Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Sockpuppetry by JayJasper

Based on suspicious accounts editing at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 I performed a CheckUser and came across a number of accounts which were being operated across a number of different IP addresses and useragents. CheckUser and a behavioural investigation indicated that User:JayJasper, a user with around 47000 edits, had been operating these accounts. After performing my own investigation I asked User:Bbb23 to do an independent check, and his results confirmed my own. The following accounts are CheckUser  Confirmed as being used by JayJasper (talk · contribs):

• BrightonC (talk · contribs)
• Cojovo (talk · contribs)
• CPguy (talk · contribs)
• Ddcm8991 (talk · contribs)

• Dwc89 (talk · contribs)
• Earlgrey T (talk · contribs)
• Feel da J (talk · contribs)
• Hm838 (talk · contribs)

• Miss Cherry Redd (talk · contribs)
• Newbreeder (talk · contribs)
• NextUSprez (talk · contribs)

• Rollins83 (talk · contribs)
• Romandave (talk · contribs)
• The Anti-Censor (talk · contribs)

These accounts have edited topics related to contemporary US politics, particularly regarding the US election, some of them over a number of years (the oldest account was created more than 6 years ago). The deceitfulness and avoidance of scrutiny from JayJasper is highly disruptive and contrary to the nature of the project. Some of the accounts listed below were used as vandalism only accounts and therefore used with the intention of disrupting the project, other have been used for good-hand/bad-hand editing. It is extremely likely, given that the sock puppetry from JayJasper has occurred over a number of years, that there are a large number of accounts which have not been used recently and so were not detected by Bbb23's and my investigation.

As a brief clarification, I am acting here as a CheckUser not as an arbitrator and I haven't discussed this matter with the Arbitration Committee.

Due to the long-term and insidious use of other accounts I have blocked JayJasper indefinitely. I've decided to make this a normal administrative block (as opposed to a checkuser block) so if the community decides here to modify it an admin wouldn't need to go through the CheckUser team.

On behalf of Bbb23 and I, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Predident [sic] Trump is going to build a wall to keep sockpuppets like this out. EEng 04:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And Mexico is going to pay for it?Humour aside, I must commend Callanecc and Bbb23's efforts here. I say go straight for an indefinite site ban. Blackmane (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you'll add waterboarding then I'm on board. EEng 06:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• JayJasper is a great editor. I find these allegations very hard to believe. Nevertheless, even if they are true, the indefinite block should be decreased so that Jay can continue making great edits as the US election draws closer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hell, no. This is inexcusable behavior, giving the finger to the entire community behind its back for years. No number of "great edits" can counterweigh this. Goodbye forever, JJ, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. EEng 07:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See the reference to good hand/bad hand above. In cases like these there will always be a 'good editor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's seriously some heavy-duty gaming going on. If there's a site ban proposed, I support it fully. Also, great work investigating and confirming this by the CU's. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree with all 3 above me (RickinBaltimore, Only in death, EEng). There's no excuse for this sort of extreme sockpuppetry, and I'd be reluctant to let the editor return to editing after just a year away and definitely not within the next month and a bit. I don't recognise JayJasper or any of the socks by name so this has nothing to do with that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If he still wants to edit three years from now, he can make a case then. Not one month, not one year. EEng 19:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See [1]. User:Cojovo says he is the real master and that JayJasper and some of the other accounts are innocent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As with most socks, his statement lacks any kind of credibility. For example, he lists all of his socks. Yet, some of those accounts were created before he was, meaning he couldn't be the master. Moreover, assuming the comments are actually coming from JayJasper (the person), it's a great strategy. Acknowledge a bunch of accounts so you look honest but with the goal of being unblocked to continue editing (and socking). Cojovo noted only one non-stale account, I.C. Rivers (talk · contribs · count), which I've blocked as  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also blocked the other accounts that Cojovo admitted to as suspected socks, although a couple of them didn't exist. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Could it be possible that the analysis was wrong? In other words, how clear cut is this? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As open-and-shut as it gets.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that an editor who edits as frequently as JayJasper would suddenly stop editing without so much as a complaint on his talk page if he didn't know the jig was up. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cojovo has left more comments. See [2]. Based on the IP data available is this a plausible explanation?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• It should be noted that as of 22:14, September 27, 2016‎ User:JayJasper has requested review of the block. While User:Callanecc decided not to mark the block as a checkuser block to allow the community to consider it here, the basis for the unblock request is a challenge to the checkuser data, which would be hard, or impossible for us to properly review here due to the confidentiality of checkuser information. Review of the determination that socking occurred should be left to the Checkusers, and eventually Arbcom. Given the substantial contributions of JayJasper, I hope such review occurs promptly. Monty₈₄₅ 23:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't find Jay's explanation convincing at all, but I've flagged it for another CheckUser to take a look at. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

He's actually been here a lot longer than you. I think he should at least be given the benefit of the doubt.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There still isn't any doubt for me, and I imagine Bbb23 still agrees. That said, there's nothing stopping the community giving unblocking him or giving him the standard offer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A few additional comments. I would have CheckUser-blocked JayJasper. The technical evidence was matched and cross-matched many times over. The behavioral evidence was strong, and not just in the political topic area but in other subject areas that JayJasper has an interest in. I would not unblock JayJasper after any period of time, six months or longer, without a complete acknowledgment of his socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per the unblock request, and the CU request by Callanecc, I ran some checks. The technical evidence of sockpuppetry is unequivocal. In particular, the edits from one apparently static IP address leave no doubt whatsoever that JasperJay has been engaging in the behavior that Callanecc and Bbb23 described above. In recent weeks, JasperJay has edited from this IP address within minutes of The Anti-Censor, Feel da J, NextUSprez, and Ddcm8991. Evidence from other ranges is also unambiguous. I would also recommend converting this to a checkuser block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Given we've now got confirmation from 3 CheckUsers that JayJasper has been extensively socking, I guess the only question is: Is the community sufficiently satisfied that the block should be converted to a CU block? Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel this is needed, no standard offer sadly though. I understand some editors here are in disbelief, it reminds me a bit of Henry Plummer in this case as well the cat was let out of the bag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane and Knowledgekid87: Another option might be that the community converts this to a site ban with a way back as has been proposed below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me, this would increase the time needed to come back. I want this to be a learnable offense though, if the punishment is too severe (multiple years) then what is the point in having a time limit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• He just admitted to the sockpuppetry on his talk page. However, he says that Miss Cherry Redd (talk · contribs) and BrightonC (talk · contribs) are other people that he knows.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just looking at behavioral evidence, I don't find that assertion believable. I have a feeling the checkusers will agree based on technical data. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's remotely possible for Miss Cherry Redd but I doubt it, I very very strongly doubt BrightonC. The behavioural evidence makes it very unlikely and the technical evidence supports that conclusion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I feel this can be closed now as there is nothing more to discuss, someone should inform Jay of the community decision below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer or Clean start

