the Mozart song. Given the conflict and history of this user, I do not consider this humor. Especially since she implies it to be "payback" for my genuine suggestion that she make take a (literal) stroll, instead of badgering me while I was busy writing a large, complicated rationale.

Could a moderator please try to get through to this user, so that a civil conversation can perhaps be possible, because this is "assuming bad faith" plain and simple. I ask for myself, but also for future users. Thank you. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Having begged for a proper source all afternoon, disputing a page move and explaining (inc. sources) why it's wrong (which was reverted promptly, several times), being told to take a hike and then being berated about "my style of communication" I got thoroughly fed up. As it turns out, AKAKIOS' own source flatly contradicts claims by Akakios and refers to the language in question as "oudnederfrankish" (old low franconian). [53]. This is not the first time AKAKIOS stood out to me by less than reasonable behavior [54]. Kleuske (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah... The request AKAKIOS referred to was for an ISBN-number for a source. It would have taken 20 seconds. Kleuske (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please, do not try to turn this into a content-dispute. I've already explained to you why your assumption that this particular source is self contradictory, is false. But this not about content, this is about you continually addressing me (without any provocation on my side, everybody can check this with the diffs provided) in an unacceptable manner; with the latest remark about me "licking your ass clean" being the reason I filed this complaint. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm merely explaining why I got thoroughly fed up. Kleuske (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You had a reply within 2 hours. Is that reason to tell someone to go "lick your arse"? AKAKIOS (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that was after you berating me on my "style of communication". Kleuske (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Any administrator can see that your entire discourse with me has been uncordial and insulting from the beginning, not just after I made a remark about it. In which, by the way, I was not berating you (anyone can see that) but asked you why you were discussing the way you were/are and telling you that I find it unpleasant and nonconstructive. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And your own style of communication is beyond reproach, I suspect. Kleuske (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is! And even if it wasn't (which it isn't!) it would still not justify your behavior! AKAKIOS (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Wikipedia does not need "rationales" (WP:OR), it needs sources and sources is all I asked for. Not a wall of (unsourced) text teeming with original research, your opinion and WP:PEACOCK terms. Kleuske (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Again: don't make this about content. It's about you making a Personal Attack, something you did and I didn't (if I had, you would have already posted the diffs here). You told another user to "lick your arse clean". Does this not bother you? AKAKIOS (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I specifically told you after begging for a source, you ignoring WP:BRD, several assurances that the source was forthcoming, being treated to a garbled wall of text and finally being berated on my talkpage. Kleuske (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You asked for an ISBN, and got it within 2 hours. You asked for sources, and got them([55]) and then some. But again, and this is the 3rd time I'm saying this: this is not about content. It's about you showing rude and unacceptable behavior, culminating in telling someone to "go and lick your arse". Now you accused me of doing the same and I told you that I did not (daring you to provide proof) and told you that even if true, it would not justify your behavior in any way. Respond to that, instead of spreading incorrect accusations which have nothing to do with your Personal attack against me. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as the Mozart reference goes, that was a direct reponse to your style of communication, your refusal to abide by WP:BRD, trying to WP:OWN the article, getting WP:AGF shoved in my face, editwarring (in which I was an unwilling participant, but still) a refusal to properly cite sources (and flatly contradicting said source), being told to "go for a walk" (take a hike) and a garbled wall of text laced with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I have recently nominated Netherlandic sound shift for deletion, since the term simply does not exist and isn't mentioned in the sources you provide. If I check sources and they flatly contradict your claims, I get frustrated. Strange, but true. Kleuske (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You repeat your accusations, you can even make an untimely nominate a recent article I started for deletion to show your willingness in resolving this matter, but what you cannot do is excuse your behavior by suggesting I made similar remarks (once again, I did not, stop accusing me or provide evidence) or saying that you got frustrated. You are an adult. Adults do not tell others to "go and lick your arse clean" in a civil discussion. AKAKIOS (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I gave my view of the situation, The Mozart reference is one that you deserved, fair and square. I would have put that in Dutch, and oit would have been a lot worse. I am an adult, but I'm not a Nun. Kleuske (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

So there we have it. A personal attack ("go lick my arse clean") made, and the user says it was "deserved fair and square". Now will a moderator please do or at least say something about this kind of unacceptable behavior? Or should I take this PA as a compliment for my own politeness? AKAKIOS (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair and square and I stand by that, especially given your responses at AfD (see below). Kleuske (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• User:AKAKIOS is now casting aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS). Kleuske (talk)
  • More, dragging up stuff from another project in order to smear my character. Kleuske (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Personal attack. Kleuske (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not smearing of character, showing that your treatment of me fits a pattern for which you have been reprimanded multiple times on another Wikipedia. This information can easily be checked by any (Dutch-speaking) administrator. AKAKIOS (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• AKAKIOS is repeatedly adding unsourced/OR material (including making unsourced, and obviously wrong, changes on maps on Commons, maps that are used in multiple articles on multiple WPs; see messages from me on their talk page there), and simply refuses to stop. Even making false claims about their changes being sourced, when they obviously aren't. So it's no wonder other editors become frustrated... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The map in question has all it sources listed. You disputed the fact that Southern Scandinavia was sparsely inhabited (which my general source claims) and I asked for you to bring up a specific source that countered the claim. I even reverted my version to one which does show Southern Sweden as fully inhabited (as you claimed) with the edit summary " Assuming good faith, while waiting on sources for claims." ([56]) to show my constructiveness, this is still the current version and you haven't replied since. AKAKIOS (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've blanked and revdeled the discussion of possible outing here. Why does nobody actually read the "do not post it here" red box above??????--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contributory copyright infringement on Windows Media Center

• Windows Media Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 50.39.196.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hello.

The editor from 50.39.196.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been engaged in contributory copyright infringement in Windows Media Center article. This user has created a section, euphemistically called "Unofficial Windows 10 Port", dedicated to assisting access to an illegitimately distributed copy of Windows Media Center and documenting its releases.

This is, of course, a violation of our Wikipedia:Copyrights policy and the United States laws:

However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. [...] Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [57]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

I have deleted this content (worth 18 kilobytes!) but revision supression and action against this warez distributor is still required.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Similar edits added by this user (and subsequently removed) at Windows Media Center Extender. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like every revision on Windows Media Center going back to August 31, 2016 may need to be revdel'd, along with an entire year's worth of revisions on the other articles, since nobody caught this until now. Well spotted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've revdeled the Windows Media Center edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• @SarekOfVulcan, Mendaliv, Eggishorn, and Codename Lisa: It's unclear whether all of the problematical edits have now been revdelled, or only those on the Windows Media Center article. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

On Windows Media Center Extender, 50.39.etc's edits from this one through this one are still visible in the page history and are similarly problematic to the ones previously revdell'ed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

IP keeps reverting my edits

188.225.75.121 "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" on San Antonio TV station articles [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] I don't want to get into an edit war with an unknown user who may have probably vandalized other articles. My edits are in good faith and consistent with other TV station articles. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you give a link to where the editor left the edit you quoted here?[68] You also might want to beware the boomerang. I see that despite the fact that you did try to communicate with the IP editor, you did revert them a whole bunch of times.[69][70][71][72][73][74][75]. That was also even before you gave them an an actual level 2 warning[76], or reported them here to ANI.[77] Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The edit where the IP made that quote is here: [78] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the IP did not respond to your talk page comments before reverting. I'd suggest continuing with dispute resolution by getting uninvolved domain experts involved, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Film Fan and edit warring to restore synthesis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

I used the talk page. What are you supposed to do if other users refuse to? I thought the revert rule was stop and take it to the talk page, which I did. The edit was then made again weeks later, without any further addition to the conversation, which remains with the last two of my comments unanswered. I tried to direct the other user back to that conversation with no luck. Also, I did suggest the second user was a sock puppet, and I do believe that whether or not that's the case, there must be a link between them because I've never before come across an editor trying to claim that labelling a critically acclaimed film as "critically acclaimed" is somehow problematic. It's sourced, and there are many articles that correctly state that the subject is "critically acclaimed". Regardless of that, I engaged in a debate, or at least tried to. By the way, the nationality of the production companies of a film denote the nationality of the film.

That said, I admit I have been a little eager to jump the gun in recent weeks, and signs of my previous short temper have appeared again, which I'll unashamedly admit is due to being recently bereaved, but would like to point to my many useful edits, and the fact that until recent weeks, I went on a long run of good behavior (two years), which I can commit to returning to with a strong warning. That's the required wake-up call. I have a lot to offer the community. — Film Fan 15:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: do you know if that one revert restriction ever rescinded? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction was not rescinded and should still be in effect. I agree with User:NinjaRobotPirate that, based on the evidence here, the improvement that we looked forward to in January 2016 has not occurred. It's time to restore the original indef block. The user has been blocked 12 times, and as you see here the problem is continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a long time since the last block and I was good for most of that time. All I need is a warning and I can get on with doing my useful edits (mostly film poster uploads) without any problem. — Film Fan 11:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that we do not jump straight to an indefinite block for one slight wobble, given Film Fan has demonstrated 23 months of perfectly productive and collegiate editing. Film Fan please consider this thread your warning, and just bear in mind if you're unhappy about a fine detail of a particular article that Wikipedia has over 5 million other articles, of which the majority will have many more things far more wrong with them. fish&karate 12:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's far from a "slight wobble" - since the last block there have been many violations of the 1RR, it's just that most people haven't bothered to raise them in any formal way. Even when they're done on the user's talkpage, they met with comments of "lol fuck off". Here's another talkpage warning from earlier in the year by admin Diannaa, which was reverted by FF. And another warning by an admin that was just reverted. Even while we're having this discussion, they're making multiple reverts on another poster! This is a net drain to the project to allow this nonsense to continue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not make multiple reverts on that poster. I reverted myself, and then reverted once. But thanks, Lugnuts, I knew you'd be supportive, as ever. For what it's worth, 80% of my blocks in years gone by would not have occurred if not for your invaluable input. — Film Fan 18:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"...and then reverted once." - To quote EdJohnston - "The 1RR restriction was not rescinded and should still be in effect." Looking at recent contributions, there's a slow-burning edit-war at Mom and Dad (2017 film), with you reverting one, two, three times. Another "slight blip"? And that's before I start to dig any deeper. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That information is all above. You've been trying to get my blocked for 5+ years because I outwitted you once. Move on. Letting go of little niggly annoyances is the healthiest thing for all involved. — Film Fan 14:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I see you now drop down to personal attacks. Sorry, I only deal in facts, not lies. Here's some more edit-warring from recent months that went un-noticed: The Blackcoat's Daughter from September - one, two, three. Miniseries from September - one, two. It (2017 film) from November - one, two. So these, plus all the examples given, above, show multiple instances of edit-warring and violations of the 1RR imposed by @EdJohnston:. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You're such a lovely bloke. Always with the best of intentions. — Film Fan 18:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That's some good perspective. And I realise it's not worth losing all editing privileges for the sake of one small problem in an article. — Film Fan 13:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support disciplinary action I only had a couple interactions with this user (from a long time ago) and he struck me as particularly hostile. Now I realize he had been blocked 12 times!!! (I didn't even think this was possible) and still wants another pass. We all lose our tempers sometimes, but we also got to man up for our actions. Wikipedia isn't kindergarten, you don't get 13th chances. Lugnuts' research above is particularly telling, and a quick glance at his talk page shows several insults or rude comments against User:NinjaRobotPirate, User:ScrapIronIV, User:TheMovieGuy, User:Yoshiman6464, User:Lugnuts, User:Max Tomos — all within the past year. Sorry, but I think it's clear his behaviors won't improve, at least not to the level required by WP:Collaborations. Yes, he does have positive contributions like uploading many "perfect" film posters but they pale in comparison with the time and morale wasted over him. Frankly he doesn't bother me much since we rarely edit the same article (I edit almost every day and never encountered him in the past year), but it'll be disappointing to me if WP takes no action against such behaviors. Just my 2 cents. Timmyshin (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reminding me, Timmyshin. I was attempting to discuss about the Your Name poster since he changed it to the English poster without prior discussion. At first, I attempted to change the poster back on 30 September, but then the edit was reverted the next day, with the comment “See Talk Page”. I quickly undid the edit and gave my comments on the main talk page. His reasoning for changing the was that “Wikipedia specifically recommends using English-language box art for video games, even if the games don't come from English-language countries” and that “There is no rule about what country the poster should come from”, even though WP:FilmPoster suggests to use the original theatrical poster. He eventually complied with using the original Japanese Poster. In addition, I also tried adding to the discussion on his talk page, but then he undid my edits, telling me to discuss on the film’s talk page. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 15:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support disciplinary action My interaction with this dude was extremely hostile. We got into a war over the poster for Phantom Thread. I reverted his uploaded version of it (it was in extremely poor quality, basically a photograph of a new poster for the film) in favor of the previously released poster. I stated that once the new poster was made available in a reasonable quality, then it could update the previously released teaser poster, however, he kept reverting it back to the inferior quality version and then he slapped me with the threat of a block on my talk page! TheMovieGuy

Indeed. It's not just the constant edit-warring, but the hostility and tendentious editing that go hand-in-hand with this editor's modus operandi. There's yet another slow-burning edit war at Gore (film) with edits made by @Rusted AutoParts: simply reverted, saying use the talkpage, but when Rusted AutoParts asks direct questions to FF on multiple occasions, there is just silence. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no such edit war there, Lugnuts, and I have absolutely never been guilty of tendentious editing, but thanks once again for your marvellous effort. You are just super. — Film Fan 17:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn’t refer to it as an edit war either but Film Fan there was no established consensus for any wording. After a month I thought of another word to use that described both situations but you still reverted, pointing to the talk page, where I left you two messages asking why that went ignored. Rusted AutoParts 17:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And if the talk page is ignored by the other users, you have consensus by being the only voice, so go ahead and revert. And I'm done arguing a small point, and it's not an issue for this conversation anyway. Lugnuts is just desperate to have me blocked, for personal reasons. — Film Fan 19:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I find the edit war at File:Phantom Thread.png uneasy. "it is no less official than the first one. Give it up."? Instead of using your instinct and common sense of WP:BDR, you just went ahead reverted a bunch times. I'm not saying the other user wasn't at fault either. But I do have to agree with the other user. I don't know if ignoring BDR is a habit of Film Fan. Two years after the last block seems too long ago to go ahead and say that. I am also troubled about the hostility of their comments on their talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It is well established at this point that in recent weeks I have had something of a relapse, but many of my edits are very valuable, and no one is going to benefit from a block. I'm back on the right track now and and a warning is all I need. Thanks for everyone's contributions. — Film Fan 11:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ignoring BDR is another one of FF's traits, along with his hostility and edit-warring, all mentioned above by multiple users. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked Film Fan for 48 hours. Please see my blocking rationale here, thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The behavior I was blocked for was not what this thread was about, and not something that had ever been pointed out as problematic, and was in fact something I learned directly from Lugnuts. Using the original namespace for a file allows the file history to remain intact and be called upon at any time if required. As I mentioned on my own talk page, if you're telling me that using the original namespace for files doesn't matter (thus deleting any file history) then fine, but no one has ever told me that before. It's pretty unfair being blocked for something that didn't even have a warning attached. — Film Fan 11:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I don't want to drag this out any further, and contrary what FF may or may not believe, I don't want to kick a man when he's down. I strongly suggest that when the 48hr block expires that Film Fan adheres to a voluntary WP:0RR on all articles (with the exception of obvious vandalism) for 3 or maybe 6 months, before going back to the 1RR as mentioned above. If he is sincere about changing his ways, then this should not be an issue, otherwise it's back to longer, if not indef, blocks. I'd be grateful if someone who isn't involved, but can take time to just read through this thread, add that in the closing notes. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Somewhat off-topic tongue-in-cheek comment Reading this thread is what taught me of the existence of an upcoming Hollywood film adaptation of Peter Rabbit. I suddenly feel very depressed.

Significantly more serious comment I agree with Alex's action here. Restoring an indef block because, two years after its repeal, there was one violation of an essential unblock condition would be overdoing it. It doesn't appear, based on FF's comments here, that he has been causing endless disruption and violating every policy we have on a near-constant basis, and I've literally seen recipients of a WP:STANDARDOFFER get away with just that for months on end. That was probably an extreme case that wasn't addressed appropriately by the admin corps (partly because the user in question was being shielded by editing in one of those problematic topic areas where everyone violates all of our content policies and some even our conduct policies on a fairly regular basis), but carrot-before-stick approach definitely feels better here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Worse still, Peter Rabbit is being voice by James Corden. Blackmane (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:J7b - long term problematic editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• J7b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

J7b came to my attention back in June and since then he has continued to make problematic edits. He does not engage in any discussion and does not acknowledge warnings. In fact he completely ignores them. Over time he has repeatedly uploaded images with ridiculous file names and copyright violations. For example, non-free promotional images for The Haves and the Have Nots (TV series) were uploaded as File:Jesus Jesus cat sleeping.jpg and File:Eiffel Tower,Paris,at night.jpg and for If Loving You Is Wrong (TV series) was uploaded as File:Loving you tilt again.jpg. Other silly names have inlcuded File:Loving you tilt again.jpg and File:Jesus jesus cat sleeping.jpeg. None of these filenames have in any come close to describing the actual image. For editors here without admin privileges, this would be as stupid as naming this image, File:Cow eats panda on bridge.jpg. All of the files that J7b have uploaded have been deleted. However, this has not stopped the problems. The copyright violations that started with the images have continued with content that he has added to articles.[79] These issues have been, at least partially, resolved but they have been replaced by new issues. However, some issues have been persistent.He has been warned about verifiability problems since July,[80] but these problems continue to this day.[81] Since August, compliance with WP:TVOVERVIEW and WP:TVUPCOMING has been an ongoing problem. (see User talk:J7b#August 2017 He persistently adds unsourced content to series overview tables and adds unsourced episode information to episode lists. Just yesterday, after two final warnings had been issued (one by an admin[82]), I left what I thought was a detailed warning about adding unsourced content to series overview tables,[83] only to find that 44 minutes later he restored the unsourced content that I had warned him about and added more unsourced content for good measure.[84] That was reverted but then, today, he added unsourced content to another article.[85] There is clearly no attempt now by this editor to comply with our policies and guidelines and that he refuses to engage in any discussion makes it impossible to proceed in a positive direction. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Ymnes is a sockpuppet for User:Ymblanter. Using the checkuser tool, they were found to edit same articles, which is of uncommon interest to regular members, sometimes in very short periods of time, 2 minutes in some cases. 194.187.249.132 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The "checkuser" tools are only usable by admins. If you're referring to this, that's very far from enough evidence to accuse someone of being a sock. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The topic was opened by a user evading an indefinite block, to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well we did both edit The Rolling Stones twice Ymnes (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wakari07 engaging in semi-violations of WP:Civility

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here and above.

The user in question has continually responded on his talk page with passive-aggressive insults, sarcasm, and a general indifference toward WP: Civility after myself and several other editors warned him about disruptive edits he had made at Portal:Current events/2017 December 9. His DE case is above; however, even after that was concluded, he responded again with yet another passive-aggressive insult.

I regard these as violations of WP:Civility and request they be dealt with as such. The Kip (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

O My God! Sarcasm and indifference. Clearly the Comfy Chair sanction is called for. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Master of fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A mini-trout to both participants. And a fart in their general direction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a block is in order. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kiteinthewind: Sarcasm and indifference are generally not blockable. Certainly no diffs have been presented that would merit a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: The behaviors, however, have crossed into harassment and incivility, which are grounds for blocking. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kiteinthewind: Please read my second sentence again: "Certainly no diffs have been presented that would merit a block." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:The Train Master continuously editing without sources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• The Train Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Centre Valley (SEPTA station) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Flemington station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Perkasie station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wyomissing station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My concern with this user is that most, if not all, of their contributions to train station articles and creations of articles (examples listed above) have not been backed by sources, despite a previous warning not to continue creating articles in this nature and numerous AfD, PROD, and speedy deletion notices. I can agree with an argument that the stations exist, since that's the most likely scenario, but how can we verify their existences without valid sources? As for the other pages in this user's contributions, the edits either appeared unhelpful or removed existing sources while adding the user's own original research to the article. The user has also not discussed these changes or provided a helpful edit summary at all, as seen from their contributions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I cautioned this editor way back in October about adding unsourced content. Then today, The Train Master created the article Emmaus station, a two sentence-long article without any sources! This editor doesn't seem to be getting it. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

My experience with this editor is to have one of their contributions speedily deleted because there was so little information it wasn't possible to know what in country the station was located, assuming it actually existed. I have also noted that stations added by this editor are often defunct, which makes the need for sources all the more important. PKT(alk) 22:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

They've continued to edit without the slightest acknowledgement of this thread. Blocked 48 hours to get their attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem cleaning up plagiarized text

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rochelimit (talk · contribs) has created around 90 articles in the last 40 days or so, and at least 14 of them (out of the 16 that I checked) have been found to include copy-pasted text from copyrighted sources. His initial reaction on me asking him about this was promising, but ignored my questions about how many other articles have those problems and whether he had also plagiarized offline sources I couldn't access. I rephrased the questions, but he continued to ignore me.

He initially started going around fixing the problems one by one, and removing the tags I placed on them, but in at least one case he ignored another problem immediately above the text I had tagged, forcing me to go and check a GBooks preview. For the last 34 hours he's been refusing to do any work on his articles, while still refusing to answer the questions about the extent of the problem, and just been complaining (on a random admin's talk page and on his own talk page) about how "scared" of me he feels because I blanked two paragraphs of plagiarized text from the above-linked Naga morsarang article and how he just doesn't want to answer my questions because he "ha[s] no idea what".[86][87]

It seems that unless the user becomes more open about which (how many) articles contain plagiarized text, the only solutions would be (a) someone (preferably not me) going around thoroughly checking every last one of his articles against their sources or (b) deleting, blanking, or thoroughly rewriting all his articles, except possibly the ones that do not cite English sources. I'm honestly not sure what to do about this, and have stated several times that I intended to seek community input if Rochelimit was not more transparent, which is why I'm here.

Disclosure. It's peripheral background as far as I am concerned, but if anyone wants the diffs anyway I can provide them.

Full disclosure: I noticed this problem because the user and I were in a tight race for an editathon last month. Since the rules for that editathon stated that articles must be properly copy edited but he was submitting articles with multiple obvious errors, I placed some tags on those articles. When he removed the tags after making some minor fixes that arguably made the problems worse, I told him to get someone else to copy edit the articles for him if he was incapable of doing so, at which point a bunch of mysterious SPAs started showing up and copy editing his articles, which led me to believe he had been recruiting meat puppets to help him win the editathon. He claimed it was just a happy coincidence. When I opened an SPI (the procedure prescribed at WP:MEAT) he started complaining that I was hurling wild accusations against him, even claiming later that when I asked him politely if he thought it was a joe-job by someone trying to frame him that this was a wild accusation against him. He then started going around my entries to the editathon placing 20 or so bogus "article relies on one source" or "article needs translation" tags on them. By this point he had already become the presumed winner of the editathon, so what he was doing seemed like really petty revenge. It was at that point that I started going through his articles for unverified content and OR (which were also rampant), and noticed the repeated plagiarism. The judges in the editathon are already aware of the copyvio concerns, so the outcome of this ANI report will likely not affect the outcome of the editathon one way or the other.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Fixing and improving the tagged articles little by little. It's christmas so I am busier outside Wiki than usual.--Rochelimit (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• the blanking part of naga morsarang scares me because it was blanked after I improved it, and the blanking explanation in the diff sounds like a threat in my opinion, something like "answer my question now or I will report you!". This is after 1 month of crazy occurence in my talk page during the WAM event, so it's a bit exhausting. After the naga morsarang edit, I'm scared of doing anything because it seems like everything I do is wrong. I'm scared of having the article blanked after my improvement, like what happened in naga morsarang. I'm kinda exhausted since November actually, and with the scary events following the WAM, I need time to feel comfortable of editing thoroughly. I feel so discouraged and helpless, but I will try to fix little by little, slowly, and very carefully.--Rochelimit (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Self-collapse. TLDR response. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit, it was blanked after you didn't improve it. When your articles cite offline, non-free sources, it's more difficult for me and others to check whether they are plagiarized. I initially tagged a bunch of articles that copy-pasted free websites I could quickly check, and when I told you that I suspected Qa'a (room) similarly contained plagiarized text but hadn't been able to verify it, you should have replied with "Yes, it does. I apologize and will try to fix it." but didn't; I wound up having to go and check if Google Books would let me access the page you cited for free -- it did, and I blanked the copyvio text accordingly.[88] The same is true of Naga morsarang -- I tagged a block of text I knew infringed on copyright, but not the text immediately preceding it that I suspected of similarly infringing on copyright; you showed up, fixed the one instance I had tagged, and removed the tag, but when I got more time to check the GBooks preview of your offline source I found that there was still more plagiarized text. (You also removed an unrelated tag regarding OR without fixing it, which is why I blanked the sanction.) Per AGF, I am extremely reluctant to tag or blank text that I suspect may be plagiarized, which means I need to confirm every instance of plagiarism myself before I tag or blank it. This would be a massive undertaking, which is why I have been requesting your help for the past two days. Tiraz is another example of the same: I tag a segment of text as plagiarized, you fix that one segment and remove the tag, and I then have to blank a larger chunk of text when I find out you plagiarized almost the whole thing from an offline source I hadn't been able to access before. You surely know yourself which text you took the time to write yourself and which you copy-pasted, don't you? You are at least definitely more likely to have access to the original sources you used. Why are you not willing to tell me? I know you don't seem to like me very much, but why not tell User:SuperHamster or User:Bbb23? I can understand you might be afraid of being blocked or losing the top spot in the editathon, but honestly both of these are more likely the less transparent you are. Going to Bbb23's talk page and not clarifying anything about the plagiarism but instead complaining that you feel scared just makes you look worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hijiri 88, only responding to the copyvio issues, if there are serious enough concerns, consider opening a file at WP:CCI. Also, have the articles that contained copyrighted sourcing had the material removed and revdel'd? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: No, they have not.

I was initially assuming'that if I confronted Rochelimit with the problem he would apologize for the mess and help clean it up by elaborating on the extent of it and how far back it goes, but there has been a transparency problem as can be seen above. I have been trying to locate plagiarized text myself and tag or blank it as seemed appropriate, but it's a lot of work, and per the collapsed response to Rochelimit above I am extremely reluctant to do what probably should be done and request that all of his English-source-cited articles be blanked pending verification that they are not plagiarized.

I will look into CCI in a bit. As you can probably tell, I'm not that experienced with these problems myself.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've completed the revdel on Naga morsarang under RD1. I agree with your judgement that the paraphrase was close enough to constitute a copyright violation and there were also some places were it wasn't paraphrased at all. If there are at least 14 others like it, CCI would be the correct place to go. Rochelimit, anything you write on Wikipedia must be written entirely in your own words and cannot constitute a close paraphrase, even for one revision. Any revision that includes material that is not compatibly licensed must be hidden via revision deletion. Going forward, please do not add copyrighted content to Wikipedia. If this occurs again, it may result in you being blocked until you can assure us that you understand our copyright policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you for resolving that.

Yeah, I suspected as much -- that's a policy I've seen much more strictly enforced on ja.wiki than here (or at least the problem is more rampant there, so the enforcement is more visible), to the point where I wasn't sure if it was standard procedure on English Wikipedia. The problem is that requesting revdel on a whole bunch of articles, the extent of whose copyright infringement is not clear, is difficult -- I could blank the copyvio sections I've checked and get revdel, only to find out later that I missed something, which is what would have happened on Naga morsarang if I'd gone straight to you before checking GBooks.

This is kinda why I'd like Rochelimit to clarify this stuff openly, but he seems to be so afraid of his getting blocked or his articles getting deleted that he has been extremely reluctant to share the extent of the problem. I've been trying to tell him what you did -- that having made one mistake, even a massive mistake, is forgivable, but that giving the appearance of not understanding the severity of the mistake, or trying to cover his tracks and keep as much of the plagiarized text visible as possible, is going to backfire. But he seems to still be under the impression that I'm just trying to push a bunch of his articles below the 300-word quota so I can "win" the editathon (which honestly is the opposite of what I want -- being awarded the top spot several weeks after the deadline because I personally cut down a bunch of the original winner's articles would be as much of an embarassment for me as for him, especially now that it's been announced that first prize and second prize are the same thing).

I'll check out CCI anyway (still haven't gotten to it -- I logged back on to Wikipedia just now and figured I should reply to you here first).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption, WP:IDHT, forum shopping, take your pick, at Talk:Matt Lauer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please review the actions of User:Atsme at Talk:Matt Lauer and related articles. Following the results of a closed AFD and two separate merge discussions, a consensus was reached regarding the text of the Matt Lauer article, which User:Atsme stands alone singularly against, and she's stonewalling and refusing to allow the consensus version to move forward. Her behavior is bordering on WP:TE-level disruption. It needs to stop. --Jayron32 15:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

From Bishonen on his talk page 4ish months ago: if you continue to waste constructive editors' time and patience (which is our most precious resource) in the way you've been doing, I'll take the time to topic ban you from American politics...I definitely feel like this is wasting people's time. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion about this kind of behavior at AE and at Sandstein's talk page. Also, Atsme is a "she". 2600:1005:B10C:EE11:D018:E942:DDD3:858A (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have ammended my comments based on this correction. Thank you for that information. --Jayron32 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• ^{^^IP is believed to be a sock and this is their only edit^^ Atsme📞📧 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)}

• A sock of who? Can you indicate which user the IP is supposed to be pretending not to be? --Jayron32 16:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme - not at all what happened. Volunteer Marek and Jayron32 have both disrupted consensus to merge, and now my call for wider community involvement per our AfD merge consensus by redirecting the proposed merge article before the RfC or the discussion was formally closed. They are attempting to bypass the merge discussion (they want to delete everything and not merge it) via local consensus and have removed the redirect so those involved in the discussion are unable to see the article that consensus was to merge. There are proper procedures to follow when there is a controversial merge as the result of an AfD, and I was simply trying to follow those procedures despite their disruption.

• Consensus to merge
• WWGB's 1st redirect
• Closing admin Northamerica1000 reverted
• VM's 1st redirect
• Atsme reverted
• VM's 2nd redirect
• Atsme reverted
• VM's 3rd redirect
• Jayron32's redirect

When I attempted to merge the article content myself after the 1st redirect was reverted by Northamerica1000, my merge at the article was reverted, and all content removed - again in noncompliance with consensus to merge:

• Galobtter was kind enough to self-revert.
• [89] Ca2james reverted again despite the ongoing discussions and failure to merge anything after Consensus to merge had been reached.

Since the involved editors were becoming highly aggressive and refused to follow procedures, thinking that their local discussion was all that was needed to resolve this controversial merge despite their repeated disruptions, I called an RfC for the sake of fairness and resolve and to get wider input from the community.

• Called RfC and notified relevant projects.
• Galobtter hatted the RfC.

It's best to just go to the TP of Matt Lauer and review the edit summaries in the edit history. If I am to be punished simply for following proper procedures, then there is something truly wrong with the system. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• There is an incorrect statement above. I have not disrupted the consensus to merge. I have supported two different merge consensus discussions. I have not edited the Matt Lauer article in any way against those consensus discussions. As it stands now, there is only one user who has not abided by these discussions. It wasn't me. --Jayron32 16:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't hat the RfC? I don't know what you're looking at. I was hatting Volunteer Marek's offtopic comments about you - my statement was meaning - "if you think Atsme's behaviour is tendentious, ANI is the appropriate forum to propose a topic ban". Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• multiple (edit conflict) As just noted by the IP, Atsme is a "she", as can be quickly figured out by a cursory look at her userpage.
• The very recent AE discussion is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Atsme. The dispute here is the kind of complex content dispute that tends to be handled inconclusively at ANI. If anyone really wants to have conduct on all sides to get a close look, WP:AE is that-a-way. And be careful what you wish for. The topic is clearly one that is subject to WP:DS
• I just looked at Talk:Matt Lauer, and it gave me a headache. It's pretty clear that the tendentiousness is all-around, and nobody looks particularly calm and level-headed there.
• Over the last 24 hours, most of what Atsme has done there is to start an RfC to get wider community input. And at User talk:Atsme (during this time, but prior to this ANI), she has been saying that she realizes that now would be a good time for her to take a break from these disputes.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, literally everyone except Atsme is supporting the changes on that page, including the pinged AfD participants; could you point out the tendentious behaviour from other people? And there is no real dispute except Atsme vs Everyone Else. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does look to me like she is a minority of one, and that this has been a pattern over time. That doesn't mean that the majority is behaving particularly well, either. Right now, I'd like to see everyone calm-the-f-down and go back and play nice, so I'm not going to compile a list of diffs. Yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. If my behavior there is unacceptable, I apologize for that. If you have suggestions on how to move forward regarding the current consensus, that would be helpful. Thanks!--Jayron32 16:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far about you. Just let the RfC play out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bishonen was considering proposing a topic ban for Atsme quite recently see here. Personally I'd say it's high time this editor got a topic ban from American politics, but... does Matt Lauer even fall within the scope of that? Is this a broader problem? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe + sexual misconduct allegations topic ban? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just writing up a strong warning to Atsme. IMO Matt Lauer probably doesn't fall within the American politics discretionary sanctions; but biographies are under DS, too. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

Bish, I was following procedures, they were not - so I get the warning? We had an AfD consensus to merge - they refused to merge - why am I getting the warning? Please explain that to me, please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, we had discussions over what content to merge, then we arrived at a consensus over those discussions, then we enacted the consensus achieved by those discussions. The merge vote at AFD was discussed (as required), negotiated, proposals were made, further votes occurred, and when consensus was clear, they were enacted. Your peculiar understanding of "merge" notwithstanding, the process was exactly followed. --Jayron32 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, I modestly consider Bish to be one of very few users who are as reasonable as I am. Be glad it's just a warning, and walk away from the whole mess. Happy holidays, everybody. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I should perhaps clarify: I have written the warning to Atsme (now posted) based on what I see at Talk:Matt Lauer, to which I was pinged earlier; not so much based on this ANI discussion, which I only just noticed, and have barely had time to read. I other words, I've looked for myself, Atsme, and yes indeed, you get the warning. For "They refused to merge": no, they did not, per Jayron. Bishonen | talk 16:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

• I'd like to ask that whoever reviews this also take a look at both Volunteer Marek's and Ca2James talk pages (Atsme has been asked not to post at either), and see what you make of that behavior. Feels like Atsme is fighting a war, and has echoes of the same behavior from AE. 2600:1005:B10C:EE11:D018:E942:DDD3:858A (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You should log in. Anyway, I think it's time for someone to close this thread. Nothing productive is going to happen now. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just an IP. Sometimes it changes when I'm on the road, but I don't think that's a wiki crime. I respect and appreciate your opinion (and share it for most of Atsme's editing outside of AP2), but it would be good for the rest of us to have the community judge her behavior relative to WP's editing standards. 2600:1005:B10C:EE11:D018:E942:DDD3:858A (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

^{IP is a sock of Kingshowman - See this. Atsme📞📧 18:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)}

Reported in #Block evasion, just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

So, trying to clarify, does Bishonen's warning mean that anymore battleground behaviour from Atsme results in a topic ban? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: A sanction, yes. What kind depends on the circumstances. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

I think it would depend on the specifics, but basically yes, either a ban or a block. And I don't see anything more after that to be accomplished by keeping this discussion open. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it was a warning on my TP, Tryptofish, not a ban or block. I'm going to stay away from it voluntarily. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

To be clear: nobody says that a ban or block has already happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Since I opened this thread, I'm also going to close it. Atsme has agreed to stay away. --Jayron32 18:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Constantly changing reference link to non related subject Charlotte Devaney

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Charlotte Devaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Primefac keeps changing the first reference to an unrealated link. Should be referencing "How to loose friends and alienate people". Yet keeps removing the proper link and adding unrelated reference to another subject. Also they keep changing the content of the career section to try and mask their true intentions in their edits.