Statement from JayJasper. Copied by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, here I am with my hands up acknowledging - with great remorse and regret - that the sockpupetting allegations against me are indeed true. I first want to offer my deepest apologies to the entire community for these grievous actions, which are entirely indefensible and contrary to the standards of the Wikipedia community of which I have been privileged to have been a part of for nearly a full decade. I apologize also for my desperately lame attempts to initially deny these allegations in the face of crystal-clear evidence. There are no excuses or any justification whatsoever for these actions, for which I take full and complete responsibility for. I perfectly understand if any of the editors who I have frequently interacted with over are angry and/or deeply disappointed with my actions. I would certainly have similar feelings if I were in their position. If I can be given the opportunity to earn back the community's trust and goodwill, you can take it to the bank that I will work diligently and enthusiastically to do so. Although my behavior-in-question could never be explained away, and that there are zero - maybe even negative - legitmate reasons that could be given for it, I would nevertheless like to give a bit of insight as to how it came about. Around 7 years ago, I for some reason felt a need to "experiment" by editing in other personas. I found that it seemed to stimulate creativity and and a sense of "freedom" to edit from the vantagepoint of "someone else". Crazy, huh? Despite having been a Wikipedian long enough at that point to know better, I naively thought it would be just a short-term thing that wouldn't do any harm. Well, it just seemed to get easier and easier to do, and I guess it became somewhat (for lack of a better word) addictive. I started rationalizing to myself that editing through the multiple accounts was actually beneficial to Wikipedia because doing so actually enhanced my editing skills. I now know what a load of malarky that was, and that there are no justifications for stealth sockpuppeting and that single-editor focused editing is truly what works best. I can't tell you how badly I wish I had the good sense back then to "experiment" in a manner compliant with WP:SOCK#LEGIT, with full transparency. Alas, I did not, and...here I am. The great irony to all of this is that, just a few weeks before being "caught", the reality of just how absurdly out-control the sock accounts had become was beginning - in a big way - to set in. I then made myself a resolution that within a period of six months I would have all the socks "phased out" once and for all (I had reasoned that if I dropped them all "cold turkey" it might become obvious and look suspicious that these multiple editors all stopped at about the same time. Then, just two or three weeks later - boom! Like I said, irony.  I tell you this not to garner any sympathy or persuade you to in any way let me "off the hook". I just want give some perspective, and let you know that while that while my judgement in this whole matter was obviously piss-poor, my intentions and motivations were never in any way of ill will, nor intended to disrespect or spite the WP community. I know that does not make it right, or even more tolerable. I fully acknowledge the harm my thoughtless actions have done, and I regret it deeply. Nevertheless, I want everyone to know that I truly do respect the community despite having engaged in actions that do not comport with that sentiment. Oh, about those handful of good sock/bad sock edits, including the one that led to the "reveal": They came about as a result of a prankish work associate who thought it would be a real hoot to give me some vandalism to chase after while I was editing from an office computer, and he was logged in on another (which has a different IP address from the one I was using, but I had made edits from both, so...). Now, I know this may sound like "a likely story" and that I'm trying to deflect responsibility from myself, but that is in no way the case. Although I didn't initiate these edits, I knew what was taking place and could have - and should have - made a staunch effort to prevent it from happening, but failed to do so. I therefore have complicity in, and bear full responsibility for, them. I just want it to be known that this sort of thing is not something I would initiate or do "for jollies" at Wikipedia's expense. Nor is it something I would ever allow to happen again, should I have the good fortune of being granted a second chance of being an active member of the Wikipedia community again. I would also like to note that I never personally edited under the usernames "Miss Cherry Redd" or "BrightonC". They are (well, were) the legitimate accounts of two people I know personally who started edited WP with my encouragement. Both edited from computers that were shared with me at home or work. Among the many regrets I have over this whole episode is they have lost their accounts as a result of my utter stupidity. If and when I am granted a second chance by the community, I will remember to utilize Template:User shared IP address on any and all applicable accounts. Having acknowledged my transgressions, I steadfastly vow to learn from, and never repeat, them. Having done so, I humbly and respectfully ask the community to extend to me the WP standard offer, or some variation of it. Knowing that some of you understandably have misgivings about doing so, let it be known that I am open to having editing privileges under probationary measures of some kind. Such measures would be prudent and more than fair. I am also open to any suggestions and feedback you may have concerning actions I might take to better my chances of having editing privileges restored. Given the opportunity to make a WP:Clean start, I could begin anew with a new account that is unstained by the legacy of sockpuppetry that brought about this whole unfortunate episode, but that continues the positive legacy of the JayJasper account. Please note that this positive legacy encompasses nearly a decade of constructive work that has benefitted the project: creating, improving, and cleaning up articles; constructive participation in talk page discussions and Wikiprojects; adding relevant content and reliable sources to articles, etc. While I know that my many positive contributions do not erase or excuse the harm done by my despicably poor choices in editing methods, I would like to believe that a decade of positive, productive contributions that have benefitted the readers of Wikipedia (and aren't they who WP exists for, and to whom the project has it first and foremost responsibility?) must count for something, and carry heavy weight at that. Whatever your decision, I thank you for your careful considerationm--JayJasper (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

---

I will at least honor Jay's request for a community decision regarding a standard offer, or clean start after x time. Given how many socks though I do not feel that an "im sorry" is enough as trust is like at 0 for this editor. So I ask the community to state your input here on the matter... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'll repeat: this is about the worst thing an editor can do. I say a five-year absence at the minimum, but I'll settle for three. I'm not kidding. EEng 02:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. The long statement now inserted above doesn't change my opinion. Actions have consequences.
• Just for the record I think that 6-8 months or one year at least is in order, if we are talking about multiple years it might as well be a site ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I support a site ban, and the standard offer possibly extended plus 2 or so months. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I find the above statement by JayJasper disingenuous in the context of this unblock request made a mere three days ago where they try and argue that they have not been socking. Instead this shows to me a calculated and willful attempt to further deceive the community and operate outside our policies and guidelines. There are literally thousands of edits between the accounts and the sophistication to run such a operation took time and planning. It will take the community possibly weeks or months to even assess how much damage through forced influence and consensus these accounts have had on a wide array of topics. I think a standard offer could be applied with heavy restrictions on editing topics relating to US politics as well as endorsing this as a CU block. Mkdw^talk 03:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• To paraphrase "Well dang it, you caught me finally. Good job there, but I wasn't really all that bad. Honest!" Yes, you were, JayJasper. Deception after deception, even after the initial block. Your actions after that eroded more faith and trust than your socking before. At LEAST a year and even then it's not with a new account. I would not support a clean start for someone with such dirty hands. Ravensfire (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• I would support the standard offer. Realistically, an editor capable of running socks undetected for so long, with non-fringe interests, will be able to create a new account in 6-12 months and blend back into the community, regardless of whether we extend the standard offer or not. I feel it would serve the community better to have the transparency that will occur through the standard offer. This is not intended to diminish the severity of the breach of trust that occurred, but to take a pragmatic approach moving forward, providing a path to return to editing that doesn't involve violating more rules and policies. Monty₈₄₅ 04:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• No sockmaster has ever been, can ever be, granted the privilege of a clean start. It's even stated in the first section of the WP:CLEANSTART policy, Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here); or is being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct; or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start. That they have come clean counts in their favour. Furthermore, in the very first paragraph of the policy page, he new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. That JayJasper wants a clean start after some period is a fundamental misunderstanding of that policy. 612 month ban not appealable for that duration, then standard offer after that. Blackmane (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I had been mulling this over and was writing up a revision to my original proposal of a 6 month ban but forgot to save the edit. I agree with Ad Orientem that a 6 month ban is really not enough for the level of socking seen here. Hence I've also revised my support for a 12 month ban with no appeal instead of 6. Blackmane (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• I support a siteban with the option to ask for the standard offer after 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support standard offer for the sole reason that it's the standard offer. It's not a gift to be given out or taken away, it's an acknowledgement that people can acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them, and when they do it makes us better as a community. I don't believe even one slightest bit that JayJasper has really acknowledged the damage they've done, that their deliberate and ongoing violation of trust is the biggest of deals in a community built on consensus and collaboration. It's evident in the number of editors in the section above leaping to their defense, saying it can't possibly be true, that there must be some mistake. How long will it take JayJasper to really recognize the damage that their actions have done to that trust? I don't see it in this statement here at all. And they should definitely not have a clean start account, that's not learning from your mistakes, that's hiding them, and they've hidden this long enough. I support six months, because that's the standard offer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban, no clean start, standard offer after 6 months. Keri (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think that when or if this user can come back that their "pending changes reviewer" status should be revoked: [3]. Based on the severity of the socking I do not think that this user should be trusted with anything upon return. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block w/ Possibility of Standard Offer but only after twelve months, not six. The offense is too egregious for a six month break. And to be clear, if there is any repetition I will support a CBAN. Oppose clean start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block & Standard offer but oppose a clean start. Also Support revocation of Pending Changes Reviewer status. Mainly due to the length and severity of the socking, and the blatant attempt at deceiving the community. I feel as though if he gets a clean start we will be right back here with the same issues. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block for 12 months, then the standard offer after that time. JayJasper realized what he did was wrong, which is good, however the deed was still done. A 12 month block is needed for the actions taken, after which time I agree with the standard offer. In that same regard, if there is ANY sign he socked at all during this 12 months or after, then I support a full siteban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support standard offer. JayJasper has been a net-benefit to the encyclopedia for the past 10 years.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor spamming Talk pages with invitations to join an "Association"

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

---

Editor TheStrayDog has begun posting invitations, apparently randomly, on the Talk pages of other editors to become members of the "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia (AWWDCCW)", an organization which TheStrayDog has apparently just created. This seems to me like a misuse of WMF facilities for activities not directly related to the project, but that may just be me. Posting here for consideration and discussion by other editors and admins. General Ization ^Talk 15:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Is he just pinging randos, or is there some rhyme or reason to the people he's pinging? If it's the latter, I don't see why he can't keep doing it. Also, have you talked to him enough to know if it's the former or latter, @General Ization:? I think you may have been too quick to take this to ANI. pbp 15:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: hello dear! I didn't know about that rule . I will stop it right now also so sorry for this fault .thanks for mentioning me. best wishes. The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I haven't talked with him or her about it; some of us are actually supposed to be working during the working day. It may be perfectly fine; I simply thought some other eyes should take a look at this before he or she got too far into the effort. General Ization ^Talk 15:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Hello again! I was wonder to ask if it's illegal to ask users to join ? asking is not illegal I thought? but if you talking about a massive invitation I think may be ! can you tell me more or send me the exact rule? tell me more.The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: Being unsure if your activity is appropriate, I brought the question here for discussion. I will point out that WP:TALK contains these statements of policy: "[T]he purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." Perhaps you could explain how you feel your messages and/or the association you have created will improve the encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As a point of information, the Talk page messages are being posted using a newly created template at Template:Join AWWDCCW. General Ization ^Talk 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Yes. not a social network but I didn't say happy birthday to users or didn't poke them or invite them to a cafe! I know you are an American an I am an Iranian our politics are not on the right way but we are people and must be human and don't judge as a politician. It seems you are republican and hates Iranians no? want to make a frame-up against me to stop my peaceful stuff . but i don't think so . so amuse as a good faith and don't have any complaint against you [kidding]. happy editing. The Stray Dog Talk Page 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no, I am neither a Republican (not that that is at all relevant or any of your business) nor hate Iranians, and I suspect that you are not improving your standing here by making such statements, even in jest. Could you respond to my suggestion above? General Ization ^Talk 17:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he meant a small-r republican. EEng 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