The wikipedia page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Devaney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migosana (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The link he is removing, which I just removed as well, was a link to IMDB. IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source, and the revert you are performing is reverting from the Telegraph, which IS a reliable source. Also, as stated in the edit summary, there's not a need to list every co-star of the movie in this sentence. If you feel it should be included however, please discuss this on the talk page of the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've also taken the liberty to advise Primefac of this AN/I notice, as it says to do in the orange box above the editing window. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We're at 3Rs now, they've been warned, and I suspect the boomerang will strike shortly. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not only is this article a mess, it managed to cause hiccups in two RfAs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated attempts to create a deleted article under different names

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Nabeelkallayil (talk) has repeatedly attempted to recreate Samuel Robinson (actor) after said article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Robinson (actor). The editor in question has tried to recreate the deleted article by renaming the article in such a way as to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion log, as can be seen with the creation of Samuel AbiolaRobinson, Samuel Abiola Robinson, and most recently Samuel abiola robinson. This indicates to me that User:Nabeelkallayil is not here to build an encyclopedia along the lines of policy, and as such I request an admin take appropriate action. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Indef, delete all, and salt all. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 10

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 10

We have a continuation of #Abdulrahman Elsamni: one of the socks of the creator, blocked user User:AbdulRahman14, opened a DRV request. To start with, this is a page which has been created by a blocked user evading their block (they were blocked for a week) and must be deleted. Unfortunately, however, several users in good standing gave their opinions at this page, and some of them voted overturn, so that deleting the page may be not the best solution for the time being. However, socks continue to show up at the page, creating the effect of mass support, and, at the very least, it should be semi-protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter is clearly abusing his rights. He deleted the page based on a false A7 tag and is making an edit war with all the people who do not agree with his decision. The page should not be overtaken from enwiki at the first place. This is the real problem. 216.105.171.51 (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The deletion should be overturned because the deletion of the page is not on right basis. I ask other admins to intervene and solve this. It is not acceptable to delete pages and proper subjects to punish illegal users. Please intervene and stop this admin from abusing users just to make a point. XMalikShabazzX (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I blocked this sock indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)]

Keep shuting up our mouths. No surrender. 185.112.249.187 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Continual block evasion will get you nowhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

They are now having fun at my talk page and at the Wikipedia article about me (probably also elsewhere).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's funny to hear trolls talk about someone else "having no real life". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Asdfen

• Asdfen (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Persistent vandalism.[90][91][92][93] Cskamoscow100 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You should have welcome them first, and give some warning at least. That is not clear vandalism, they are only removing some information which they feel is critical in their view as their edit summaries show. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

He added some clearly unsourced information that was reverted by other users. It seemed that he was trying to push some agenda. That prompted me to file a report. That's it. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Cskamoscow100. I have warned Asdfen. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

@Cskamoscow100:, I am not saying you did wrong by reporting here. But at least not yet warned user-, not even welcomed newbie, we shouldn't say persistent vandalism because it's narrow concept. Also vandalism is reported at WP:AIV, where I am sure if you'd reported will be declined for insufficient warning. Last but not the least POV pushing is not persistent vandalism WP:Vandalism #NPOV contraventions, especially by newbie –Ammarpad (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

SPA's with obvious agendas don't require "welcoming". But Bishonen is right that the OP should have notified the user about this report. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems that he used this IP (Special:Contributions/84.52.164.122) before creating an account. [94] By the way, state-sponsored doping was proved by the IOC Inquiry Commission that suspended top Russian officials (including Vitaly Mutko) and banned them for life.[95] Cskamoscow100 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Continued attempts to change the subject of the Knights Templar (Freemasonry) article

• Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Knights Templar (Freemasonry) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps making edits to change the article, Knights Templar (Freemasonry) in an attempt to turn it into an article about a specific organization named, the Great Priory of England and Wales and its Provinces Overseas. If they would like to make an article about that organization they are welcome to, but using the namespace of an existing article rather than making a new one is unacceptable. They refuse to discuss the issue. I originally made a post here not realizing they had declared their intent on the talk page, but weeks have passed and they have not responded to the page talk or their personal talk. All they have done is reverted any attempt to edit the page back to its original subject. PeRshGo (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The OP brought this up on AN/I about two weeks ago, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin oversight/rollback

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2600:8800:3981:7A80:194E:E87A:2510:F53C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what this editor is doing but the sheer number of edits per minute, most if not all of which range from pointless to harmful, should be impossible. Can someone who knows what to do do something? CityOfSilver 06:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, I just trawled through every single one of the 40 rapid-fire edits they made to Television Critics Association (just as an example), and they were meaningless changes, mostly making and then reverting their own changes over and over and over, like some sort of game. The IP has never left a single edit summary. I'd say block for DE/NOTHERE, at least until they stop this nonsense, stop doing and undoing their own edits, and start leaving a clear and accurate edit summary on every single edit. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you for taking this big effort. I did a much lazier version where I just kind of skimmed through their contributions, randomly picking out different edits to different articles. Everything I found was useless so I came here. Is there any way to tell how these edits are being done? I didn't consider that all of these could be manual but yeah, it's possible this person is just really bored. CityOfSilver 07:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how they are being done. What does matter is that the IP is trolling and editing disruptively. His recent edits to Gary Shandling were also nonsensical back-and-forth trolling, including replicating text that was already in the article. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have given them a short enforced vacation. If they go back to being disruptive after, ping me and I'll extend it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Drdbkarron falsifying content at Edward E. Kramer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edward E. Kramer, after a long legal battle, pled guilty to child sexual abuse. His plea and conviction were widely reported in major news outlets, as cited in his Wikipedia biography. Drdbkarron disputes these facts, based on his own peculiar analysis of online court records, including such remarkable arguments as claiming that records listing a "NEGOTIATED GUILTY PLEA" do not support the claim of a plea-bargained guilty plea. Only about two weeks ago, Drdbkarron was directed here to work out such disputes on the article talk page -- which he has made no attempt at doing -- and not to include claims based on primary court documents. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive970#Block_or_topic_ban_requested_--_User:Drdbkarron. Given his brazen disregard of these directions, and his attempt to turn a well-cited biography into dishonest apologetics for a child molester, he should be blocked until his willingness to comply with basic content requirements is demonstrated and topic banned from all pages related to Edward Kramer. Enough is enough. More than enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

One week block to start, with a warning the next block will be an indefinite one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cautious topic ban breach

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Cautious was topic-banned indefinitely a couple of weeks ago from editing all matters relating to Cage (organisation). However, Cautious has since made three edits to Talk:Cage (organisation) [96][97][98], one on 9 Dec and two today (12 Dec). Pincrete warned them on 9 Dec that the edits to Cage's talk page broke their topic ban.

Please could an admin look into this and consider whether a sanction is appropriate. Marianna251TALK 15:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1RR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Quick question: can an editor, who has 1RR sanctions on them use IAR and break the sanctions when reverting obvious vandalism? Thank you, Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 19:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if the vandalism is obvious. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 21:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excessive requested moves from IP editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2601:183:101:58D0::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has filed a large number of disruptive requested moves; including Special:Diff/812703678 (in violation of ARBCOM sanctions on Ireland), Special:Diff/814583270 (1 BC), Special:Diff/815109256 (Turkey). A range-block probably is necessary, I'm not sure if this is any specific LTA case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

School bus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• School bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I 'd appreciate a little administrative help here, dealing with multiple IPs who want to go with this edit [99]. If I continue reverting this it'll look like edit warring, even after explaining that urban dictionary isn't a credible source. Methinks it's low-level vandalism. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Kids playing around. Reverted, warned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, and thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ongoing sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 10

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 10

We have a continuation of #Abdulrahman Elsamni: one of the socks of the creator, blocked user User:AbdulRahman14, opened a DRV request. To start with, this is a page which has been created by a blocked user evading their block (they were blocked for a week) and must be deleted. Unfortunately, however, several users in good standing gave their opinions at this page, and some of them voted overturn, so that deleting the page may be not the best solution for the time being. However, socks continue to show up at the page, creating the effect of mass support, and, at the very least, it should be semi-protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter is clearly abusing his rights. He deleted the page based on a false A7 tag and is making an edit war with all the people who do not agree with his decision. The page should not be overtaken from enwiki at the first place. This is the real problem. 216.105.171.51 (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The deletion should be overturned because the deletion of the page is not on right basis. I ask other admins to intervene and solve this. It is not acceptable to delete pages and proper subjects to punish illegal users. Please intervene and stop this admin from abusing users just to make a point. XMalikShabazzX (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I blocked this sock indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)]

Keep shuting up our mouths. No surrender. 185.112.249.187 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Continual block evasion will get you nowhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

They are now having fun at my talk page and at the Wikipedia article about me (probably also elsewhere).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's funny to hear trolls talk about someone else "having no real life". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Asdfen

• Asdfen (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Persistent vandalism.[100][101][102][103] Cskamoscow100 (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You should have welcome them first, and give some warning at least. That is not clear vandalism, they are only removing some information which they feel is critical in their view as their edit summaries show. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

He added some clearly unsourced information that was reverted by other users. It seemed that he was trying to push some agenda. That prompted me to file a report. That's it. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Cskamoscow100. I have warned Asdfen. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC).

@Cskamoscow100:, I am not saying you did wrong by reporting here. But at least not yet warned user-, not even welcomed newbie, we shouldn't say persistent vandalism because it's narrow concept. Also vandalism is reported at WP:AIV, where I am sure if you'd reported will be declined for insufficient warning. Last but not the least POV pushing is not persistent vandalism WP:Vandalism #NPOV contraventions, especially by newbie –Ammarpad (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

SPA's with obvious agendas don't require "welcoming". But Bishonen is right that the OP should have notified the user about this report. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems that he used this IP (Special:Contributions/84.52.164.122) before creating an account. [104] By the way, state-sponsored doping was proved by the IOC Inquiry Commission that suspended top Russian officials (including Vitaly Mutko) and banned them for life.[105] Cskamoscow100 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Continued attempts to change the subject of the Knights Templar (Freemasonry) article

• Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Knights Templar (Freemasonry) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps making edits to change the article, Knights Templar (Freemasonry) in an attempt to turn it into an article about a specific organization named, the Great Priory of England and Wales and its Provinces Overseas. If they would like to make an article about that organization they are welcome to, but using the namespace of an existing article rather than making a new one is unacceptable. They refuse to discuss the issue. I originally made a post here not realizing they had declared their intent on the talk page, but weeks have passed and they have not responded to the page talk or their personal talk. All they have done is reverted any attempt to edit the page back to its original subject. PeRshGo (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The OP brought this up on AN/I about two weeks ago, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Gibbons kevin charles

• Gibbons kevin charles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been continuously and sporadically changing the cast order in various TV show articles in the past, against the rules on the TV:CAST, within around two years. Those edits include Chicago P.D., Chicago Med, Chicago Fire and sometimes, Bones. Below are the notable diffs that proves these facts. There are other diffs involved that reveals those

[106]

[107]

[108]

[109]

Also, these are the diffs of Chicago P.D. (season 5) and The X-Files (season 11).

[110]

[111]

I want you all to be aware of this editor's edits on these articles that contradicts TV:CAST. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I warned him about doing this at Chicago P.D. (TV series).[112] I don't know why he's doing this because he doesn't use edit summaries. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexanderlee & Abdotorg - Serial Unnecessary and Potentially Harmful Editing of Articles Pertaining to South Korean Music and Culture

User:Alexanderlee, User:Abdotorg

These users have continually edited multiple articles related to South Korean music, primarily involving the unwarranted removal of large portions of relevant information and crucial details.

This is exemplified through consecutive mass deletions of information:

Mass Deletions in 2017 in South Korean music [113]; Mass Deletions in 2015_in_South_Korean_music [114]; Mass Deletions in 2014_in_South_Korean_music [115]; Mass Deletions in 2013_in_South_Korean_music [116]; Mass Deletions in 2012_in_South_Korean_music [117]; Large Back and Forth, Repetitive Deletions in 2017 in South Korean music [118] [119][120] (3 revert rule violated); Large Back and Forth, Repetitive Deletions in 2014_in_South_Korean_music, including a possible violation of the 3 revert rule (coordinated) [121];

There are currently talk pages open, Talk:2017_in_South_Korean_music and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#XXXX_in_South_Korean_Music which discuss the issues at hand.

Importantly, the majority of complaints have focused on the mass deletion of relevant parts (digital singles, mini-album releases) in these Wikipedia pages, which has lead to increased difficulty in attaining relevant information regarding the South Korean msuic scene.

There is a difference between the American music industry and South Korean music industry which must be accounted for when selecting a "style set" for these Wikipedia pages, especially when there are no well-defined stylistic guidelines to adhere to.

The stylistic guidelines suggested by User:Alexanderlee and User:Abdotorg are as baseless as any other individuals. Therefore, the discussions held in Talk:2017_in_South_Korean_music and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#XXXX_in_South_Korean_Music should be respected, with the entire spectrum of opinions being considered.

This is to bring awareness to these editors' edits, which have been damaging to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.

137.154.252.201 (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

John Carter violating IBAN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Withdrawn This is going nowhere. I think John Carter has violated the ban multiple times since his block (read: he has done things that I would not do for fear of getting immediately blocked). I am honestly paralyzed when he shows up in my discussions like he has been, as outlined in my last comment. If anyone wants to post a clarification as to whose interpretation (mine or Softlavender's) is correct, they can do so below before this gets archived (I don't think they can also do it on my talk page...?), or (preferably) in a close of this thread.

To be clear, what I want to do is post immediately below John Carter's comment Per my own first comment above, I obviously agree with Ritchie333 and SchroCat.

Even if my stricter interpretation is right, I can't see enforcement coming out of this thread as it is now. I would therefore prefer that this request be taken as withdrawn for all purposes other than to offer the requested clarification.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

John Carter (talk · contribs) has violated my IBan with him multiple times in the seven weeks or so he has been active on Wikipedia since its implementation. {{collapse top|title=Evidence

• January 26: John Carter (talk · contribs) and I are IBANned because of JC hounding my edits.
• January 31: After almost immediately violating the ban, JC is blocked for a period of one month.
• 1 February: Based on an email to the blocking admin in which he claimed he had misunderstood the limitations of BANEX and promised he would be more careful, JC is unblocked.
  • 21 months earlier: JC directly claims to have read and understood BANEX and interpreted it narrowly, as not covering something I was doing at that time.
• 13 February JC shows up in an ANI discussion in which I was heavily involved (at the time he posted my sig appeared in the thread 34 times).
• 13-14 February: JC is cautioned by User:Curly Turkey to be a bit more careful about joining in discussions involving me, but bizarrely claims he had been involved before me based on some other unrelated activity.
• 15 February: JC directly comments on something I wrote (here) and is again cautioned by Curly Turkey.
• 16 February - 8 March: JC doesn't edit English Wikipedia.
• 8 March: JC replies to a question I had posted on Talk:Jesus during his short wikibreak. He had made one small comment on the page in December but prior to that had not touched it since last June, during which period I had commented on the page dozens of times.[122]
• March to November: JC disappears before I get a chance to report him for the above, reemerging after eight months. The offending edit to the Jesus talk page was made less than two hours before his last edit in March, which (especially in light of his earlier disappearance from February 16, and his frequent periods of silence followed by checking my contribs in 2015-2016) heavily implies that at least part of his motivation for disappearing was to keep me from requesting enforcement of the ban. But then today...
• December 13: JC shows up in an ANI thread I had involved myself in, having not otherwise posted to ANI in eleven days, and before that brief comment or two not since February; I had posted something significant to ANI for the first time since JC's return the previous day, so the timing is suspect.

{{collapse bottom The above is mostly "old" by now, but only because John Carter was inactive for eight months. Between the time when he was unblocked based on his promise to familiarize himself with BANEX and now, he has been active for scarcely seven weeks, during which time he violated the ban by responding to a talk page post I had made, and made several pushes against the boundaries of the ban by joining discussions involving me and directly commenting on things I wrote in those discussion; he has also continued his pre-IBAN pattern of "coincidentally" showing up in places shortly after I do.

I really feel this kind of behaviour would have been inappropriate even if he hadn't been unblocked on the specific condition that he not violate the ban again, and hadn't been warned up-front that any violation of this ban w[ould] lead to an immediate block.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just glancing at this, I notice your last claim "JC shows up in an ANI thread I had involved myself in, and agrees with my proposal that the thread be closed as a non-issue while carefully pretending I had been the one to propose it." is inaccurate; he said "Agree with both of the immediately above comments. Damn near anything is a better use of our limited volunteer time than this thread." [123], and the two "immediately above" comments were ScroCat's and Ritchie333's, which had nothing to do with your post two posts above theirs about Mr. KEBAB. (I haven't looked at the other claims.) Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I know, and I was sorely tempted to point out directly below JC's comment that actually I had said the same thing as the two "immediately above" six hours before either of them (hence the quoted portion above, which was at the end of this comment), but thought it might seem like bragging and, honestly, I'm a lot more scared of doing anything close to violating the ban than JC seems to be even though the ban was placed because of one-way harassment and he's already been blocked once for violating it. Anyway, it seems highly unlikely that JC didn't know I had written that, as he scarcely posted to ANI in months and then showed up on that thread within a few hours of me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri, you said "while carefully pretending I had been the one to propose it", and he did no such thing. If you want people to take your thread seriously, you have to state things accurately. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That was a misprint. Read what it says now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The new version isn't accurate either: "JC shows up in an ANI thread I had involved myself in, and agrees with my proposal that this looks like nothing more than a content dispute ... [that] should just be closed while carefully avoiding direct mention of my being the one to propose it." [124]. He is neither talking to or about you or about anything you said, and did not mention or imply anything about "content dispute" at all. He is referring to and agreeing with Ritchie333's comment that the thread should be closed because it was just inane squabbling. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I apologize for the misunderstandint. The timing of your first comment clearly shows that you were working with the text I had originally posted at 05:45 and had an edit conflict with my fixing it 13 minutes later. But the new version is accurate: he stated he agreed with my proposal that the thread be closed with no action, but carefully avoided attributing it to me, instead attributing it to two others who came to the same conclusion after I did. You are entitled to read this as a coincidence in this light, since my comment was a little further up the thread by that point, but as far as I am concerned (and I think most editors would agree) it is super-suspicious that he would show up on an ANI thread I had commented on, after not touching this page for weeks. The timing, and his not being active on ANI recently then showing up the day after I come back here (with my own thread that he wouldn't have had plausible deniability had he commented on), are enough to make me think he saw my comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That said: It's not really appropriate to expect me to answer for posting a complaint that consisted of nothing but a single instance of him posting in the same noticeboard discussion as me. The above timeline should make clear that I was unwilling to post this report even after the second far-more-flagrant instance of him showing up to a discussion in which he obviously knew I was heavily involved. I am interpreting the latest incident in liht of the earlier ones and seeing a pattern: if it were a one-off and not the latest in a string of odd coincidences, I definitely would not have opened an ANI thread (as I didn't do that when it really was a one-off in February). So expecting me to answer as though it was a one-off and none of the other stuff had happened is a little weird. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The "other stuff" was all more than 9 months ago and you reported none of it. Making repeated false statements about the current edit doesn't/didn't help your case. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Virtually all John Carter's edits were more than nine months ago, including his flagrantly violating the ban while he should have been blocked from editing for violating the ban. I don't know what you mean by "repeated false statements"; the only one you cited above was only false because it was misprinted and lacked the word "not". And how would you have proposed I report it nine months ago? John Carter had carefully gone dark immediately after doing it so that if I had tried to report him the thread would have been closed with no action because blocking an apparently retired editor is pointless. Anyway, can we collapse this side discussion now that I've stricken the part you had a problem with? I'm still not going to say it was "false", but it's a peripheral side point and was never worth this much effort. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Both your original statement and the revised statement were inaccurate, that's two, and each contained multiple inaccuracies. Someone disappearing doesn't mean you can't report them, and you listed nine items from January through March, before he "disappeared". Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't list "nine items": I listed three incidents of John Carter violating the ban or coming dangerously close (one was unambiguous, the other two were only slightly less ambiguous than the latest one); the others were mostly chronological details like his going dark for three weeks or his receiving warnings about the "ambiguous" ones, not IBAN violations that I could have reported. And if I disappeared for three weeks, came back and violated a sanction before immediately disappearing again, you noticed it later and tried to report me after it was already clear that I was gone again, this time for who knows how long, you would have a hard time getting me blocked for it as such a block would not be preventative unless it were indefinite (and asking for an indefinite block for what might be taken as a second infraction is not going to get you anywhere).

Anyway, if you had read the evidence I provided (which you clearly didn't, as you just confused the warnings for the violations with the violations themselves) you would have seen that, whether or not the most recent infraction would have been theoretically acceptable as "borderline", it's clear that since the ban was first implemented John Carter has been playing around with its boundaries far more than he should be. If we count only the time he has not been "dark", he shows up in a discussion I started, a discussion I have been heavily involved in (and directly comments on something I said), or a discussion in which I was a recent contributor, at a rate of once every two weeks. And that's just the times I happened to notice: there's also instances like this (which I found just now following the above), where he directly alludes to his past interactions with me (people I was in disputes with at the time could only refer to me, as Ignocrates otherwise had not edited in three years). While referring to me euphemistically as "people" is something I was probably not meant to see, it really bothers me that a massive ANI thread was needed to get an IBAN put in place to protect me from hounding, another ANI thread resulted in unanimous consensus to block him for his unapologetic violation of the ban, and yet he completely evaded the block (by lying to an admin off-wiki) and then went straight on to repeatedly showing up where I go and testing what he can get away with.

I was able to forget about it for most of the eight months he was gone, but seeing him show up today and all but jump in my way as I was trying to point out "Hey, Ritchie333 and SchroCat just said the same thing I did -- why hasn't it been done yet?" You see, in case it wasn't clear from the above I'm a lot more scared bit, I was actually going to post that but was unable to because as far as I am concerned posting a comment immediately below a comment by JC, is a violation of the ban. It's simply not fair that JC is allowed interpret it as narrowly as he does (apparently thinking he can get away with replying directly to a thread I started, as long as it's on a page he can believably claim to have watchlisted). Either he should be blocked (or issued a final warning) or the terms of the ban should be clarified such that what he did earlier in the year (and indeed here today) is declared acceptable and what I wanted to do here today is declared equally acceptable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silk Way Airlines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Silk Way Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AZAL QSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AZAL QSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an wp:SPA with a revealed wp:COI is repeatedly removing well-sourced negative content on Silk Way Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - note filter log. AZAL QSC replaces this content with unsourced promotional content w/o even giving an ES. Kamran013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also an SPA has previously done similar editing before. The article was semi-protected and then extended-protected. The protection just expired and AZAL QSC repeated their edit here. AZAL QSC's edits need to be in line with Wikipedia policy. Jim1138 (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Also just re-reported as a vandal at AIV by Marianna251. AZAL QSC was previously warned for their COI editing, but maybe now it's time for an indef. Grandpallama (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hadn't seen this ANI! Thanks for the ping. AZAL QSC has now been indef blocked. Kamran013 doesn't seem to be active at the moment and there's no other promo-SPA activity on Silk Way Airlines right now, so I think we're done here. If that changes in the future, ECP on the article looks like the way to go (since some of the accounts are autoconfirmed). Marianna251TALK 14:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

70.44.154.16

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 70.44.154.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He has removed [125], [126], [127] the information about Russian trolls and their involvement in the U.S. national anthem protests debate multiple times, citing 'lack of consensus'. I left a message on his talk page, explaining why statements made by a U.S. senator based on the evidence he had been provided with cannot be viewed as skeptical or 'unrelated to the subject'. I suggested to change the name of the section from 'Russian trolls' to 'Reactions' as a compromise (personally I don't think it's really needed). He hasn't replied yet. Page: U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present). His talk page: User talk:70.44.154.16. I noticed several warnings on his talk page and decided to report about his edits. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 0:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• User needs to stop or get blocked. They've been warned about DS before and should be blocked if they continue to remove well-phrased material with solid sourcing, and no discussion on the talk page. In the meantime some old racist troll came by via proxy--thank you Volunteer Marek and Shellwood. Bagumba, please suppress next time! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Re: supresss, yes, but I'm limited by slow phone access :-( 01:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bagumba: Hi! I replied to your message on my talk page. Speaking of this user, he tends to remove some information he doesn't like. Example: [128]. Check his contributions.Cskamoscow100 (talk) 2:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
      • As Drmies notes, the IP might have other issues. To be fair, however, you have been the only one introducing the material. If it's that obvious of a keep, another editor besides yourself would !vote or insert it back. The edit warring, however, needs to stop between both of you.—Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
        • He did it first [129], removing an entire section using 'no consensus' as a pretext. I initiated a discussion on his talk page, explaining why this section should be kept. I even proposed to merge it with other reactions and eventually did it. There was no edit warring. There was a guy who wanted to remove something he doesn't like instead of discussing it first. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 2:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
          • You restored your preferred edit after a mere 20 minutes of WP:SILENCE, which is the weakest form of consensus. Get consensus from others on either the article or a relevant WikiProject talk page. Follow WP:DR.—Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
            • That might be the only mistake I have made. I'm a new editor, so I might forget some rules. But to be fair he hasn't replied yet (more than an hour passed). And he didn't give a single good reason why conclusions drawn by U.S. senator James Lankford should be removed. Discussion: User_talk:70.44.154.16#December_2017. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 2:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
              • He is notorious for removing the content he doesn't like. And he received multiple warnings. Example: User_talk:70.44.154.16#February_2017_2. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 2:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
                • Unless they're actively editing elsewhere and ignoring it, even an hour isn't long enough. Wait, like, a day, or at least overnight, for them to have a chance to respond. There is no deadline. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
                • Expect to receive the same acclaim you accuse me of with that disgusting attitude, for someone who claims to be against people removing edits they don't like you sure do go off on trirades when things don't go your way. btw That legitimately was an accident but of course it being so wouldn't suit well for your agenda. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice The IP was not previously notified of this discussion. I've now left a notice on their talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to include a controversial topic into an article without any consensus. I have obeyed the three-revert rule by preventing any further escalation however even I still feel the inclusion is entirely pointless.

1. The quote is by a single Senator, it does not deserve an entire section of its own.
2. Again, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CONSENSUS FOR ANY OF THIS, I've said this before yet you continue your blissful ignorance.
3. Lankford's quote doesn't deserve to be amplified compared to any other person featured within the article. There are countless quotes featured that are not amplified to such a level I don't see why Lankford's deserves such privilege.

Now before you go searching through my history, slandering me, not notifying me of discussions concerning me, and not giving me any proper amount of time before you start firing off accusations, try learning not everything gets to go your way on this website. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that either of you start a discussion about this content at Talk:U.S. national anthem protests (2016–present) if you want to add/remove it. Currently, there is no consensus to either keep or delete it, and continuing to revert to your preferred version is edit warring. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-Muslim comments

Gjirokastra15 has made some comments that show their own hatred towards Muslims and other people who do not share their religious ideas. Gjirokastra15 has compared Muslim Albanians to ISIS and accused them of working with Turks against Albanians. Some time ago Gjirokstra15 started a discussion on another editor's talk (all discussion in Albanian) where they accused the other editor of editing Islam in Albania articles and said that "ti si musliman e perqendrove PER Turqit. Kjo eshte diferenca jone edhe arsyeja perse ju si kolektiv keni punuar me dashje apo pa dashje per Turqit edhe kundra vete shqiptareve" (Translation: You as a Muslim worked for the Turks. This is the difference between us and the reason why you as a community have worked for the Turks against the Albanians), "Gjaku i te pareve te tu, ka shkuar deme" (Translation: The blood of your ancestors has gone useless) and "Mqs ke kaq kohe te lire , be nje mundim te studjosh testamentin e ri edhe krahasoje me ato qe meson ky sekt , edhe do ta kuptosh vete perse Jezusi nuk tu pa e vertet , sepse un kam nje eksperjence komplet tjeter" (Translation:As you have a lot of free time, you can study the New Testament and compare it to what the Jehovah sect says, and you will understand why you do not believe in Jesus). There Gjirokastra15 says that Turkey is said to be banned from NATO, it is at war with other countries because it has territorial claims over Iraq and Syria, Turkey will never enter EU, Turkey made Albania a ghetto and other political things [130]. Although the other edior's answers were very friendly and polite, Gjirokastra15 continued with their hatred. Today this uncivil editor responded my comment on a discussion saying "I suggest that you focus your energies on enriching the article of ISIS & kosovo ( as shown by your contributions history)" [131]. I have never edited ISIS page. I edit mostly Kosovo articles. Most of Kosovo Albanians are Muslims, hence are seen by some anti-Muslim Albanians as part of some kind of ISIS branch in Europe. I asked this used on their talk to accept they were wrong. Their answer was "i certainly demand that you stop polluting my user talk page" [132]. Gjiroskastra15 was asked by other editors to refrain from their behaviour but they refused. Admins should consider a topic ban on articles related to religion as this editor has already proved they can not hide their hatred to people who do not share their religious ideas. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

First let me point out that those fragments that are taken out of context are from a previous personal discussion with another editor in a friendly manner and are some months old. This person is truly accusing me of things that i have not said ( such as me comparing muslim albanians to Isis) , now such a heavy accusation is a very serious act of defamation and i demand from this user to bring the text that i have said such a thing. Second the editor is claiming that he has never edited an ISIS article , which is a lie : [133], [134] , [135]. His contributions history is none of my business , however this editor seems to think that i have no right in discussing or editing wikipedia. I have done nothing more than to discuss in the talk page and to restore a reversion for which i have been thanked twice by two very well established and respected editors. Last but not least , this editor seems to be in great knowledge of the talk page of the user rresnjari , and this makes me suspicious , thus i am tempted to ask for a wikipedia sockpuppet investigation. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I placed on my first comment here your own words (can you claim those are not your words?) and others are free to judge. On my edits on Equipment of ISIL, it was not a "lie". I did not remember them. I noticed an IP editor that belonged to the same range of a long-term Serbian IP vandal. I reported them to an administrator and reverted some of their edits, some of them happened to be on Equipment of ISIL page. Why did you tell me to "focus energies on enriching the article of ISIS & kosovo"? You are already asked by other editors to not bring up ISIL [136]. When did I say that you "have no right in discussing or editing wikipedia"??? Accusing me and Resnjari of sock puppetry enlarges the already long list of biased accusations made by you to us. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please be specific , quantify/formulate what your request is , given the fact that you take segments from a personal discussion of mine with another editor that has no relation to the matter at hand. I expect an apology for your attempt of defaming me ( specifically i have NEVER compared the albanian muslims to ISIS) , and it is you who attempted to stop me from discussing on the talk page and started with the personal attacks as per wp:pa [137]. I will admit that it was not the most sane thing to say , however when taken in context one can understand that it was a manifestation of frustration given your illogical request.Gjirokastra15 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyone can find my comment in the link you placed and verify if I "attempted to stop you from discussing on the talk page". You started a discussion and many editors participated there. I read the discussion, put there my opinion and reminded editors of WP:Forum. I recalled your comments on the talk of someone else too. Recalling your own words is not a personal attack. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have in fact linked your comment above , and one can easily see that you were the one distrupting a rather civil & productive discussion. As per wp:boomerang i expect you to back up all those blatant accusations. Any administrator can see that i have been thanked twice for the previous edit of mine , and that i was in symphony with the other editors. It is better that you withdraw the case and agree that we both are at fault here....Gjirokastra15 (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

To the administrator: Please do google translate that discussion of mine which is in the albanian language and you will see that when in context that discussion was not even close to what this user is presenting it to be. In fact it is incredibly offending .... Gjirokastra15 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an object lesson on why discussions on English Wikipedia should always be in English. Because the talk page discussion under scrutiny was totally in Albanian, only editors who are conversant with that language can understand what the heck is going on, and if there is any value in this complaint. There no way for the vast majority of en.wiki editors to comment or intercede because the participants might as well be speaking in code.

Is there an admin who speaks Albanian, or does anyone know a reliable admin on the Albanian Wikipedia who speaks good English and can unravel what's going on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15 You were thanked twice for starting that discussion, not for insulting me. Everyone can see other participants in the discussion condemned your insults [138][139]. Nobody asked me to be civil in the discussion because there is no problem with my comment. Apologize for what you have said and promise you will not insult people who do not share your religious beliefs again, and we all can collaborate with each other on articles we can contribute to. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Some other editors who participated in the discussion on the talk of Albania article speak Albanian. Admins on the Albanian Wikipedia know English as they edit the English Wikipedia. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have admitted that it was not the most sane thing to say , however you have in fact edited articles about ISIS , and it was you who attacked me first, specifically you said : and the person who opened this discussion is the same one who blamed problems of Albania on Muslims some time ago.. Starting from your first comment you exhibitted a hostile attitute towards me. Now if you want i can translate the whole discussion word per word and everyone will see that it was nothing like you present it to be. Last but not least i challenge you to find the text where i equate the albanian muslims with ISIS. I am starting to get incredibly offended by this hypocricy/victimization and exaggeration Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

We need an editor who speaks Albanian and translate all you wrote some time ago. After your reply to me today on the talk of Albania article, your words were condemned by other editors (Do you disagree with this?). Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Can you two stop bickering for a moment? The accusation in Albanian set aside, the talk page comment was completely out of line, of course, and in contradiction with the comment above ("His contributions history is none of my business"). Ktrimi991, the bold sentence at the end of this comment is also unacceptable (no matter the evidence or the translation/mistranslation/interpretation of earlier comments). What would the two of you like an administrator to do? Block the both of you for personal attacks? Or can you see in this thread a lesson: a. keep it English; b. play the ball, not the man/woman? Because if y'all keep this up you will get blocked, singly or in tandem. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have accepted that it was completely out of line multiple times , however it is not me trying to ban him , neither i am searching his history for reasons to get him banned. I am still waiting for that text where i have equated the albanian muslims with ISIS , and i need to emphasize again that the quoted segments are out of context and have nothing to do with the matter at hand , rather it is a 6 months old discussion on the wall of another editor. This is my last comment regarding this matter Gjirokastra15 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies Gjirokastra15 was offered by another editor on their own talk to apologize for what they said. Gjirokastra's comment was condemned by other editors on the talk of Albania. The accusation in English set aside, I ask you to have someone translate what Gjirokastra said in Albanian. Gjirokastra15 will not say again what they said in Albanian as the next report would be fatal for them. Per this reason, you can block, ban, give Gjirokastra15 a medal, whatever you do the awful and shameful words Gjirokastra15 said will stay there forever as a symbol of the main reason why Albanians have suffered and will suffer a lot. Cheers to all.Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me like there's a pretty easy solution here. If you don't say it in English, you get blocked. Seems rational to me. --Tarage (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There are 8 (!) administrators on the Albanian Wikipedia, and I have left a message in English on each of their talk pages, asking them, if they speak English well, to drop by here and try to help sort things out. In the meantime, I would agree with Tarage, all communication between these editors should be in English only -- save your Albanian for the Albanian Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You need to understand that up until today i have had no communication with this editor , neither in Albanian nor in English. You should also understand , that those quoted texts are from a discussion of mine with another editor which took place 6 months ago on his personall wall page and are out of context. I did not plan on commenting further however it became obvious that many editors ( for obvious reasons ) fail to understand this part. Now if it is a crime to think that Turkey today is manifesting neo-ottoman desires & has occupied Albania for 5 centuries, then i am guilty. However it will become evident that i have not said those things that this editor is accusing me that i have said regarding religion (specifically equating the Albanian muslims to ISIS), so the sooner the better. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I would only say that the POV you have just stated "manifesting neo-ottoman desires and has occupied Albania for 5 centuries" could indeed be problematic when editing in this topic area, which if I am not mistake is a DS topic area with regards to Albania/Balkans. Not least of all because Turkey does not occupy Albania, and Wikipedia is not the right place to advocate for a thesis of broad neo-ottoman expansionist aspirations, especially if accusations of ISIS affiliation are somehow part of this. Though the personal comments on both sides may have been inappropriate as Drmies rightly points out, I think it would be helpful for Albanian speaking admins to verify the translations because the fundamental issue here may not only be the personal attacks. This would probably require looking at the editing pattern more closely.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The 5 century occupation is not a POV , i can find a myriad of sources regarding this ( albanian and english). However i have NEVER made any edits regarding Turkey or the ottoman empire , it is just a personal opinion of mine which i expressed on the wall of a fellow editor. Anyways let us wait the Albanian administrator who will confirm that i have never equated the Albanian muslims with Isis , and if that is the case which ... will be then you are also left with a clear case of 'malignant' defamation that its sole aim is to get me banned.Gjirokastra15 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Albania is not under Turkish occupation today and it has no obvious relationship with Neo-Ottomanism in Turkey today. This is a different matter from any edits you have made, I understand that, but it is enough that I have some concerns. This edit for example: [140] removing a Brill source with quote as an unreliable source, because the surname of the author is Jazexhi? [141]? Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh please , give me a break , i have given a whole paragraph explaining why this source was not reliable and it is not because of the surname. Specifically : 'The editor is bringing a dubious source which is citing a random person with the surname Jazexhi , it simply is unreliable , especially when considering the fact that the person cited is accusing the muslim community for accepting the census results in this article'. I gave a link where the same Jazexhi in an article of his was condemning the muslim community for accepting the census results. You simply cannot claim a book later that the muslim community has NOT accepted the census results. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But Jazexhi is not a "random person" he appears, to the casual observer, to be author of a book published by Brill. I don't know if besimtari.com is a RS, but assuming the citation is accurate, I am certain that Brill is. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. Re-read what i wrote above. Furthermore the official stance of the muslim community has been to accept the census, contrary to the Bektashi ( shia ) and the Orthodox community. For more please do consult the talk page of Albania , there is a plethora of comments there from various different Albanian editors.

Brill is highly respected and their yearbooks are pretty much standard references. Moreover the text (in the book and in our article) is just incredibly non-controversial: it simply says census results were questioned, and gives sources which question it. The book/series has four people on the editorial board and ten more editorial advisors. So yeah, that's pretty much the definition of a reliable source, and it is you who is missing the point. You keep this up, we will have serious doubts about your competence to edit in this area. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It was not the source the problem , rather the person writting that book. If you would be an Albanian you would know some of his opinions expressed publicly. Furthermore , you need to understand that the issue was the official stance of the religious communities and officially the muslim community has not questioned the census results , rather it has accepted them. While the bektashi and the orthodox have officially denied to recognize them. Gjirokastra15 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

...any claims that Albania has been occupied by Turkey for five centuries would be the fringiest of the WP:FRINGE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So what if it is ? I have not made any edits regarding Turkey or the ottoman empire. You people seem to project your own expectations and then you built upon them. It is a personal POV of mine that i share during a discussion with another fellow editor. It is beyond belief what power lies in accusation Gjirokastra15 (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Look, Gjiro has admitted that she was overly harsh in reaction to Ktrimi's initial comment and that this was over the top and unnecessary. She denies comparing Albanian Muslims to ISIS and et cetera. This case should be about whether that is what she said, and if so, does she understand why those are not acceptable things to say.