One of the candidates takes the podium – EEng

Well, yes, I suppose I would be resistant to the return of a monarchy in the United States. Will be watching tonight's debate with keen interest. General Ization ^Talk 19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What the hell does him being American and you being Iranian have to do with anything? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Is that you 74? Its great to see you back! I have no idea what this conversation is about but I thought I would just say hi! I remember you fondly for helping me many moons ago when I just started in this err place. Simon.Irondome (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think there's something to look at here. Not suggesting that TheStrayDog is not here or either WP:NOTNOTHERE; but a couple of things are slightly bothersome. The user was blocked by Someguy1221, for many reasons (disruptive editing, including edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, making false accusations, and removal of valid maintenance tags); ten days later, they suggest it was an 'unintentional' block. A read of the archives shows they have been warned of this behaviour time and time again; and as for the political remarks above, a glance at a previous user page] suggests they are not versed in our guidelines in polemical pages. This shows they have been previously advised as to webhost policy, which is under discussion currently. Replies such as this and this do not inspire confidence that they are actually listening to what other editors are saying; combined with a TP still full of warnings, little enough seems to be changing to suggest that even if there is no intentional disruption, WP:CIR might apply. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I second this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So dear fellows! I'm here right now and want to say Peace and do not mess with each other for some typical reasons. We are all human, who after this election that which seems will make trump as president of US (because Hillary got a cold), we all going to judgment day and then maybe heaven (I mean after WWIII). get ready for heaven (or hell if you are devil as much as that T-Guy) [laughing and waiting for that debate on BBC Persian]. The Stray Dog Talk Page 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that TheStrayDog; I guess I could probably redux my suggestion to CIR then. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, allow me to expand my request for consideration by pointing out that the editor seems thus far to be either unwilling or unable to explain how this activity benefits the project. General Ization ^Talk 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So I wanna say I stopped it for a long time as @General Ization: said it that can be illegal. close the discussion please . if you want. thanks anyway. and be on Peace. bye.The Stray Dog Talk Page 20:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: Please expand further on that. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Expand? ok, i said that i didn't know that rule which may ban me to invite people to an association. also there is a lot of templates that work like that and i thought it's not illegal. if it's not legal, ok, i stopped for a long time ago and don't want to bother people here. bye The Stray Dog Talk Page 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This invitation you posted not even a half an hour ago doesn't support your claim that you have stopped. General Ization ^Talk 15:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) On looking at the page they are linking people to, I think a bigger problem is not the spamming ("random" is essentially impossible to prove, and AGF prevents us from forcing the criterion out of him) but the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude assumed on the page. The sentence "This association is for those who believe that Wikipedia should [...] not [be] a place just for promote a race, religion, language, country, belief and/or an ethnicity" very clearly indicates that the author believes there is a substantial number of people on the project who think Wikipedia should be a place to promote this, that and the other. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I am not sure if someone who thinks this way about the project and its members should be editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Realized immediately after clicking "save changes": Note that I am not saying there aren't a lot of editors who probably do think Wikipedia is for promoting a religion. There certainly are, and probably those who hold to the other jingoistic, nativist, racist views listed, too. But I am not trying to create an "association" for people on "my side" to fight back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you just look at the totality of his edits since coming off his block, there's not much to inspire confidence. He's come down from his overaggressive attitude and edit warring, sure, but mostly it's just adding redundant information to articles, adding unsourced content to articles, making unsourced assertions on talk pages, and engaging in one really trivial content dispute. The almost complete lack of edit summaries is unhelpful, and the condescending way he refers to other editors "my dear" is just annoying. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the overall issues, and I do not mean to imply a position one way or the other. But about the "my dear" thing, I know several Iranian Americans, and the use of the phrase is very common among them. It kinda loses something in translation, but I'd be inclined to AGF about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Of course it's probably a Farsiism and Iranian editors with less-than-native command of English will make such mistakes, and of course we should assume good faith the first time, but now that he has been asked to stop, has claimed he understands what he is doing wrong, and has then continued to do so anyway, we should begin to ask whether this is the kind of good-faith mistake we can continue to allow. English Wikipedia editors need to be able to communicate with each other in English, and editors with low levels of English should be at least capable of understanding when they are told that their English is in error and comes across as arrogant to most native speakers. TheStrayDog claimed below that he understood, but somehow has continued to do so nevertheless. If he kept to himself and only made minor edits, and behaved more humbly when criticized, then maybe this would be acceptable, but aggressively defending his actions with multiple explanation marks and insulting his critics ("you are wasting your time") is not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I hope that I already made clear, I was commenting only about the phrase (because it had just been brought up as "condescending" and "just annoying"), that's all. I'm not implying anything else about this situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I accepted my faults above, in my first respond and an admin closed the discussion for once. Also I have stopped for more than a day. please close the discussion , as you wish. it will be nice of you . thanks anyway. The Stray Dog Talk Page 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning indef-block. Clearly he hasn't learned anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Hijiri, That question was real and it's a misunderstanding. i do not try to mess with you . I try to be good with you and have a good humor. but you are trying to sentence me. im talking about peace and i accepted my faults and trying to be good but whats wrong with you ??? seeking a way for blocking me???. you ar seeking even from my further actions to find something for convicting and bollocking me??!!! you are an editor, you are wasting your time for this simple situation. im so sorry for us. The Stray Dog Talk Page 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I am not "seeking a way" to get you blocked. I am beginning to think more and more that your being blocked might be the best way for the community to deal with a problem it is having. The problem is your constantly annoying other editors by trying to engage them in conversation about topics that have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. You have said several times that you understand what you did wrong, but at the same time as claiming to understand you keep doing the same things. By accusing me of "seeking" to block you, you are continuing in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour I called you out for above. And since being called out for use of "dear" you have called me thus no less than twice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I don't call you dear anymore, pay attention that admins may judge your behaviors and your claims here, im so here and i had/have significant edits here and will have too. you are wasting your time, and its you which are not here to build an encyclopedia you are here to ban/block active users for some special reasons. for example likely you may oppose to our Association or me who am an inclusinist(maybe you're a deletionist) . also you have blocked too and you are not eligible to say users are here or not. this is an encyclopedia and we don't want to waste our time with sentencing other users for saying Dear and having Good Humor. i called you dear and you are convicting me for just calling you dear ? really ?? and then you are claiming im not here??. look at your behavior then judge who is not here, me and you?.The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour ("you may oppose to our Association"), insulting other users, impugning their good faith, proclaiming them to be WP:NOTHERE without any evidence, threatening them with needless boomerangs solely for reading a thread on ANI and responding to it, WP:IDHT behaviour (being called out here for calling people "dear", claiming you understand what you did wrong, continuing to call people "dear", being called out again, and then aggressively defending oneself as having "good humour") and trawling through their edit histories and block logs to find "dirt" to throw in their faces ... TheStrayDog, you're really not making yourself look any better with these edits, and are making me believe more and more strongly that the best solution is for you to leave the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That's looking more and more like the best option. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: close the discussion please . as you closed first time once after my acceptance of my fault . for third time I want to say to assure you I accepted and understood my fault (adding that template) and I stopped it at the time and don't want to waste other users' time and make problem here . I'm calling peace and I'm here to build and encyclopedia. also i will fix my errors as soon as possible . If i didn't please note me at my talk page . thank you so much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We're past the point where it'd be right for me to do that. @Hijirl88: I think indef block is overly excessive. pbp 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that when I say "indef" I don't mean "permanent". Blocks are preventative, and blocking someone who was annoying other users until this was brought to ANI, and then claimed they understood what was wrong and kept doing it anyway, and then someone else said they should be blocked, and then they said they understood what was wrong and would stop and kept doing it anyway is actually a pretty reasonable move. If they indicate that they genuinely understand what they were doing wrong and will do their utmost to change, they can be unblocked. "overly excessive" implies some kind of blocking-as-punishment ideology under which the "punishment" should fit the "crime". But this is just a user making other users' editing experience less enjoyable apparently through some kind of competence problem; no "crime" and no "punishment". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note that TheStrayDog has essentially only been editing English Wikipedia for four months (they made 29 edits before that, all of them minor). Since then, they have been blocked once for 48 hours for "edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, making false accusations, and removal of valid maintenance tags", and in that time appealed their block twice, both times being rejected because their appeal did not indicate that they understood why they had been blocked; then, after the second appeal was rejected, they claimed that the block had been "punishment". Is this user really understanding why their edits are inappropriate? Are they likely to listen to what others are telling them if they are not blocked? Will they even listen to what others are telling them if they are blocked? Those article edits that aren't some form of POV-pushing or edit-warring all appear to be minor, gnomish maintenance edits -- are these edits really worth the drain on the community's energy this user is causing? (Normally I don't trawl through other editors' edit histories and block logs, but when they do this to me for no apparent reason, I feel it's fair game.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment With every post, stray digs his hole deeper and deeper. I'd also like to point out his terrible grammar and remind everyone of WP:CIR. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Since when have anonymous accounts had any status when it comes to criticizing the grammar or hole digging abilities of others? Nothing specific regarding infringement of Wikipedia rules has been presented. There are lots of silly templates out there, with editors claiming to belong to this and that group (sometimes for valid content editing, sometimes just to be humorous). TheStrayDog has said he will not be posting the messages anymore, so that should be the end of it. TheStrayDog - I think you should not post anything more in this thread; you have said enough to explain your case and anything more risks manipulation by others. Oh, and maybe also stop posting welcome messages on new editors' talk pages - the people who do that sort of thing are generally wanabe administrators who think they can attain that position in 3 months (alas, in the past some actually did) by ticking the right boxes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: TheStrayDog is clearly engaged in battleground behaviour and doesn't seem interested in being civil. They also have repeatedly claimed they have read and understood the complaints the rest of us are making, and then continued engaging in the same behaviour -- either they are lying, or they are incapable of working with others constructively. All of this unambiguous violation of policy, on top of behaving like a dick to me with the trawling through my edit history in an attempt to dig up dirt on me -- the last time I was blocked that wasn't based on a technicality that was quickly overruled when I indicated that I understood what I had done wrong was a year ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if you think 74.70.146.1 is engaged in some kind of sockpuppetry, block-evasion, or otherwise problematic behaviour, the burden is on you to demonstrate it; otherwise, he/she is just one more editor expressing their opinion here. (Note that I am not prejudiced against the idea that 74.70.146.1 is in fact engaged in some kind of content dispute with TheStrayDog and is acting accordingly in an attempt to force the latter off the project; I am just not prejudiced in favour of such an idea either. What I am prejudiced against is the idea that the opinion of someone who doesn't have an account or isn't logged into it at the moment is less valuable than that of someone who registered an account in 2013 or 2014. As far as I am concerned, both you and TSD are definitely newbies when compared to me, while I have no idea how long 74.70.146.1 has been editing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