Seraphim System The Bushranger So what, she thinks that "Turkey occupied Albania for 5 centuries". I disagree but it's her personal view, expressed on a user talk page where the other side gave his viewpoints as well. For your information, there are many, both Albanians and non-Albanians, who would agree, and many who would disagree, again both Albanians and non-Albanians, with that statement "Turks occupied Albania for five centuries". Personally I am in the disagree column as I don't equate the Ottoman Empire with modern Turkey, and I also think "occupation" is a simplistic and emotional term. On the extreme of the other side, others may view Ottoman rule as bringing "Islamic civilization", wealth, opportunities etc to 'wild' Albanian mountaineers, or claim that the Ottomans and Islam "saved" Albanians from being assimilated by the evil Orthodox Slavs/Greeks. The author brought up by Seraphim, Olsi Jazexhi, for your information, falls under the latter category and he has used the pejorative "kaur" to refer to Christian Albanians. He also is a bit of a clown, for example in one piece about why Russia would be a good ally, he goes on about how Russian women are sexy; I wish I was making this up. On the other hand there are writers who use prejudicial vocabulary to refer to Islam in Albania, cherrypick only the negative aspects of Ottoman rule, and paint Muslims as occupier leftovers. I wish this wasn't the case, and both sides here are simplistic, chauvinistic etc but sadly not exactly fringe as they both have plenty of fans including in academia. Here on wikipedia I think we need to judge people by their actions, not what they think (or what we think they think). The one thing I have a problem with that Gjiro did, which is also what Ktrimi actually made this case about-- as Ktrimi cited me with a diff for criticizing-- was making inflamatory comments on article talkpages. This should be about that -- making incendiary comments -- not about believing what she believes. And I believe/hope Gjiro will not make such incendiary comments on talk pages again. --Calthinus (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that there is a distinct difference between the statements "Albania was occupied by Turkey for 5 centuries" and "Albania has been occupied by Turkey for 5 centuries". The former is a past event, the latter an ongoing present event. What The Bushranger wrote was "any claims that Albania has been occupied by Turkey for five centuries would be the fringiest of the WP:FRINGE, so he is refering to the belief in a current, ongoing occupation. Your (Calthinus) statements above were all in the past tense, about a past occupation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Gjirokastra meant a current or past occupation. She is indeed critical of what she calls "neo-Ottomanism" which I suppose would favor your point. However, her native language is not English, and although Albanian does have a simple past (i.e. "was occupied") as well as a present perfect ("has been occupied") in practice due to the influence of Italian, many young Albanians use the present perfect ("has been occupied") when they mean the simple past, as is done in many Romance languages and, increasingly, Albanian. If she did think Albania's currently under Turkish occupation, yes that's absolutely fringe, but seeing as she has never added that to the mainspace, what's the issue? Of course, if she did, we'd have a classic case of WP:NOTHERE... but she hasn't. --Calthinus (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The crux of the problem here is twofold. One, we had discussions occurring in a language other than English that may or may not have been personal attacks. Fine. I very much doubt we're going to get a good answer on that, and we have a very easy solution to it: If you type a message that isn't in English, you risk running a topic ban or a block. The time for that sort of thing has passed, and all parties are now aware that it is not acceptable. The second problem is a content dispute, which is not what this notice board is for. Continuing to argue that is pointless here. Is there anything else that needs to be done? Can all parties involved agree to take it back to the talk page, maybe start up an RFC? Surely more eyes will be watching now that it's been on this board. I'm not sure anything else is actionable right now. --Tarage (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A sensible comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the involved editors take a look at this thread just above, to see what can happen when editors dig in their heels and exhibit WP:IDHT behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken I would suggest you read the discussion here carefully so you can have a better understanding of the situation. @Tarage The content dispute does not worry me as I have never taken part in that dispute. Cheers to all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

And I would suggest the you learn how to properly indent your comments so it doesn't look like you posted before someone else when you actually posted after they did -- which I fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Going to say a few words as a past thread on my talkpage was invoked here. Ktrimi991, i understand where your coming from but its not worth it and can better be worked out through a bit more dialogue on the talkpage. Gjirokastra15, that very unpleasant exchange last year on my talkpage, don't do it again. I turned the other cheek and am not going to make a deal of it here, but had i refered you to one of these forums (and translated the text) it would have not went well for you. Your a fellow Albanian and i feel that your energies as an editor could be spent toward addressing and making better articles in the Albanian wikiproject as there are so few editors. Focus on that. Also take into consideration that some terminology like "occupation" etc are problematic depending on their usage. Whatever views someone holds on the Ottoman Empire, in Albania as the wider Balkans in terms of sovereignty was for many centuries recognised by the wider world -hence not occupation -due to de jure international recognition after a conquest. Its why in non-nationalistic historiography the term "rule" is applied whether the context of events described regard something positive, negative or both simultaneously. With reflection both of you just call it a day. To the admins there is nothing here for further action. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari Gjirokastra15 apologized on their talk, and this gives me hope he will not repeat his mistakes. I tried to work it out on his talk through dialogue but their response was offensive as it can easily be verified. After this report experienced editors will keep an eye on Gjirokastra15, this gives me hope too. Those words are not justifiable, and the most horrifying thing is that Gjirokastra15 says he has a Muslim background, hence every unpleasant word can be seen as firstly targeting his family/ancestors. I am happy this report helped. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ktrim991: "Gjirokastra15 says he has a Muslim background, hence every unpleasant word can be seen as firstly targeting his family/ancestors." Excuse me? What claim are you making here about the general behavior of Muslims? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken it to do with that exchange on my talkpage last. In short both Gjirokastra15 and i both come from Muslim backgrounds and both of us, his through conversion, my experience through my mother converting to Christianity when i was small - i am however of no particular faith now in my life. I really don't want to rehash all that conversation that went into an unsavory direction -as i said to Gjirokastra not to do it again, and for the rest of us lets just leave it at that. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is what Gjirokastra15 actually said: Well i cannot apologize for something i have not said Calthinus, and i have clarified that i certainly do not think that , half of my family being of muslim background. (diff) he was the one that started with the personal attacks. Now that everything is over , i will admit that i did exaggerate, however it is a psychological reflex of mine to react harsh when i feel offended. ....I do stronly feel that @Ktrimi991 is unjustifiably sensitive regarding my comments .... (diff).

I sincerely apologize if I am wrong, but I don't see that he admited that they wrote anti-Muslim comments nor they appologized for that. They apologized for being harsh toward Ktrimi991 during their discussion. Gjirokastra15 is accused for writing anti-Muslim comments. That is serious accusation. Wikipedia should not tollerate writing comments aimed against a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity.... If serious evidence is presented for such serious accusation, then they should be indef banned having in mind that they insist i am not gonna say that i do not believe most of the stuff i wrote (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Problematic WP:OWN behaviour

Brianrodgershfx (talk · contribs · count)

This user has insisted on re-inserting promotional content and violations of the WikiProject Radio Stations guidelines on articles such as Weatheradio Canada and CKHZ-FM, and reverting edits without any explanation at all. The user also displays an insistence on using primary sources, removing subscription-only sources, and adding trivial information such as current airstaff (which is usually not allowed per WikiProject Radio Stations guidelines unless sourced and notable). The user issued me a warning stating that I should not be the "Wikipedia police", accusing me of "[making] numerous deletions to Wikipedia pages that you have no affiliation with what so ever." an implication of ownership. The editor also deflected by asserting that I was violating WP:OWN because "one person does not decide what should or should not be on Wikipedia".

The editor User:198.33.159.251 had done the exact same things, although I believe that the user had only just registered for an account today. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Potential Violation

ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · logs) has been editing/removing content on select pages including but not limiting to former logos created by other users. This in my view is considered vandalism, and such behaviors today was reverted to prevent such behavior. This user has removed information on Weatheradio Canada that I have included as the main contributor of that Wikipedia page, that explains the whole service to Canadians. The user has also removed credible sources on CKHZ-FM, Evanov Radio Group, and replaced the source with a link unrelated to the addition to the service, and requires people to subscribe to the website to view news related material. Almost every local page in my area I have been editing he has been deleting, with no sufficient reason for doing so. Seeing his past revisions on many other pages, this seems to be a trend this user is doing, and is removing content the user does not want or like. The user is treating pages as his/her own and that is unacceptable. I can see deletions if they violated Wikipedia standards, but nothing I have added is in any violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrodgershfx (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have notified ViperSnake151, which should have been done by the OP. --Malerooster (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

He already knows. This is a counterattack to a section posted by Viper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute. And is the brand-new user Brianrodgershfx the same as 198.33.159.251 (talk · contribs)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's the exact same behaviour on the exact same articles. This user is adding information that is completely unsourced and feels like original research. The new editor should also be aware that subscription-only sources are allowed and that primary sources are given less weight in articles in comparison to reliable, secondary sources (in fact, the fact we even have {{Subscription required}} should imply that this is an accepted behaviour), and that not all edits considered unfavourable to this user are considered vandalism. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What logos is he referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The link he is referring to is from CKHZ-FM which contains a Press Release by Evanov Radio Group. This user deleted that link and replaced it with a link where a subscription was required. It would have been acceptable to include the Subscription Required link along with my original link, but should not be fair to completely replace a free viewing article with a subscription only link. The logos I was referring to are former logos of CKHZ-FM, this user deleted them which have been there for quite sometime, and is not uncommon to include former logos as seen on other Canadian television and radio stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrodgershfx (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"there for quite sometime" is not an excuse to violate the Non-free content policies. Decorative use of non-free images is not allowed, and how they are presented there amounts to a gallery, which does not always comply with said policies. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This would seem to be part of this edit war. I think further input is needed to determine whether more than one fair-use image would be allowed there. As to press releases, as far as I know those are not considered particularly good sources. Ideally, a free source should be provided, but if one is not available, referring to a particular newspaper page is verifiable. The list of personalities appears to be unsourced. And, as I said earlier, this looks like a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. Second time that's had to be linked from ANI reccently.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: Brianrodgershfx is a new editor who does not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy (see User talk: Brianrodgershfx#Non-free image use and User talk: Brianrodgershfx#What?) and the edit warring over these images and the content at CKHZ-FM is unfortunate. ViperSnake151 is correct in that this type of non-free use of former galleries in pretty much not allowed per WP:NFG and the fact the such galleries might exist in other articles is not a valid justification per WP:OTHERIMAGE. OTHERIMAGE is not really a justification for non-free use because not all files are licensed the same and it's possible that the files being used in these other articles are freely licensed or public domain, or the files are just also being used in violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

ViperSnake151 was bold in removing the files, but it might have been better to leave a clearer edit sum the "Not needed. Already mentioned elsewhere" explaining why. Now that the files have been re-added to the article, it would be better to move the discussion of their non-free use to FFD instead of just removing them again. Just from looking at the files, however, it seems possible that they might be below the threshold of originality for Canada or at the very least considered to be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia, which is something which can be discussed at FFD.

As for the text content dispute, I don't see any attempt made by either editor to discuss things on the article talk page. I would suggest that the article be reverted back to the last stable revision here before the dispute began per WP:STATUSQUO and that both sides follow WP:DR and try to sort things out on the article talk page, including perhaps even asking for comments from relevant WikiProjects, etc. using {{Please see}} templates. Edit warring is not going to won by anyone and will likely lead at best warnings being issued or at worst somebody getting blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC+9)

Actually the "not needed/already mentioned elsewhere" was actually referring to another piece of disputed content, the blatant promotion that the station is on iHeartRadio. There was already a blurb about it with a secondary source on the page for the station's owner (although the user also insisted that it had to be sourced to a primary source because subscription-only sources are supposedly not allowed. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The editor is new and is making some mistakes. That's not intended to be an excuse for any edit warring, but new editors are not as well versed in relevant policies and guidelines so sometimes they might not be quick to understand what's going on around them when reverts are fast and furious. The removal of the logo files was mixed in with the other changes you made in that edit, but there's was really no explanation given as to why. Non-free content use is tricky and even editors who have been here for years still make mistakes, so it's not really a big surprise that a new editor would not get why the files were removed. As for the other stuff, I still think the best thing to do here would be to engage in talk page discussion. I've tried explaining things to Brianrodgershfx's on his user talk, so maybe he will be amenable to hashing things out with you on the relevant article talk page. At this point, a block seems more punitive than preventive in my opinion, so maybe it's time to move on and get back to editing. As I posted above, you can FFD the files if you like to try and sort out (1) whether they are PD-logo and (2) to discuss their non-free use if they are not. FWIW, (1) seems possible, but (2) would almost certainly lead to the files being removed once again. However, at least there would be a consensus either way as to how the files should be handled. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

IP harassment

IP User:128.252.25.54 is continuously harassing me and reverting my edits over my reversion of their disruption. See also the IP's edit filter log. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Eugene Gu

Eugene Gu is clearly running 2 alter-ego accounts in order to interject his name and company onto various wikipedia pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CranberryMuffin
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Frontierjustice&offset=&limit=500&target=Frontierjustice

• User:CranberryMuffin
• User:Frontierjustice

Both these accounts have a very clear and direct focus on linking his name on any medical pages. In addition, if you look at CranberryMuffin's history, the user makes a very detailed change, which only Eugene Gu himself would know, such as what program he wanted to transfer to as shown below. Plus why would a person who isn't a doctor know all these specific and obscure medical terms.

" A notable case has been that of Dr. Eugene Gu who has been subpoenaed by two separate Tennessee Congresswomen, Marsha Blackburn and Diane Black, while pursuing a general surgery residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Gu has attempted for over a year to transfer into a general surgery program in California or on the West Coast but so far remains in Tennessee. "

I believe it is disingenuous for a person to simply add himself to wikipedia articles in order to bring visibility to his brand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.54 (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.54 (talk)

• I changed the title of this thread from the non-sensical "this can parasited his way into a bunch of different wikipedia pages. I tried to delete his changes but some power-hungry users got mad" to "Eugene Gu" Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• The thread immediately above this one seems to be about the same IP who posted this. Heiro

  Subsection'd. ansh666 04:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• The OP's one "contribution" to the article (at least using this IP number) was to add

  "This guy is actually crazy and created a wikipedia page for himself and inserted his name into the "notable alumni" of school he attended." [142]

  which was, of course, reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• I can justify reverting this edit myself as a BLP violation / misplaced comment (was the comment meant to go on the Talk page instead?) IP has also been targeting me of all users, which justifies the thread above. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the where he includes his own personal anecdote into an wikipedia article, which I tried to delete. [143] A "notable case" of transfer which cannot be found on any new websites or forums, but only in the mind of Eugene himself. Of course Jalen D. Folf, a furry lol, reverted my change without reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.54 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

While I'm not sure about the edits about Dr Gu (the ones that I looked, that the IP wanted removed, do for the most part look spammy and shoehorned into articles), following User Jd22292 around and refactoring his comments or doing stuff like this [144] seem like the IP is the one doing the harassing and should probably be on the watch for boomerangs. Heiro 04:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

They did it after being warned as well. Shared IP so 31 hour block?©Geni (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Great! So you agree that the edits Eugene made about himself should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.54 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you're in revert wars over it, you should probably discuss it at the individual article talk pages and build a consensus with other editors per WP:BRD. Heiro 04:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In regards to this subject, I've already started the thread on the article's Talk page per WP:BRD. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 04:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And the IP is now off on a unilateral removal spree across multiple articles instead of taking it to the talk pages. Heiro 04:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This IP needs to be blocked, since they're being disruptive and not discussing their edit. Also, this appears to be related to abortion, sop Eugene Yu should be put under discretionary sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Now editing as 107.77.207.158 - same edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you and The Bushranger for dealing with this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And the moment the original IP's block expired he came back and started making exactly the same edits, so now he gets to enjoy a block for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ya'll got played by Eugene again. He basically ensured that nobody will remove his edits now by creating an annoying "troll" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.109.22 (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bushranger Another block is required. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A rangeblock may be in order at this point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Hearmesir

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

Hello, folks. Would you please place a temporary block against User:Hearmesir. This editor has been engaged in an on-going quest to add blank lines to the tables in various articles on national beauty pageants. The editor has also ignored requests to discuss these edits and continues to make them even after being informed that they are contested (see my postings at User talk:Hearmesir#Blank lines in tables).

The editor continues to make these edits, and is likely making more of them as I am filing this request. For an inking of just how many there are, please see Special:Contributions/NewYorkActuary.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Notification of this report has been given here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, they've gotten three warnings on their talkpage, but they are all from the past few hours. I would give them a chance to desist, and also to respond here. Hearmesir, do you understand that placing premature fields in beauty pageant articles is not acceptable, and have you now stopped doing that? Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree - we need to give this user time to respond. His contributions to the talk, user talk, and Wikipedia namespaces total zero edits. While this is isn't an encouraging fact to find, we still need to be fair to all parties involved and give the user a chance to respond. If the controversial edits in question continue since the time of this writing, and after this user has had a fair chance and amount of time to respond, please ping me in this discussion and let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems we now have administrators such User:Oshwah inserting libelous and unreferenced material here in violation of WP:BIO all while falsely declaring that the "ADDITION" is the removal of unreferenced material. Michael Ronson (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Trying to discuss this at two different noticeboards at the same time is likely to lead to a fractured discussion. It would be better to keep everything in one place. Since the matter involves WP:BLP and there's already an ongoing discussion about the Wolstencroft article at WP:BLPN#Richard_Wolstencroft, I would suggest that this be closed and that the discussion be continued there. Moreover, while attempting to discuss this at Talk:Richard Wolstencroft#This Edit was a good thing to do, you need to give people a chance, at least more than 20 minutes, to respond before posting on other noticeboards. Responses to posts on Wikipedia are not always instantaneous and it sometimes takes a bit of time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly not surprised, I see references in the reverted "unreferenced material".Struck as irrelevant per explanation below I also see WP:FORUMSHOPPING [145]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Michael Ronson - The edit that I was originally trying to revert was this one that you made. Unfortunately, I reverted the article back to a further previous revision unintentionally. I undid my edit to the article to realize that you had already done so. That's all there was to it; I wasn't trying to "insert libelous and unreferenced material" anywhere :-). Instead of filing a noticeboard discussion here, you were (and always are) welcome to come directly to me if you have concerns. My talk page is always open and you're welcome to message me any time you need to - I promise that I don't bite :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, you'll see that I followed up by removing content here and here that were both completely unreferenced. This was my original intention - to resolve concerns that I saw with this article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

revoke TPA for user Ilikechristians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ilikechristians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

New user indefinitely blocked for vandalism continues the abusive edits on his own talk page, and shows WP:NOTHERE behavior. Can an admin revoke talk-page access for this user? Thanks, theinstantmatrix (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Wakari07 engaging in DE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wakari07 is, in my opinion, engaging in DE by refusing to acknowledge a consensus that a news item he added in Portal:Current events/2017 December 9 in re Donald Trump's TV viewing habits is not notable. I have also counted at least 5 reversions by him in the past 24 hours, which also means he has violated 3RR. At the very least, Wakari07 should start a discussion on why it is notable. Actions need to be taken by this point, I believe. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wakari07, edit warring about anything involving American politics, and especially Donald Trump, is just inviting a block. Please read the discretionary sanctions info note I placed on your talk page and get consensus for your changes instead of reverting multiple times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

For my defence, I tried (forgive my ignorance) to raise this notice. I am currently engaged in trying to catch my train while a cabal is waiting for me, so I will probably get back to you shortly. Meanwhile, please feel free to add more hurtful feelings down here. Thank you all.Wakari07 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What "cabal" are you talking about? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wakari has engaged in insulting personal callouts and insults on a number of occasions already, in direct contravention of NPA. I am inclined to assume this is merely a continuation of such behavior. I believe actions need to be taken now on this issue as well. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 05:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• ♠PMC♠: "a semi-ironic description of the efforts of people to maintain some order over the structure of the community". I'm part of a cabal who tries to make trains run in my country. It's often hectic and sometimes deranged. You see? I didn't mean "cannibal" or so, let's be clear...
• Kiteinthewind: since you don't hurt me, i wish you no harm.. Wakari07 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• While editing December 9's current events, I repeatedly called to talk and form a consensus somewhere. Unfortunately I didn't see the day's talk page nor did I think of using it. I proposed my talk page section where I already put some thoughts. Some of the complainers could have pointed me to that stub of an argument. I repeat that I repeatedly called for discussion and got no link to a thread. That's a waste too.
• This story was heavily carried by the global media. Because it was described as a report based on solid research published by a most reputable source, I think it is newsworthy. It provides significant hard data, metrics. Data that helps people understand how the world really works. If we can't have this, social sciences describing human behaviour have no point either.
• There was an ip storm during the event. You're independent from "a bunch of numbers and letters"?
• My last point is to try to raise a discussion on valid sources *somewhere*. Wakari07 (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Cabal' has a certain meaning on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, like having to go urgently where there's no toilet. Wakari07 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they could accuse me of WP:DENY? I feel bored. Wakari07 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

For WP:NOFLUSH, see WP:TINC. Wakari07 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Suggesting to stuff a WP:BEAN for Kiteinthewind and his kith also. Wakari07 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing from congress's IP range, getting shared on Twitter by a bot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today and yesterday, anonymous editors have been disruptively editing pages. It's garden variety vandalism and usually related to today's US politics. However, the accounts' IP addresses are shown as registered to the United States Senate and House of Representatives. What happens anytime an anonymous account with an IP in this range makes an edit to wikipedia is the edit automatically gets shared on Twitter via the twitter bot https://twitter.com/congressedits - therefore I believe the troll(s) are exploiting this to get laughs or something worse, at the expense of Wikipedia. Here's the latest troll and the troll from yesterday and here's another from a few days ago and Special:Contributions/another - this last one was banned for a least a few hours, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Disruptive_editing_from_the_congress_IP

Are these congressional interns getting a good laugh, or has someone spoofed their IP address to wikipiedia somehow? Either way it's a growing mess. Just look at the twitter bot's tweets to see all the edit - https://twitter.com/congressedits - "I wasn't allowed in the student senate but now look at me suckaz", "don't let Roy Moore into chucky cheese", "if you ban my IP address I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" etc. It goes on and on. Mannydantyla (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP 156.33.241.41 was just blocked for 31 hours for vandalism by myself. I am notifying the Communication Committee per WP:SIP right now. As a side note, we don't have any control over external Wikipedia bots, such as that Twitter bot of course. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

One might think people on Capitol Hill, even interns, have something better to do. Jonathunder (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nurmsook's Harassment on my Talk Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Nurmsook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fhsig13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Good afternoon, I'd like to request the attention of an Admin, (preferably not only as he was involved in the dispute). If possible, I'd like to ask the that the responding Admin to look into Nurmsook's comments on my Talk page. The issue is simple really, I've asked him politely time and time again (unfortunately I wasn't thinking and deleted those comments in attempts to clear space on my page, but they are in the page history, obviously), to refrain from commenting on matters on my talk page, and he has failed to do so, and has now interfered in my discussion with an Administrator (only). I again asked him to stop, and he was persistent. I feel, based on this, that his comments have become harassing, as he is not being helpful in my opinion, and is sticking his nose into other people's business. Thank you for your time. Fhsig13 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Nurmsook: probably should stay away from you user talk simply to avoid making the situation worse. However, they are not harassing you. I would advise that you take on board the advice you are receiving from both editors in that thread; they are attempting to help you. Tiderolls 22:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Tide rolls: Thank you for your opinion and advice, however I don't find Nurmsook's "help" particularly helpful, as he makes his statements in order to cut me down. Fhsig13 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not what he was doing at all. You are quite mistaken about a number of Wikipedia principals. I suggest you start listening. --Tarage (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I really hope that Fhsig13 can understand the irony of this request. This user is claiming that I am harrassing them, despite them now taking me to 3RR here (no violation), ArbCom here (speedy decline), and now this. What was that about harassment? I would really encourage any Admin to look at boomeranging this. Fhsig13 has been repeatedly warned by multiple admins, quite sternly by only and Floquenbeam I might add, about their editing patterns and particularly their civility. This user has now called me a "despicable gentlemen" and a "fool", while all I've been guilty of is trying to help this user. This user has repeatedly threatened other users with admin action and reports. It's unacceptable. I'm happy to stay away from this user's talk page outside of content issues, but I think there is a larger issue with this user, who has been shown all the good faith in the world only to consistently combat it. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest you all try to read more into the details of Nurmsook's comments. I don't want his so-called "help" now, nor have I ever, and nor will I ever. He deserves a block from my talk page, as I have repeatedly asked him to back off, and quite noticeably, he hasn't! Fhsig13 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment In general the community has recognized that users have a certain amount of latitude when it comes to their talk page, which extends to being able to request other editors to refrain from posting there. When those requests are made, they should normally be respected as far as possible. Common sense exceptions may apply such as making required notifications. But otherwise once an editor says "stay off my talk page," well that's pretty much it. That said, editors should take a very deep breath before doing this. It is effectively a form of excommunication and thus makes it all but impossible to resolve differences without dragging in other editors because you have stopped talking. Still, whether done with good reason or not, once the request is made, ignoring it is likely to be seen as a form of provocation no matter what the intent. If an editor does not want help they can't be forced to accept it. In the end they are also responsible for their own editing. My advice is to just walk away and do not go somewhere you have been asked not to. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• THANK YOU! This is all I wanted to hear! Now if only Nurmsook would heed this or be blocked...Fhsig13 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fhsig13. I think on the very narrow issue of being within your right to ask someone not to post on your talk page, you are correct. But I am going to echo the warnings of other experienced editors and admins... your lack of civility is going to get you blocked. Take that onboard or ignore it. But as you don't seem to want to talk to people, a block is probably what's coming unless you alter your behavior. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Echoing Ad Orientem's comment. Having read their interaction with only and Nurmsook on their talk page, if that is the way they intend on interacting with experienced editors providing advice moving forward, then this will only lead to one ending, and not a good one at that. For someone who has been editing for less than a year to think they have a better grasp of policy than a pair of editors with a combined experience of 20+ years, is well....make of that what you will. Blackmane (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Judging from his comments at User talk:Fhsig13#Quality assessments, Fhsig13 is busy digging the hole deeper. "Go ahead block me, I dare you. There will be a nasty report going out against you for abusing your authority, and no one will be to blame but you." This was his answer to User:Only's advice that his article quality assessments were inappropriate. If Fhsig13 was only talking nonsense on his own talk page that would be one thing, but here he is at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he's been involved in a lot of different issues and I've had to address him about those various issues. To his credit, when I've told him "If you do X, you're going to get blocked" he hasn't done X. However, the problem is that he then finds a Y to do that also needs to be addressed. But his attitude is the same each time which can be summed up as "How dare you tell an experienced editor like me what to do...I'm going to do what I know is best and if you block me I'm going to raise hell." He's definitely on the path to a block for incivility or for exhausting the patience of the community. only (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project that requires on some level an ability work and get a long with others. If Fhsig13 can't do that then that raises a number of potential issues including CIR. I have posted a formal warning on their talk page to this effect. If the problems noted continue there are enough editors and admins keeping an eye out that it can probably be handled w/o further recourse to ANI. For now I think this has gone as far as it can and perhaps it's time to close this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate AfD closure by number of votes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

His capitalized username makes him noticeable everywhere he edits. He has been doing helpful edits since joining the community, but he has one problem, he doesn't understand how AfD discussion works. He closes by counting votes regardless of the rationales provided. He admitted so; closing 2-2, closing 3-3. Closing keep because Keep vote is greater in number, later closed by Admin as as delete. Inappropriate relisting, It didn't start today, another, also. Quick to say they will heed advice. Have been subject to ANI community restrictions in the past. Today he made another inappropriate closure. Admitted closing by mere number of vote. I disagreed, suggested what he should do. No response, albeit he made several edits afterwards; [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]. I want this AfD to be reclosed by another editor and CAPTAIN RAJU (talk · contribs) to be restricted from closing and relisting AfDs until the time they fully understand the process. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Offhand, I agree that anyone doing nose-count closes of AfDs should be barred from AfD closings and relieved of whatever tools they are using for that. The fact that the editor's edit-count is so overwhelmingly high for such a short period also seems to indicate that his edits and assessments are rapid-fire and insufficiently considered. He has already acquired one topic ban for his incompetence: [151]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is a great example of why some way for editor feedback other than ANI is necessary. I've had concerns with some of his closes (most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart Clarinet Concerto in A, K. 622 Arranged for Two Clarinets by Tale Ognenovski (album), which I feel should have been left open until it picked up another vote or two), but that is to be expected for an editor who is extremely active at AfD, and I don't think a TBAN is necessary at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"This is a great example of why some way for editor feedback other than ANI is necessary." Not sure what you mean there; ANI is for continued behavioral concerns that require the attention of administrators and experienced editors, so ANI is the prefect place for such a concern, since his closing rationales are inappropriate, and at least one of his closes have been reversed by an administrator, and he has not responded to critiques or improved his behavior, and the latest close that the OP mentioned has just been reverted and re-closed by an administrator: [152]. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I simply mean that I wish this had been discussed before it was at the point of a suggested TBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been (see the links provided by the OP, one of which included admins and very experienced editors), and the editor agreed to change, but has not. He's already received one TBan, so courting another for similar rapid-fire assessments is not altogether surprising. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I am not necessarily in support of TBAN but in that case, he should agree with voluntary withdrawal from "closing" and "relisting" AfDs for sometime like 6 months. I actually used fewer diffs because I don't want make it looks like he deleted the mainpage and I know we all do mistakes. Also I admitted he has been doing helpful work, he has been praised in the past has been praised in the past and own gallery of barnsters. But, actually all his engagement at AfDs have involved many mistakes. His deletion sorting has been criticized before, not once, moving articles while they are at AfD. So with all the cases above, anybody who'll look at this AfD and defend his closure with this statement has very poor judgement and need to take some time away from "closing" and "relisting" AfDs for some time. His closures and relistings are generally unhelpful –Ammarpad (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Modified 04:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think my post was meant as a praise in any sense, but a soft approach in trying to get the point across about longstanding problems with the editor. Alex Shih (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Struck and replaced. I don't mean to say you praised him (while the essence of the post is obviously warning), it is just not the better diff from me, and I now replaced it.–Ammarpad (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

RIP WP:RFC/U. This seems like a case that needed an "intervention" that RFC/U had provided, where bad behavior that wasn't immediately disruptive could have been talked out. --Masem (t) 00:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have overturned the AfD that led to this thread in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. No comment on the other issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support T-ban from closure and relisting--See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekti Ghrinyo Golpo and the corresponding DRV. His incompetency has been raised with him several times but without any coherent talkback from his end. I adviced him to stop relisting SOFTDELETE AfDs quite a while back but it seems that he has got back to his old ways.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Guideline: WP:NACD advises for non-admin closures that "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." These are clearly all close calls.—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite T-ban from closure and relisting given Ammarpad's abundant evidence, Winged Blades of Godric's evidence, and Bagumba's comment, and the massively over-rapid nature of the user's edits (200+ edits per day). Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support T-ban from closure and relisting given Winged Blades of Godric's evidence and Bagumba's comment, and TonyBallioni's overturn of the latest incident. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support T-ban from closure and relisting per TonyBalloni, Godric, Bagumba, etc. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBan. Their previous TBan for a lack of competence in patrolling seems to have had no effect on the root cause of the problem, that RAJU is not doing due diligence. The other TBan was set to be appealable in 6 months, but evidently they've gone off somewhere else to cause trouble. Anything less than an indefinite topic ban would be insufficient. Blackmane (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite T-ban from closure and relisting - per all the above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite T-ban from closure and relisting – per above. —MBL ^Talk 04:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite closure/relisting topic ban, just to change up the word order a little bit. As an AfD regular, I've noticed there are several non-admins who close and relist a little too zealously (and to be fair I probably used to be one of them), and RAJU is one of the worse ones. Multiple people, me included, have offered advice and instructions and warnings, but RAJU doesn't seem to have gotten the message - their responses seem at times to indicate that they don't understand English well enough to function here. ansh666 07:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Ansh666: This is related to WP:RELISTBIAS, but it's understandable if the person (non Admin) clearly tries his best to weigh consensus or appropriatnes of relist. But actually as you said, his case is one the worse, if not the worst in the recent. And also apart from the second problem you highlighted, you can see he doesn't even think it is important to come here and depend his action or acknowledge his mistakes. This is despite the fact that I notified him and TonyBallioni posted related message on his talkpage and also he did many edits after this thread was initiated [153], [154]. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite T-ban from closure and resisting It's not just that they are a non-admin violating WP:NACD by closing AfDs that are close, it's that they are closing them without stating a clear rationale. Moreover, when questioned, the answer is that they are vote counting. I could be amendable to a less strict ban, but the editor does not even bother to explain their actions here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite T-ban from closure and resisting a shame we're here but not surprised. Besides his extensive editing here, he's active on several other Wikis, knocking out 600 edits a month on the Spanish wiki and I've even seen him on the Aragonese wiki(!) The eagerness is admirable but at that editing rate mistakes get far more likely and if you're going to get involved in admin-style areas, getting it right most of the time isn't good enough, it needs much higher accuracy. A big part of the problem seems to be language competence. English is clearly not his native language. That means he's unwilling or incapable of answering messages on his talk. They either get ignored or only answered after excessive prodding, with the responses often garbled or incoherent. That causes frustration from users affected and those who've noticed these issues. Best if he avoids AFD closes altogether and I'm not convinced he should be back doing NPP either, but that's another topic. Valenciano (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:EnterpriseyBot

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

This bot is removing redirect templates from pages that are still redirects. Examples: [155] (Ayumu Kasuga), [156] (Abrego (Black Lagoon)). The pages impacted by this need to be corrected. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on the bot request and bot approval, it looks to be working as intended, actually. Seems like the real problem is with the Anime and Manga Wikiproject template; I think it's supposed to automatically assess the article as redirect class, but it doesn't seem to be doing so, unlike other similiar templates ((e.g. Talk:Erstin_Ho; when the bot removed the assessments, the other two automatically assessed as redirect, but the anime one doesn't). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I have notified the Wikiproject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

207.28.249.102

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

Persistent vandalism. Issued multiple warnings but that didn't stop him.[157][158][159] By the way, this page is frequently vandalized. Is it possible to protect it? Cskamoscow100 (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address, but I'm holding off on protecting the article. It's being edited quite frequently, but I'm not seeing enough edits reverting vandalism or undoing the edits by new accounts or IPs to warrant protection at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion

2600:1005:B10C:EE11:D018:E942:DDD3:858A (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

Based on [160] and [161], appears to be a blocked user editing in an ANI section just above while logged out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

They are pretty focused on harassing Atsme lately, popping up anytime/where she's in conflict with other editors. Not cool. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know any background there. Pinging @MelanieN: for input, since she worked on the priors. --Jayron32 18:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've seen and blocked IPs of this sock user many times before. Glancing through this IP's edits, I'm not seeing anything blatant or similar to the other editing behaviors pop out at me that connects this IP to that user for absolute sure. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing similarity in the behavior or IP range to the blocked LTA being suggested here. And this IP geolocates to a very different part of the country than the LTA in question. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

They only have 3 edits, Oshwah - all 3 are right here. How can it not be a sock? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thousands of people edit Wikipedia every day without registerred accounts, many of them have been here for years. The default status of an unregisterred person is not "must be a sock of someone who is trying to hide themselves". Two admins have now indicated that this is neither a behavioral match nor a technical match; I have no background in the case, but I defer to their understanding. --Jayron32 19:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) It may well be a sock of somebody. They certainly seem very familiar with personalities and previous discussions. I was merely commenting about the particular sockmaster named here. The style is not similar (that can be faked, of course). And the IP range and geolocation are very different. A checkuser could be asked to take a look and see if it's somebody we know. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. To avoid any confusion: I am not a checkuser, and I did not use any kind of technical magic to compare the IP ranges. I just looked at them, and did a standard geolocation search. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And I'm even less of a checkuser, so sorry if I raised a false alarm. But I do think we are dealing with an experienced user editing logged out. Anyway, this can probably be closed now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:49.146.40.188

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

49.146.40.188 keeps adding and deleting categories in TV station articles; the categories don't always reflect the text. I revert him, but he keeps reverting back. [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked x 1 month. This looks like it's been an ongoing problem with two previous blocks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Flyer22_Reborn has insulted and belittled me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Flyer22_Reborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user, with whom I had been engaged in a heated discussion/argument with, proceeded to belittle and berate me in their latest comment. I said some things in the previous comments I regretted, and apologized for. Behavior like this discourages me as a Wikipedia editor, and is a major qualm I have with this website. As such, it should be punished to prevent this behavior continuing from this user or anyone else. Additionally, it disincentivises new editors, and is generally ruinous in an environment entirely about knowledge and learning. Had I not encountered this behavior many times in the past, I might quit editing all together, which, contrary to what Flyer22_Reborn believes, I have been doing since the time I was 15.

Here is the quote in its entirety: "You can stick to calling me Flyer22 Reborn. What I stated with my "14:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)" post above and what Doniago just stated with his "14:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)" post above are things that have clearly gone over your head. It's a wonder you've lasted this long editing Wikipedia. It's clear that you have not been involved in enough vital Wikipedia discussions. If you had, you would not be thinking the way you are thinking (hopefully anyway). This is not about WP:I just don't like it for me, but (before you took the time to explain yourself) it seemed to be nothing but WP:ILIKEIT on your part. And it still seems that way when you are talking about this being such a personal issue for you. At MOS:FILM, nowhere did I state that I offered solutions before. You keep making questioning the NFR material being in the lead into an ignorance and personal issue. It's not. Doniago and I have been clear about this multiple times. An editor at MOS:FILM already told you that you have personalized this issue. There is no "historical revisionism" taking place. There are no sides, and certainly no powers that be on your imaginative side. From the beginning, I stated, "I like the idea of this being in the lead." This is seen above. I questioned the content being in the lead based on our rules, which you have called bullshit. I am not going to sit here and keep arguing with an editor who continues to personalize this issue and clearly has a lot to learn when it comes to editing Wikipedia."

The entire thread can be found on the Talk: Titanic (1997 film) page.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the posting of this, despite saying that I did not want user to talk to me again, they did anyway, further evidence that User:Flyer22_Reborn has something personal against me and is actively trying to antagonize me.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Sphilbrick mass deleting articles at CSD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been looking over CSD articles,particularly drafts at g13 to see if there was anything worth saving (I found Vanessa_O'Hanlon sitting in the ready to delete pile for example)). Recently I've noticed that articles seem to get nominated for G13 and deleting at an incredibly rate. Draft Articles are nominated almost 6 months to the day after they were declined at AFC and can be swiftly deleted soon after. While I understand this for attack pages and the like, I have seen many drafts that seemed like a work in progress be quickly deleted. Now if admins were providing a function of being a watcher on CSD, to check that good or potentially good drafts weren't being thrown away, this might be ok, but I believe that admin Sphilbrick has not been doing this and is simply doing bot-like deletions of articles at CSD (There are other users doing bot-like noms, but that's another story). I was browsing the CSD tray and noticed an topic which may have had potential, (even had a national article about it) or may not have. Either way it didn't strike me as uncontroversial, given that it had at least a few good references. I was about to write on the talk page when I noticed it was deleted already. I raised this on Sphilbrick's talk page, asking why this page had been deleted (perhaps I had missed something?) and twice, they responded that "The reasoning is simple. Drafts with no activity after six months are deleted. It happens dozens of time every day." Well then, what is the point of the Admin, if they are going to delete for no other reason that a timeframe? Might as well source that job to bots if there isn't to be any oversight.

My understanding of the way things work is that just because an admin can delete things, doesn't mean they must. To quote Primefac: "a G13 isn't an automatic deletion, otherwise we'd get a bot to do it. It's simply saying that no one has bothered editing the page in 6 months after it was declined. It is up to the deleting admin to determine whether the page should be kept or deleted.". I also confirmed this with the help desk today who said: "Administrators are expected to use discretion always and are not required to take any action that their judgement says is inappropriate. If an admin is using their tools blindly, that would be a problem for a discussion..."

From my understanding SPhilbrick is deleting CSD articles without checking to see if they have value or potential. I believee this goes against the spirit and letter of the Wiki. Egaoblai (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

First, a review of the policy. :

It does not say, admins will review each nominated page to determine whether it should be retained.