On and off since 2006, just never bothered to create an account. And no, I have no beef with stray. I was just reading ANI for lulz, came across this posting and looked more into it. I care about the project and think stray is bad for it; simple as that. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Observation from an admin - There does seem to credibility (and consensus) that WP:CIR is in play, and the diffs seem to support this conclusion, as does a random sampling of diffs and the "association" itself. I see a lot of other odd editing that again supports the consensus here. [4], [5] seem to be a waste of time for the community, and that is what is at stake, the wasting of the communities time. To be clear: unsolicited advertising is disruptive, evidenced by the fact that we are here, and previous experience. I almost closed with an indef block, but I'm open to hear why I shouldn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Any scope for mentoring Dennis Brown Dennis? What do the others think? It depends just how far gone the situation is. Still a net plus, salvagable or a drain? Any evidence that the user has positively helped the project? Irondome (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I will leave that for the community to decide, I can't really vote and close, and no other admin has come into the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Editors that go around placing unsolicited warnings are much more disruptive, imo, than the occasional unsolicited spam. When is something going to be done about them? With TheStrayDog and his welcome messages. and "association", and creation of pointless categories and so on, I just see someone probably reading and acting on a chapter in the unwritten "How to become a Wikipedia Administrator in 6 months of editing" guidebook. Maybe the incompetence is in that editor's execution of its advice. Taking the unabashed box ticking route to administratorship (aka "The Wikicology Way"), the margin between complete success and complete failure, becoming an administrator or being indefinitely blocked during the process of trying, seems wafer thin for the 6 month express method. Steady-as-you-go box ticking, however, has much better results. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but you seem to be the only one making the (unsupported) claim that he is attempting to fast track to adminship, which only relates to his motives, not his actions. CIR is at its roots, consistent disruption done in good faith because the person lacks the ability to understand what they are doing wrong. That seems to be the main theme and it IS supported by diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

They didn't get rid of that 'unintentional block' userbox either. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Any disruption seems very storm-in-a-teacup stuff - assorted "odd edits" (as you called them), barely registering as disruption at all, the occasional cultural misunderstanding, like calling someone "my dear" (oh the horror!). For that, indefinitely blocked? Really? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So you are offering to mentor him then? It isn't enough to complain about the solution, you have to have a better solution of your own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want I could. However, it is not something I have done before. My ongoing advice to him would be mostly talk page related, keeping an eye on those, advising that, basically, don't post anything unless it is necessary for legitimate content generation reasons, and also reminding him to give edit summaries (he often doesn't) and use article talk pages more. I'd also suggest he cuts down on all those very non-evidence based userboxes that are on his user page (again this looks like wannabe-administrator tickboxing to me). Future content issues he might be involved in might be very specialized so I would be recommending him getting wider advice, such as RfCs, if content conflicts arise - (I doubt that his assertion that "Iranian-American" is an actual nationality will stand up to scrutiny [6]). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Then by all means, get him to agree here and I'm willing to take a chance. Mentoring isn't that hard, it is just giving tips along the way, but it requires him agreeing to LISTEN to you. Otherwise, I don't see a lot of choice, and frankly I don't have a lot of faith it would work but blocks are cheap, so I'm willing to give it a try. I think 3 months of mentoring would tell us, again, if he says he agrees to listen, and says so HERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging TheStrayDog for his comment on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: hello again! dear Dennis Brown and dear other users! I said all the time that I am not prefect so I didn't claim I'm a professional editor and/or a veteran. I just want to be a good citizen in this society, I really try to be. but some users behave me like a foreigner here, no patience, no help, no guide, no assume as a good faith. at the first time my username was AmirMuhammad1 which is an Islamic name I changed it just because I felt some users are judging me based on religion and race. so I established that association to decrease this actions (for example one user called me as Farsisim which is a fascist title, so after that I put my religion and ethnic templates out of my user page. I think with these kinda insults nobody could be good here). being together as a human being, that is all I want. I had/have some errors like some any other user and also some good or bad edits. I sometimes accepted my faults like that ping I told above. I try to listen, want to, and I am here to listen because this is a society and I believe it too much. thanks The Stray Dog Talk Page 23:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Great, TheStrayDog, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Tiptoethrutheminefield has offered to mentor you, to work with you and teach you. This is to keep me from having to block you. This means you need to pay attention to what he is saying, he is here to help you. It boils down to either you say yes and accept mentoring, or you are likely to be blocked. Do you accept this? Can you slow down and LISTEN more, talk less, and let Tiptoethrutheminefield help you? This means that before you do something where there is a risk of a problem, you go ask his opinion first. He will watch and may revert you but will explain why. I'm looking for you to say yes or no here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks dear @Dennis Brown: absolutely the answer is "yes" as i said I'm here to listen cuz this is a society and nobody's here to fight. The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

TheStrayDog. Greetings. You say above "No help, no guide". Mentoring is help and guidance. It is being offered to you by a colleague. Please read this fully. Wikipedia:Mentorship. It explains what mentorship is and how it can be applied. I would suggest the community allows TheStrayDog time to fully read and understand the link I have given. I would suggest 24 hours. Will you read this and come back to this thread tomorrow at about this time? This will clarify your understanding of a Wikipedia essay to the community. If you are happy with the idea of mentorship, please indicate this when you have read this. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: Thanks, yes, I'm ok with the mentorship. but I forgot to say if its possible for you change the mentor user, please get me another mentor. only because he have blocked more than 7 times and his user/talk page is so messy, even more than me. I can't understand how he can teach me something he couldn't do!? thanks. The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case I will mentor you. I have mentored five colleagues, several with community assent. All are still with the project. One is under a well-deserved 1 month block. A mentor can only do so much after the mentoring is over. TTTTMF is a good person, but you have some latitude in choice. I am formally offering you mentorship, with the permission of the community. We will discuss the terms on my Talkpage when I have analysed your problems fully. I would ask you kindly not to edit for 48 hours on articles while we discuss mentorship. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: Thanks, understood. I'm reading Wikipedia:Mentorship right now! I will be waiting for you! happy editing dear Simon! The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Your first task is to fully read the essay Wikipedia:Mentorship.Please clearly indicate your acceptance here. It is vital you read the linked essay I have given you as your first task. Please watchlist my talkpage as I will be discussing the terms of your mentorship there. Please do not edit articles for 48 hours while we clarify arrangements. I need you to agree to that urgently, as you are in a hole and must stop digging now till you learn to dig professionally. Dennis Brown Dennis, how does this sound to you? Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• • Sounds like you know what you are doing to me. Tiptoethrutheminefield has volunteered to mentor, but if you want to assist, that would be good. I agree with the direction you are taking, I'm happy to hand off here. I don't want to have to block someone, but something has to change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • Roger that Dennis Dennis Brown. A quick word to you mentoree TheStrayDog. Do NOT drag other colleagues past issues up in such a discussion as this. I will teach you how to be more gentle and to think of the other persons feelings, in your comments and edit summaries. Please do not do that again. It is for your own good my friend. I would also ask you to watchlist my talkpage. I have been watching and you have not done it yet. Please do it now. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind there is a language gap, so I suggest keeping it simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: Thanks, I still want you to be my mentor! I already watchlisted you!, and will be waiting for your mentions. If I didn't come it means I'm not online, but as soon as possible, I will be here to help resolve the problems. health and wealth. The Stray Dog Talk Page 01:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

TheStrayDog, I strongly advise you not the accept Irondome's offer. Based on examples of his past mentorship, I do not consider him to be a competent mentor, both in his knowledge of infractions (in particular, talk page usage guidelines - the very thing you have been accused of most failing in) and in the manner of his guidance (extreme reluctance to provide any criticism, acting as a defender of the editor being mentored rather than as an advisor, giving strong praise for feint or near zero progress, etc.). While it might be easy in the short term to have someone like Irondome, in the long term it won't help change any of your editing style and you will probably end up back here. My own offer is still open, if you wish to accept that one. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have interacted on quite a few occassions with the user in question, and as a result of that, I believe I can pretty much "safely" say that this user is simply lacking the needed competence in order to edit here, which he is, more importantly, absolutely not willing to to learn either. These issues will continue forever, unless some action is mandated. So, be prepared for more feigned promises, and more loads of time consuming burden for the community. I don't know how many times I have thought to myself that he should be given extra chances, extra opportunities, blablala. But then I realized -- he just absolutely doesn't care! I have suggested him on so many occassions to consult admins for help, to request a tutor, or to even visit the TeaHouse, but he never ever listened to these proposals, and only gave me those feigned promises, which he's giving you guys (to my genuine amazement) once again here as well. Consider reading this revision as well as this and this one (all three are archived). They are a further attestment to this issue. I won't even mention the number of times that he received notices/warnings through edit summaries from various users.

Having said all this, its obviously up to the admins to decide what should happen. I don't think he's a "bad hearted" editor at all, don't get me wrong, but something should really be done about this matter. Way too much resilience/WP:GF has been shown, to (almost) absolutely no avail. Perhaps indeed a tutor (but this time, as suggested, one imposed on him) would be the key to success. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Time will tell Louis, and I hear you. This is last chance saloon, and I sincerely hope TheStrayDog understands that this is his last chance. I will be helpful and supportive to you and I will do my best. I would appreciate any support the community can give me, but I will have no hesitation in pulling the plug if there is no improvement in a short, to be specified time. I am talking a fortnight to pull TSD round. If not, I will have no hesitation in handing over to Dennis for closure. I think we can close this thread at this point. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support mentoring I'm totally behind this decision. I agree with Irondome that the community should step back and let TSD learn the ropes. I only proposed a block above because (1) I was not interested in doing the mentoring myself and (2) I didn't want to force it on anyone else. As long as there is a willing volunteer who seems capable, then have at it. I also agree with the "I sincerely hope TSD understands that this is his last chance" sentiment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Request