Of course, any admin may take as much time as they choose to review any submission and overturn any if they feel they should not be deleted. In other words, an admin may delete them but is not required to.

My process is at neither end of the extremes (one extreme would be delete without any further investigation, the other extreme would be a complete review of the contents to see if there is value in retention).

I follow a process which has been somewhat modified over time. In the initial stages following the creation of G 13, I would examine the bar (which should be green, yellow, or red) and spot check some of the green bar candidates (which should meet the six-month requirement) to ensure that they actually did meet the six-month requirement. There were some early issues but those got sorted out, and the false positive rate for green bar is very close to zero, close enough that I've stopped checking it (except as noted below).

If I see a green bar, which indicates that the page has not been edited in over six months, I check the identity of the nominator. There are a number of editors that nominate these and some are regulars. When I encounter a new name, I will check the submission more carefully. That check includes a double check of the date issue but also includes a look at the content. Once I am comfortable that than editor knows what they're doing I mentally categorize them as one of the regulars. If I see a nomination with both the green bar and a nominators name I recognize, I will still do a random spot check but I will not check them all. My random spot checks almost always check out as confirming the article deserves deletion.

It is possible that some admins will do if more thorough check. In my opinion that's a waste of time but they choose to use the time that way, that's not my call.

The OP first posted on my talk page about a different article which I make clear I was willing to restore. They did not take me up on that offer. The only example offered in this post is Vanessa O'Hanlon, an article I did not delete. Furthermore, that article was nominated by an editor with just 637 edits. I don't think their name is relevant, and I don't wish to say anything disparaging about the editor, but I wouldn't accept the word of an editor with that many edits without further investigation. It is, of course, impossible to say exactly what would've happened had I reviewed it at the time, but a declination of an article with 15 well-formed footnotes on the basis that it doesn't meet minimum in-line citation requirements would've been a red flag, and almost certainly questioned by me.

I'd be happy to address any issues about articles I've actually deleted. Given the number, I won't be surprised if there's a small handful that are rescuable but I'm comfortable that my false positive rate is sufficiently low. I don't think illustrating a point with an article that I did not delete helps make the case, if the case is that I'm deleting things that are not to be deleted.

I'm still puzzled that the OP did not request a restoration of the originally identified draft article if they felt it deserved retention. I'm still willing to do that, if they are willing to work on it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We normally do not let bots carry out deletions. We require people, using judgment. I have deleted hundreds of G13s, but I never have done so without some consideration of the possibilities for an article. The role of the admin in doing deletions is not so much to see what can be removed, as to see what can be rescued. The reason for the admin as well as the nominator is so the admin can use their own judgement also--if the deleting admin simply assumes the nominator knows what they are doing the benefit of the two-party check is lost. I expect that people verify my nominations as much as I verify theirs'. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism by Jenks24

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The title "Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Metro)" is ambiguous, because there is Shosse Entuziastov (Moscow Central Circle). Moscow Central Circle is line 14 of the Moscow Metro. There is years-old consensus to use the line name for disambiguation in such cases.

It was disambiguated by line name, (line article: Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line) and therefore located at Shosse Entuziastov (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line).

User:Jenks24 restored the ambiguous article title, requests on his talk page to restore the disambiguated version that is compliant with all other pages of Moscow Metro stations that contain disambiguation by line (except one other he undisambiguated cf Aviamotornaya (Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line)) are not fulfilled. 92.228.156.36 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, IP. This isn't vandalism. It seems that Jenks24 has advised you to start a WP:RM#CM if you want the article name returned to the former way. Just carefully follow the very clear instructions on that page, including your specific rationale for your preferred move. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

See the section ‘Tobias Conradi again’ above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

If they are connected, then you should alert Ymblanter. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam links from 219.65.103.43

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 219.65.103.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Repeated and often sneaky spam links, past 4th warning. Batternut (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Noellesch9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Noellesch9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maximiliano Korstanje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like Noellesch9 topic banned from Maximiliano Korstanje. The user's history consists solely of edits bigging up the subject and pleading with others to help him do so. For example, there have been repeated additions of a section on "theory and work" (e.g. [168]) with pretty much identical text, trying out an endless succession of different sources all of which that I have checked either turn out to be Korstanje himself, or not to mention him at all. I think this editor is associated with Korstanje. See also the COIN discussion. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• That seems very reasonable. I'll support it, including also topic banning the IP 181.29.25.187, compare the IP's talkpage. It's sort of unfortunate that nobody has given them a discretionary sanctions alert for BLPs, by posting the template {{subst:alert|blp}}, so that a single uninvolved admin could have topic banned them more simply. It's an obvious case of promotional editing, and they have received plenty of advice. Bishonen | talk 12:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC).
• Dyck99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked per WP:DUCK. Identical edits. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen and JzG: Several editors from Korstanje's article are claiming to be editing it as part of a college class assignment. FWIW, FYI, etc. CityOfSilver 06:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Good grief. I'm not very good with student assignments, and this looks far from a normal one, if what the purported instructor, User:Wellscholar9, says on CityOfSilver's page is true. (Even less so if it isn't true, but I'm trying to hold on to WP:AGF like a drowning woman to a spar.) I suggest that

• a) a Checkuser please check Noellesch9 and User:Wellscholar9, and
• b) somebody with the requisite skills and tact in the field of student editing please engage with Wellscholar9. Note that the IPs only turned up when Noellesch had undertaken to stop editing Maximiliano Korstanje after numerous warnings, so I'm very dubious about the whole thing. JzG had put pending changes on Maximiliano Korstanje, but in view of the recent disruption, that's hardly enough. I've changed it to semi. And thank you very much, CityOfSilver|. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

Bad ping, sorry; I'm pinging CityOfSilver again. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

On second thoughts I have also blocked Noellesch9 and the IP 181.29.25.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which Noellesch9 has explicitly claimed. That seems just the tip of the iceberg, though, and note that there are more articles being edited by this, well, group. Checkuser, please? @Bbb23 and Dougweller:. Bishonen | talk 10:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC).

Checkuser needed - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not runnning a check at this point just to find out if there are more accounts/users. I can't tell you how much time I've wasted in the past uncovering a large group of "socks" who then claim to be part of a classroom assignment that was never set up properly. Then, after a whole lot of back-and-forth, apologies by the instructor, etc., all the accounts have to be unblocked. My suggestion is you attempt to get to the bottom of the classroom issue first before pursuing more blocks. I won't decline the CU request, though, in case another CU feels differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm closing out the checkuser needed now. If someone wants to pursue that route, they should create an SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@JzG, Bishonen, The Bushranger, and Bbb23: Just going on the messages they left here, I don't think a CU is needed. Noelle9 and Wellscholar9 have an extremely similar grasp of English where it's fully coherent but slightly imperfect, like they learned it as a second language. That's obviously not a problem but the linguistic tics are a bit similar. Also, Wellscholar9 claims to have "worked for Oxford University Press". Bbb23, do you think that's enough to just block per WP:DUCK? CityOfSilver 22:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Per Bishonen, I support a WP:DUCK block. The idea that this is a class assignment is implausible, especially given the ongoing pattern of promotion of Korstanje, in particular. I have been reviewing articles which include large paragraphs giving extensive descriptions of Korstanje's perspective on various things, based always on his own published work, often in predatory open access journals. Astonishingly, a review shows that this was almost always added by Argentinian commercial (not academic) IP addresses. By an amazing coincidence, many of the edits to Korstanje's article are also by Argentinian commercial IP addresses - example 190.2.54.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I am calling WP:REFSPAM on this. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, JzG. I'd be glad to block the "Wikipedia in decline" IP, 190.104.232.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), too. A lot of warnings on their talkpage. And did you notice this recent edit from Wellscholar9? I don't know what User:Famousdog had been saying to provoke it. I can't find a journal called "Nova" — probably the name is actually longer. And what the hell is "Clarivate Masterfull book"? This is all so difficult. :-( Bishonen | talk 23:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC).

Howzabout protecting the article for a while instead of doing an inevitable whack-a-mole series of blocks? This is a subject of very borderline notability. Something tells me en:wp will survive if the article stays protected until the "students" get bored and go away (or the term ends, or pretty much forever for that matter). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not both ;-) Guy (Help!) 09:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked Wellscholar9, and I see Oshwah has blocked 190.104.232.132, though only for 24 hours. That should probably be more, as it's static and seems to have been used (pretty disruptively) by the same person for years. Like I said above, I have protected the article, though maybe not for long enough; we'll see. Oh, and I've got the "Nova" thing: it refers to Nova Science Publishers, which 190.104.232.132 edited promotionally in 2016, and Famousdog very recently. So, Wellscholar9's edit to Famousdog's talkpage is another link between that account and 190.104.232.132. Bishonen | talk 13:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC).

Sorry, late to the party. Yes, you’re right about the whole Nova thing. It’s a publisher of academic books which has debatable credentials. I support the actions already taken with regards to these users. Famous_dog (c) 15:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lack of communication at Racial hygiene

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Racial hygiene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi fellow admins.

I think it would help if an uninvolved admin said something at Talk:Racial hygiene#Uncomfortable with all this especially the title.

The thread was originally started by an editor that wasn't even sure if the article should be there. I could see where that editor was coming from but removed some of the most off-topic aspects, to tidy it up a bit... and make it clearer what the title of the article actually refers to... so far so good.

There is an editor (Beyond My Ken) who does not want these off-topic aspects removed. I have explained that they are off topic, but apparently more detail is required. I have asked this editor why the content should be kept. This has not been answered. I have highlighted WP:ONUS. This has been ignored. I get accused of edit warring... repeatedly... with bold and italics... despite the fact that Beyond My Ken has reverted more times than me.

I am generally of the opinion that you need to talk about edits, to see each others point of view... but given this editor doesn't even want to say why the content should be kept, a bit of help would be appreciated. It may be that a third opinion on the content would move the conversation on... or it may be that an uninvolved admin asking Beyond My Ken to explain why the content should be kept would help.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No "fellow admin" here (talk about poisoning the waters!), just a "so-called editor".

Yaris678 is an admin, so why did he not follow WP:BRD? Why did he attempt to force in his changes twice after they were disputed, when there was no consensus to do so? Why does he still refuse to offer any specific arguments in support of his proposed changes, only general statements? Here, Yaris678 lauds the value of discussion, but on the talk page, he really hasn't followed through. It may be that his edits are correct, but other editors need to be convinced of that, and Yaris is for some reason reticent to justify his edits. I really don't get it -- all I did was ask for the normal amount of discussion for a disputed edit, and I'm taken to AN/I for that? Ye gods!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(general note) Dare I say, the bold and italics that frequent your writing can sometimes appear to be a bit intimidating and/or aggressive? Most likely not your intention, but it is something to keep in mind. !dave 19:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before a number of times, it's intended to mimic the emphases of the ebb and flow of normal spoken language. If I wanted to SHOUT, I'd SHOUT, or even SHOUT.^**

But I think that the issue here is Yaris678's ignoring BRD and trying to force a disputed edit into an article without adequate discussion or consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(** Ok, sometimes I do speak very emphatically, but I'm still not shouting.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Acquillion and Mendaliv having provided the necessary justification for the changes proposed by Yaris687, there seems to be little left to do here except perhaps to trout Yaris for using AN/I to get his way in a content dispute without having to himself provide the needed arguments to bring about a consensus. Not really very good behavior for an admin, I would say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Yaris678 stated above that you didn't provide any justification to argue that the content he removed should be kept. After reading through the talk page discussion between you two, I think there might be some confusion regarding when consensus is assumed. Your first response to the talk page discussion (here) states, "I've reverted your edits, as I do not see a consensus here for them", but I don't see any evidence of a current dispute on the article's talk page where consensus is being questioned in relation to these changes. Wikipedia's policy on consensus states that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Yaris678 simply responded to someone's concerns made back in September 2017, agreed, and made some edits to the article to try and resolve the concerns expressed. Where exactly was consensus under dispute here?

Namely, I think Yaris678 was looking to hear assertions from you as to why the content he removed wasn't off-topic so that he could start discussing them further with you and try and resolve the (now apparent) content dispute. But I notice that this discussion quickly spiraled towards accusations of edit warring and repeated responses from you stating that he hasn't provided a good enough argument as to why changes he made were valid in the first place (as if he needed to convince an empty room of people to the changes)... he didn't need to provide a hugely in-depth and compelling argument in the article's talk page until you responded and asked for them. Then, sure - now the changes are in question (and under dispute because you disagree with them), and he provided a response on top of the original discussion stating that the content was off-topic and didn't belong. He's asking for your argument in opposition to his findings, and he started this ANI because the discussion turned into a "your arguments didn't convince me so it must stay by default" vs "I gave you the reasons for removing the content, can you please respond with a rebuttal to them?" back-and-fourth circle of responses and he was confused and knew that things were going nowhere.

I have not yet reviewed the actual diffs of the changes made to the article itself; I simply wanted to review and go through the talk page discussion so that I couldn't take sides regarding the core dispute at-hand. I instead wanted to start by providing a response here regarding where and why the talk page discussion went in the direction that it did, and what needs to be done in order to break that circle and get the dispute resolution discussion back on track. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the talk page discussion is over, since other editors -- not Yaris678 -- provided sufficient justification for the changes that Yaris678 attempted to edit war into the article. They did what I'd been asking for from the beginning of the dispute: they provided the necessary argument to justify the edit, something which Yaris678 was, for some reason, reluctant to do.

Whether Yaris678 thinks that the talk page discussion is moot at this point, I don't know, they would have to speak for themselves, but I don't see why they wouldn't, since they got the result they were looking for. Whether Yaris678 thinks this discussion is worth pursuing, in the hope of my being sanctioned, is another question only they can answer -- but I note that having initiated this thread, Yaris678 has not participated in it since.

For my part, the talk page discussion devolved quickly due to Yaris678's unwillingness to accede to my request for a more specific argument of justification. A request from another editor for a change in an article is sufficient to warrant making the change, but it's hardly enough to justify reverting the change back into the article twice when it's been disputed, something that Yaris678, as an admin, ought to be well aware of. Still, I do not seek any sanction on Yaris678 (except perhaps a trouting), so I see no value in this thread being continued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have read the other comments on the article talk page, you will know that the other editors thought that the reasons I gave were sufficient and the problem was down to your lack of communication. There isn't any more to say. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply the disagreement was my fault. Yaris678 (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm only stating the facts. The editors whose opinions you referred to expressed them before I disputed your edit, so they are not relevant to the question of whether you should have tried to edit war the edit back into the articie - which, of course, you shouldn't have. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. You are continuing to talk rubbish. I anyone cares, they can look at the article talk page. I am going to ignore you now. Bye. Yaris678 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Civility and insults made by User:Nightscream resubmit

• Nightscream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Splatty Tomato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resubmitting this request as the original was archived. User:Nightscream and I got into a bit of an edit war (mistakes were admittedly made on both of our parts) on the article Splatty Tomato. I admitted to the mistakes that I had made and apologized for such on my talk page and instead of being civil, Nightscream decides to continue the personal attacks on me. His statements to me on my talk page is something I don't believe that any editor should have to put up with and IMO are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. Please review the statements made on my talk page, specifically the ones at User talk:SanAnMan#Splatty Tomato.

Nightscream has had a long history of reports made by multiple editors about his civility over the years (a simple search of the ANI boards pulls multiple incidents about this). But since he either is or was an admin, no action is ever taken on his actions. I call on a disinterested third party to review the long-term history of abuse by Nightscream and take action as needed. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to specific example? So far, I'm not seeing anything that stands out as actionable. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I suspect he was referring to Nightscream's opinion of SanAnMan's writing style here, and the comment about "utterly mindless non sequitur" here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like blunt constructive criticism to me. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jauerback: Call me short-sighted, but I don't see how comments such as "All you're doing by fighting me ensuring the same illiterate, incoherently written gibberish of hit-or-miss clarity that tends to pass for content on the South Park articles when I don't write them" and "But in the mean time, feel free to waste your time replacing good, clear writing with grammatically incoherent sentences, redundant add-ons, and passages of unclear meaning to the uninitiated reader, all the while employing logical fallacies to justify doing so, if you prefer." can be construed as constructive criticism. Per the policy of WP:CIVIL this falls under "Direct Rudeness" as quoted "(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")". And as I stated in this post earlier, Nightscream has a long-term history of repeated reports by multiple editors about his tone and lack of civility. I am not the first person he has done this to. I stand by this issue. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• SanAnMan, I went ahead and notified Nightscream of this, since you failed to. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Apologies Jauerback, I didn't think a second notification was necessary since I had done one for the previous notice. My mistake. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

SanAnMan, if there was no action taken on your initial thread, perhaps it is time to realize that no action is needed. Just sayin. There will come a time when continued vague complaints will come back on you.....perhaps you should just contemplate growing a thicker skin and move on. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon while I appreciate your candor and words of advice greatly, I am really not being vague. I am quoting direct statements from Nightscream on my talk page and direct policy from WP about civility and I am demonstrating that Nightscream has a clear and vivid history of complaints in regards to breaking policy about civility. The fact that you and other admins are willing to let his continuous violations of this policy slide while telling other editors like myself to "grow a thicker skin" (and other such feedback) is exactly the reason why I am making this complaint. I'm not the type of editor to make complaints to this board without what I feel is justification. I have admitted both on my talk page and in my original statement that I was at fault for not knowing the WP:UNBROKEN policy. But this does not allow any user to go off and make the type of rude and belittling that Nightscream has; even more so with the fact that he has multiple complaints against him on these same ANI boards for the exact same type of actions. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

In 12 years here, Nightscream has had exactly one civility block (along with three for EW). Direct ≠ rude. I am the same way as he. I will not waste time building a praise sandwich here. I have to do that with the people that work for me, but it isn't worth the effort here. If you cannot take someone pointing at your errors and telling you they are errors directly, without sugarcoating, then yes, you need to grow a thicker skin. John from Idegon (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid that Wikipedia is a harsh place to edit. While Nightscream was quite insensitive in his comments, he was telling the truth. There's nothing sanctionable for either party involved. Sorry. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Accounts possibly linked to digital marketing firm

It seems a number of accounts have been created over time which indicate to be related by virtue of their naming conventions and appear to be related to a digital marketing firm. I pondered raising a username violation or sock incident, however the case appears to me more subtle. At first, there is no direct indication of sockpuppetry (i.e. the users are not visibly coordinated) and many users don't have (publicly visible) edit history - they just sit there. The users in question are User:IProspectIRL, User:IProspectHongKong, User:IProspectIE, User:IProspector, User:Iprospect, User:Iprospect01, User:Iprospect12, User:Iprospectie, User:Iprospectph. It is my believe they are connected to the British PR firm IProspect which happens to have locations in Ireland, Philippines, Hong Kong etc. which are indicated in the names.
Most recently, IProspectIE has been active with promotional edits such as this and this] in addition to creating Clayton Hotels and Clayton Hotel Cork City. The edit history of this user indicates work mostly on corporate topics in Ireland. Most notably for the other users, the rewrite of the article Wynn Macau, edits to AIG which is a client of IProspect according to this.
It may be worth taking the edit pattern and IP addresses as basis to find out if other users may exist under less obvious user names. Communication with User Talk:IProspectIE has been attempted, but so far no response. I was wondering if admins have any views if this is sufficient to block the existing users on the basis of this evidence. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Extreme incivility by User:Contaldo80

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been continually rude to User:Claíomh Solais.

He said "I think you need to speak to some sort of therapist. They might be able to help you"

When I told him on his talk page it was a breach of WP:CIVILITY he told me to "Fuck off"Michael O'hara (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, he should've not done that. --Jayron32 17:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. --Yamla (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Whilst C80 should not have told Michael O'Hara to fuck off, his initial response to Claíomh Solais was completely reasonable. Claíomh Solais had posted a section entitled "Enforcing Anglocentric cultural effeminacy on article as political bias", claiming, basically, that Hispanic males are homophobic (nonsense), followed by "there is an ongoing attempt a Yankification, particularly through the Achilles heels of Uruguay and Argentina" - in other words, that there is an attempt to make homophobia unacceptable in SA - leading to the obvious outcome that Claíomh Solais is claiming that such is acceptable and that Americans are trying to stop that. It is unfortunate that the editor enraged by such obvious stupidity is the one who ends up getting blocked; the edits of Claíomh Solais should be scrutinised closely from this point on. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No, two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that one editor is espousing largely silly and unsupportable ideas does not entitle others to engage in uncivil behavior. If Claíomh Solais's edits need scrutiny, then provide some diffs. Those are two separate, if admittedly related, issues. Grandpallama (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The diffs are in the link provided by the OP and my comment. And you will note that I did say that C80 should not have told MOH to "fuck off" even if I understand why he did. However, if you really need some, here's a spectacularly misogynistic post and here's one claiming that misogyny needs to go in scare quotes. That should do for now, no? Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My point was that regardless of whether or not Claíomh Solais needs further scrutiny, his being asinine doesn't somehow invalidate a block for incivility toward him. They are still two separate issues, and it's not "unfortunate" that the block occurred for an editor who was "enraged." It might be unfortunate that his is the only block, but you don't get a pass just because you're dealing with someone who is completely over the top. Grandpallama (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Frankly I'd lose my temper too if confronted with asininity like that which Claíomh Solais is espousing.--WaltCip (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Any admin is welcome to lift my block if they wish to do so. For example, this may be a case where it's best dealt with by a warning from an uninvolved admin, rather than a block. Specifically, if you believe the user was baited here and you'd have dealt with it with a warning, please go and lift my block. At the moment, the primary concern appears to be that the other side, here, needs some serious scrutiny, too. That's probably true. --Yamla (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Even considering the extenuating circumstances, a 24hr block seems reasonable to me. I'd let it stand. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not opposed to Yamla's block but Black Kite's diffs has me thinking Claíomh Solais needs to be addressed too. Bishonen have an ARBAP2 notice, but the polemics that user is spewing is beyond any "line in the sand". A "final warning" would seem warranted. Edit: see also these diffs which include gems like homosexual "rights" and effeminate liberal screeching: [169] [170]. The sexist language in the latter diff has no place on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy about Michael O'hara's approach. His warning to Contaldo80 seems context-deaf, and what does the "continually rude to Claíomh Solais" refer to? Can we have a diff or two to illustrate the continualness, please? Anyway, since we're talking about sanctioning Claíomh Solais too, he should also be alerted, and I've just done so. I'll post a final warning to him in a minute. (Re. the pronoun, I seem to be losing my political correctness: I can't believe Claíomh Solais is not a "he".) Bishonen | talk 10:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC).

Apologies for the delay in replying to this. Been very busy. Contaldo does seem to have a wider issue with general catty rudeness when people disagree with him or challenge him in general. It doesn't particularly bother me on a personal level, I'm a big boy, but I don't think it is very constructive when it comes to what matters; collaborating on articles.

I am more of a content guy. Specifically in this case, I was challenging POV bias on the article of Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela. As it stands the article reads like a hit piece against the subject, while articles on controversial American politicians like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in comparison are far more balanced and even handed. Part of the smears used in the article against Maduro (as is unfortunately common on articles of anti-imperialist or non-neoliberal political leaders on Wikipedia), is the playing of the "homophobia" card.

Now, as you can see from some of the more knee-jerk responses to this very thread, topics like homosexuality, feminism and transgenderism are particularly hot button issues (or sacred calfs) for bourgeois Anglo-Saxons in particular, but what we need to recognise, is that this is not so for almost all of the rest of the world outside of Western Europe and North America. My issue here is that it is a violation of our NPOV policies to enforce Anglocentric cultural standards to basically create an attack piece against a leader of a Latin American nation (in this case the president of Venezuela). Now, certain demographies, may not like that, but I do not see this as disruptive or warranting rudeness, as I am simply trying to keep Wikipedia articles within our own guidelines on neutrality. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political activist group. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Claíomh Solais: Do you understand why you were given a final warning though? Your comment does not address your behavioral issues at all. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. You haven't addressed the issues mentioned above at all, and indeed this particular screed ("Now, certain demographies may not like that, but I do not see this as disruptive or warranting rudeness") suggests you aren't particularly well suited to a collaborative encyclopedia. All creeds are represented here, and if you persist in casting aspersions against groups of people, your time here may be limited. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hang-on, I've just been told that I am guilty of "general catty rudeness" (feline = effeminate?) and that I am a "bourgeois Anglo-Saxon" of which little more should be expected. These aren't personal attacks that warrant a censure? I think an administrator needs to take a careful look at the edits by Claíomh Solais made over a period of time. They include statements such as "Enforcing Anglocentric cultural effeminacy on article as political bias" and reference to "ongoing attempt a Yankification, particularly through the Achilles heels of Uruguay and Argentina" plus "the section is meant to make Maduro look like a bad guy by appealing to liberal Anglocentric views of sexuality (where homosexuality is lionised) and the general Anglo-American cultural dislike of confident, masculine men" for Nicolas Maduro. Then again "but is rather an estrogen induced passive-aggressive statement of "support third-wave feminism or we will call you nasty names" for Manosphere. Additionally ""Homophobia" is a politicised neologism, obviously it is laughable to place it on here. In the Abrahamic religions, God is credited with destroying Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone and fire for their engagement in homosexual activities. Are we now going to have a "Homophobia" section for the[God in Christianity and other articles to appease the militant minority?" for John Chrysostom. Plus in a number of places he adds "British" or "American" into human rights organisations of for individuals to suggest that there is a "liberal west" out of touch and imposing a world view on the rest of the world. The polemic and politicking across a range of articles is shocking. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree it is, Contaldo80. That's why I've given Claíomh Solais a final warning that I hope he understands is a mere whisker from an indefinite block. There's no way he'll be allowed to go on in the same way. As effeminate as I am (being an actual woman), I'll put a quick stop to it unless somebody else gets there first. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC).

@BlackKite. Yes, all creeds are represented, including ones which reject the values system of Anglo-Saxon cultural imperialism. There are 7.3 billion people in the world and the overwhelming majority of them (ie - Latin America, the Islamic world, Africa, China, Eastern Europe, etc) do not adhere to Anglo-Saxon liberal values, so attempting to enforce the social preferences of the middle-classes of London and New York on articles of Latin American socialist leaders like Nicolas Maduro would be POV and clearly bias against the subject. Can you point out any Wikipedia policy which states in article content only Anglo-Saxon views have currency and the rest of mere humanity need to just go along with it and no editor is allowed to question such content on article talkpages? With the issue of homosexuality in particular, outside of the Anglo-led West, very few places embrace it and especially in the form of the American-created manifestation of LGBT culture. Why should everybody from medieval Greek Christians, to Arab Islamic clerics and South American socialists by evaluated from the Anglo-"Western" stance on this issue, rather than a more balanced account, which takes into consideration their own cultural mores? Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Case in point - "social preferences of the middle-classes of London"?! There is clearly an axe that this particular editor wants to grind. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, are you digging yourself a giant, black hole right now. Contrary to others, while I see some offensive beliefs and some antagonistic language, I don't see any personal attacks; however, your viewpoint is so clearly that of someone who is on a crusade that I don't see how you could possibly be prepared to collaborate effectively here. Contaldo80 earned his (rightfully brief) incivility block, but your comments suggest your editing is the deeper, more serious issue. Grandpallama (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: The OP, User:Michael O'hara has been blocked as a confirmed sock. Mojoworker (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP harassment

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Can anything be done about the IP hopping vandal persistently vandalizing my talk page (User talk:Bennv3771) since 11 December? Bennv3771 (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: G'day, Bennv, I have semi protected your talk page for three days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A couple of blocks handed out too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Swingoswingo’s disruptive editing and anti-Islamic agenda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For a fairly long time, Swingoswingo’s usual practice on Wikipedia has been to intentionally add better source needed or additional source needed tags to the properly sourced contents in Islam-related pages, and then remove those sourced contents on the pretext that better source has not been given. Some recent examples are: adding tag and then deleting that sourced content. Another typical example is this deletion. In 2016-17 period, user Eperoton expressed their concern twice, here and here, regarding the above issue. But Swingoswingo’s disrupting editing continued. Recently, after noticing multiple cases of illegal tagging and content deletion, I expressed my own concern on the user’s talk-page.

But this is not the issue that brought me here. The thing that has brought me here is the comment Swingoswingo has made in response to my concern:

I appreciate your communication. However, as carefully as you observe my edits (stalking is a bad habit but never mind), I hope you have observed Muhammad and his actions equally. Is this the right place to continue misguiding millions—nay, billions—of poor audiences about this man? It’s like trying to defend (in their respective articles) Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Chengis Khan, and yes Timur who was Muhammad’s follower himself.

Of course, the vast majority of Muslim sources are biased. They have the burdensome task of upholding the crescent flag after all, a task which Western fools numbering in thousands have made easy. But their taqiyah is not going to work all the time. Most of the Muslim sources you see have already been refuted on other sites and I am ready to refute anything you come across. The wiki may be gullible and even helpless like any innocent but I am not. The academicians and so-called scholars are politically correct liars, and yes flimsy. The media are similarly flimsy, more painful than ISIS. Truly unfit for any genuine sourcing out here. What sane thought can possible make them defend Muhammad and the early Muslims? Many terror victims, rape victims etc. are indirectly suffering over decades because of these bootlickers and many more are in danger of getting wiped out in slow and steady genocide because of the same, flimsy, scholars and media. Here’s a nice way to summarize these flimsy guys: “Even if Caesar had stabbed their mothers, they would have done no less.” Replace Caesar with your favorite terror group ;-)

Once again, who is flimsier, me or Muhammad?

Unfortunately for the frequent melodrama of that persecution by Meccans, and for the trumpeters of this theory, Muhammad himself did not know the name of the first martyr (Actually I’d say he didn’t care as long as they die in hordes and kill and loot for him, but let’s put that aside). Then there were contradictory stories of the first martyr. So what knowledge do these funny academicians have that we don’t? Is Allah talking to them and they are hiding that from us? Yea, could be! They will be in grave danger if they call themselves his messengers (You know what happened to the Bahai and Ahmediya). Do these pandering scholars have the balance sheets or ledgers to show that Meccans spent Muslim property on caravans? No dear, no such proofs survived the conquest of Arabia. These are the real flimsy excuses to justify Muhammad’s caravan raids. If hundreds of Banu Qurayza and their women and children had colluded against him, he would be dead and have lost the war – Yet another flimsy lie to justify a massacre.

I can challenge any of them in a debate and checkmate them because it is very easy to defeat lies with truth. But they are so arrogant that they rarely respond to debate requests, or they know they will loose. No one even knows how many of these people exist. Coz it is they whose arguments are utterly flimsy.

Yeah I know that “Verifiability not truth”…. But readers, just rethink about this VNT line for 2 minutes. I am doing a history degree and I have lost all faith in 80 per cent of the history articles here. The site becomes hugely unreliable if it quotes liars and deceivers. Considering how ubiquitous the wiki is, it is not a fit place for lies and it shouldn’t ever be, especially for dangerous lies that ought to be challenged and quashed at first sight. Eperoton decided to believe an RS called Lapidus even when I pointed out that Lapidus wrote one of the most laughable sentences ever about Arabia’s churches in some random book whose existence nobody would know of if it were not quoted on WP. Just being an RS doesn’t mean you should lie freely, should you? Could be a mistake by Lapidus, it happens. But why should WP and its audience be at the receiving end because of such fantasies about Islam’s history?

I guess you must be aware of the volume of taqiya all around. I am a POV editor? Most Muslim with lots of dhimmi sources are POV sources themselves. And everyone instead condemns the non-Muslims who dare to speak out their mind (read truth) online or in a book. U know the labels they have got: Racist, islamophobe, xenophobe, hate group et. al.

“Wikipedia is a project where editors come to create, develop, and enrich articles.” Are primary sources the correct way to enrich an article? That too, it’s the sugarcoated Meccan verses and sweet lullaby ahadith that form the QUOTEFARMS. ;-)

“Usually, not every sentence does need a source.” That’s a carte blanche dude. A perfect way to insert more and more misinformation and spread it in forks! I have myself had to remove lots of flimsy websites like sunnipath and way2islam because people believe in those fairy tales and spread them all around. I can go on and suggest even stricter measures, but the reader is as naïve as those pagan Meccans, unless someone opens his eyes, so I am taking a break here. Swingoswingo (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that the comment is somewhat subjective, not objective; and can be read as a racist comment, I fear. Also note that Swingoswingo elsewhere cries for “better source” and “additional source” even for sourced content, but in their own content, they use such cheap and notoriously biased sources as 'The Religion of Peace'. Given the above situation, I doubt how much Swingoswingo is fit to continue their editing in Wikipedia in general, and in Islam-related articles in particular, especially when Swingoswingo thinks that the vast majority of Muslim sources are biased, and The academicians and so-called scholars are politically correct liars, and yes flimsy, and especially when the problem is actually with Swingoswingo’s non-conformist attitude. -AsceticRosé 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me, even notwithstanding the actual nature of their editing.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Very problematic editing. We definitely need some administrative action here. And I'm sure that Swingoswingo has edited Wikipedia before editing as Swingoswingo, but this is not a sock case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That screed alone would warrant a t-ban on all things Islam, broadly construed, IMHO. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked him indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. I don't see anything redeeming towards the mission of Wikipedia coming from that account. --Jayron32 16:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor does not respond to several requests for cooperation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure if User:Keeterlg has never seen the messages on their Talk page from various editors - Keeterlg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - or if they are simply ignoring requests for cooperation. User talk:Keeterlg (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Most recently, User:Keeterlg, for the third time, added good content to an article (Rachel Maddow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and added a reliable reference, but instead of citing the reference in a footnote, they typed the bare reference into the body of the article (diff).

I am flummoxed because of the repeated one-way communication. I am open to suggestions. Thanks   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

One good possibility is to properly format the reference, and thank the inexperienced editor for their contributions, rather than bringing them to ANI. You cannot expect relatively inexperienced editors to be fully conversant with all of our arcane procedures. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Amen. If you care about an article, you should be thrilled that someone has added good content, and happy to add the final formatting touches. EEng 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree in principle with both of you. Did you read User:Keeterlg's Talk page though? Other editors before me have tried to reach out to this editor but User:Keeterlg has never responded. (By the way, those editors and I have thanked User:Keeterlg for their edits.) I am fine with simply accepting this as "the way it is" for whatever reason. I came here to ascertain if there might be some avenue for education and communication about which I am unaware. I also wondered how often editors--especially those who have not created a user page--do not realize they have messages on their Talk page. Feel free to respond, but otherwise I consider this resolved as you both suggested, i.e., User:Keeterlg provides good contributions to Wikipedia, even if User:Keeterlg does not wish to learn more about editing.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I added this message to User:Keeterlg's Talk page: "See the page cited earlier for details, but this has been resolved. If you wish to learn more about how to best cite references in a Wikipedia article, see the post immediately below ("Adding references can be easy".) I would also be happy to help you. All the best." Thank you both for your feedback.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Aygunnaghiyeva

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Has made 41 edits in his lifespan on wiki. All of his "article edits" were limited to two articles; Jalil Mammadguluzadeh and Kamancheh.

• User has tried, on 4 separate occassions, to remove reliable sourced content from the Jalil Mammadguluzadeh page. (Rv #1, Rv #2, Rv #3, Rv #4)

• The only other article touched, the Kamancheh page, shows extremely disruptively behaviour as well. There, "Aygunnaghiyeva" tried to change the word "Armenian" into "Azerbaijani" at all costs, on 3 separate occassions. (Rv #1, Rv #2, Rv #3).

Looking at the compelling evidence, it is safe to say that "Aygunnaghiyeva" is absolutely not here to build this encyclopedia. No counter sources, no reasoning. Ignoring every single warning. Just blunt reverting and changing, because he clearly doesn't like seeing what actual academics say. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

His comments on talk page ([171]) prove that he is WP:NOTHERE. Seems he's a single-purpose account who just wants to own a specific article. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked him for 48 hours for edit warring; though as an aside, please make sure warnings, when issued, are tailored to the specific problem at hand. The generic "vandalism" warnings issued to this user recently aren't helpful at all; he's not vandalizing. He's (in his own mind) trying to make things correct, therefore he is NOT VANDALIZING. He's doing other things wrong, but it is really incumbant upon all users to warn appropriately. Templates aren't even necessary, you can just write someone and tell them what they are doing wrong, but if you insist on using templates, use the right one. --Jayron32 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Why is reverting sourced edits four times not considered vandalism? In any event, I use the following format for new perceived offenders:

==Month/Year==
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at [[:]], Username/This IP will be blocked from editing privileges.~~~~ Quis separabit? 19:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuous harassment and hounding by User:Icewhiz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The reported user was warned by an admin to stop "continued dragging me through the mud" and to not "chase me around". I had also asked him to stop hounding me. Now, the reported user has awarded Sir Joseph a controversial barnstar. As it's seen, the barnstar title is "The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar" and reads "For your defense of Hanukkah from residents of the former Seleucid Empire."