This is a relatively urgent request to have all restrictions removed. Almost all of my time on Wikipedia is now spent on making charts as my primary username but I can not add them to Wikipedia without logging out and can not add them to any semi-protected article. I just did three charts for maternal fatality and would like to add them using my primary username but can not do that. Nor do I wish to wait six months to ask for this restriction to be removed. When it was brought up there was no decision and it was archived as a stale discussion. I still am only about half way caught up on all the things I noticed when I was blocked, and some of them involve each of the restrictions I am under and each means that I can nor make a productive contribution because of that and I have no interest in invoking IAR and making the edits anyway. I follow all the rules and always have. I was away for six months during which I continued to contribute to other projects and never once violated the block thus qualifying me for a standard offer which I am requesting. As soon as this is approved I will put one or more of these three charts into one or more articles. I have a backlog of over 6,000 SVGs to work on and another 6,000 or more waiting for translations, so I am never going to run out of the graphics I am working on (so far I have done over 1,500) and have no time for wiki drama. But I would like to be able to use the work that I am creating. After all, a picture is worth 1,000 words. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to your restrictions? I'm not sure what you are requesting to have removed. Also, the way you have phrased this request implies that you have secondary accounts and that you log out to evade the restrictions. Could you clarify that?--Atlan (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe from this and the previous discussion that Apteva's work on charts invokes some of the issues related to his MOS ban. Tables/charts etc often require *specific* formatting which may conflict with other formatting used in the article hence the request to remove the restrictions. He is not saying he has been logging out, he is saying in order to put the material in he would need to log out and edit as an IP, and that even if he did, he wouldnt be able to make changes to semi-protected articles - he clarifies this when he says he has no wish to IAR and do it anyway. So currently his restrictions prevent him from making useful changes - the only way to make said changes would be to break the rules, and he doesnt want to break the rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:AN January 2013, including the "Proposal to restrict Apteva to one account" subsection. I think more information is needed before anything can be considered, despite the fact that Apteva has done good work at Commons and has been editing well here for over a year ago, I think. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Atlan: Ctrl+F WP:RESTRICT for "Apteva"; it's not clear if they are currently violating the restriction to one appeal every six months. I think if they let an appeal get archived wihout a proper close and didn't immediately request a proper close, then they should be blocked unless there was clear consensus to remove the restrictions.It is not at all clear to me what they want to do, what they are restricted from doing, or what the relationship between these two might be, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Apteva's restrictions are logged at WP:Editing restrictions. His last appeal was in April of this year, which is give or take a day, 5 months ago, and that appeal was indeed archived with no resolution (I commented on it and almost no one else did). In fairness I do not think an archived request that was not closed should count towards his 6 months limit, if you are appealing a restriction you should get a clear yes/no answer. However my comment still stands - I do not think lifting restrictions from someone that were put in place specifically to prevent them making certain edits, so they can continue to make those edits is a good idea. Saying that, it has been awhile, so maybe its time to see if they can work in the area without conflict. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really think about that. I don't really understand the urgency of re-appealing five months after the last appeal was archived without result and risking a block for the possibility of getting the sanctions lifted one month sooner, and I would probably take the burden on myself to request a close if my appeal got archived without result, but you're right that it probably shouldn't count. Stricken. I would say remove the restrictions; they've certainly done their time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Except for the one-account restriction. A thorough explanation is needed for all use of alternate accounts, and since the vast majority of Wikipedians are already under a (de facto) similar restriction -- the policy called WP:SOCK -- explicitly allowing the use of alternate accounts should only be done if it is made clear why such an allowance is being requested. The above request ... doesn't look clear to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See my reply to Atlan. Its just the odd way he has phrased his request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I remember having a few head bumps on Apteva's page around the time their sanctions and block were put in place. WP:RESTRICT doesn't log any charts restrictions for Apteva, so how is this actually a violation. Or am I missing a few things here? Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer the immediately preceding question, early on I was doing charts as one user name and inserting them into the article under a different name (one name on commons one on enwiki) and got yelled at for being a sock even though the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another to use after I became an admin and for articles that I could not use the other name for. All very complicated but all quite simple. Unless anything has changed in the last five years other than that now all new accounts are SUL, my recollection is that if I take a photo of a house across the street I am allowed to put it into an article under a non-linked different username, that if I am working on an article that I would get fired if my boss found me doing it, etc. ditto. Almost all of my work is creating graphics under my primary user name, and I just uploaded three, that one at least would be extremely useful for the article on that subject and I am waiting with baited breath to be able to link it under my primary username. I would prefer but will defer if needed to continue editing the 150 solar articles under this user name just for the purpose of continuity. I am more than willing to follow all rules and only have one of own, Anonymity. That one is non-negotiable, and I am 100% certain, permitted, on this platform. I simply would not have any interest in contributing anything ever if it could not be done under that one and only one condition. If you look at all of the solar edits I have done from day one you will see they were all done under this username even if I was inserting a chart that was done with the commons name. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction. I have done 45 charts using this username and about 1800 under my primary username. Just guessing I would say I have about 20,000 edits, 2/3 on this username (13,900 and 10,360 under my primary username), as I was trying to "run up" the edit count to get to 5,000 so I could do an RFA. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Why is a different, anonymous user name any more private than the "Apteva" anonymous user name? Why would you want a separate user name for "becoming an admin"? (I did read this, but I'm afraid it didn't help me to understand, sorry). -- Begoon 03:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Really the only thing that you would need to read is WP:VALIDALT. I am not asking for anything more or less than what the consensus of the community has determined are legitimate uses of alternative accounts. My opinion would only be an issue if I had a different idea than what is written there and I do not. But it is my contention that it would be trivial to look through 30,000 edits and figure out a huge volume about that person and quite possibly identify them, out them, but that is totally prohibited and has already caused us to lose at least one good editor that I know of, and perhaps more. One way of making that less likely would be to avoid editing anything that would immediately identify your country, your city, your street, or your house. After I became an admin some of my edits would be as an admin and some as an editor, and as many admins did at the time at least, I have no idea of today, a separate account was used when you were in a public place and could not log in but wanted to sort categories write articles, just do ordinary tasks. But that was a long time ago and that may have changed completely. I do know that now we have a serious problem promoting admins, but I do not know how many of the current admins are using alternative accounts. Anyway, read up on WP:VALIDALT to see all the ways that I would not just want to but need to use an alternative account. Basically I want all restrictions removed so that I can do the exact same things, no more, and no less, than anyone signing up to make their first edit today. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The above seems to be in order. I support removing all restrictions. I would, however, strongly urge Apteva to put more effort into considering how his comments will be read by other users. The above "the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another [...] for articles that I could not use the other name for" very much looks like "for articles that I am not allowed edit per my restrictions". Requests for removal of restrictions should not require very careful reading and interpretation. But that's a minor issue; I still say remove the restrictions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't be averse to the removal of the restrictions provided some disclosure linking the 2 accounts was made to Arbcom. All of them are CheckUsers anyway so it wouldn't be out of their ability to link your accounts, although that would be a gross breach of policy if there was no reason to do so. Unfortunately, if someday Apteva were to become an admin, I believe there must be public disclosure of alt accounts. (Any admin may correct me here). Blackmane (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I obviously have no objection to notifying Arbcom, and you are right that fishing expeditions and idle curiosity are forbidden. WP:AGF my intentions are and always have been only in the best interest of WP. Obviously as an admin you do not need to publicly reveal the accounts that you will use for privacy reasons. That would not work and if policy says you do that policy may need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you would adhere to the prohibitions at WP:ILLEGIT in your use of an undisclosed alternative account, specifically the prohibitions from: Editing project space, Circumventing policies or sanctions, Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, Avoiding scrutiny? Have you adhered to these conditions and prohibitions in your prior use of undisclosed alternative account(s)? -- Begoon 04:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I can categorically confirm that I will always adhere to all policies and guidelines, and out of 30,000 edits (give or take) I can only recall one violation and that was very early on before I knew about 3RR and an explanation would have worked far better than a block. Everything else has just been absurd wikidrama like below which I have neither the time nor interest in. I am her to build an encyclopedia and nothing else. You can either help me or I have no clue why you even have a user account. Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying, so let me ask directly: Are you therefore of the opinion that your blocks for disruption were not the result of your violation of any policy or guideline, such as, say WP:DISRUPT? I ask because how you view what happened in the past could be indicative of what may happen in the future, if restrictions are removed. I haven't decided whether I can support this yet, so your responses are helpful. I lean towards support, but I remember the events clearly, and still have lingering concerns. -- Begoon 09:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that you could not get me into an argument if you dragged me there. Too much work to do. I have a backlog of thousands of graphics to do and have no time for discussion. My intent is not to read this but to make an edit as soon as the restrictions are lifted. Sanctions are trivial to impose and with lees than a minutes discussion can be reimposed if there was any hint of the tireless, dogged war I pursued in the past to change the MOS to what it became anyway! Hows that for being right? Right now I just don't care about anything other than creating another useful graphic and offering it. If anyone wants to change anything, the furthest I will go is leave a comment on the talk page and let future generations sort it out. I am proud of the 1800 graphics I have done. One that I am working on now is being translated into 80 to 90 languages, meaning it will be available in native language for that many different wikis. That is far more important than discussing whether there should be a comma after Atlanta! Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Ban is a few years old. I was going to vote to support, but looking at the enormous amount of discussion and hands thrown up in frustration pre-topic ban I found here alone, I vote no. The lack of clarity in the request doesn't give me confidence either, so I won't support a reduction in the topic ban to allow editing but not policy discussion. Perhaps closer Seraphimblade has something to say? --Elvey^(t•c) 02:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please I implore you to amend or withdraw this. There is one and only one reason for making this request now. To put a chart into an article. Surely you can see the value of having me do it using the username that uploaded that chart? Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The simple fact is that I don't even use this account any more other than to occasionally update the solar articles. All of the rest of the time I am on commons on my primary account creating charts which then get put into articles, but mostly are just available for articles or are already in articles. I would guess there are 500 to 1000 that get updated monthly or annually as new data becomes available, like ones showing unemployment, and the only time an article needs to be edited is to say the date range of the chart has changed in the caption. I will never run out of work creating and translating charts and that is where almost all of my time is spent. I just want to be able to use them too. Why is that such a strange request? Apteva (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