Me and Sir Joseph, whom was awarded by the reported user, were discussing whether some materials in Hanukkah needed inline citations (See this Edit war report, Talk:Hanukkah#Recent reverts about ref headers and Talk:Hanukkah#Aggressive and unnecessary tagging). My user page demonstrates that I come from Iran and the "residents of the former Seleucid Empire" certainly is a sarcastic reference to me. I'm here to report both his continued harassment and hounding. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: The user has zero edits in Hanukkah. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the harassment and hounding? What you are doing is filing a frivolous complaint. You have not supplied any diffs showing harassment or hounding. I suggest an immediate close before someone decides to BOOMERANG, since apparently at ANI that is how it works. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

BOOMERANG this baseless complaint - and I might add not the first baseless complaint by this user. Contrary to Mhhossein's accusations, I happened to see Sir Joseph's talk page following interaction with Joseph in a few other articles recently and seeing Hanukkah on the main page. I commended Joseph on his good work on the article. Mhhossein's conduct should be examined regarding his editing there, NPA, and frivilous complaints such as this one, edit warring against Joseph, or an baaeless SPI case he opened ahainst me a couple of months ago.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no boomerang here. Whilst normally I'd be replying to this type of report with a "why can't you all play nicely with each other?" type of post, this time I'm going to ask - @Icewhiz:, what did you mean by that barnstar? As he points out, you've already been told by another admin to stop interacting with him. Yes, SJ's work on Hanukkah was great, but that's not what the barnstar says. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to get too involved here, but how is Icewhiz putting a barnstar on my page interacting with Mhossein? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem - you're not involved here - but read what the barnstar says. If you can enlighten me, that's great. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Until this ANI thread I didn't know that it was referring to Mhossein, if that is what Icewhiz even meant. I was reading it as tongue in cheek about the people tagging the article and not wanting it on the front page. Not necessarily against any specific individual. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem was, of course, that many of the people tagging the article - quite rightly, until you and others fixed it - couldn't be described as Icewhiz does. I'll await Icewhiz's reply, there's no rush here. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I meant to commend Joseph for his edits on Hanukkah. The Seleucid Empire was mentioned due to it being connected to the holiday, in an attempt to be witty - this being the Hanukkah article during Hanukkah. I did contemplate a bit regarding which barnstar was right, as there was not an exact fit, but I really did not spend too much time on the selection or the text. I did think Joseph deserved a kudos after I saw his editing on the article and the edit warring complaint (closed with no violation). I am sorry Mhhossein took umbrage, but truly I thought this a semi private comment to Joseph.Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm the admin mentioned by the OP, and I find it somewhat of a stunning coincidence that my office today is again out of coffee and the heater is again not working, not well anway, it's certainly not keeping up with the −22 °C (−8 °F) windchill. I really have nothing to offer here and my fingers are cold, so I'm just going to propose that Icewhiz and Mhhossein be interaction banned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That may be a good idea, but I could also live with a warning for both parties to stick to commenting on edits, not editors. Icewhiz, your thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I won't be around much to respond this evening, but that is essentially what I tried to do here and here and here and here and possibly elsewhere that the interaction tool isn't picking up (it's also crashing a lot). There comes a point where two (or three) editors who just can't get along should be prevented from doing so, for everyone else's sake. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

To clarify I mentioned the Seleucids due to Hanukkah in an attempt at wit (the Seleucid empire playing a major role in the story). I was not attempting to refer to a specific editor (and the Seleucids, IIRC never controlled all of modern Iran and lost control of what they did have a bit before or after Hanukkah (in a different conflict)). I am sorry if this was misconstrued, and in retrospect I probably should have sent a wikilove message and not the barnstar. I have been civil towards Mhossein, and when Ivanvector told me and Dr.K to drop the stick following dispute resolution at Ali Khamenei, I did so, and stepped away.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

(after ec) This is true insofar as dropping the stick. I'll leave the rest for folks without pressing IRL stuff to do to review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we're good here. Can we close this with a note that any future interactions between these editors that may be seen to be uncivil may be met with sanctions? Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:UNCIVIL by User:MPants at work and User:Niteshift36

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here: Talk:Alex_Jones_(radio_host)#Survey_-_A_or_B_followed_by_your_reasoning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdomtooth32 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Frivolous waste of time. O3000 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Diff please? No one is going to read through that to find what you considered uncivil. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's pretty obvious, if you take a look at that section. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, I was uncivil by being willing to explain third grade level concepts, but not being willing to explain freshman college level concepts. Or possibly because I use the word "fuck" a lot. (Mostly due to the fucking pointlessness of that sort of discussion, but whatever.) Niteshift was uncivil by pointing out that they understood where I was coming from. But by all means, let the fucking circus begin. Fuck, fuck fuckity fuck fuck. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Boomerang is called for here... --Tarage (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• OP is trying to waste more people's time after already wasting people's time. Also, interesting (and very recent) editing history. Yeah, WP:BOOMERANG. Volunteer Marek  21:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yesterday, Wisdomtooth32 violated 3RR at Paul Craig Roberts. I was nice enough to post a 3RR warning and note that they made four reverts in 24 hours. The response from the editor was to copy the 3RR warning and four revert note to my talk, although I made only one revert. The editor appears fond of game playing, and has now discovered notice boards. Who has time for this? O3000 (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing sanctionable going on there except the OP's WP:IDHT behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG time. Neutrality^talk 22:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

And now he's making rather pointy edits adding NPOV tags to articles and removing conspiracy theorist categories from others. I have reverted them all so far, but we're at the point where he's lashing out by vandalizing so... block please? --Tarage (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Can an admin step in, please? The OP is "forbidding" others from reverting their pointy edits now. This really needs to stop. pinging @JzG, John, Neutrality, Ivanvector, and Black Kite: as they have been active recently. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's not I, but Wikipedia policy that forbids POV notices from being taken down while neutrality is still being discussed in the Talk page. Wikipedia is ruled by rules, not by rulers. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

For someone opining about the rules, you sure don't have a grasp on them at all. One would THINK after so many other editors reverted you that you'd take the hint. What a magical world you must live in. --Tarage (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked Wisdomtooth32 for 31h, because he seems to be losing it. See also [172]. I don't think he will last here much longer. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh good lord he went there too? --Tarage (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I was starting a BOOMERANG section below but it appears JzG blocked the user for 31 hours for disruption already. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rev-del ES?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this ES need rev-delling? 1!. It makes absolutely no sense in the context. Thanks L3X1 (distænt write) 02:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does, as the context is the addition. Done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A. So late at night I am supposed ot intuit which admin is awake and working, and B. the pink box is about oversight, and privacy matters, not simple rev-del requests. C. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime. Consider. Not Thou Shalt. D. the email address is for oversight. Make a rev-del email address that puts all requests in a pool for admins to see and maybe I'll do it E.If that is the impression it gives the pink box should go. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm having a dispute over an image with user:x2o over an infobox image in the biography page for Demetrious Johnson (fighter). He is saying the image quality is too poor for Wikipedia, and I completely disagree. Can I get clarification as to whether the image in this revision is fine? Thanks. TBMNY (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Compare it to the current image; the current image is far better, I don't see any reason to change it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demetrious_Johnson_(fighter) X2o (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That old image is from 2009, and the one I put up is from 2016, and is a much better representation of him today. TBMNY (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and nothing to do with admins - please discuss it on the article talk page and seek consensus there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:NewWorldGod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please revoke his talk page access, thanks! Diff:Special:Diff/815672798 Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war between two users on the same school IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There appear to be multiple users on User:140.198.160.63 reverting each other in an edit war. The edit histories of their Talk page, the Talk page of User:140.198.160.64 and Sergecross73's Talk page shows that this is a school IP range. Requesting additional intervention in the matter. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tobias Conradi again

Despite being globally banned, this former user actively continues editing and actively participates in the discussions. Last evening, they removed (without consensus of course) dozens of hatnotes from the articles of Moscow metro stations (similar to this edit). There is apparently nothing which can be done about this, but please if you see them block on sight and mass-revert the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

See discussion elsewhere and the relevant SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Jan CZ

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jan_CZ

He is removing Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states in Taiwan and Kosovo etc. I have no time to revert all of them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibicdlcod (talk • contribs) 08:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Shows that need to have a season to begin with

Everyone on Wikipedia are removing seasons from every show, but we must know what season starts. For example Jball remove season 1 of vampirina and he cause a disruptive editing. So everyone we all must have a season to know when it started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.82.168 (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute, which are not handled here. Have you opened a discussion on the article talk page? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision, deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Deerbrook Mall (Chicago)

has been over edited, and has lost its rich history.

50.254.21.213 (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

and someone changed its title ?? moved page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.254.21.213 (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi .213, please provide more details as to what you would like done. Deerbrook Mall (Chicago) has no revisions that were rev-deleted, and its history goes back to 2009. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It was renamed from Deerbrook Mall (Deerfield, Illinois), but the entire edit history came along with the move. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• yes i know but a lot of those edits were done to reduce the page that took out a lot of good stuff.50.254.21.213 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• i think an administrator needs to put back the name so there is no edit wars 50.254.21.213 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• a wikipedia page is a one stop shop to find everything on the place without having to look for the subject matter on Google etc. because someone has already done it for you, but do not reduce the page to save bytes. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• i live there i see it every day 50.254.21.213 (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Looking at the history of the article, all I see is the kind of additions/removals/editing that I'd expect as an article is developed further. Nothing has been removed and hidden from the history, and I see no evidence that the page has been made smaller to "save bytes" (in fact, removing material from a Wikipedia would not save bytes anyway, as nothing is ever actually deleted from the server - every edit made to a page, whether adding or removing content, increases the number of bytes used). If you believe there is material omitted that should be included, the way to deal with that is by the normal editing process - you add what you think needs to be added (supported by suitable sources), and then if there is any disagreement or revert, you discuss it at the article talk page and seek a consensus. I can see nothing here that falls within the remit of administrators. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Looking closer, I suspect what you are actually objecting to is this move, which is commented as "Shorter name"? That's not to save bytes, just to simplify the name. But I think the move was wrong, as the mall is not actually in Chicago - the sources say it's in Deerfield, Illinois, which appears to be 25 miles north of Chicago. I've moved it back, purely as an editing action and not an admin action (and there's a redirect left for anyone thinking it's in Chicago and searching for that). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• i see it was 2 busy, who cares the bally building was built in 1985, and before bally it was a auto service bay for the store at the mall and that this malls owner is not public knowledge per say, someone must. so why did i put it all there to be deleted ?? 50.254.21.213 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. 50.254.21.213 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ana Yancy Clavel article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this article is a joke. I put in the info to propose it for deletion. but how do I do that?

I am a new editor,so when I have questions where do I go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You can ask questions how to use or edit Wikipedia at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk or at the Teahouse: Wikipedia:Teahouse. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Daquan7474: As you are very likely the IP who disrupted WP:BLPN a couple days ago please read the messages left here. Also, what is your connection to Prcelebrity? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no connection to prcelebrity,nor do I edit without logging in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Volunteer_Marek being unconstructive and reverting legitimate edits.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volunteer_Marek

If you look at Polish tribes you can see this user has been reverting legitimate information repeatedly when I edited it to improve the article.

  He did not:

• Have a legitimate reason. The wikipedia articles are cited all the time through [[]] quadruple square brackets. Wikipedia articles in question has 33 citations and 1 is a direct piece of evidence (image).
• Use the talk page to resolve it.
• Refuse to acknowledge the wikipedia articles linked have citations. This is very stupid for him to 1. Not realise before reverting information and wasting everyone's time. 2. Did not check when I pointed it out.

Alamatp2 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• A) content dispute, this is not the right place to hashout content issues and B) edits are rightfully being reverted. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself per WP:WPNOTRS. You must cite the specific source for any content - a Wikipedia article with a million citations does not constitute a reliable source. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A) I was referred here by User:Samsara from the Arbitration page, so you are wrong and can see proof of that.

B) You can't just declare the edits are correct. They are not and have not proven to be. What do you think all the quadruple square brackets are? If I instead use those then the edits will still be linked but be fine. The [[]] brackets that ironically YOU USE RIGHT HERE TO CITE A RULE, show that it's ok. C) Even if the format is technically incorrect and I should instead use [[]], the users like this have not been constructive and have simply reverted the edits, rather than make them correct with square brackets. Alamatp2 (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang and CU please. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The user's talk page can't be edited, so that is an invalid request. I went to get the page unprotected, but they denied the request and sent me here. Your requests are impossible to fulfill. Alamatp2 (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

My requests for a boomerang and CU are about to be fulfilled. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Alamatp2 is edit warring on both Polish tribes and Czechs. See also their complaint below. Heading for a block. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC).

This is absolutely outrageous that this Bishonen here has announced this block in a threatening manner when I am in the right on this subject.Alamatp2 (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: Alamatp2 has been blocked for making legal threats on the next ANI discussion below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Iryna_Harpy is causing problems for my legitimate contributions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iryna_Harpy

Article in question is Czechs.

This user has repeatedly undid what I think are legitimate accurate edits to the page. The user used several labels against me without pointing out how I violated them. You see on the talk page I lay out my reasoning which can all be checked. Yet as you can see from the user's talk page and mine, they simply repeat the accusation and continue to erase my contributions. This is abusive.

  If the user objects to something they could have pointed out what to have a discussion. They did not. Even after I repeatedly in the explanation say that they haven't identified what was POV, they did not do so.

I'm also adding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jack_Frost

This user came into the situation without reading anything and reverted it to what the former user did. The evidence for him not reading anything is the repetition of the former users point about WP:POV against me; it edited my user/talk page and warned me about being blocked if I continued. If you look at my responses there and on its own page, including the edits I undid, you see me instructing User:Jack_Frost to point out what is POV sa nothing was ever pointed out, only the accusation and threats about being blocked made.

Both have been very abusive and could have just checked what they objected to be constructive and progress the changes. Neither wanted to do this but instead attacked me with the threat of me being blocked etc. Alamatp2 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Might you be any relation to this user? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 10:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Boomerang and CU please. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am going to but you are asking too soon. I was on my way to their page but was reponding to other requests. Look at the time stamps.Alamatp2 (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Alamatp2, you are edit warring on both Polish tribes and Czechs, and will certainly be blocked if you persist. You can't push your preferred content into articles by edit warring, and not by poorly considered complaints on ANI either. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC).

NOTE: Alamatp2 has been blocked for making legal threats on the next ANI discussion below. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bishonen This user came onto my ANI issue and threatened me with a block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen

As stated this user right here on an ANI issue about User:Volunteer_Marek, without reading anything declared to everyone that I am to be blocked and was edit_warring. This is libel, since the evidence is on my side. This complaint is about the flagrant abuse that this user engaged in without consideration of the facts.

I'm warning you guys that you are violating due process and this will go to court unless the users are punished as per the rules of wikipedia, including this user Bishonen.

Alamatp2 (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:LEGALTHREAT. You should thank Bishonen, it is good advice. Indef. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Keep it to one thread, please. And yes, when you engage in block-worthy behaviour, admins are allowed warn you that you might be blocked. You should take it as a kindness that you were warned rather than blocked outright. Also, please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OR and refusal to obtain consensus from User:Nonesense101

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jeremy Browne, 11th Marquess of Sligo was an Irish nobleman who died in 2014, and is generally acknowledged (by other works of reference and contemporary obituaries) to have been the Marquess of Sligo. Nonesense101 (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account, has been persistently editing his article to claim that he was either illegitimate or adopted, and therefore never inherited the peerage. 72 (talk · contribs) and I have several times attempted to explain (at User_talk:Nonesense101, hence the lack of discussion on article talk) that this constitutes WP:Original research, but he has repeatedly re-inserted the claims into the article. I think a block is appropriate at this point, as he's been warned several times, but as I may be involved in the content dispute, I'd like someone else to assess the situation, which is generally contained in the history of that article and the user's talk page. Choess (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a 31 hour block for the repeated additions of unsourced content. I'm not too keen on their stay here however, as their user page states they are here to "Putting right false information". WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comes to mind. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring on The Big Lebowski and List of Blue's Clues episodes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So I have been warned not to make disruptive edits on the Big Lebowski and List of Blue's Clues episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.39.132 (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but this thing reeks of either WP:LTA, or a sock. The case is familiar, but I can't put my finger on it. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 00:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Twelvestitches

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Twelvestitches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a NOTHERE attack account on Pacific Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Radical environmentalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Soft water path (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), with a bizarre focus on opposing water conservation. They have been insistently adding a rant to Pacific Institute about nonexistent criticism; that rant is wholly unrelated to the article subject, written in an unencyclopediac style, scientifically incorrect, and contains cited sources that don't actually support the claims. (I was alerted to this by a non-editor friend of mine, who noticed the disruption they were causing.) They've also tried to label the institute as a radical group.

When their rants are removed, they no-comment revert, and they did not reply to a message previously left on their talk page. (Beauty School Dropout also reverted the removal once, but I believe that was a mistake during recent change patrol.) Although they don't have a lot of editing history, given their combative attitude and total lack of productive edits so far, I don't think they're editing in good faith nor likely to become a productive editor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The insertion of unsourced original research about anything is essentially vandalism and should be treated as such. If they decline to engage in discussion and don't respond to this ANI ping, I see no reason why a topic ban shouldn't be imposed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No, stop that. The insertion of unsourced original research is NOT essentially vandalism. It's not even a little bit vandalism. It and vandalism don't occupy the same time zone. Vandalism is intent to harm Wikipedia. POV-pushing, unsourced, political rants may be sanctionable offenses, but please don't call them vandalism. In a sick, misguided, terrible way this person obviously thinks that they are helping Wikipedia by correcting what they perceive as errors. That's not vandalism. Now, saying that doesn't mean that what they are doing is OK, or should be allowed to continue. But please don't throw that word around willy-nilly. It has meaning, and when you use it incorrectly, it muddies the waters. Use precise language. --Jayron32 06:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree insofar as the behavior has continued, despite reverts and warnings. A single example of such behavior can be treated with good faith; this is now well beyond that point. The user in question has thus far entirely refused to engage in talk page discussion, has not listened to other editors attempting to explain why their edits are wrong, and by all appearances simply intends to keep doing what they're doing indefinitely unless stopped. That is, in my opinion, the behavior of a vandal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly not vandalism. I don't know why it's being called such as it just muddies the water. Rather than dealing with a serious problem, we are dealing with this utter nonsense. It's bad enough when inexperienced editors call stuff vandalism when it clearly isn't, while harmful that can be at least slightly excused by their inexperience. When experienced editors call stuff vandalism which clearly, I do wonder if wikipedia is as people like to say, fucked. I mean we've dealt with this time and time again, if people still can understand why they're helping no one by calling stuff vandalism which clearly isn't, when they could simply call something what it actually is and we could actual deal with the problem rather than getting into all this pointless confusion because people simply ignore what they've been told time and time again, are we ever going to be able to deal with the numerous serious issues wikipedia faces? I mean it's even more silly since there are much more serious behavioural issues and problems wikipedia faces than vandalism, so why insist on call stuff vandalism when often, as is probably the case here, it's a more serious issue? Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification Pi.1415926535. What I believed I had reverted was a page-blanking incident that I believe didn't even involve the parties in this case, and if I was wrong, I do apologize. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No kidding, I really want to urge people to stop using legal language like defendant and so on here. It leaves the wrong impression about how this place works. EEng 06:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, E. I was just trying to be polite, but I will gladly edit my post if that would be better. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Twelvestitches: Everything I posted is absolutely true and I added references that prove that using water does NOT cause it to exit the hydrologic cycle. My edit only added an opposing argument to the Pacific Institute's Wiki page. I never changed or deleted any other information. Water conservation is not water conservation. You can't save water, if you do not use fresh water it just flows into the ocean. That is NOT saving water. And if you use water inside your house it goes to the sewage treatment plant which treats the water and then pumps the water back into the river. If you use water outside your home it sinks into the ground and fills the groundwater table and when that is full it seeps back into the river. The extreme environmentalists have convinced the public and the government that using water is destroying water. Water is not destroyed by use, it's still water. Even evaporated water is still water, just as tiny drops. People are getting fined and allowing their lawns to die for no good reason. I did not reply to the one message left on my talk page, way back on 25 Aug, because they were correct in noting that I needed to add in references, so I put references in. Pi did not leave a message on my talk page until just now about this Administrator notice. He never attempted to have a talk about it and still has not on my talk page. If you want to debate the issue on my talk page then we can do that. I have 5 years of college, all in science. Let's discuss the riparian environment. Given my combative attitude? What combative attitude? We disagree on the issue and you are trying to prevent the opposing argument from having a voice. If everyone has to agree with you on everything then you are going to be in combat with a lot of people for much of your life. Wikipedia should not be about you only getting to voice your agenda without the opposing side getting a chance to argue their side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twelvestitches (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem with what you're doing is that Wikipedia is not a place for posting your own personal opinions. You appear to have several personal opinions about the Pacific Institute - none of them are relevant to us and none of them belong in Wikipedia. Our articles are based on what reliable sources say about people, places, events and organizations. If there are notable criticisms of the Pacific Institute - not general, nonspecific criticisms of things they generally believe in - they could be included, cited to their specific reliable source. Otherwise, they do not belong here. I suggest that you read our foundational content policies before further contributing - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Twelvestitches: The sources I used were the hydrologic cycle chart, Wikipedia, and the Pacific Institute's own site. Those are not personal opinion. Are you saying those are not reliable sources? What do you consider a reliable source then? My own personal opinions are the same opinions of other non-radical environmentalists. I am an environmentalist, I just don't make my living by scaring people into thinking that using water is wasting water or destroying it nor do I claim that dams harm the environment when they don't. The Pacific Institute has a public statement that one of it's co-founders earns $140,000 a year entirely from donations. I'm retired. Who has the personal agenda? Me, or them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twelvestitches (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

To answer part of your question, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. As for the others, if you combined information from these and came to a conclusion which you then added to the article, that is clearly WP:SYNTHESIS, which is not allowed. Specific statements need to be supported by specific citations from reliable sources. You cannot roll your own, per WP:Original research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have warned Twelvestitches on their talk page that their behavior needs to change significantly if they hope to continue editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You clearly have a strong point of view about this group. If your point of view has never been published in a reliable source, it cannot be included on Wikipedia. We are not a publisher of original thought or opinion and we are not a place to make arguments against groups you personally disagree with. We are a project to write an encyclopedia based upon what is published in reliable secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Twelvestitches: My opinions are not new. I completed 5 yrs of college in 1996. Dams are not a "new" idea, they've been around for thousands of years. Nature even has an animal who's job is to build dams. Here is published information that supports my side of the argument: http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/paddling/river-dams-thumbs-up-or-thumbs-down/

https://www.fema.gov/benefits-dams

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/LACEXT/Resources/258553-1123250606139/Good_and_Bad_Dams_WP16.pdf http://business-ethics.com/2010/08/15/1822-hydroelectric-dams-the-good-and-bad/ Why don't we let people read and learn and decide for themselves? Why should every Wikipedia page limit itself to just one side of the issue? I added information to the page. Pi is trying to eliminate information so others can't see it. The information is the same but one side has been shouting while my side has been too quiet. Each person's opinion on the issue depends on their personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twelvestitches (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Do any of those sources mention the Pacific Institute? No? Then what you're doing is not allowed. Again, Wikipedia is not a place to share our opinions or personal agendas. Our mission is to write an encyclopedia. The page about the Pacific Institute is not designed as a place where you can present arguments against that group. If there are notable criticisms of the group published in reliable sources, those could be included. But it's not a place for you to write a generalized argument against the institute's viewpoints and ideologies. It's simply not what Wikipedia does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ana Yancy Clavel article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this article is a joke. I put in the info to propose it for deletion. but how do I do that?

I am a new editor,so when I have questions where do I go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You can ask questions how to use or edit Wikipedia at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help desk or at the Teahouse: Wikipedia:Teahouse. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Daquan7474: As you are very likely the IP who disrupted WP:BLPN a couple days ago please read the messages left here. Also, what is your connection to Prcelebrity? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no connection to prcelebrity,nor do I edit without logging in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Precelebrity I don't know about, but Daquan7474's editing pattern doesn't include IP editing. And "very probable" doesn't mean "definite". TomBarker23 (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bryan4562013

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Bryan4562013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have contacted Bryan more than 20 times about these issues now [173] but each time he just deletes my messages without responding, and he does the same with other editors' messages. I have repeatedly pointed out that WP:Communication is required and have made clear that if he keeps creating unreferenced articles, I would have to initiate an ANI; it has made no difference. Bryan has twice left messages on my page instead, see User talk:Boleyn#RudeEditor (his heading, not mine!) and User talk:Boleyn#My Friends From Afar (TV Series). Both indicate that he doesn't plan to communicate. Since my last warning, he has created [174], another long and unreferenced article.

I would like Bryan to communicate, I have tried to make my messages polite, and would like him to acknowledge the importance of WP:V and not create further unreferenced articles. After more than 20 messages, I felt I had run out of options other than trying to get him to communicate here. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked that editor, making it clear that the block will be lifted once they commit to verifiability and express a willingness to communicate with fellow editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

118 Reunion looks suspiciously like a copyvio to me as well [175], but I'm not familiar enough with Chinese sources to work out whether they are a back-copy of the Wikipedia article. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's direct copy and paste (page 2) from the same English translation of synopsis that was posted back in 2014. Alex Shih (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift action here. So many long articles with no sources and no willingness to reveal sources made me concerened there were copyvio issues too. I appreciate the swift responses. Bryan4562013, if you are reading this, you are still welcome to edit Wikipedia, as long as you understand it is a project where we communicate, work together and source clearly. I hope you return. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ssr and paid editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the past, User:ssr was hired by Alexander Misharin, who between 2009 and 2012 was the governor of Sverdlovsk Oblast, one of the federal regions of Russia. One of the tasks of ssr was to improve the image of Misharin in the media, including WMF projects (see his own text at n:ru:Сергей Рублёв: Как Свердловская область Википедию потеряла, in Russian). It is trivial to check that he edited the article about Misharin in the period Misharin was a governor. About a month ago, I asked ssr to declare the (possibly past) conflict of interest at the talk page as ToU require [176]. He never responded and edited since my message. I am not sure what I should do now.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter - Do we know for sure that this is true? Has he declared himself as being paid to edit in the past? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is clear now from the discussion below.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can't read Russian, but getting the gist of the Wikinews interview via Google Translate, it sounds like ssr's paid work ended in 2012, which was long before the TOU update requiring disclosure went through. In the Wikinews interview, ssr does claim to have abided by applicable COI policies, though I don't see a userpage disclosure on enwiki. It does appear, however, that ssr has disclosed this at his ruwiki userpage: В частности, я работал блог-секретарём губернатора Свердловской области Мишарина в составе его пресс-службы (см. архивы СО статьи о нём, использовавшейся для политического давления), открыто декларируя в Википедии собственный конфликт интересов. (See ru:user:ssr). I don't think it's required that ssr retroactively disclose a former employer in the same way as it's required for a current employer under the TOU, and I think any failure to disclose here (to the extent a disclosure is or was ever mandatory) wasn't intended for deceptive purposes given the disclosure at ruwiki and in the Wikinews interview. I mean, at worst, if we feel he should disclose his past employment here as he has at ruwiki, he could be asked to do so. Perhaps he would be more responsive at ruwiki, runews, or meta? Or via email? Or via a query in Russian? It doesn't appear that he edits enwiki very often. I could entirely understand him rating an enwiki disclosure as low priority, or it having slipped his mind. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --ssr (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I edit-conflicted trying to post the statement that we should probably drop the matter, but now I do not even know - claims that any editor from Russia is exempt from ToU, or that reporting a paid editor is a legal threat do not exactly fit my vision of how Wikimedia projects work.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Not any editor, but one who is subject to talks about "payments" and "employment". Someone in some country silently gave someone a piece of cash money without any documents, is it a "payment for disclosure at WMF"? I am not sure. --ssr (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the very fact that an editor received monetary reimbursement for Wikimedia edits makes them a paid editor and requires obligatory declaration at the talk page, but I might be wrong in my interpretation of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A physic scientist being paid at his work and editing physics articles is a paid editor? --ssr (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If they are paid specifically for editing Wikipedia articles, yes, sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The key distinction is whether the person making the edits receives or expects to receive direct monetary benefits for making those edits. So editing Wikipedia on topics that interest you, even if you have a conflict of interest (e.g., a scientist editing an article about the lab where he works), is not paid editing even if you happen to be doing it on "paid time". The idea is that edits which are induced by the payment of money require disclosure. In any event, this is not the place to relitigate the paid editing rules... that's a Wikimedia Foundation matter that we have no say over.

@Ssr: Ymblanter was merely concerned that you had not complied with the disclosure policy regarding your past employment. Considering you have made a disclosure at Russian Wikipedia (that I believe I quoted above), would you mind adding an English translation of the same passage to your English Wikipedia user page? Even though it may not be required, I believe it would resolve any remaining concerns, and this thread could be closed with no action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, this appears to me a matter of forgetting to update biography entries. I will add this as I think up how to. --ssr (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done --ssr (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Tnx, it solves problem for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Do you really want me to tell you what to do? Go here for example, and this is only the first step, study talk page archives both in en and ru as a second step (if you're such an investigator), and watch close the year 2011 in the signatures as a third step (I see the "Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure" was created only in August 2015), go here as a fourth step. In Russian Wikipedia, insulting Wikipedians in the personal blog is prohibited (yes, they did that). Is it prohibited in English Wikipedia? I remember Ymblanter saying some segregative stuff about users who are "decent and undecent". I remember him saying only "elite people" should edit Wikipedia and "non-elite people" should be treated in some bad way concerning toilet accessories. Is he really an administrator with such approach? In addition, I am a resident of Russian Federation, Wikimedia Foundation doesn't accept donations from Russian Federation for legal reasons and doesn't have any legal ties with any Russian entities, talking about "payments" is a legal talk, I see no way how legal talks can be made here, how it can be defined what is "payments" and so on. More over, legal talks is one of the worst crimes in Wikipedia, if you want to discuss content, discuss content at talk pages of the articles. --ssr (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

  I edit-conflicted typing the answer that I should probably drop the matter giving the circumstances, but now I do not even know. Also, I do indeed have a personal blog btw, which is exclusively about my travels, I am sure I never made any remarks there like described above.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

  It was at user:Mstislavl's Facebook talk. --ssr (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

  Ok, then I know what are you talking about. I suggested that an individual writing about quantum mechanics should know smth about quantum mechanics and not be an adept of fringe theories (regarding the quantum mechanics). I have no problems with this opinion, and certainly do not see how it disqualifies me as administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jhonh3360

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jhonh3360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been repeatedly disruptive in the past (has been blocked for it as well) and has recently desceded into what I would consider blatant trolling. Such things include being excessivly rude, repeating and copypasting the exact same response to every single discussion several times, and sending "thanks" for edits on their talkpage that they claim to have found insulting. This persons awful grammar also tells me that they're either not putting much effort into being a good editor or are incapable of being such. I don't see this website being better of with them continuing to be on it.★Trekker (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

They also seem to be insesantly bothering User:Nickag989 all the time and they're pretty much trolling this page now.★Trekker (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And now they're harrasing me.★Trekker (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Jhonh3360 has been blocked several times, continues to vandalize and make disruptive edits, and is now harassing other users. Then they filed an ANI against a user after they were filed on. They are clearly not here to contribute. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I have closed another thread below. Since the two threads are about essentially the same situation, I have closed the latter one and encourage the participants to continue discussion here. SkyWarrior 23:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nickag989

See above thread. No need for two seperate threads om this situation. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 23:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Nickag989 was rude to me because he called me bad names the names were dumbass and Idiot can you please block him he being rude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhonh3360 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing that has idicates that this is true. All I see is you calling yourself an idiot on your own talkpage.★Trekker (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

What else I could have called him if he constantly removes the autocounters for current champs? And yes, I can't be bothered anymore, I just want this madness to end sooner. Nickag989^talk 20:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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

user:Attic_Salt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

User is taking down content that has been established and justified by citations over 10 years old, by multiple authors in articles: Econophysics, Potential Games. User has had issues in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Attic_Salt#Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_closure_of_RfC_by_involved_editor_.2B_alteration_of_others.27_talk_page_comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:9184:6E6F:3252:F8EA (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP is persistently adding citations to recently published articles (possibly in WP:COI). The link the IP provides to closure of an RFC was not an objection to my behaviour. Attic Salt (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The ANI brought up by the reporter isn't relevant to this case. No violations of policy have occurred. If you have a dispute, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and resolve it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:FleetCommand is a Doroogh Goo - inappopriate use of talk page while blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFleetCommand_is_a_Doroogh_Goo&type=revision&diff=815736969&oldid=814549821 . Jeh (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've revoked TPA - they're obviously not here to be constructive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Jeh (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"unilateral" POV tag removals

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Sangdeboeuf has repeatedly removed "neutrality disputed" tags from articles where the user him/her/their-self has made extensive "pov" edits.

the "rationales" used for doing so are blatantly bullshit, & have no basis in any actual "WP', or accepted community practices.

the user will not stop doing so, & has "run out the clock" on my side of the 3r rule.

help is needed here; this is not a "vague" or ambiguous situation, the user is openly breaking the rules on community process & consensus.

see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reverse_racism&diff=815761270&oldid=815756378

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reverse_racism&diff=815762676&oldid=815762457

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reverse_racism&diff=815761290&oldid=815758263

& the user's "general history" of recent, persistent, "subtly" POV edits on

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reverse_racism&action=history

& by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reverse_discrimination&action=history

Lx 121 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your case may be, you're not helping it. Suggest (1) dialing back the, shall we say, "passion"; (2) organizing your points more coherently; and (3) fixing your "shift" key. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but i have tried "agf", i have tried "talking" with this user, & have tried warning them. it did not work. by the time somebody gets here, with a problem about another user, it is reasonable to expect that they are going to be at @ least a "low boil". people do not generally come here "feeling good" about their interaction with the user they are filing complaints about.

in this case, i have spent more than an hour, trying to be reasonable, & asking this user to JUST FOLLOW THE RULES in POV disputes, & i have got nowhere with them.

is there some part of the "case" against the actions of this user that you feel i have not adequately addressed?

respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

if you need a "tl,dr" - the user, who is an "involved editor" on the article(s) in question, keeps removing a POV-"neutrality disputed" tag (placed by me), unilaterally, citing rationales that do not exist in WP, without any pretense of "consensus" for doing so. as shown in the diffs. Lx 121 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

& here is the user's (complete) response to notification of my filing this complaint: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sangdeboeuf&diff=prev&oldid=815765812 Lx 121 (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any misconduct in Sangdeboeuf's actions, and I think he adequately justified his revert.

Your conduct, however, is a different story: You edit-warred with two other editors to keep your unexplained POV tag. You demanded (diff) that anyone wishing to revert you obtain consensus before doing so, which is contrary to the usual practice that the one wishing to make a change needs to justify it, not the other way around. Even if that were not so, by the time of your second revert—

hi, you DO NOT remove "neutrality disputed" tags placed by OTHER USERS. & if you do it again, to try to "win" on 3r, i WILL report you! ^__^

—there was already emerging consensus against including the tags, since two different editors had disagreed with your addition.

Most importantly, you have been incredibly uncivil in this matter with your unprovoked hostility, your threats, your battleground mentality (example), and your unsupported assumptions of bad faith. I'm not in favor of a heavy-handed application of the civility policy, but your conduct in this matter is unacceptable. Rebbing 00:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

comment - not "unexplained". i explained my rational in edit comment #1, i explained it in edit comment #2, and on the talk page. more than once. i have, in fact, now provided a complete, annotated text of the article (indicating POV-issues) in the appropriate talkpage section. Lx 121 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but after '4 attempts to be "reasonable" with a completely intransigent fellow-editor who is clearly violating wp (edit coment #1, edit comment #2, article talkpage,user's talkpage), i tend to get a little bit "peeved". if you can cite me a solid example of how any of my comments have violated WP, i will apologise for that.

& 2 editors co-operating to "win" a 3r on removing pov-dispute tags inappropriately is not an "emerging concensus" when it comes to POV-disputes. especially with no talkpage discussion, & no time or opportunity for other users to see & comment on the subject (because the tag has been "disappeared). please' show me where in "WP" & community process this kind of action is "ok"? Lx 121 (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You keep claiming that there's a policy against removing a POV tag. There isn't. And what you describe as a conspiracy is actually normal editing practice: think of the edit summaries in the edits reverting you as votes in a discussion.

Also, please stop with the sarcastic linking of words. It makes you look most foolish, since you can't do it right, and you can't seem to spell either. The link is: intransigent (Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but Wiktionary is); and the words you used are spelled "rationale"; "comment"; "apologize"; and "consensus." Rebbing 02:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Er, what? Unless I'm missing something, your first piece of communication with Sangdeboeuf was to say they might get a topic ban after arbcom. You left only one more comment on the talk page before coming here. That's hardly reasonable. Boomerang, anyone? Marianna251TALK 00:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

incorrect summary of events -- 2 edit reverts, article talk page, User talk page, then here, only after the other users indicated no willingness to comply with wp, rules & community process for pov disputes. Lx 121 (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think Lx 121's conduct would merit a block even without this ill-advised trip to ANI. Rebbing 00:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a block is necessary yet, but an clear and unambiguous warning is in order. (And they still need to fix their "shift" key.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Amendment: Striking my original suggestion as I was unaware of the previous indef noted below by Mendaliv.

I find that "almost" as "irritating" as his "misuse" of "scare quotes." Rebbing 01:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

i refer you, respectfully to wp:"i don't like it" Lx 121 (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Possible boomerang: Lx 121's tagging of this article and reverse discrimination is pretty clearly drive-by and unhelpful, and reverting the removal of those tags with an indignant edit summary claiming that consensus is required for their removal is even less helpful. I note that Lx was indeffed back in January for disruptive editing and refusal to communicate in a useful fashion (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State and the earlier Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State). I note that Lx 121's discussion style still includes quite a few extraneous paragraph breaks, though it may not be quite as bad as the break-after-every-clause that Lx 121 appeared to use at the beginning of the year, there is still a pretty clear problem in how this editor approaches discussion (see, e.g., User talk:Fyddlestix#removing "neutrality dispute" tags placed by OTHER USERS, Talk:Reverse racism#NNPOV). I think revisiting Lx 121's original indef, which was lifted in March, may be worthwhile since it appears an unblock condition involved proper formatting of comments (see User talk:Lx 121#unblock request). At the very least, the copious use of paragraph breaks in the complaint here (as well as the nonuse of capital letters and overuse of scare quotes, as noted above) would seem to indicate an ongoing problem with discussion by this editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢_Δ's/ 01:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

kindly explain how "wp:i don';t like it", as applied to m y typing-style, amount to a justification for a block? i seem to have missed that section of WP... Lx 121 (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also pinging @Black Kite: who was the original blocking admin to take another look at this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out the previous indef. I was unaware of that when I suggested a warning would be enough. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference, I got a lovely series of messages from Lx today too, also about removing a drive-by pov tag. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Lx 121 is a problem. See their 'hello; i see sang-whatever has got a "friend"' response (diff) at Talk:Reverse racism#NNPOV. That section is now over 14KB of shotgun confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

comment - this used ASKED FOR "examples of nnpov" in t he article. i provided them. exhaustively. NOW the user is "complaining" that i have "added too much"? Lx 121 (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support review of unblock: Per Mendaliv, previous complaints about Lx 121 have included their long, rambling (and poorly formatted) messages, battleground mentality, belligerence and general NOTHERE behaviours. Judging by Lx 121's most recent thread on Talk:Reverse racism and everything else detailed above, nothing has changed. Marianna251TALK 01:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

HI -- does ANYBODY here give a crap about WP? &/or the originating user's PERSISTENT violation of rules & norms about POV-tag removal?

can we please at least 'address the subject of the complaint?

half the commentary here amounts to "wp:i don't like it" comments about my typing-style. how is this relevant? Lx 121 (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's relevant because it demonstrates your obdurate refusal to adhere to community norms despite pleas from other editors. Such willful intransigence was in part the basis of your previous indefinite block; as such, it would be in your self-interest not to continue on that path. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's WP:IDONTLIKEIT—if you're going to imitate a wikilink for snark factor, at least do it correctly. And I care quite a lot about both Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy. The only persistent violation of our rules and norms that I can see is yours. There is no merit to your complaint. Your refusal to follow standard writing and formatting conventions is relevant both in that it's disruptive and in that it is in violation of the condition you agreed to when you were unblocked. Rebbing 02:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not WP:IDLI because (1) it's actually disruptive, and (2) it's in violation of your unblock conditions. Competence is required. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Restore indef block - It's clear that Lx 121 is not "using [the] standard format" for their talk page comments, as required by their unblock conditions. Their disruptive editing on Talk:Reverse racism is a new factor, as is their bludegeoning of this discussion. I request that Black Kite re-instate the indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

HI -- you do not remove other user's comments from a discussion. especially when they are rebutting a point that you, yourself, have made. & most especially when the point you have made was demonstrably incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=815777285&oldid=815777272

respectfully - Lx 121 (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Read Help:Edit conflict. Marianna251TALK 02:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

then how come the other user didn't correct their mistake"?

because, i did not get any "edit conflict" notice, when i posted that. so the other user must have gotten one, if that is what it was. Lx 121 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Way to WP:AGF. I did not deliberate remove any comment, and one doesn't get any "edit conflict" notice with the problem that Marianna251 pointed out, which you would have known if you had actually bothered to read the linked information. Of two edits filed nearly simultaneously, the system accepts one and not the other, and no notice is generated. It's a known bug. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support reblock - Lx 121 agreed to communicate using standard format here as a condition of being unblocked. This...pretty obviously establishes he is not abiding by his unblock conditions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

ok, so what about the original/other user's presistent & willful WP violation, re: POV dispute procedures? Lx 121 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Oxblood committed no violation: persistent, willful, or otherwise. Rebbing 02:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

i am also unclear what particular 'WP there is, about user's commenting style that applies to this situation? as a rational for a block/ban. please provide links to the relevant wp pages? Lx 121 (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Responding to a drive-by {{pov}} by removing it? I think that was fine. Sangdeboeuf did not violate any policies that I can see. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} - please show relevant WP to support this action? ty AND it was not a "drive-by". again for at least the 4th or 5th time i explained my concerns in two edit summaries, and on the talk page. the user still kept righ on removing t he pov-tag. check. the. diffs. & i have now added a complete, annotated text of the article to the talkpage, outlining my concerns. Lx 121 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean this and this? You didn't explain anything; you ordered the two editors who disagreed with your addition of a POV tag not to remove it. Yet that's not how editing works: go check out WP:BRD. You made a bold edit (adding a POV tag); another editor reverted you. At that point, it was on you, not him, to go to the talk page and develop consensus for including it. Rebbing 02:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• I support restoring the indefinite block, since Lx 121's conduct (edit-warring, battleground behavior, unprovoked vitriol, refusal to abide by commenting conventions) is highly disruptive, and he appears to be unwilling to accept correction and mend his ways. Rebbing 02:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

comment -- ok, let me get this straight: i spend over an hour trying to reason with a completely intransigent fellow-editor, who is blatantly violating wp in handling a POV-dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

i come here, seeking help, & end up having to explain the problem, which involves a clear & obvious wp violation, multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

& i'm "the problem"; because a) you don't like how i type my coments. & b) "i seem angry", after having spent an hour+ dealing with an editor who has no respect for the wikipedia community-consensus process. & completely ignored 6 warnings, & still hasn't bothered to show up to explain their persistent WP violations in this discussion.

clearly, i have made a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take another look at what you actually said to others. In order, up to this ANI, your communication has read as follows:

• 1, revert: you DO NOT remove other user's nnpov tags WITHOUT discussing it on the talkpage FIRST
• 2, revert: hi, you DO NOT remove "neutrality disputed" tags placed by OTHER USERS. & if you do it again, to try to "win" on 3r, i WILL report you! ^__^
• 3, first reply to an editor: if you remove my tag again, OR get somebody else top do so, you will be reported (along with whatever user you get to support your action [...] you might get a topic ban. after we do arbcom, etc. [...] then we can start the user-complaints, rfc, arbcom, etc. process right now.
• 4, second reply to an editor: i believe i have outlined the basic problems sufficiently to be understood by a reasonable, neutral & objective person. i shall add more later; but you might start with one-sidedness, non-neutral language, & inadequate [resentation of oooposing views on the subject
• 5, only comment made on Sangdeboeuf's talk page: since you have chosen to disregard reasonable warnings about the inappropriateness of your actions, you are now on "ani".

You didn't attempt to reason with anyone. You just attempted to bludgeon other editors into agreeing with you and letting you do your thing. You also really need to re-read WP:NPOV, since your interpretation of it (based on what you put on the article's talk page) is severely flawed. Marianna251TALK 02:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Like I stated elsewhere, Template:POV is clear. If you want to use it, you need to follow what it states. What it states has been the result of plenty of discussion at Template talk:POV. You cannot simply tag an article as being not neutral and expect that tag to stay on when you have not identified why and how the article is not neutral. Like the template states, "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• I support a reblock for you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

comment - & like i stated elsewhere https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFyddlestix&type=revision&diff=815760401&oldid=815758766 you cited an 'essay & a failed proposal to back up a template instruction that is not supported by WP Lx 121 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I cited WP:Drive-by tagging. So does Template:POV. WP:Drive-by tagging has sound advice. WP:BRD is also essentially an essay and was labeled an essay before being recently upgraded to an explanatory supplement page, but it is widely cited as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support restoring indef per my comment above, and other responses (Rebbing's description of Lx 121's responses here as being "unprovoked vitriol" is quite apt). I would also note that this is a problem going back much farther than this January's indef block. See, for instance, Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 44#Lx 121 (from 2014). I don't see Lx 121's conduct improving substantially since these earlier problems, and the response to even this trivial disagreement (whether an article maintenance template should remain on an article) indicates that he or she lacks the ability to participate collegially and constructively in any dispute of any degree. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

that's nice & thank-you; are you ever going to address any of the points i have raised in rebuttal to your comments? Lx 121 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You haven' noticed, because you haven't gotten the response you want. The commenters here have said that your estimate of the situation is wrong, that your statement of policy is wrong, that the other editor has done nothing sanctionable, and that you have voided your unblock by violating its conditions, as very amply demonstrated in this very discussion. You're not going to get what you want, but the complaint you made has been dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support revoking of unblock User has clearly not improved since the unblock. User clearly does not have the temperament to edit on Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

comment - you don't need to, i am done. i do not withdraw my complaint. the user clearly broke the relevant wp-rules & practices. but i am finished with contributing to this project, for a good long time. & people wonder why wikipedia keeps losing editors? good-bye, let me know when you guys hit a "tipping point", k? Lx 121 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Lx 121 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Kay bye. Not like you're going to have much of a choice in the matter. --Tarage (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also oppose any move to close this without action on the grounds that Lx 121 is announcing his or her intention to retire. Over at Commons Lx 121 has been essentially marked as retired since being unblocked over there in September 2015, but never really left (in fact, Lx 121's edit counts at Commons were greater in 2016 and 2017). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support revoking of unblock - Enough is enough. Jusdafax (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: 2A02:587:3A1B:2300:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2A02:587:3A1B:2300:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having a bit of a vandalism problem. O3000 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

45.251.33.34 and Sri Aurobindo

45.251.33.34 (talk · contribs) seems to be polishing up Sri Aurobindo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by repeatedly prepending "Sri" to "Aurobindo", removing sources, bolding unnecessarily, changing "died" to "left His body" as well as not responding to recommendations I have left on their talk page. Would someone please ask the anon to stop? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors placing burden of proof on contributor for unfounded claims

I would like to request that whoever weighs in on this issue does not have a relationship with either of the two editors who are making unsubstantiated claims against me.

I entered some information on Robert Cahalan's Wikipedia page. My edits continue to be undone. And the main reason I am being given on a talk page that one of the Wiki editors created for me -- is that I have a relationship with Robert Cahalan.

Initially, I was given no justification by the Wiki editor for why it was decided I had this alleged "relationship." But eventually, on the talk page, I was given no reason for this claim but was told not to use Wikipedia to promote someone -- or for financial gain.

So a claim based on suspicion alone was apparently given the weight of authority.

Nonetheless, I wrote back explaining how I was familiar with Cahalan. I was assigned a story on him by the Greenbelt News Review; I wrote two stories on him in all, as best I recall. And produced a news video on him. I also wrote stories on several top NASA scientists given I was reporting for Greenbelt, MD, the home of NASA Goddard. I added that Cahalan had recently emailed me to contribute to Wikipedia (knowing I was a writer who had already written an article on him.) When Cahalan emailed, he shared that he was having troubles with Wikipedia and clearly stated his purpose for contacting me was related to my Greenbelt News Review article on him. I decided it wouldn't take much time to respond because I could use information from the interviews with him and other scientists that I had already published, which required little effort.

After explaining how I knew Cahalan -- Aha! a new Wiki editor weighed in asserting that I had just supplied evidence of the relationship (that the first editor had known about even before the evidence.) And that was that Cahalan had emailed me. The new editor cited this reason to me on the talk page. I responded that although I appreciated his or her zeal for objectivity, it is a non sequitur to claim someone who I've met through interviews emailing me equates to a relationship.

If this is all it takes to have a relationship -- then I have a lot more friends than I ever realized. And the homeless people I pass on the street who ask me for money have a relationship with me because I sometimes respond. In the case of Cahalan, it cost me little effort to rehash and quote what I'd written on him already. He did not pay me for this nor offer payment or reward.

In the U.S. justice system, someone making claims against another person has the burden of proof. But these Wikipedia editors have felt at liberty to place the the burden of proof on me. Is this Wikipedia's standard operating procedure with contributors? I also have no relationship with the Pope or LeBron James either, though I have been paid to write news articles on them, several articles in fact. And I seem to recall liking a few tweets from both. Does this mean that I should keep my hands off editing any Wiki pages on LeBron or Pope Francis. Because if told I had a relationship with them, I would be at a loss to know how to use Wikipedia's appeal system to prove I didn't.

I thought this Wikipedia venture would take little effort; and I have multiple times come close to dropping the whole thing because it has become a time drain. But the process has annoyed me enough that I am not inclined to drop it just yet: time-waster though it be.

It is my understanding that I need to notify the editors in question of this further appeal. I will post a link for them to see on the talk page mentioned above. If I need to do something further, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarnonsupragrammaticos (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking over the editing history on the page, both the edits done under your current account and those done prior under an IP address that look at first glance to be yours, I see that they were all reverted for reasons other than your having a conflict of interest. There were three reversions of your edits done, with the reasons "Unsourced and not written using a WP:NPOV" and "Revert addition of external links and unsourced content" on two of them, and the third being clear from looking at the material it reverted, as the article page itself is not the place to discuss the editing of the article (we do that on the talk pages.) Your user talk page was templated with a conflict of interest notice, which is not a statement that you have such a conflict but rather is to tell you what to do if you have a conflict... and saying that you had just talked to the subject of the article for hours is indeed a reasonable reason for someone to raise the question of such a conflict. Your deleted statement also suggested that you were making edits based on your own conversations with the subject and related folks which were done for the purpose of editing the Wikipedia page, which I'm sure sounds as bold move to help contribute to Wikipedia, but runs into our guidelines about "original research". After having had your work reverted by other editors, my suggestion to you is that you discuss the material you wish to add to the article on the Talk page for the article in question and reach consensus with the other editors before readding. This is what we consider the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle.

And comparisons to the US justice system are not appropriate. No one is being put into jail here. This is a collaborative creation environment, and our goals are fruitful collaboration. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nate, First, thank you for giving me reasons and detailing them.

I have not talked to Cahalan for hours other than to interview him for newspaper articles that I wrote years ago, not for Wikipedia. I also spoke to his colleagues for this same purpose years ago. And there are hundreds if not thousands of people in Greenbelt that I have spoken to for hours then produced news articles or features on them. I thought that since I'd already done the work, I would use information from the old article, confirming it with current sources (like published NASA publications) -- and it would be fast.

As for the stated problems with the page, they existed before my contributions. So I understood those being issues with previous content. When they persisted, I over cited my sources in case this was an issue.

Yet, still my contributions were undone. And yes, I tried to figure out fast why (by writing them in the page itself). It takes quite some time to figure out Wikipedia's system. Thus it is probably wise to just not contribute anymore or to become a regular contributor who devotes a lot of time to Wikipedia. There is a learning curve that does not work well for a casual contributor.

When I finally heard from Wikipedia specifically on my contribution, a relationship/conflict of interest was assumed. If you look at the comment from the second editor he or she states: "One of the indicators of a conflict of interest is that you are editing an article at the request or direction of the subject. If Cahalan emailed you, then that situation applies here."

I wondered whether Wikipedia seriously thought a contributor couldn't write objectively if the contributor had received an email about contributing information already collected -- and offering no money or reward?

I did not think I would be put in jail. In the U.S. justice system many court cases do not involve criminal issues. I am merely stating the burden of proof for no relationship should not be placed on me based on suspicion.

I've got to run. And my annoyance level has significantly decreased because you took time out to explain where Wikipedia was coming from and because you do not seem to be accusing me of something that is not true. I'll leave it in Wikipedia's hands at this point. If you don't accept my contributions; I can no longer spend time on this. I merely wanted a decent explanation and you have provided that.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarnonsupragrammaticos (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I can see why Mr. Calahan and the OP are frustrated, and justifiably so. I also looked through the history and, correct me if I'm wrong but I couldn't find a single constructive addition of content to the article. The only thing I found were edits reverting Calahan and the OP, an edit to remove a non-existent category, and tag-bombing (there's 8 tags on the article currently). To someone who has never edited before, it would seem like they are just there to ruin his article. To Caesarnonsupragrammaticos: If you still wish to have these changes in the article, I'd recommend you read Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit, then post your proposed changes on the talk page of the article and post {{request edit}} underneath it. To editors: I think we could have handled this one better. Per BLPKIND we shouldn't have initiated communication with this user with a big template, and though he is editing with a COI, we should have encouraged him to at least post proposed edits somewhere, as they may have some value in them. Pinguinn 🐧 02:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinguinn. Thank you. Your requests are quite reasonable and helpful. Nonetheless, at this point, I'm going to pause and perhaps cease my efforts because the time involved in trying to defend my contributions has already been more than I had expected. You nailed it when you said, "To someone who has never edited before, it would seem like they are just there to ruin his article." You are clearly a reasonable person (I also thought Nate made a decent effort). Yet, I don't think you will be the person I am dealing with regarding edits. But it is comforting to know you've heard me out and spent a good amount of time investigating the conflict. And had you not done this, I doubt I would have tried to contribute to Wikipedia again on Cahalan or any topic. But now, I will at least keep that open as a possibility. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarnonsupragrammaticos (talk • contribs) 03:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have tidied the article up a little, and cleared out all the unnecessary cite tags (the references for all bar one were right there in external links). fish&karate 12:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

And I've reminded User:Melcous about not biting newcomers. fish&karate 12:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Caesarnonsupragrammaticos, I can see the problem. Your edit reads like a PR biography. It is full of peacock terms and light on reliable, independent, secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

May I get some talk page relief, please?

I was involved with a little dust-up with User:Jamesharrison2014 at White House press corps several days ago, regarding his addition of a non-notable person whose press corp membership is questionable (both person and org have been sent to Afd by another user btw). Thereafter he and a friend left a warning templates on my talk page, which I removed per my understanding of how WP:OWNTALK. As you ca see from my talk page history, this person is coming back every day to restore the message. I left a terse message on the 11th, and a more thorough one yesterday requesting a cessation to this, but it hasn't worked so I came here.

I don't want punishment or blocked or any of those things, just someone to go to this user and stay "stop". Thank you. User will be notified after I click this, per instructions at the top. ValarianB (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've duly issued a {{uw-harass1}} warning; I've intentionally used the generic template to make it clear that this is unacceptable behaviour from anyone and that he's not being singled out in particular. If it continues, let me know and I'll issue something stronger. This is a very new user, and he likely doesn't realise either that you're perfectly within your rights to remove threads from your talk (and that this is taken as an acknowledgement that you've read them), nor that Wikipedia's rules on editwarring and harassment apply to the whole project, not just articles. ‑ Iridescent 13:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help. ValarianB (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that the user Harrison has had no hesitation about deleting Valarian's messages from his own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, Jamesharrison2014 is declaring an IP editors comments on the talk page to be personal attacks and removing them, link to removal. The comments seems snarky, and accuse Jamesharrison of being Moates himself, so I don't know. ValarianB (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs, since that removal came immediately after my telling him you're perfectly within your rights to remove threads from your talk (and that this is taken as an acknowledgement that you've read them), I'd consider his removal of my warning perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. As far as I'm concerned all that matters is whether he's willing to abide by Wikipedia's rules, not whether he needs to bear a Mark of Cain on his talkpage; if he feels he'd be better served by blanking and starting with a clean slate, he's welcome to. @ValarianB, while the IP comments are pretty borderline they're certainly potentially interpreted as attacks so unless Jamesharrison2014 is going to make a habit of removing things because he doesn't like them, I wouldn't lose sleep over them. New editors, particularly those used to other sites where there's less of a culture of collaboration, do sometimes take a while to adjust to what is and isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 01:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this user has removed comments from the article talk namespace and at the same time kept reinserting comments on Valarian’s user talk page. See [177] Billhpike (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

page hijacked (Pleše became TreeHouse Ltd)

The page Pleše was hijacked by Ystaea to create a promotional page for a (by the looks of it) non-notable private company. I've restored the content, but cannot move the page back. Can some friendly neighbourhood admin please assist? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not the first time I've seen this happen since the ACTRIAL.  Fixed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Same for me... Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Here's two more CU confirmed socks to clean up after: Regsut Smar (talk · contribs · block log) and JRabeni (talk · contribs · block log) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Now you bring it up. Same at Rapšach-->Evan M. Loomis. Kleuske (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ditto Vlčetínec--> Jason D. Ballard Kleuske (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Both now cleaned up. A previous account was Gleopak (talk · contribs · block log). If anyone sees or knows of any more of this I'd be happy to take a look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

One more: Světce --> Tomorrow Lab by Rmleien. Kleuske (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I knew I recognised this behaviour. A bit of digging unearthed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive945#Hijacked dab page Kaisermühlen. Looks like the sockmaster is User:Highstakes00. --bonadea contributions talk 17:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've spent some time going through various Czech villages and towns, but found no more examples. Still, I have the creeping suspicion more hijacked articles exists and my search was not exhaustive. Kleuske (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Should new editors be blocked from moving articles? It seems to be a big right to give new users with no editing history, and is a big hole in the encyclopedia's security. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

That might be a worthy discussion to have, as I can see some support for it, though if we were to have one, it should be held elsewhere, not at ANI. SkyWarrior 21:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-autoconfirmed users do not have (and never had) the ability to move articles, so ACTRIAL shouldn't have an impact on hijacking. Unless of course they don't realize that we unpatrol moved pages... – Train2104 (t • c) 00:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

According to this, the user name used to create this article has 10 edits, and was created on Nov. 22nd.[[178]] The fifth edit was a move.[[179]] Am I missing something? The whole point of this is to bypass NPP. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

They had deleted contributions before the move, and were autoconfirmed when they made it. This isn't an ACTRIAL thing so much as a fool NPP thing. This has been a common tactic for a while with page moves. The focus used to be on disambiguation pages, but now it seems to be on obscure towns. Nothing new under the sun. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Potentially dumb question: Do we unpatrol pages that have been moved as suggested above? I know we do when an article is converted to/from a redirect. If we do unpatrol moved pages, there isn't any problem here, as they won't be able to use this technique to bypass NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a phabractor task somewhere that was requested after consensus at one of the village pumps in the Spring. I don't have much hope it will be implemented any time soon, but there is an open task for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's the same company doing it persistently, an edit filter could help. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

More pages that were hijacked (Czech villages):

• Hornice to Global Rose
• Hvězdoňovice to Skipp A. Haynes Williamson
• Kostníky to Optibus (company)
• Lačnov to Maxim Cherniavskyi
• Lazinov to Josh Heller
• Lazníčky to GS RichCopy 360 Enterprise
• Letkov to Mohamed Ali Hilal
• Loukovice to Lee B. Sanders
• Maňovice to Vktior
• Nelešovice to Brian Frank LaBovick
• Nimpšov to Nimbagility
• Odunec to Intervision (band)
• Okarec to CellPhoneSignalBooster.us
• Pyšel to RealtyShares
• Rušinov to Stephen Schultz (lawyer)
• Rynárec to BDA (company)
• Samšín to Galit Goldfarb
• Tužice to Precision Software
• Týn nad Bečvou to Gregory Thomas Hill
• Zvěrkovice to Xorcom phone systems

At least one Polish village (possibly more of these):

• Kwielice to Florin Pierre Baeriswyl

Peter James (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Two more (both Polish villages):

• Kaczórki to Granite Telecommunications, LLC
• Kania Góra to Lenora Billings-Harris

Peter James (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we really need to either throttle page moving for new users, or outright block moves for pages in "* geography stubs" categories. Also found:

• Lomy (Třebíč District) to Wish (website)

...all of the above should be cleaned up now, and all of the hijackers blocked. I assume these are all part of the same sockfarm; I blocked them as 'spam/advertising only' for now, so if others can check and tag, that'd be great. In the meantime, the accounts in question are listed below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wyetna (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Awes Mepri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rvetmenz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Faust Metewc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Waqr Emane (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Histen Meaniiul (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ruet Trel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Regsk Laeo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tenletoc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Iviesk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Scoraln (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Satifndel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Myers Lena (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mowsrnr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jaema Leez (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gremdei Nobdry (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Krmdnlira (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Leana.IZn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dinarme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Veszente (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Stale for checkuser:

• User:Geia Samr
• User:Ben Lenv
• User:D.Pouera
• User:Oken Skaqi

2016 disambiguation hijackings

• Some of the disambiguation page moves from 2016 that were not reverted (it's likely that there are more):
• Capperonnier to Michael Wyche (Histsplit - Harison K blocked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Cicchetti to Chris Suharlim (Histsplit to Cicchetti (disambiguation) - National treasure of the west blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Copelin to Airwheel C5 (Histsplit - Sair Rez blocked.- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Favio to MapD Technologies (WP:TWODABS, Dliunh blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Janick to Foreign Forest (Histsplit - Aleiv blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Podsiadło to MsdsDigital (Histsplit - Selena 2004 blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Prokopov to Roland Frasier (WP:TWODABS, Prokopov (Znojmo District) > Prokopov, Canura blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Seimar to Seawings Lifestyle (Only other link on the dab page was a redlink. Staying ahead 998 blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Siebenhirten to Showaround (Only other link on the dab page was a redlink, Siebenhirten (Vienna U-Bahn) > Siebenhirten. Yiau Ci blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Swindlehurst to SwimJim (Histsplit - Authts blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Tonello to The GLD Shop (Histsplit - Monkey 298 blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Gokinjo to GoChange.co (Histsplit and Cadilacc blocked by another admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC))
• Shimozawa to Sex Toys 247 (Histsplit by another admin; Muller Salz blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC))

Cicchetti is a blue link because Cicchetti (food) was moved, so it would have to go to (disambiguation) or be made into a surname article as it only listed the food and people with the surname. I'm not sure if the last two were valid disambiguation pages, and both were created by a banned user although Gokinjo has been restored by another user. Peter James (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017, Estonia villages

• Heisri to Adam S. Bold
• Karste to David Lee (entrepreneur)
• Lootvina to Shah Shapourifar (already reverted)
• Popsiküla to Shah Entertainment

Peter James (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the four accounts that hijacked the original articles. I think a policy of summary deletion of the new titles is advisable, however well-sourced or apparently notable they are, as creations by blocked or banned editors in violation of bans. That we didn't pick up on them until now should not overshadow the fact that the well has been poisoned. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and nuked all the sandboxes and anything else I could.

• Beli Gapnca (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Spouatnmal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jivenseh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Uvliena (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Checkuser needed. Also the list of non-stale accounts above, please. MER-C 12:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kębliny to FormSwift.com

• Hazey Kewon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Another Polish village. MER-C 12:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been through all the accounts listed above. For every active account there are (or rather were) typically two more sleeper accounts, plus a different proxy range. It's all very systematic. It's therefore important to flag any other accounts doing this. After this thread is archived I'd suggest Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00 is the appropriate venue. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kęsów to The IFL

• Chantelli (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also a Polish village. Peter James (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for the hell of it, I wrote a program to fetch all moves since 1 July by users with less than 30 edits and found two more:

• Lorenki to Atrium (company)
  • Luape Yuan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Toužetín to NTFRMHRE (already reverted)
  • Bretisne Leneia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I can dump the (somewhat ugly) output somewhere if you want to look at it. MER-C 20:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrative attention needed for these article hijacks

Need an administrator(s)'s attention on these article hijacks and problematic editors. Since this is an WP:ACTRIAL issue, I am also going to ping Kudpung. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Anything left to do with respect to this, point me to it. bd2412 T 03:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@BD2412: The Bushranger already did everything, I think there isn't anything left now until new relevant pages are spotted. Alex Shih (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This trend is infuriating. bd2412 T 03:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, a quick look shows (unless I'm missing something) that these hijacker accounts are autoconfirmed, hence the issue is probably not ACTRIAL specific. What it does demonstrate however, is that we are getting better at detecting such issues. Perhaps this is now the lever to apply more pressure at Phab. I believe Tony might know how to approach this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the editing pattern here (enough sandbox edits for autoconfirmed and then hijack!) perhaps userspace edits should not count towards autoconfirmed status? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot have been changing the article first, so I don't think that will help. I also don't think it's specifically ACTRIAL related, as this has apparently been going on for quite a while, but it's clearly intended to avoid NPP. That this is a sign of us getting better at detecting such issues is a strange conclusion, but going forward I think the edit filter should be able to help with logging these kind of moves. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a Phab ticket somewhere about unpatrolling all moved pages because of the disambiguation reasons. It has stalled. I think the best thing at this time would be an edit filter that tags (so attention is drawn to it). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If we don't unpatrol moved pages, what happens to drafts (in whatever namespace) over 30 days old that get moved to mainspace? Do they sit unnoticed by NPP? – Train2104 (t • c) 15:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

They appear to have targeted Azylber specifically, presumably because they're inactive. I just found Travel Nurse across America while trawling through Azylber's created articles. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: Nice find, thank you! I've blocked and deleted. I've also went through Azylber's page creations, but I couldn't find anymore hijacked pages. Alex Shih (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• As a footnote, some of the articles created through this hijacking spree may actually be on notable subjects. Not many, but there were a few that looked plausible. So if anybody wants to "adopt" one of these in their userspace, feel free to ping me and I'll see what I can do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Seem silly, but place name seldom change, any change just like in Ukraine, would be a controversial move that requires discussion, may be lock all place name from moving, is a solution? Matthew_hk tc 03:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Protecting one class of page from this sort of move will just inspire the spammers to vandalize some other class of infrequently-watched page. A filter which prevents moves of pages with fewer than some number of watchers would stem this behaviour but could be quite disruptive. However, this is a class of spammers that are not just creating unsuitable content but also destroying good encyclopedic content in the process, and so some level of disruption may be warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Pages with few watchers are more likely to need moving. I don't know if these can be prevented without also preventing improvements to many more pages, but improvements to Special:Tags and Special:RecentChanges make any new moves easier to find. Peter James (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's exactly the problem. Unpatrolling moved pages is a better solution as long as new page patrollers know to look for these sort of moves, and after I read up the thread I remembered that I was (one of) the one(s) that suggested that in the first place; I'd long forgotten about it. Whose arm do we have to twist? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#Unpatrol moved pages and phabricator:T159028. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Would an edit filter that identifies new accounts (<50 edits) executing page moves be helpful? There would be a lot of legit moves but its log would be a live centralized point to record such moves. Crow^Caw 18:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Crow: See filter 877. I don't think it's suitable for forking at this time, but feel free to do so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's about what I had in mind anyway! Crow^Caw 19:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

877 isn't great, there's a lot of noise and obviously the spammers have already figured out not to use dab pages. Could one of you code-familiar gnomes make a report that could show something like "<new user> moved page <source small page> to <target small page>"? That would still have a lot of noise but then at least it should be obvious that a move is from a dab or stub or whatever to a completely unrelated title. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that a lot of dab pages have commented-out text for the explict purpose of having them not be listed as small pages... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how that's a problem? I'm thinking of a report that looks like:

• Mjroots moved page MV Maersk Tygra to MV Tygra (correct name of vessel)
• Iifar moved page Kaiavere, Palamuse Parish to Kaiavere, Jõgeva Parish (Administrative-Territorial Reform in Estonia)
• Ystaea moved page Pleše to TreeHouse Ltd (en)
• Mullone moved page Charles XIV John of Sweden to Jean Bernadotte over redirect (by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:WORLDWIDE, he's far better known as bernadotte than as charles)

It occurs to me while writing this that this is the move log, but my point is you can see at a pretty quick glance that two of these moves are most likely fine, one is odd but is at least explained, and one is pretty clearly inappropriate and likely spam. So I guess what would help would be a way to filter the move log for moves by new users. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, if the parameters are <source small page> to etc., and the page isn't counting as a small page, it could be an issue, but I might simply have been reading things too literally. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

User:DHeyward

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Can somebody ask DHeyward exactly what they found to be "obvious trolling" by my post here? I would do it my self- in fact, I have done), but was reverted without coment. For an experienced editor, this is curious behaviour. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Timeline: DH deleted my edit. I request explanation. DH rolls it back. The latter is fine per WP:BLANKING, but referring to me and / or my edits as "trolling game" and "not helpful" requires explanation. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

John seems to have had a similar experience w/ "Serial Number 54129" in a completely different topic area. I simply went into DENY mode and SN seems upset that I won't engage his obvious desire for drama. Anyway, DENY. --DHeyward (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, other people have had / are having a similar experience with that user; @SchroCat and Cassianto:, for example over exactly the same matter (which is, as you note, "in a completely different topic area"). The reason we're here, DHeyward, is because you make these allegations- trolling, vandalism? repeatedly -but make absolutely no explanation as to what you're talking about, or why. In fact, they are, buntly, unfounded personal attacks which you have NO RIGHT to make, and I request that you explain yourself or withdraw them. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So, having accused 54129 of trolling, when called out on it, you call him a troll/vandal again here (by invoking WP:DENY - read it). I would seriously think about redacting both of them, or it may not go well for you. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the behaviour is all I'm citing, not the editor. SN brought this here because I removed my comment from another users talk page. He had used my comment in an unproductive fashion so I removed my comment so as to no longer be involved. That is the definition of attention seeking behavior. SN is behaving as if SN wants to fight battles on user talk pages and noticeboards and there is nothing wrong with denying SN the opportunity. DENY isn't about personally attacking editors as you claim or it would be deleted as a violation of policy. DENY is an essay about not rewarding the behaviours. I should not have to explain this. --DHeyward (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

How is this "using my comment in an unproductive fashion"? It looks like they're agreeing with you? If there's context we need to understand this, you and John should provide it, because based on the diffs provided so far it seriously looks like the two of you have been ridiculously touchy with the OP for no good reason, and are doubling down by calling him a troll (while providing zero evidence if any trolling behavior) when he calls you out for it. If there's more to this, explain the situation more clearly and provide some actual evidence. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You think I'm the party being touchy when in fact we are here because SN filed an ANI because I deleted my comment from a user talk page? That's "interesting." --DHeyward (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I think you're missing the point. We're here because there was literally no other way of getting a response from you. You deleted my edit. I (politely, but possibly too formally?) asked you not do so. You proceeded to roll me back. The latter action is very much one you are entitled to take; but, when you have already referred to my actions as a "trolling game" and "not helpful" with no subsequent explanation, you must see that this is really the only place left. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My response in a nutshell is and was "I don't want to be associated with your comment. Since you didn't want to delete your comment I'm withdrawing from the discussion. I am deleting my question." That's it. Why do you need more than that? Just stop creating more and more drama. There are seriously no deeper meanings than that. --DHeyward (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Why didn't you say that in first place, and why did you call the request for an explanation for your actions "trolling"? If you had said that when first asked, that would have been fine, but by describing the action as trolling, you've bought the rest of this onto your own head. (Again, if you say, yes, I messed up and shouldn't have done", then it's a step towards closing this matter down. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If you could stop evading the main point and answer the original - and disturbing - points: 1. Why do you think SN's post (in which he agreed with you) was "unhelpful"?; 2. On what basis did you think it appropriate to ignore talk page guidelines and delete the comments of another user; 3. What makes the request for an explanation for your actions "trolling"? I've seen editors be blocked for an awful lot less than this. (A word of advice, if you think you have made a mistake in your approach, it would be a good idea to say that, and everyone can move on: if you think you've behaved appropriately, then your approach is problematic and you have breached several guidelines and the civility policy. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward You might want think about redacting this entire section, before the WP:BOOMERANG comes around. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 11:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Just to clarify, but I started this section, not DHeyward  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 I thought for sure that DHeyward was the one who started this thread. Struck out my comments, and feel free to call me stupid. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate the ping, DHeyward. I invite others to inspect User talk:Serial Number 54129#Query and see what conclusions they come up with. You'll note that I was not the first to use the T-word, but I'm afraid this user's behaviour seems (in my example) to go right down the middle of our working definition of trolling. I make no comment on this other matter (I may read it later and make a further comment), but when several people point out that you look, sound and act like a duck, you may in fact be a duck. --John (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• ...a discusion which was started by your WP:CANVASsing, John, as discussed here  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Canvassing is a very serious allegation, Serial Number 54129. Which centralised noticeboard did you post your complaint at? Where can I see your evidence that my notifications crossed the line into canvassing territory? Or was it another unsubstantiated aspersion? --John (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Don't gaslight John; multiple editors have already discussed this with you elsewhere, and your attempt to open up a fourth front here is appearing little less than beligerent. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
      • QED. --John (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
        • To whit, babel fish. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment It's beginning to look like trolling is defined as "anything I say it is" by certain users. We hope (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would advise all editors here to move on and find something productive to do. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Looking at Serial Number's follow-up comments here, I'd say DHeyward's assessment is correct. You're all being trolled by giving this report even a smidgen of attention. My suggestion is that an uninvolved, aware administrator see it for what it is and close this report immediately. Otherwise, it will just go on and on with jab/flame/burn response after response, just like a trolling-motivated social media post. AN/I isn't meant to be Facebook or Twitter, let's not let this report take it (any farther) that direction. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Winkelvi, I'd disagree with that. Looking at this comment, I am unsure why it should be deleted by anyone, let alone an admin. That breaches the talk page guidelines. To then call it trolling when a serious question is asked for an explanation seems to be uncivil and uncalled for. DHeyward should not have removed that comment and should not be so uncivil as to go around calling people trolls just for a polite and reasonable request for an explanation. This is unedifying behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you should [AGF that my report was soundly-intentioned (note I asked for no action from DH other than explanations, and none against him), and I'll AGF that your remark isn't based on something as recent as this. In any case suggesting that someone is trying to turn AN/I into Facebook or Twitter is frankly bizarre. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you really should AGF, since now that I have dug a little deeper, it appears you have had what I assume is a screen name change. Until this moment, I had no clue you are the editor once known as Fortuna. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many comments here are based on the premise that every post is precious so DHeyward was out of line. However, the context makes it clear what was going on. DHeyward wanted to ask a simple question about an admin action, and did not want a dramafest. The question has no hint of admin fault—it is a request for information. Serial Number 54129's coment added nothing but it completely changed DHeyward's intention by making a drama of the issue. Please don't do that. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Johnuniq, If DHeyward had explained that at the time, that would, I am sure, been understood and accepted. He didn't tho. He doubled down by calling a user acting in good faith a troll. That's really not very good. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just stop. My comments were clear that I did not wish to engage in the trolling game. That is not calling someone a troll. I tried to remove the unhelpful comment. Please note that it was also removed by the admin without comment. SN did not restore it when the admin removed it. Nor did he complain or demand explanation. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to guess why SN created all this drama, and continued to feed it, long after his unhelpful comment was removed by the admin because it was very plain as to what it was. --DHeyward (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just stop what? Thinking you have not acted terribly well? Stop thinking that people should not call good faith questions "trolling"? The more you try and stick your head in the sand over what is poor behaviour, the more I think you have done wrong, know you have done wrong, and are unable to acknowledge that you have erred. It comes across as rather arrogant to breach guidelines by removing posts without adequate explanation and then accusingly someone of trolling for having the temerity for asking an explanation. This is damned shoddy stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• • No, what's clear is that you refactored my post on another user's talk (slapping WP:TPO firmly in the face in doing so), with no explanation ("unhelpful" != explanation), which is both a courtesy and fundamental communication. When I asked you to explain yourself, you ignored me, casting WP:ASPERSIONS. That you then still, twenty four hours later, not only claim to have no idea why you are here (when it's been explained multiple times), but continue the aspersions, is concerning, if less surprising now than I would have found it yesterday. As for Johnuniq's point, it doesn't hold water: I had merely come across the same article, had the same question, and asked (and was, incidentally, happy enough with the answer). Asking a question does not, again, equals drama, and fo claiming it creates it is disingenuous at best. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Your unhelpful comment is still refactored, though not by me. And if you're happy with the answer, it's more proof that your comment was not needed as the answer was provided without your comment being present. I'm not the only one who saw your comment as trolling. I made it clear that I thought it was trolling. You keep doubling down on drama. Go restore your comment, over admin refactoring, if you feel so strongly that it wasn't trolling. Your beef isn't with me anymore. --DHeyward (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
      • DHeyward, your comments here are confusing, as above you appear to be saying "no, I did not call them a troll" while here you say "your comment [was] trolling". Which is it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq: I don't see that SN54129's comment changed the tone of the question. Neither really suggested admin fault. Perhaps SN54129's comment very slightly suggested admin fault more than DHeyward's comment, but it was only very minor if that. What is clear is that the reason this turned into a dramafest is because of DHeyward's unnecessary and unhelpful responses.

Still, if DHeyward really felt that SN54129's comments risked making their query into an admin witch-hunt they could have handled this in many ways which would have hopefully defused the drama, especially as others have said by explaining their concerns to SN54129 and asking for a voluntary retraction or at least explaining why they did so at the time of the removal, rather than the way they did which not surprisingly significantly increased the dramafest.

As I also mentioned below, the removal itself was slightly problematic but it wouldn't have been that big a deal, if DHeyward had followed that up by either leaving things be, or at most explaining their concerns to SN54129 and asking for the voluntary retraction as they should have done before, things hopefully would have ended there. Perhaps even with SN54129 removing their comment voluntarily. Instead they chose the course of action which made things much worse and any outsider could see was likely by accusing someone of trolling with basically no evidence.

In any case, Coffee is an admin so even if they did feel that SN54129's comment was accusing them of wrong doing, they could and should have ignored that and simply answered the question. In fact Coffee even seemed to try to defuse the dramafest which as I've said DHeyward had generated, unfortunately it had reached a stage where it was difficult to defuse the general problem (although their response still made sense since it k he unilateral removal and far worse, the followup to the reversal of the unjustified removal.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Respectfully to all editors...if the energy being wasted here were to be redirected to the backlogs at AfC and NPP, there would be no backlogs. Can't we just move along and be happy? We need to keep as many productive editors as we can - forgive and forget regardless of who is right or wrong. I suggest closing it before the sparks ignite a full-blown fire. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• So just brush sub-standard behaviour, breach of TP guidelines and incivility under the carpet where an experienced editor should have known better...? Sure – that's about par for the course at ANI. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have no idea why DHeyward describes Serial Number 54129's post as "obvious trolling"; it's certainly not obvious to me. When approached for an explanation, he tells the other person to "Go away"? hardly the standard of behaviour I would expect to see from our administrators. Where's the accountability? from such an experienced editor, here since 2005 — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• DHeyward is not an admin. --John (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Noted and amended. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

If the intention of removing the post was to avoid dramah, that sure backfired. Better to just ignore the post if he thought it was intrusive (or even trolling). I do such ignoring all the time. If Serial Number 54129 was interested in seeing Coffee's reply, a simple and less intrusive way to do that would have been to watch-list. But expressing an interest - how is that trolling? it's not even rude. Just my opinion, for what it's worth. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If you don't see it, I can't help you. The comment is still refactored, not by me, so my interpretation was not unique. Serial Number 54129 restored his comment after I removed it so there was nothing else to see except whatever he was trying to accomplish. So again, why are we are except as an exercise in drama and trolling? If my interpretation was so mysterious, why hasn't SN54129 challenged it's removal by an admin? No reason was given for that removal. There is no ANI thread about that removal nor was there any request for explanations. Hmmm. Stop feeding it. It's obvious. --DHeyward (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

As already said and you should know, Coffee is fully entitled to remove posts from their talk page for any reason or no reason at all. They did not accuse anyone of trolling. Therefore there was nothing to challenge.

What you did on the other hand doesn't seem to have been justified under any policy and guideline and you did accuse someone of trolling only to them refuse to offer any explanation or backdown when it was clear most feel there was nothing to suggest such.

Or to put it a different way, I agree this is a silly exercise in drama and trolling but, it's your behaviour that is doing that, not SN54129 since you've basically turned what was a simple and resonable query into a dumb ANI thread, and refused to defuse it when given multiple opportunities to do so. Being called a troll when you aren't doing anything you feel is remotely trollish is something many people find understandably highly offensive so SN54129's response here is perfectly understandable.

I'd note technically there's nothing forbidding SN54129 from asking Coffee why they did so once, the fact they apparently didn't do so per your comments seems to be further evidence there was nothing suspicious or wrong or trolling about they did. They were simply offering unnecessary but resonable support for the inquiry. (For all we know, the reason they did so may be because they came to ask the same question but found you'd already asked so simply wanted to mention that they too wanted to know. The sort of thing which happens very often. The 'thanks' part sort of suggests this may not be the case, but it's hard to say for sure.)

As far as I see Coffee has offered no explanation for their change, so there's no reason to think they came to the same conclusion as you. For ll we know they did what they did because you'd already generated such a mess of things and they were trying their best to defuse things. As I already said, SN54129's original supporting comment wasn't really that necessary, but it's a very common thing and 99.99999% of the time it results in no drama. The only reason it did so here is because of your highly flawed responses which as I've already said, your own words "drama and trolling" describe best.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break/Close?

• I think it's almost time to close this thread. Serial Number 54129's initial comment was not problematic, but in the context of previous interactions elsewhere, I think I can understand DHeyward's view that the comment was unhelpful. What I think is problematic are two things: 1) Removing another editor's comment from another editor's talk page, is simply rude behavior; I don't know if Coffee subsequently silently removed the comment intentionally, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. 2) I think what DHeyward is trying to express is that the comment was trolling, not that the editor was a troll. If that's the case, moving forward (if the thread will be closed), I think DHeyward should be reminded that deny or feeding is not applicable here (with another experienced editor, having clearly expressed their intentions), and these inappropriate reference needs to stop. Alex Shih (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:LocNguyen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

LocNguyen has been persistently creating unreferenced articles such as 2017 International U-21 Thanh Niên Newspaper Cup. I have sent seven messages, none of which have been responded to although I have made it clear that WP:Communication is required. This is within a relatively short period of time - LocNguyen has only been editing Wikipedia for two months, although I have been undoing and improving LocNguyen's edits throughout this period and the editing did make me suspect that the editor had edited under another name/IP. LocNguyen has created several unrefernced articles and not responded to questions about the referencing. When I've moved some to draftspace, asking for them to be worked on there, references added and returned, LocNguyen has just edit warred by returning them, unchanged and still unreferenced, to the mainspace. I sent a final warning today saying that if they created another unreferenced article, I would have to take to ANI - another one was created within two hours. I would like LocNguyen to communicate, explain their viewpoint and look, as requested, at WP:V and WP:Communication is required. Please discuss this with us, LocNguyen. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This pattern of refusing to communicate and change behavior has become disruptive. Unfortunately, the only way to halt this disruption and encourage communication is with a block. I have implemented an indefinite block that should be lifted if LocNguyen promises to communicate with other editors in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

template protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Template:Userpage blue border is used near the top of Jimbo's userpage, so it may be a good idea to protect it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-editor protection applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fortaleza Airport Destruction of Important Information by insistent User

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• CBG17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism of Removing Several Times Information of this Page Pinto Martins – Fortaleza International Airport 92.76.86.106 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you're both edit warring over content. I've fully protected the article - you're both to take this dispute to the article's talk page and resolve it properly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Post-closure kvetching. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I just beg that the 'Abandoned Aircraft' Info is brought back while is very important to Airport, mainly the B737 Lufthansa recent operation with historic An124 This is what to be kept - 11:17, 16 December 2017‎ 92.76.86.106 (talk)‎ . . (12,901 bytes) (+799)‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.76.86.106 (talk) This isn't the place to do that. Your need to follow the directions on resolving disputes properly and discuss your content-related issue on the article's talk page. The article's talk page is located here - this is where you need to discuss this. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Final Statement : I see, but even when User:CBG17 WON the 'War', he/she or It broke the 'The three-revert rule' several times and nothing happened. Me as LOSER have only the Chance to not contribute with Wikipedia anymore. --92.76.86.106 (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia is not about winning or losing. If your goal is to improve this project and if it's your top priority, things like this should be irrelevant to you. It's whether or not the resulting edit improves Wikipedia that matters. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC) My Goal was to improve the tons of not-reliable articles which I know well. Since a lot of 'more important Users', like adm see, like in results of Disputes on Destruction of others has the preference, the huge work effort is then not more valuable. So, better keep Wikipedia as an infantile Game undone, because it is exhaustive. As soon as we have Internet to check if Info is Updated, correct or precise in other Pages sources, so why we need Wiki then ?, and I believe this called 'Wikipedia Project' was not succeed at all, see how much not-reliable info has. In past we had the good print Britannica Mirador Encyclopedia, however in paper became obsolete. There, there was not the huge disputes, like has here. At ex-father home still has a lot of these old books, which goes to trash recycle when mom deceases, but there are huge beautiful well done illustrations there. Wikipedia then remain only as a 'some reference', while the Programming Code is interesting. Sincere. --92.76.86.106 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trouble at Talk:Stefan Molyneux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Talk:Stefan Molyneux

Can an uninvolved admin or two please take a gander at Rìgh's comments in this discussion thread at Talk:Stefan Molyneux, eg: [180][181][182][183][184]? He was warned to cut it out but has since doubled down with more. This "YOU ARE A JEW" comment seems particularly unacceptable to me. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that comment seems extremely out of line. I'd support an indef block based on that comment alone although the "You and I will always know the truth and I bet it irks you to know that" just further reenforces this isn't somebody we want on wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking into this now. Stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. These comments are completely unacceptable and in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy by making personal attacks toward other editors, and despite the fact that the editor was warned multiple times to stop. I've blocked Rìgh for 24 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TPA needs revoking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP making personal attacks, likely a sock, see User talk:2001:8003:5291:2c00:384c:961e:ea1b:1563. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. And yes, I've seen those exact same attacks recently, but I can't recall where and from whom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eufranio Eriguel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Eufranio Eriguel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joseph.sermonia042178 (talk · contribs)

Persistent addition of unsourced and mostly trivial puffery. A new, promotional account that hasn't responded to warnings. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Final warning issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, all who have intervened. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infonomics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Infonomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ethansdad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Infonomics is a neologism coined by Doug Laney of Gartner. Ethansdad self-identifies as Doug Laney. He is insistently reinserting a great chunk of text sourced to primary sources, mostly Gartner, and is now engaging in personal attacks on his talk page. I have explained WP:COI, he is not interested. I think it's time for a short block for promotional editing and WP:NPA. Guy (Help!) 06:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

His responses on his talkpage perfectly matches Observation on Wikipedia Behavior point number 1. Add to his unwillingness to understand WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX, block may be necessary, if he refuses to stop. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Correction: Infonomics is a portmanteau coined nearly 20 years ago, therefore it is not a neologism. I have reinserted the censored material (which references a wide variety of academic, business, news, market research sources and thought leaders) to avert its unwarranted deletion--based on mistruths about it by JzG|Guy, who hides behind a pseudonym. I have questioned his/her actions and intentions in part based upon his/her mischaracterization of the material, research into others' similar concerns about his/her motives and methods, and his/her apparent misunderstanding or misapplication of COI. Yes, I am quite familiar with the COI policy. As a professional researcher, as I have no vested legal or financial interest in the concept. Neither my employer nor I claim any rights to the term. (In fact, my employer's competitors use the term.) Nor do I get paid on book sales, publications, speaking engagements, or clicks on the topic. I am merely trying to maintain a definition of the concept, and a compendium of publications on the topic for use by other interested researchers, information professionals, academics and economists--consistent an editor's primary role to further the interests of the encyclopedia and its users. Doug_Laney (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)EthansDad

Ethansdad, you are editing to promote a neologism (or portmanteau) that you coined, which is a textbook case of conflict of interest. In addition, you are edit warring to repeatedly restore highly promotional content that violates our content guideline on external links, which says "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." You are battling to include far more promotional external links than I care to count, into the body of the article. Consider this a warning to stop this unacceptable behavior now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:NEO:

To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

So yes, this is inappropriate editing, even without the COI. With it, well, Cullen328 already covered it nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ethansdad: Do not remove other people's comment like you did here –Ammarpad (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes posts at ANI get accidentally removed during edit conflicts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I now assume it as such. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. The attacks on Guy ("You are known to be a "Wikipedian in Disrepute" (with a link to Wikispooks), "Your MO seems to be more troll than editor" etc), are only too familiar in nature; they're typical of COI editors who think aggression and personal attacks are the best defense. Altogether, is there any doubt here? Aren't we wasting too much time on an editor who hasn't come here to build an encyclopedia but purely to promote themselves? It's not just about Infonomics, nor just recent; see the warnings about inappropriate external links on their page, going back to 2011, and for instance this link to their own blog at Customer relationship management from 2012. I've blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warrior?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Eddaido has (for reasons that mystify me) decided that this is sensible syntax, & appropriate comment in an edit summary. He's already decided incivility & slow-motion edit warring is okay once, at Talk:British International Motor Show Be advised: this time, I'll be damned if I'll walk away. Between this & the borderline stalking, I've had quite enough. So go ahead & ban me forever; I expect this will be just another opportunity to air your past grievances against me which didn't get the result you wanted last time, even though none of them have the slightest to do with this. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It appeared that both users were edit warring over grammar and using a personal attack in every edit summery, while ignoring my warnings to stop the PAs, both edit warriors are now blocked for 24 hours. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:TurkKiller has made one edit to my talk page in Turkish language again about my work on the Jerusalem articles, I don't think its JarlAxle because it is in Turkish but the username TurkKiller and the first edit to my talk page is most likely sockpuppetry [[185]] - it would be nice to find out who it is, but in any case this account should be blocked or change its username. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hard blocked for username vio. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help to follow Wiki guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Floating philosopher (talk · contribs) seems to edit his/her own view while rejecting other sources as "invalid" claims, continues logical explanation and never cooperate to talk at appropriate pages, but make unnecessary discussions at user's talk page. Also, the user engages in so many revert. I would request admins and subject specialist to help him and engage where she/he show interests, and instruct the user to follow Wiki guidelines/policies. Thanks. --AntanO 03:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to justify my edits to AntanO (talk · contribs) on his/her talk page, how ever this user repudiated my justifications by saying he/she is "not interested" in my justifications. AntanO (talk · contribs) continuously undoes my edits without just cause or showing any justification, instead tells me to use the talk page to do edits i believe are valid and constructive. This user did not give any valid reason for reverting my changes, instead simply keeps reverting it. I have asked him/her to use the talk page to explain why he/she keeps editing my changes He/She is rude and abrupt and so far has not justified any of the changes they have done. I am rejecting other sources as invalid because they are. Can we not review sources and get rid of them if they are wrong? I have submitted scientific evidence for which this user prefers out dated, invalid and discredited sources. I will certainly work with an expert as I consider myself to be one, and will assist any expert with arguments and more up-to-date sources. AntanO (talk · contribs) seems to think his/her view is correct and adamantly refuses to talk. This user has once again reverted my changes without showing just cause, and is keeping outdated and incorrect information on Wikipedia. Best Regards Floating philosopher (talk · contribs)

Firstly, I am male and I have mention on my user page. So, you can mention as he. I have ask this user to talk at appropriate talk page, he/she never listen. Why I asked, see WP:TALK. You can simply deny source as right or wrong. Therefore, I asked to discuss at appropriate talk page. Why he/she want to discuss at my user talk page? He firstly removed contents with references and expecting others to talk first then delete. I gave my reason see. But, dragged to edit war see. I request to talk first before removing content and references. Another example of revert and edit war see --AntanO 07:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Canvasing and accusation at User_talk:C.Fred --AntanO 07:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(EC) It would be helpful if you two would provide diffs or at least link to the page/s where these problems are occuring the moment you come to ANI. You've now provided a few diffs but the first two messages one from each of you do not. I needed to check out your editing history and talk pages to find out this seems to be mostly focused on Islam in Sri Lanka.

Now that I know that, a quick check tells me that Talk:Islam in Sri Lanka has not been edited since a bot did so in mid November. So this seems to be a classic failure of an ANI complaint. Complaining about each other not discussing when neither of you have even done the basics, i.e. attempted to initiate a discussion on the article talk page. Yes editors should use article talk pages, not user talk pages (or edit summaries) to resolve disputes. Especially when someone has asked them to. But this goes both ways.

Ultimately one of you has to be the first to initiate a discussion on the article talk page. And many of us at ANI don't particularly care for arguments over who should initiate a discussion and what weight we should place on attempted discussions on editor talk pages or comments in edit summaries or whatever, since such arguments are often pointless.

So start discussing on the article talk page, and hopefully don't come back to ANI. If you do have to come to ANI, an empty article talk page is rarely a good sign and this applies to you as much as whoever you are complaining about. If you're not discussing on the article talk page because you're waiting for the other party to initiate discussion, you probably don't belong on wikipedia since this is intended to be a collaborative project; which means it's intrinsic on all parties to try to collaborate.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Finally about a minute before I posted the above, there's been an edit by one of you on the article talk page. So can you both just head there and forget about this ANI thread? Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I see other edits of this user as edit war. The user reference was Tamil vs Muslim, not WP:RS, and I'm not belong to those ethnic community. But i prefer to have natural article. I always asked to talk since I was not object the existed content. If a user disagree with big content with reference, she/he should have been talked before remove or should have listen when there is objection. This is not happen on particular article. You have see other edits of this user. --AntanO 07:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, the user change content as per his/her wish while reference says something else. SEE diff--AntanO 08:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding un-sourced contents, manipulates existing and removing template. Eg: See diff. The user keep removing content while saying as spurious source, and never give justification Likewise she/he add links, and never justify as spurious source, and sources failed to match with content that were edited. --AntanO 10:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not ripe for admin attention yet, I think. The edits seem to me to cover areas where reasonable people may (and do) differ and a review of FP's edits shows some attempt to provide sources and at least some evidence of thought for accuracy and WP:UNDUE. I suggest that if Talk page discussion does not help, consider WP:3O or mediation. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah one thing I forgot to mention but is important nevertheless. Once your are discussing on the talk page, if you can't come to WP:Consensus by yourselves you should look into some form of WP:Dispute resolution, none of of which are ANI (or edit warring). Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see the text I quoted in green here. It's not "I'm going to sue you" but it's kind of a violation of the spirit of WP:NLT, isn't it? CityOfSilver 17:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If that were an account instead of an IP, I would have blocked it. Not sure what to do for the IP, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I've given a 31 hour block for blatant legal threats. That's about as clear cut as it can get. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another Carmaker1 report for NPA and OWN

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs) has been the subject of previous complaints about edit summaries before at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Edit summaries and talk page warnings from Carmaker1 (February 2017)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive962#Carmaker1 aggressive edit summaries, again (August 2017)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive965#Carmaker1 Disruptive edits (September 2017)

User:Stepho-wrs noted that in general Carmaker1's edits are correct. The most frequent issue seems to be off-by-one errors in car model years due to <nerd reasons>. That's great and all, but it just doesn't matter that much whether a Wikipedia article lists a model year as 2005 or 2006. If Wikipedia were catalog or database or manual, this level of accuracy would matter a great deal, but it's not, it's an encyclopedia. The more correct year is better, but that pales in significance to the importance of not biting newcomers, not telling others they may not edit because they don't have certain credentials, and not making personal attacks.

Previously Carmaker1 was told to "dial it back" and use a more civil tone in edit summaries, and that has clearly not happened. Carmaker1 is either unable or unwilling to not violate WP:OWN, WP:BITE and WP:NPA. Carmaker1 seems to operate on the assumption that WP:EXPERTs are allowed to violate WP:NOR, and use their expertise to bludgeon others.

Warnings were given by admins User:Ritchie333 and User:Swarm. With so much evidence that yet another warning is a waste of time, an indef block is the obvious solution. Diffs:

1. [186]
2. [187]
3. [188]
4. [189]
5. [190]
6. [191]
7. [192]
8. [193]
9. [194]
10. [195]
11. [196]
12. [197]
13. [198]
14. [199]
15. [200]
16. [201]
17. [202]
18. [203]

Wikipedia is so much better off with with a bunch of car model years off by one than keeping an editor with unverifiable "insider knowledge" driving away other editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

So "carmaker1" is "driving" other editors away? EEng 12:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Motoring them away. Only hick Americans say "driving". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Does this exactly have anything to do with the serious matter at hand, that you brought up regarding my own poor conduct? That is rather baiting and gives a false impression that this is a laughing matter and not a serious discussion. What can be perceived as cynical and condescending tones are definitely what drives other users away from Wikipedia, even if many of them might have thick skin. Text on this site probably should have a neutral point of view and not partiality. Your points on here are made very well, when they are expressed objectively like many others have done in this section consistently. Trying to further mock someone, isn't exactly being neutral.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Man, you need to (a) lighten up, and (b) learn to express yourself more succinctly. EEng 07:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's really hard to "lighten up" in this case really. What I said is very unpleasant and hardly defensible. The individual that brought it up as a concern, is making a joke out of it to you, so I don't really know how to observe it on that basis. Reading things in text is much more difficult than hearing it in person, so IDK really.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block it's not a matter of accuracy or "insider knowledge", it's the difference between "car model years" and the years a car was produced. The "2015 Ford Focus" would have shown up on car lots around September 2014. Carmaker1 is, in an exceedingly uncivil manner (Stupid/idiotic prose and poor layout of timeline. I will now use production years instead and not care about a few American h**ks, when much of the world and most other Americans go by intro date.) edit-warring on this, after multiple ANI threads. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC) (indef support struck; after discussion, I feel some form of TBAN or final warning should be sufficient power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC))
  • Stuff like this is especially concerning, both because the year the car was designed is WP:TRIVIA and because of the fact that in that edit summary and others it's very heavily implied he's using WP:OR extensively. Support indef block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but how does this fall under WP: TRIVIA when music infoboxes have a section for "Recorded" and "Released"? Dates of creation and milestones in development and life-cycle of automobiles, aren't exactly trivial in this context are they? Is that particularly objective in this context?--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Other stuff like music is noteworthy for release and recording dates. The date a car designer sat behind his or her keyboard is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I understand that is your viewpoint, but I figure we are not on the same page, due to difference in viewpoint on this. My use of design in articles, in relation to development milestones or dates, is the moment a working identically sized replica of a future car is approved or design freeze completion in real-time by an automaker. Not particularly a car designer at their desk, as that isn't really a defining moment or climax. The moment when a company makes major final decisions, is what I have based some of what I submit on. "Point of no return stages." I realized long ago, it is too infinite and imprecise to base design/development notes on someone doing design sketches or developing mock-ups, in these each being a very long process. Truthfully, I made up the idea to put year of design approval in parentheses next a designer's name in the infobox as a "sub-template" for automotive articles years ago. Never really discussed the idea with consensus, so I can understand now why it annoys other users or doesn't make sense. I shouldn't be making up templates as I go along, but I wasn't fully aware that was a wide-sweeping issue I invited.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block - Carmaker's gross incivility appears to have continued, unabated, for years despite previous warnings. This suggests that they aren't equipped to work in a collaborative manner and will not be so equipped in the foreseeable future. Cjhard (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • • *I do not appreciate how my efforts to contribute to Wikipedia and provide industry knowledge and experience to the Automotive Project, seems to result in what can be described as a witch hunt. The very problem I have is that, it would help to have other users fill in the gaps in many of these cases of poorly written articles, containing inaccurate information. Many other websites, on the web have a tendency to copy information from Wikipedia and if any it is off by one number or letter, it can spell disaster (in terms of rumours). If many of these issues did not fall on deaf ears (in relation to administrators), the pressure wouldn't exist. If someone wants to take issue with one of my statements, perhaps ensure that all users are on the same page or in consensus on articles. The head-butting egoism between various users on occasion (mixed with commonly introduced erroneous additions by IP users), makes for a very uncomfortable environment and makes one feel, as if some assertiveness is needed to support informative edits. There are times I remove myself from editing for long periods of time, only to come back to Wikipedia and find correct information removed for the most questionable reasons. My expectation is that Wikipedia users are to add new "correct" information, then remove incorrect information to improve an article. Not simply remove content and write it to their sole liking, omitting information they personally don't care for or have developed dead links over time. That is not being objective. I just had to restore information about the BMW 5-Series (F10) design process between 2005 and 2006 (under "Development" heading), as someone felt it was necessary for them to remove that section, as they didn't care for its presence. The information had citations, yet it was removed by a user named "ReverseLevity". Yet, administrators and other users did not notice these changes and restore such information, in it being accurate and cited. When that happens, users like me have to belatedly restore what was removed. When things like this happen so many times (section blanking/removals/vandalism), instead of enriching a "good article" with more insightful content, it is rather frustrating. Intellectual property and automotive industry competitive concerns and risks, are a reason why specific design and development information tends to be very hard to cite in many cases, in being withheld for general public consumption. One isn't particularly abusing WP: OR, as WP: PAYWALL is also a major factor with certain privileged information. I can't say I see how design and development information lies under WP: TRIVIA. I often have to essentially beg for cited additions I make to not be challenged by personal viewpoints, when many other additions/edits to the various articles I come across, often have unsourced information unchallenged. I am most focused on there being stricter quality control on Wikipedia, in terms of accuracy. English Wikipedia is vast and relied on as a source by many non-academic venues worldwide, that it hurts to see inaccurate information passed around as fact, because of many of us might miss erroneous additions or vandalism to articles--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support block –Arguing from authority like here plus inappropriate edit summaries is a big problem and incompatible with collabrative work of building encyclopedia. He can come back to editing once they make it clear they understand this. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I cannot agree with how that is observed as arguing from authority, when the user has made personal attacks against me and edits the article in the form of WP:OWN. User: 1292simon has personally removed many of my contributions, which I established as targeting and rather offensive.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • If you don't agree this is arguing from authority, then indefinite blocking is necessary. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
      • It wasn't really explained to me how you see it as arguing from authority and I felt earlier on it was viewed in a generalized sense, without deeper context. If you are referring to me trying to police articles intimidatingly and also being pompous about it (bragging), that isn't acceptable on my part and can see that. I wouldn't bring that up industry "expertise" with another user, that didn't to try make me feel as if I was being condescended to (in directly omitting every contribution of mine in multiple articles). Feeling condescended to is simply a perception and doesn't excuse such tantrums in the long run. You try to work things out or get help.--Carmaker1 (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment as a point in Carmaker1's defense, articles on specific car models see a disproportionate amount of edits from IPs and SPAs, most of whom don't use edit summaries at all. I don't want to contribute to a Randy in Boise situation, but disruptive edit summaries are worse than no edit summaries; and if Carmaker1 isn't willing to tone it down, I do still feel an indef block will be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think the best way I can personally and professionally go about this (on my part), is to truly honour/deeply recognize what I have been told and invest collectively in discussing anything information I have to provide, with other users until we can agree on a mutual decision on whichever content. The way I have been going about things, is haphazard. On one end I might have production timelines right, but the R&D info I provide is all over the place on my part. Many of us are here to learn new information or contribute and it can be frustrating, when you can't find a source for interesting information you read in an article, submitted by another user. It does not help also if said-user becomes defensive and chooses to fight you back on questioning their submission, in an effort to save face or micromanage things. I just haven't heard before, that while my submissions are mostly welcome, my edit summaries and perceived forcefulness need to go. If I am not welcome here, I will disappear if need be and came here originally to enrich others knowledge, albeit in a desperate and heavy-handed manner.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • As far as the specific content dispute, this seems to be a perennial discussion at WP:WikiProject Automobiles (e.g. 2012 discussion, 2008 discussion). WP:MODELYEARS doesn't give any guidance on how to handle it in headings. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User: Power~enwiki, as I obviously should've been able to spare time and talk with any other users doing edits I didn't agree with, explaining my reasons on why the article favoured a certain format. My edit summaries could easily have politely expressed why a statement or date was perceived as wrong by me, then see if consensus can be established. Even if dealing with other people being difficult, there are better ways to handle things. I did not exactly read the last ANI brought by Vortex833, until well after the fact (like now). Pent up frustration from a unsatisfactory resolution of that Honda-related article situation, led to abusive edit summaries on my part upon what unfairly judged as rinse/repeat deliberate mistakes or vandalism. It was my subjective perception, not objective fact.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment as someone who has seen numerous cases like this come and go over the years, I have to give you some advice Carmaker1. If you keep replying to every single vote, you will most likely end up being blocked. It's incredibly annoying. Likewise, if you continue to insist there is no fault or that the complaints only come from editors with red on their hands, you will most likely end up being blocked. You have numerous editors in good standing already calling for your block, so anything other than "I was wrong and here is how I am going to change my behavior" is just digging the hole deeper. Stop making excuses no one wants to hear, stop arguing that it wasn't you, or that the ends justify the means. Own up to your mistakes COMPLETELY and THOROUGHLY, and you MIGHT end up avoiding an indef block. --Tarage (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not here to defend myself, but explain my reasoning as a deeper look at my point of view and how to fix that point of view, as I had stated to power~enwiki above. If we are not on the same page, it doesn't help Wikipedia and creates a bad environment that chases well-meaning people away. There are plenty of editors I work with comfortably, in Wikipedia being such a vast site. Clearly consistently brushing off any difference of viewpoint and finding a resolution, has been a terrible failure on my part. Condescending to people doesn't help resolve situations, something I have since learned and hope all of us take note of. Having been here for nearly 11 years, I haven't acted liked a longtime user regarding knowledge of guidelines.--Carmaker1 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll have no one to blame but yourself. --Tarage (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You are now being rather confrontational Tarage. I addressed your concern politely, as that is how I want things moving forward/in conclusion. I explained to you where I was coming from and I'm not sure how you're perceiving it. I have been here 10-11 years, learning new things about Wikipedia every day. I just wish for all of us to work collectively and actually discuss things openly on a talk page, in a genuinely civil manner. On my part, I lazily skipped that part and lost requisite patience, instead of seeking assistance and patiently waiting for responses from others to help.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block He keeps changing years for some reason though much of his insider knowledge is inaccurate. Overall he's making wikipedia significantly worse.Ramloner33 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — this is Ramloner33 (talk · contribs)'s first edit. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • My insider knowledge is accurate, but I am instead making things overall worse? Please explain (so I can reflect), as I am not understanding your viewpoint, as I don't hold much influence on this site as regular user (never sought administrator position) and usually walk away from any occasional content dispute, ruled not in my favour by administration the past decade. To explain my reasoning, I have been mostly concerned about an accurate timeline, that allows readers to enter an article and not get confused by contradictions within an article. I have indeed gone to the extreme by trying enforce "maintenance" of articles, by being verbally abusive. I won't disagree with that, it isn't proper. I am rarely here during the course of calendar year, so I have previously assumed I hardly affect Wikipedia environment and seen as merely a blip due to frequent absence. I have never encountered editing with you, so I am not sure if we've been in contact before. Apologies if my changing years is controversial, as we all learn things everyday in terms of perception.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The problem is that that insider knowledge might be accurate, but we can't verify it unless it's publically accessable. Paywalled data is acceptable, but "insider knowledge" suggests "a little bird told me", and that's original research. Remember that the primary principle for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Wow, now I get it. Thank you Bushranger, as by I should really read up on many WP pages to understand protocol. It is very true that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I am sorry that I have been ignorant of that, as I should have known better all this time. This isn't really a cynical response, but truthful. I can see why we don't favour celebrities writing their own biographies in articles. An original point of view isn't how Wikipedia works. I really need to (or should have not) avoid basing so much of my content on behind the scenes whispers. Off-the-record items are terrible information to be submitting on here, if you do not have a source. They are better ways off of Wikipedia to spread such trivial knowledge, than forcing others to work against protocol. I am a bit surprised at myself, for not only BEING, but remaining so ignorant in editing here in-frequently since 2006-07. Oh well, that's it. Thanks pointing out WP:VNT.--Carmaker1 (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have understood the need to bring such a serious matter to attention, as I have been terribly disrespectful. I am finding User: Dennis Bratland's own conduct to be rather questionable. The use of "nerd reasons", as well as how they have acted uncivilly towards me on their own talk page, highlight why a user such as myself can at times behave so terribly in response to select users as a human being. Rude, sarcastic tones in which this user has approached me, after asking them to explain something to me, hinder not just me, but other users from being comfortable in Wikipedia's editing environment. Much of my poor conduct has been developed over the years, from dealing with similarly difficult and extremely rude editors, that have not been called to task for their behaviour because of WP:NOTCENSORED being used an excuse. The Bushranger, Ramloner33,Power~enwiki have all conduct themselves civilly in addressing me, which is the best way to highlight how I could have been better behaved and learn. Speaking to others with respect, so they repatriate the same in return. I also have to ask, why Ramloner33 appears to be a new account and this happens to be their first edit entirely. I do not know how this process works really, so I am a little curious.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support block. As per nomination. Edit: see below. Many regular editors may have thick skin, but WP:NPA and WP:BITE are still important, not least because we should avoid scaring off new contributors with unnecessary hostility. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Mutual respect is very important. Both of us know this very well. It is important that we heed and honour are our own words through action. I do not come here to scare off new users, especially when they are here for positive reasons to contribute and not vandals editing for amusement (sometimes with a registered account). My influence on greater Wikipedia is extremely minute, as it is very demanding as solo and is a collective. Cheers,--Carmaker1 (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

*** Some wonderfully noble statements in the reply above. It's a pity they have no relation to your repeated insults and mocking towards myself and other editors. Regards, Stupid 12 aka 1292simon (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• • • • It helps when you are on the same page and any animosity is avoided, by being 100% genuinely civil. My bad actions are being discussed, but can you say that you have been respectful to me judging by snarky behaviour here and in the past? (Save for thanks on E65 page) Perceived Tom & Jerry scenarios still do not excuse away my own behavior, but of course provide insight into it. Any previous squabbles with you or verbal attacks toward you, still are amongst a glaring list of many other bad behaviours on my part, supporting the ANI ban discussion. We have to practice what we preach and not sneak in little digs at each other (under the assumption it will not be observed by objective parties)--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Agreed. My bitter reply above was because I incorrectly interpreted it as being preachy and defensive, rather than an acknowledgement that improvements are needed. Sorry for that. 1292simon (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Thank you. I apologize for going overboard and insulting you in my edit summaries, as when something is submitted on here (like by me), it is essentially permanent and no one likes to see their name/alias/username being referred to in a negative, over harmless matters and have it essentially be not erasable from edit history. Considering how you handled that E65 matter very well, I should have taken as a sign of good-nature intentions and refrain from later on projecting onto you my own paranoia.--Carmaker1 (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose block or any other sanction - As I feel the situation is being seriously misrepresented. Carmaker is being portrayed as an editor who is being disruptive in spite of numerous warnings. I've reviewed the diffs, and I do not believe that is the case at all. Firstly, regarding the purported admin "warnings", I can't find or remember any instance in which I ever warned carmaker; indeed the only relevant involvement on my part that I'm aware of is me defending them in the last ANI thread. Regarding Ritchie, he also appears to be downright sympathetic to Carmaker, saying only "I don't know what you want me to do other than just remind him to dial it back a bit?" That hardly constitutes a warning, and I don't see where Ritchie even issued such a "reminder" to Carmaker. Please provide concrete diffs of these purported "warnings", otherwise the "ignoring multiple warnings" allegation should go straight out the window. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. But based on my review, that allegation is simply not true. Secondly, regarding the supposed infractions themselves, I've reviewed every specific infraction that has been reported in various AN threads, and frankly I don't see any serious violations that would warrant more than a reminder to "dial it back a bit". Many of the diffs aren't violations of any sort at all, and the ones that do constitute incivility or personal attacks are of extremely low-severity, nothing more than your typical editor would resort to when irritated by their time being wasted in stupid disputes. I have to be honest, I find the long list of diffs above to be annoyingly disingenuous, given the lack of severity of the problem (and it's a stretch to call this a "behavioral problem"). Thirdly, regarding the actual content dispute that is the root of all this frustration, Carmaker seems to be on the side of common sense. American vehicular model years do not correspond with actual years. "Model years" are released within the preceding calendar (actual) year. Carmaker is just trying to ensure that articles report the actual location in history, as opposed to the completely meaningless "model year", which is artificially marketed as the next year's model. This is something that is common knowledge to most Americans. Those who are trying to make articles reflect otherwise are either deliberately trying to introduce an Americentric POV to a worldwide project, or are quite plainly ignorant about what they're editing. There is quite simply nothing unreasonable about Carmaker's edits themselves, and that might be why they're frustrated after dealing with the same stupid issues for years. @Carmaker1 and Ritchie333: please correct me if I'm wrong on any points regarding yourselves. Swarm ♠ 09:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing your objective viewpoint, as I can't better express what you just did. Partly dealing with what seems to be "drive-by" editors on occasion, that might detrimentally edit for laughs and leave the rest of us to clean up their mess, has allowed me to become to hypersensitive to innocent helpers and lose sight of most other users good intentions, by becoming a vigilante editor. With music articles, the level of vandalism is much worse and I am letting negative sentiment from poor resolutions over those cases, negatively affect automotive articles I work in. It is my job to be fair and impartial, despite occurrences elsewhere, even if it feels my concerns at times might fall on deaf ears (which isn't fully accurate in reality). The Nissan Armada article experienced a wave of vandalism in 2016/early 2017, in which I made a request for ANI assistance to lock it for IP users temporarily. Sadly, it didn't turn out well and become a bigger mess, until another admin kindly stepped in months later. I think if I learned how to calmly address any issues I have on here, with administrators for help, things like this wouldn't boil up to this point on my part.--Carmaker1 (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe these excuses I'm hearing here. You get frustrated and that makes personal attacks OK? Since when? Swarm, do you understand which editor Carmaker1 is referring to as "stupid 12"? If it isn't clear from the context, it is User:1292simon. Carmaker1 has been carrying on a campaign of attacks against 1292simon for a very long time.

These comments are personal attacks, and they are disparagement by nationality, and they are plain bullying:

"I ACTUALLY researched the design timeline for this model, so 12's attempts to discredit that out of pettiness are unfortunate."

"Stupid 12 doesn't realize that as someone that has MANY connections in the automotive industry, not everything is out in the open. Perhaps you should join the industry and then find that information yourself."

"Keep it up 12. I know much more than you do about BMW history, yet you prefer to leave holes within in it."

"If I see someone reinstate his name here, I will report you for deliberately introducing inaccurate information"

"I will now use production years instead and not care about a few American h**ks, when much of the world and most other Americans go by intro date."

"Why is the prose like a hick salesman wrote it? SMH"

"The ignorant that put this, should try and do better investigative research on how R&D actually works, not just some marketing BS with a false narrative."

"If anyone changes these dates to anything other than the start of production and concluding sales years with prior consensus, I will make it my mission to report you for disruptive editing"

Carmaker1's excuse is that they are frustrated. So what? Yes, there is some kind of long term abuse or socking from an IP, but so what? Carmaker1 can't figure out how we deal with that very common problem. After 11 years of editing. We don't deal with IP abuse by threats and bullying. If you're going to go on a personal attack rampage because there is a long term vandal in front of you, you can't edit Wikipedia. Should all of us start acting this way towards vandals? Should we all start calling Americans hicks? Or whatever nationality we happen to dislike? The ongoing theme here is that Carmaker1 owns this topic and these summaries are intended to drive others off his turf. That's a violation of policy.

No suggestion at all of an apology to 1292simon. Everything Carmaker1 has to say is WP:NOTTHEM excuses. This is someone who doesn't get it because they can't. A ban from the automobiles topic is better than nothing but it's not going to stick.

The idea that none of the previous ANI cases included warnings is Wikilawyering. Does Wikipedia have some kind of notarized warning delivered by a footman with a wax seal? Really? I'm saddened also to see admins getting sucked into a content dispute on ANI. What I'm hearing is that the year 2006 is the correct year and 2005 WRONG and any editor who dares to change it to 2005 deserves what they get. Seriously? It doesn't matter that much. Yes, I am enough of a nerd to get why 2005 is wrong and model years production years blah blah blah. It's not that important. Yes, 2005 is wrong, but it's not that important because this is an encyclopedia, not a car catalog. We don't attack anyone over things like this. Bad call, Swarm. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Expecially as it's explicitly saying flouting Wikipedia policy is OK. @Swarm:, reporting the "actual location in history as opposed to the completely meaningless model year" for American cars is WP:SYNTH, as the only year that is reported in all sources as "Cars of X year" is model year. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland and The Bushranger: Some of the comments are personal attacks. Nowhere did I imply they weren't. However, the severity of this case is overstated. As both of you surely know, we don't typically open with blocks as a response to personal attacks, because personal attacks do rise during good faith content disputes. Blocks are only issued in extreme cases, when a persistent and unresolvable behavioral pattern is demonstrated, and/or when all other options have been exhausted. This report asked for a draconian response, an indef block, and implied that there was a strong behavioral pattern in spite of numerous warnings. Neither of those points is substantiated upon review, and the discrepency between the allegations and the facts are suspect. Ultimately, diffs are weak, action has not been taken in the past, consensus has not supported reporters in the past, and the instances which are personal attacks are not particularly egregious. A block, especially an indefinite one, is not the appropriate response, and while I do not actually oppose the reasonable sanction proposed below, the strength of my objection directly rejected the pile-on that was happening in support of a blatantly misleading and draconian block request. The measured proposal below is exceedingly more appropriate. Secondly, this isn't the place to hash out the content dispute, and I was not becoming involved in it here, obviously, nor should anyone. It's a legitimate disagreement with no "correct" side (contrary to your claim of policy violation, which is completely inapplicable and untrue), that should be resolved through consensus like any other. The point is simply to dispel the false notion that we're dealing with an unreasonable disruptive editor. They're involved in a heated and persistent content dispute. This is completely relevant context because the community does not traditionally support blocks in response to content-dispute frustration, even in cases of strong language. The quoted personal attacks are really not that severe in the context of what the community lets slide. Swarm ♠ 09:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I am both American (Texas) and British (W. Midlands), so the "nationality" claim isn't me attacking a differing nationality. Doesn't make it okay, but pointing out the context in that case. As someone that grew up in both places to a degree, I am not an outsider looking on in and deciding that "Americans are xxx". In this case, I have been seeing that many fellow Americans are misled by a complicated system of model years, created by automotive marketing divisions, which down the road cause confusion after initial introduction has passed. In annoyance and studying this (what I saw as a disconcerting phenomenon in person or on car forums), I hoped that Wikipedia's widespread influence would help to alleviate this issue, if I helped fix things. I have handled it in a very heavy-handed manner, when with some patience and respect, I could get consensus on such topics without resorting to personal attacks or edit-warring. I must ask though, if there is an element of subjectivity in your observations? Until this ANI, we haven't really had any discussion or co-edited. Is it that your personal offence from my prejudiced statement "American ****", as being the overwhelming reason here? And the rest of my gross pattern of behaviour, just supports things? They are a number of users that have unfairly insulted Americans on this same topic and have not been addressed for such personal attacks (directed also at me). Please remember that, as no one should be made to feel bad because of their background. I accept that I was wrong to say that, but have heard similar (from a user I shall not name). My talk page will highlight that.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

QED. This right here: perpetually avoiding the issue, avoiding responsibility, changing the subject, and always the excuses, endless excuses, rationalizations. This is why I don't think a topic ban will work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There is an issue with how you are presenting this, as it now comes across as no longer being objective and perceived as being rather personal on your part. Others are presenting things objectively, with little-to-moderate emotion and a neutral point of view. Even for 1292simon, they have tried to remain as neutral as possible (when not addressing me). I did not say that I am right about making such insulting statements about other Americans. I have now only expressed concern, with any of that being used in a comical context within this discussion. It is up to me how I interact with people moving forward, in being presented with serious evidence against me, but more so administration to decide if enough is enough and rightfully penalize or dismiss me.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block, indefinite or otherwise. Swarm is quite right about Carmaker1's frustration, and probably about the reasons for it. On the other hand, i do believe that a sanction of some kind is required: All too often rude and nasty comments from editors who are long-term/aggressive/factually correct are allowed to slide. I suggest a topic ban from automobiles in general or, with a finer focus, from automobiles' dates, for three months; this will allow Carmaker1 to realise and reflect and calm himself. After that, we'll see if he has a renewed maturity or still is rude to people unnecessarily. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block at this time. Suggest crafting limited sanctions to improve the editing environment on those pages, down the lines of what Lindsay suggests above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban suggestion: (I don't personally think a topic ban will work but if this is what we want to try, then...) An automobiles or model year topic ban kind of misses the target. There are plenty of hostile edit summaries on non-car topics. The topic that is the problem is the topic of other editors. I would suggest a ban on any edit summary, on any page, that makes any reference, directly or indirectly, towards other contributors, construed broadly. It's fine to say content was in error, but characterizing the intelligence or abilities of whomever wrote the content is off limits. Since complements can be interpreted as sarcasm, even neutral or positive mention of other contributors is banned. Any mention whatsoever of who wrote what in the article, what their motivation was, whether they are knowledgeable or not, malevolent or not, is prohibited. Carmaker1's edit summaries should consist of nothing except a description of what was changed, and/or why, with no mention at all of whomever wrote the previous article content. In short: no ad hominem in edit summaries. WP:NPA says it plainly: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

  Any mention of other editors by Carmaker1 should be limited to an appropriate noticeboard, or a user talk page. This might be extended to include any mention of other editors in article talk pages, but the immediate problem here seems to be edit summaries. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • This is a good suggestion, but it doesn't address the SYNTH-pushing. But it does address the even more serious issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe a similar sanction was put in place during the Rambling Man Arbcom case. I'd say this is the best option at this point. As is often espoused, ANI does not rule on content and this is not entirely a content issue, at least not one that can't be dealt with on a talk page. This is most certainly a behavioural issue, which can most certainly be addressed here. There is agreement that Carmaker1's content contributions are generally solid and not really as much of a problem as the edit summary attacks, so a targeted sanction as Dennis Bratland suggests makes sense. Blackmane (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think I agree with Blackmane. WP:SYNTH and WP:I-SAW-IT are content issues outside the scope of ANI. Yes, it's *better* for these facts to have verifiable sources, just like it's better to have the correct model year without any OBOEs. But those things can be resolved on article talk pages and aren't blockable offenses. It's unhelpful, but not terrible, to say "this is true because I was there". I think Carmaker1's unverifiable eyewitness reporting is probably factually correct, and not defamatory toward a living person, so the "harm" is somewhat academic. The problem is when Carmaker1 says things to the effect of "if you weren't there, don't edit" and "anyone who hasn't worked in the industry shouldn't touch this article" etc. This is all about WP:OWN, WP:BITE, and WP:NPA. If he never mentions other editors, then he can't order them off his turf. The reason I believe he won't be able to do that is his frequent citations of WP:TRIVIA which he has either not read or not understood, as well as WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE, which he also seems to not comprehend. Carmaker1's comment on my talk page that I could be blocked for "ordering" him to read an MOS page suggests poor reading comprehension or some other issue that makes it impossible for them to understand how Wikipedia works. It might be an ESL issue or pig headedness or I don't know what, but the evidence I see is that Carmaker1 won't be able to adhere to a topic ban. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
        • • I asked you for assistance, then I was given a sarcastic and condescending response. I am glad you welcomed retaining/restoring the content I had added (then omitted), but scolding another user (the way you did) is something I am already guilty of and is part of what this ANI indef discussion relates to. Unacceptable personal attacks. Claiming "I have better things to worry about" in that context can be perceived as a personal attack, when my discussion with you on your talk page didn't pertain to that. I have to say, I am extremely guilty of saying offensive things, but I am wondering how acceptable it is to imply I might have ESL issues or that you could be blocked for ordering me around. I stated that the nature you addressed, was perceived as ordering me around and threatening. That again is making things personal and has a condescending tone. Tit for tat behaviour is something I should refrain from for the better good (on top of outright bullying), but I cannot say you are entirely pointing things out in a civil, constructive, and objective manner the way that other individuals have been. The approach has been somewhat cynical and that can create animosity, which is what I have done in the recent past and is now being brought to light, due to the strong nature of it as of late.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Oh, I agree that in and of itself OR/SYNTH isn't an admin-intervention issue, but when it becomes a persistent pattern of behavior it, in and of itself, becomes disruptive, which is. Whether or not that part of this issue is at that point, though, I freely admit I can't for-certain say, and the WP:OWN (and the bite/npa that follows from it) is the most significant issue here. (I'll also note that while Carmaker1 has said A Lot Of The Right Things in response to criticisms above, the manner in which he says it is...well I can't tell if it's earnest or "this is The Right Thing To Say, so I'm saying it". Tone is, alas, impossible to tell on the Internet.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
        • And since I keep leaving it out: I do support Dennis Bratland's proposal here, in lieu of a block, at least to try. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
          • • Well, it is actually "earnest" for once (no lies about that). In terms of responding to you and everyone that has been civil in addressing this matter. You very excellently pointed out various WP pages to me, that I have been weirdly ignorant of (all these years) and I can see where many times I have failed to follow guidelines based on them. The real past issue is, it was never really spelled out to me what I was doing wrong. I cannot be using private one-on-one discussion or electronic chats with car designers and other engineers about a model development programme, then decide to include it in an article on Wikipedia, thinly supported by a web link (independent of my private discussion). Also, it has occurred to me I have been using Wikipedia, to channel out my "discoveries" to the global public about the automotive and entertainment industries, based on myself as a source and using multiple links to piece together information. Hoping that because "it's accurate", everyone else magically agrees and it remains in an article. I cannot recall which WP that stated it isn't acceptable (use multiple links), but I wasn't necessarily aware. Clearly when on a occasion, other users might try to remind me of such guidelines and remove certain information from an article on that basis, I took it upon myself to make it personal via edit summaries or talk pages. This is what happens when someone dares to make it that they are the original source, which for many reasons, just isn't acceptable here. It is my fault for doing that and then feeling offended, when I should have maintained a neutral point of view in the first place and not used personal discoveries for Wikipedia.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
          • I agree with you on that. However, at this point, the OR/SYNTH discussion hasn't reached that stage yet, not to mention that this post is largely about their behaviour, it would make sense to pick the low hanging fruit and deal with the problem as it is presented. Trying to fix everything at once, only leads to another one of those epic discussion that ANI is famous for, usually leading to a lot of heat but little light being cast on the matter. Blackmane (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
            • How would the behavioural issue be resolved is my question? On my part, it is very easy fix that. However, Wikipedia policy I do understand is of great importance. I have abused WP:BITE and WP:NPV, plus many others "WPs". I have said in defense that it is because of past bad experiences, during my early editing years (2007-2011), but I realize that just because I didn't understand how to report incidents to ANI (didn't really know how), never warranted me the minute I logged in, to occasionally abuse people that don't follow my viewpoint or "trust my expertise". Again I can change that and be genuine about it, but I can't speak for others on this matter and say it resolves things. Alternatively, I am rather shocked that Ramloner33 was a sock account. My actions have such a large impact, to the point other users are willing to create additional accounts to see my negativity disappear (rather shocking)? I really had no idea that my submissions make such a difference (puzzled on that). I assumed traffic in the articles I frequent was so slow, that no one really notices what I submit (edit summaries and recent edits clearly show up globally in), save for a very few users (percentage wise).--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
              • I didn't say "resolved", I said "deal with". Resolving the behavioural issue that has been brought to ANI is up to you, however, neutral editors can deal with an issue by levying sanctions and restrictions. It is then up to the sanctioned editor to either a) reflect on why the sanction was levied or b) continue with the behaviour that led to the sanction and get blocked. At this point in time, the issue we're trying to deal with is the way you're interacting with others and not how others interact with you, as that hasn't been brought up as an issue. If that does become an issue, then feel free to open your own ANI post and members of the community here will look in to it. Blackmane (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
                • I think it would greatly increase the chances of the topic ban's success if a few editors would take 10 to 15 of Carmaker1's recent problematic edit summaries and rewrite them in a way that complies with the proposed ban on mentioning other editors. This is mostly explained in WP:Edit summary, but modified to ensure no other editor is directly or indirectly mentioned. Illustrating how the topic ban is supposed to work would help ensure we're all on the same page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Limited sanctions. I think the chance to improve - as per either Lindsay's proposal (three month cool-down period for automobiles) or Dennis Bratland's proposal (not mentioning other editors in Edit Summaries) - is worth a try. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Formal topic ban suggestion

Ok, since the supports above are all over the place, let's narrow it down a bit. Per Dennis Bratland, Carmaker1 is prohibited for 3 months from making any reference, broadly construed, to other editors in edit summaries. (Broadly construed includes just about everything short of a WP:EWN report.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support --Toasted Meter (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support With reservations already noted above which you'd probably prefer I not even mention again so I'll just keep that to myself, OK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- 1292simon (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support civility is important. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Carmaker1 is a good editor, this is a good reminder that a lot of latitude can be extended but it is not infinite and members of the community will do what needs to be done to ensure WP is as good an environment to edit as possible. Blackmane (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - think a short topic ban (3-6 months) would allow them to edit others fields and see how things are normally done. On a side note....has anyone ever suggest 2 dates?...as in model year and market release date. Bought my 2007 sports car in Dec 2005 and got it March 2006.--Moxy (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The Tban is actually a ban on commenting on the editor rather than a TBan from the topic area. Blackmane (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

At least regarding model years, that has always been my idea. On the side of global editors, I understood the need to support inclusion of dates in real time. As someone that is also American, I strongly favour the use of model years in addition to actual calendar years (and even months), as a titling or designator. The problem I've had is getting everyone on the same page. At this point in the year, I can't see myself calling (in example) a brand new redesign a 2017 model. My goal has been to highlight a pattern in the marketplace where next year's model is introduced the preceding calendar year by having both listed within an article. Hopefully everyone else agrees so that people are not mistaking U.S. model years for actual introductory dates. What I have an issue with is where someone writes, "The current Mercedes-Benz S-class W222 was first revealed and introduced in 2014, with semi-autonomous driving capabilities." That would read that inaccurate, since CEO Dr. Dieter Zetsche personally unveiled it in 2013. Or even more pertinently, Chevrolet's compact Corvair was engineered in the 1960s (released 1959 as a MY 1960, so late 50s). As (also) a writer, I have always been very particular about historical accuracy, especially regarding timelines. Whether that's pedantic or trivial to others is the question. The bigger issue with me understandably, has been my original research and egoism.--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support, hopefully this will allow things to be resolved - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - with some concerns about enforcement; i fear seeing this back here again, one way or another. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible SEO / paid editing

• Sascha Noak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nattydread2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sascha Noak edits in Nattydread2012's sandbox, which is weird. Lots of deleted spam articles, several remaining articles which look distinctly dodgy. Check Lance Bachmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for an example, also 1SEO.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and User:Nattydread2012/sandbox. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

JzG - Have we talked to Sascha Noak about the editing of Nattydread2012's sandbox? What did the user say in response? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Editor failing to obey administrative closure on Talk: Cary Grant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Talk:Cary Grant

Jcc is continuing to discuss a topic, even though it's been archived by an administrator. The topic on Cary Grant has been discussed countless times on this article before and goes absolutely nowhere each and every time. The latest bout was archived by Ritchie333 earlier today, and should remain so. But Jcc thinks he can get around this archive by starting a new thread about the same subject. There is no difference in doing this than there is to continue the archived discussion. Can someone have a word with this person to nip it in the arse before it escalates further? Cassianto^Talk 19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• How about a nice big block for both you and Ritchie, for so obviously using 'archiving' just as a means to silence an opposing view to your own. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andy, it's good to see Cassianto's attempt to distort the truth with this report hasn't worked. Hopefully other viewers to this board will also check out the talk page for themselves. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• As opposed to Cassianto's leap to the drama boards, I'm attempting to offer a constructive solution (an RfC), to a perpetual problem (addition of an infobox without consensus)- as evidenced by the threads from Davidbrookesland, Jojhutton and HughMorris15. If anything, this thread should be about Cassianto's needless lurch to ANI, without warning, and behaviour on that article talk page, and others- I see he's just been involved in another spat with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) over infoboxes today- from someone who's been blocked over a dozen times for personal attacks and harassment. I can only assume that this ANI post is an attempt to harass me. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice attempt to smear another editor without any basis or evidence. Please see WP:NPA as to how to discuss things civilwith other editors. – SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Jcc, friendly words of advice...I recently learned that following procedures is not always the best way to handle things. On Wikipedia, it's important to know when to stop arguing with other editors, and simply let them be wrong. Good luck. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet again, we see Cassianto wanting to impose their personal dislike of infoboxes onto everyone. They would do far better to simply apply some user CSS and just hide the offensive things from their own delicate view. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• SoftLavender wrote the comment in June of this year and it was cherry-picked now. The question came up again less than 3 months ago. closed 16-9-2017. Just how many times SHOULD it come up? Once a week, like you take out the rubbish? Ritchie333 was dragged into it here without the poster notifying him. Dragging other interactions and history into it looks like the tables are turned re: harassing and maybe go Aussie. We hope (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Great comment, apart from the fact Cassianto opened this report, which rather spoils it all. Quick- change the comment so you slate me instead! :D jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

More seriously- with reference to your comment Just how many times SHOULD it come up?- that's exactly what I'm tired of too. That's why I'm suggesting we have an RfC and establish a consensus one way or another. That way, we can revert all attempts to add/remove/re-add the infobox with a pointer to the RfC. This is an approach that has worked well with other articles. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone else suggested the block. If you can harass an editor by pinging and thanking, you can do the same by continuing disruption at an article talk page with this. And you can harass more at a time than pinging or thanking. We hope (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And those who care to can be just as active with their RfCs. We hope (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• The thing to keep in mind here is that regardless of whether or not the infobox belongs or not, once we've reached a decision to not include one in this article, it is not unexpected that there will be questions about that decision. Let's just concede that the the proper decision here is to exclude the infobox from the Cary Grant article. (I'm not saying it WAS the proper decision mind you, just that we'll treat it as a given for the sake of moving this discussion forward). Given that such a decision does not match reader expectations at Wikipedia, there are, every so often, going to be people who find the lack of an infobox surprising. Those people are also going to know NOTHING about the background of how the decision was arrived at. Here is my central point, so don't miss it (bold for emphasis): New, uninvolved readers and editors with no background in the prior discussions leading to the decision to exclude the infobox deserve to be treated with decency and respect and should be expected to receive a patient, clear, and proper response to explain the rationale for the decision. The people who wish to maintain the lack of an infobox can do so for all I care, but what should not happen is what I see on the talk page, which is those self-same people being curt, rude, and dismissive of people who want to understand why that is so. There are going to be people every few weeks who are going to raise the question. We cannot stop them from raising the question. While that doesn't mean we have to relitigate the issue every few weeks, it DOES mean that those people should be treated with decency and respect, and not dismissed rudely as though the decision which was reached should have been obvious to them. --Jayron32 20:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! If everybody would follow this recommendation, the conflict was over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I have no intention of entering into any kind of exchange here, so Dingly and his friends can say what they like about me, I couldn't care less. This board, believe it or not, serves a purpose, of sorts, and it is reasonable for me to come here to let others stop trouble before it starts rather than participating in the drama and then being the subject of it. I've learnt that there's no point in conversing with people like Dingly as the ensuing drama only deflects away from the real issues at hand. Although I suspect that this is their plan all along. Cassianto^Talk 20:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I closed the thread because experience has shown me that discussions on Cary Grant tend to involve excessive bickering and it was not intended to favour either side of the debate. I have no strong opinions on whether this article should have an infobox - maybe. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

...I remain astounded every time I see the fact come up that some people still believe infoboxes are bad, and that things get so vehement about it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

...I remain astounded every time I see the fact come up that some people still believe infoboxes are unthinkingly good, and that things get so vehement about it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

read me--Moxy (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, Moxy - I'm bookmarking that link. Not having an infobox is a disservice to our readers, and that's who we should be trying to please rather than wasting valuable time on editor disputes. Ritchie333 did the right thing by closing this infinite MOS sinkhole. I also agree with Jcc in that there needs to be an unambiguous decision to maintain some form of MOS consistency regarding style and content. We block editors to prevent disruption when we should be modifying or creating PAGs to eliminate the cause of the disruption. Now that would be a boost to editor retention and save our admins a boatload of time! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As I've seen several times before, the "research" can be read in different ways, with absolutely no justification for including or excluding an IB. - SchroCat (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• An advantage to having infoboxes is that those who don't want them can easily hide them, by simple technical means. Those who prefer them can't make them appear from nowhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• What about people reading the article who aren't registered editors? How do they dump the box, or is it assumed that everyone else in the world wants the boxes? We hope (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• I doubt that there are many newbie or casual readers with strong feelings either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think Andy Dingley is correct about that. In fact, I think most people assume that having an infobox is something common to all en.wiki articles. I still recall the surprise my son registered when he went to look up something in an article (I think it was Mozart, and there was no infobox. He was shocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• With respect, I don't see consistency as being one of the reasons listed in MOS:IBX. "Shock" is something someone experiences in a "sudden, upsetting or surprising event or experience". I should hardly image your son fell into this definition over an infobox. Cassianto^Talk 13:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• OK, how about "momentary intense surprise", then? In any case, the point is that he, like (I believe) many other people who only use Wikipedia as a reference, assumed that all Wikipedia articles had infoboxes, because all articles he had looked at before had had them, so when he saw an article without an infobox he was momentarily intensely surprised. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and the information he was looking for would have been in the infobox if the article had one. I think it was date of birth -- and, yes, he found it in the lede quite quickly, but his first thought was to check the infobox, which wasn't there, making the article just a wee bit less useful to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

BMK, he's lucky enough to benefit from you as his father, if you don't mind me saying; he doesn't need to be dumbed down to by a series of uninteresting and repetitive bullet points. I should point out, however, that I'm not, as stated many, many times before, completely adverse to all infoboxes. Off the top of my head this, this, this, and this spring immediately to mind where I've actively added or modified them as I considered them to do some good. Oh, and then there was this discussion that I took part in, during which I stated that I was all for an infobox, but not a premature one. And well known infoboxer-about-town, and all round good egg, RexxS, will, I'm sure, vouch for me with regards to the occasions I've approached him about which box to use, including the unnessersary (some might say) infobox extension (which I rather liked) on the Church of St Edward the Confessor, Romford article I started a few years ago. Cassianto^Talk 20:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Thank you, that's very nice of you to say, and I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The articles on composers always look a little off to me for not having infoboxes.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The use of infoboxes is optional as the Arbcom case in 2013 established [204] "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." I really hope this long running feud re infoboxes on classical music articles is not going to start up again.Smeat75 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't look like it though, as here we are discussing a film star and the box. ;((( We hope (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Which composers? Beethoven, ibox added by an arbitrator who wrote the infoboxes case, as the community consensus. Bach, Handel, Reger and many more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ritchie, closing a day-old good-faith thread on article talk with a snarky closing comment is not a great look for an involved administrator. It would be better if you provided some helpful advice or insight or overview, rather than closing the thread. I have now restored the new thread opened by Jcc that Cassianto deleted in violation of WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You are worth your weight in gold, Softlavender. The project is very lucky to have you. Have a very merry Christmas and an exceedingly good and fulsome New Year! Cassianto^Talk 23:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Softlavender. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Something that isn't being discussed is that several editors have clearly stated that they basically own the article because they are the so-called "regular" contributors to the article, and that even though they are the minority in these discussion, that their opinion should prevail. Claims of article ownership are serious breaches in Wp etiquette and are very disruptive to consensus building.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, we've seen a lot of that lately. --John (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Aww, that cliche OWN claim, bless. OWN works both ways. Cassianto^Talk 14:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's try truth-I see no one at that TP claiming ownership of the article-only an accusation by the complaining editor. Just so there's no misunderstanding, here are the replies to that: editor editor. Anyone interested can read the rest at the TP and see there are no vine-swinging, chest-thumping claims of ownership. We hope (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely a massive, face-splitting boomerang is due here? Carey Grant’s talk page reads like an excerpt from the Bumper Book of Complete Assholes.

All the ‘Fascinating! Thanks for your comment! LOLZ NOT’ lamery from Cassianto aside, this particular doozie sticks out: In response to the seemingly valid question “why does the minority opinion [remove the infobox] prevail?” Dr Blofeld replies, with worrying authority:

“Because it is the minority of editors who do hard work on here writing the articles which would still be short or bloated unsourced crap if they weren't properly researched. The people who actually write and promote articles should have more say in the formatting of the articles than the people who don't…”

Feels odd to have to point this out, but that’s shite. Minority opinion is minority opinion. It doesn’t matter if article guardian Blofeld spent 25 years writing the whole of Wikipedia solo, and NewbieDave4056 has made fuck all edits. Their opinions are equal, their votes count the same and both have an equal right to edit content on any article.

No idea what the fuss is about having/not having an infobox, or what an infobox even is but it seems a strange thing for grown adults to be wetting themselves about. Why not just have an RFC about it? Actually, why doesn’t this JCC fella just open one himself? Job done, everyone swallow the result and try their best to get on with their lives without topping themselves, if that’s at all possible. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone block Singora above, please. They are evading a block. Cassianto^Talk 14:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Lame. Wouldn't be trying to deflect attention away from an argument you don't like, would you mate? I have no idea who Singora is (and you know it). Still, this sneaky tactic has slightly more edge to it than "LOLZ ROFL CHEERS M8". So, yeah - congrats on the step up. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, grown adults shouldn't need to argue about infoboxes or waste their time trying to enforce them. Just accept articles as they are and focus on writing articles which need to be written, stop focusing on trivialities. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes serve the readers. Supposing that serving the readers is considered to be important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think you speak for "the reader"? Certain infoboxes do no such thing and serve only those wishing to cheat quickly in pub quizzes. Full, factual, and well-written lead sections serve everyone and are the work of someone wishing to serve the reader. Cassianto^Talk 19:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Infoboxes don't seem to add any value to these bios. JAGUAR 20:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole infobox thing has long ceased to be amusing. I predict another ArbCom case in early 2018. --John (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that should be set up as a recurring event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

^{😂 I saw that Bugsy...and make it BYOB. Atsme📞📧 20:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)}

Interesting, Dr. Blofeld: "Just accept articles as they are". Why was the article not left as it was, then, but the infobox removed? I believe that much precious time could have been spent on more article writing, that now went into this same question again and again, by different people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah, there's nothing more precious than an ibox Gerda, way more important than writing articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is it one or the other for you? You found the article like this in 2015. You could have left the infobox as was and expanded the article, which you did for quite a while, and thanks be to you for having done that, and thanks to the others who helped. The removal happened in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• General Note Once again, just by taking a straw poll of the comments here and at the articles previous talk page discussion, there is a clear 2 to 1 majority in favor of restoring the info box. As always, it's the same 5 or 6 editors who continue to push their minority opinion.JOJ ^Hutton 20:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • What a charmer you are. See WP:NOVOTE Cassianto^Talk 20:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that it's always been the same handful of editors pushing for an infobox's addition.[205][206][207] JAGUAR 20:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not a vote, but please tell me what policy or guideline are the majority of editors breaking? Why should the minority opinion be favored over the majority opinion? In addition, it's not always the same number of editors who feel that the article should have an info box. There have been countless editors who have expressed that the article should have an info box. Each new discussion brings in more and more. I only counted the most recent discussion, but if I went back and looked at every single editor over the past year and a half, I would find that it's the same six who do not want an info box, while I would find that dozens of editors have expressed favor for an info box.JOJ ^Hutton 20:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, what makes you think your in the majority? If we were to have a Wikipedia wide vote with regards to Infobox Biography, and what good it does, I think you'll be surprised with the outcome. Secondly, what makes you think Wikipedia is a democracy? It's not. Arguments can settle on the minority side of the arguement, if the scores are too tight to determine a consensus. Cassianto^Talk 21:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem confused. At 20:46 yesterday you pointed out it is not a vote. Now you talk about "a Wikipedia wide vote". It might help you to understand if you clearly think through whether consensus is determined by voting. --John (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The only thing I'm confused about is your erratic behaviour of late. The stalking of my edits, which has brought you here; canvassing for the purposes of scoring points in RfCs; allowing personal grudges to influence rational thought in order to derail an FAC that someone has put a lot of hard work into; intimidating diff collecting... need I go on? Have you considered a break away from all this to collect your thoughts? Cassianto^Talk 20:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like my FAC review. Is consensus determined by voting? --John (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Who did, exactly? You appear to be the only one. I think you need to compare WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOVOTE and work it out for yourself. Cassianto^Talk 06:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Glad we've cleared that up. Yes, you need an actual argument, just signing your name usually isn't enough. --John (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

OPEN UP an RFC

Ya'll should just open an Rfc at the article-in-question. Will it help? don't know. Will it hurt? likely not. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and then when the likes of Jcc and anyone else get bored a few months later, we can hold another one, and then another one, and another...continue ad infinitum. Cassianto^Talk 21:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A 1-year mandatory freeze on another Rfc would settle things. Furthermore, a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on Bios of actors (infoboxes or no infoboxes) would be more ideal. I'm guessing though, many pro-individual article editors would oppose such a move. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

One year is still too close. I think we're closer to discovering a cure for the common cold than we are at solving the infobox dispute. But I admire your attempt at providing a compromise, as opposed to the unfettered bullshit I've seen Jcc, Dingly, and others spirt out.Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Heck, how about a 5 year mandatory freeze. I certainly could go for that. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested a moratorium on the article talk page yesterday. I really think we should go for it- like GoodDay, I'd happily agree to a over two year freeze post-RfC if that's what you wanted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I really think at this point a two-state solution is the only feasible way forward. EEng 22:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Best. Comment. Ever. — JFG ^talk 12:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

We have a de-facto two-state solution. When I write a new article, I add an infobox, and nobody cares. When Dr. Blofeld writes a new article, he may add one or not, and I won't care. How would you solve a problem as the one here: an article that had an infobox for years, which was removed in the process of improvement, declared as an improvement (diffs above)? Do improvements give you the right to undo what others had added long before you? That is the question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like something better suite to ARBCom than RfCs. The last 2 requests for relief on the box problems were tabled by the committee. Someone needs to make a move in that direction and see if they're willing to hear it now. We hope (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It also doesn't take in the process of articles without boxes where someone decides to add it "try ibox". You seem to want the same "rights" to restore boxes that those who either don't want them or want them restored are seeking. We hope (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

When I try an infobox, and say so in the edit summary, and it is reverted, I drop the case without argument. I think that's fair, and doesn't take the community's time. I wasn't reverted often in 2017, - I count eight nine, two of them were restored by others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to try arbcom, you will be asked if all other mediation has been tried. On the talk, we just started to talk about parameters, which is a way forward that I like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

When I first read this, I thought it said, "If you want to try arbcom, you will be asked if all other medication has been tried." Not a bad idea, come to think of it. It's like when someone [208] said, "I really like your comments re uses of lobotomy at ANI." Combined with medication that could do wonders in keeping bad behavior under control project-wide. EEng 06:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any other lasting solution. As it is now, this can go on over and over with others choosing sides and encouraging others to "play on". Arbcom's willingness to consider the problem seems to be the only solution. We hope (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Attrbution: "play on" is short for "no foul, play on", first used by Floquenbeam (then arbitrator) in an edit summary for ARCA regarding infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop the windmill-tilting. What was meant was in the sense of keep going with it. Not "amusing". We hope (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If the Rfc route isn't taken? then try a collapsed infobox, as a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Inclusion of Infobox, Cary Grant

There is a discussion involving the inclusion of an infobox in the Carey Grant article at Talk:Cary_Grant#RFC_on_Inclusion_of_Infobox

For fucks sake, there. Merry Christmas. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain, if an IP is allowed to start RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Me too, but then who cares. I've long since lost interest in this fucking pantomime. Cassianto^Talk 15:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding mine to include the entire project. We hope (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rick-7

Nothing to do here except remind OP that assume good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Rick-7 is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; he "corrects" punctuation errors by creating new ones. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a case of NOTHERE. What makes you think they're malicious? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. Rick-7's edits look like they are made in good faith to me. Reporting someone here in regards to minor grammatical issues without even attempting to speak with them first is really inappropriate. Deli nk (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think administrative intervention is needed so far; I've added a welcome template. Peter James (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Content Dispute (posting with agreement of other party)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Raymond3023 (talk had two content disputes with me, and he has suggested that ANI will be the forum to use as he has stopped any discussion on the Talk pages. The first Issue is that Raymond3023 removed the mention of internsex rights from the page Human rights in India. He then changed the Outgoing links from Racism in India to Terrorism in India and Sexism in India to Transgender rights in Tamil Nadu. I wanted to talk to him about this but he has declined dialogue after some troll-ish comments. The second issue is that he has removed all information from the article Intersex rights in India and placed it in the Hijra article. He doesn't want to discuss this as well even though Hijra dn intersex are not always the exact same thing. Raymond has cautioned me that I will be banned if I continue to edit these articles, so perhaps a few of other editors will be kind enough to take a look at these articles as Raymond is not responding, and I can't edit anymore. Elektricity (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Elektricity and Raymond3023. This noticeboard is not for discussing content disputes and administrators have no special powers to adjudicate content disputes. The proper places to discuss these disagreements are the talk pages of the various articles. If that is not successful, we have various forms of dispute resolution available. All of your discussion should be with the goal of creating consensus in mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: the OP is deceiving, nothing more. How this message can be considered as "agreement of other party" to start content dispute on ANI? Raymond3023 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Raymond3023, what gives? You are saying that you are thinking of openeing an ANI thread, I opened it up for you. Despite you calling me brainless, I try to talk to you with civility, why the attitude? @Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it Raymond has closed the discussion saying that he wishes to discuss no more, I dont think he wants to talk about this issue, and that is the sole reason that I wanted to get other ditors involved. Elektricity (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dog and rapper vandal active range

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal is active again in the range Special:Contributions/2601:43:0:3F09:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a rangeblock? Note that previous rangeblocks on this guy have been lengthy, for instance 1.5 years on Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, and one year for Special:Contributions/172.56.28.0/23 and Special:Contributions/208.54.90.0/24. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Range blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional and copyright violation edits at Parents' Worship Day

• Parents' Worship Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I'd appreciate more eyes on this, as multiple accounts appear to be invested in puffing this up right now. I've also asked for some rev/deletion for copyright violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I tried to do some cleanup on this article. I should have taken a look at the Talk page first. It seems this article was previously merged into Asaram Bapu and that AmSeema just recreated it today. There have already been some contentious edits to this article like diff. Maybe the whole page needs to be put back as a redirect and protected? Klaun (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Saiph121

• Saiph121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Saiph121 has been problematic on several articles. While I believe there may be a CIR issue (language barrier and/or youth), they took umbrage at the suggestion of a language issue.[209] (My suggestion was based on their seemingly not understanding part of WP:CATDEFINING (their apparent feeling that one source saying one element is in the film constitutes reliable sources "commonly and consistently" defining the film that way) and numerous odd word choices and phrasings.)

While various issues have cropped up on several articles, I am focusing mostly on a handful of them in a couple of articles for some semblance of simplicity.

Saiph generally does not use edit summaries and usually ignores requests for clarification, leaving a lot of room for imagination. Are they simply not aware of reasons their edits have been reverted? Do they not understand? Do they disagree? Are they editing while signed out to avoid scrutiny or are they repeatedly forgetting to log in? Did they read and understand the requests to log in?

For reasons unknown, Saiph frequently switches between editing while logged in and logged out. Often, the IP edits restore material Saiph had added after it had been reverted. The reverts typically give no explanation.

Despite numerous requests to follow BRD and explanations of 3RR and EW, Saiph tends to simply restore any reverted changes (sometimes while logged out, usually without explanation of any kind).

Saiph's restores sometimes give an "explanation" that is nothing more than a denial of the edit summary in the revert ("Please stop removing these photos as these two (Ronan and Metcalf) received widespread critical acclaim and should be featured there."[210], "these photos between Ronan and Metcalf is being referred to critical acclaim of their performances"[211], "this award is not invalid."[212], "NOT category overload."[213], "the other version is much better."[214], "repeating the same reason being mentioned."[215], "the original categories that were listed earlier are Not considered as a laundry list."[216], "still removing spoiler stuff."[217], etc.)

Saiph seems to prefer detailed lists of characteristics. Their repeated additions/restores of various disputed categories lead, at my suggestion, to them taking the question to DRN (with rather ominous notifications on our talk pages[218]). Dissatisfied with the first outcome, they tried round two at DRN. Both times, DRN found that there wasn't a dispute, rather Saiph disagreed with the clear consensus. They also received a caution to not use DRN "to push [their] point of view" [219] and a warning of a possible topic ban from DRN if they continued opening frivolous cases.[220]

With these edits and these (including their edits as 49.147.11.70) they have now:

• restored Category:Witchcraft in film against a clear consensus against its inclusion. They were included in several different discussions that formed the consensus against it.
• restored parent categories (e.g., films set in Paris and films set in France). Given their obsession with adding as many categories to film articles as possible, I guess this isn't surprising. They may or may not be aware of and/or understand the concept of parent categories, I don't know. I rather doubt discussion on their talk page would be anything other than a monologue with no change in behavior.
• repeatedly restored a repeatedly removed trivial pseudo-award, despite numerous warnings/discussions on their talk page regarding their tendency to ignore WP:BRD and instead edit war to restore their preferred version.
• removed apparently relevant material without explanation (Disney and BMW's co-marketing deal).
• restored a repeatedly removed unsourced claim (regarding "Belle's Tales of Friendship").
• gave very little in the way of explanation for their restoring the disputed material.

Attempts to discuss/resolve

• Edit summaries please: [221], [222], [223]
• EW/3RR warnings, please BRD: [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233]
• Please log in: [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239]
• Too many categories/genres/adjectives: [240], [241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265]
• POV/NOR: [266], [267], [268], [269], [270] - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)