My only comment is that I closed the previous discussion based upon the consensus of the community that the restriction was necessary at that time. If it is now the community's view that it is no longer necessary, it should be lifted; conversely, if there is not a community consensus to lift it, it should remain in effect. The restriction is a community sanction, not something I came up with on my own. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest removing all sanctions, and that if anyone sees any hint of anything even questionable discussion here be capped to no more than two responses or ten minutes whichever comes first and one vote of support before closing the discussion and reimposing whichever portion is suggested. I will be marking this account "Not currently in use. Please contact me on commons." And not be using it for at least the rest of this year. I don't have time for controversy, and will avoid it like the plague, as I have an encyclopedia to work on that desperately needs help. You can't even look up the income in Florida without finding that the numbers have been vandalized and the page marked disputed. I will fix it but that takes time and effort. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

The back and forth has lasted a couple days and may result in some confusion or perhaps inevitable talking over one another. So in the interests of clarity, I'm posting this for consideration. Does the community support/oppose the lifting of all restrictions that are currently active on Apteva? As far as I understand, the current restrictions are

Apteva's active restrictions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apteva is only to edit using one account Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles Apteva is topic banned from proposing the removal of his existing restrictions, at any Wikipedia venue, until 31st January 2014, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that

!Voters are, naturally, free to choose whether they support the lifting of particular restrictions instead of all of them, as they desire. Blackmane (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

How did this get archived after only one day? Apteva (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Threads on AN/I are automatically bot archived after 3 days of inactivity. Counting that the last comment was on Sept 30, it's been four days not one since this thread went inactive. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow where does the time go when you are busy~ Finished the chart with 81 translations, had to log out to use it (which is what I am trying to eliminate) and the article it would go in is semiprotected, but I can of course add it to 80 other wikis in that native language. Mostly I just create charts and let someone else figure out whether, where, and how to use them, but the one I am waiting to add would be worth putting into the article. It is not semi-protected so I can log out and add it but that makes no sense. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

More charts added. Would like to be able to use some, replacing older non-SVG ones. Apteva (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• The nature of the request, the lack of clarity, the unexplained urgency, all this makes me quite uncomfortable. Apteva seems to be rushing to put out a fire that doesn't exist. I've never had a bad experience with them, but this isn't even 6 months from the last request, which itself was rather muddled. I am guessing I'm not the only one with these types of reservations, based on how few are participating. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. I still don´t understand how the listed restrictions prevent Apteva from adding charts to articles. Also, he keeps saying he logs out to work around the restrictions, which would seem to me to be ban evasion. Is there some kind of language barrier at play here?--Atlan (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No I have never wanted to or evaded in any way any restriction, and have allowed Wikipedia be worse by doing so. I rarely edit Wikipedia today other than to put into place the charts and images that now occupy almost all of my editing, and update solar articles. I have a backlog of over 6,000 SVGs that have been requested and another 6,000 SVGs to be translated. And that is in addition to the new works that I have created (about 1,700 out of 1,800). Most of the solar articles need to be updated monthly or annually as it is a rapidly changing field.

The reason we allow alternative accounts is because they are necessary. Which means that I can not properly participate. The reason we allow changing dashes to hyphens and vice versa is the MOS requests that. I can not properly edit articles to make them conform to the MOS. I can not appeal these restrictions for six months because someone wants Wikipedia to be worse and not better. This appeal was started long after the six months was up and was archived twice because no one responded. And if you do not think that correcting factual information or correcting hyphens to dashes is not important, why are you even here? The urgency is there is an article on a subject that would greatly benefit by way of illustration from using a chart that was not uploaded using this alternative account and I would like to be able to insert it using the same account that uploaded it (it is PD and I did not create it). Apteva (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the answers to the questions above are too concerning. I remember the disruption that led to the block, and it was a series of enormous time sinks. At the heart of it was always "I am right, you are all wrong, and you simply do not understand why I need to be allowed to do whatever I like, in order to make the changes that I have decided wikipedia needs." When blocked, the argument became "you are hurting wikipedia, because you are not allowing me to do whatever I like, in order to make the changes that I have decided wikipedia needs." In the responses above Apteva indicates that they still think they have never done anything wrong apart from a bit of accidental edit-warring as a newbie, and all the rest was caused by others not understanding how right Apteva was and not just letting them do whatever they had decided was correct. I can't support lifting these restrictions in that case, since I am too concerned that their view on what happened in the past is so divorced from the reality of things. I was hoping their answers might make me less concerned, but sadly they did the opposite. Sorry. -- Begoon 15:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems that if you are concerned about my answers you are simply not understanding them, probably because they are way too long, and you do not see the value of someone with the username lets call it FooFoo, creating 1800 charts and putting them into an article using that username instead of an alternative username, say FuuFuu other than in article that FuuFuu is editing (it would be a perceived sock violation to use FooFoo)? Please I implore you to allow me to edit using my primary username, instead of making me use "FuuFuu". The least you could do is unblock my primary account and allow me to use it. As you can see this one is tagged "not in use" (other than to reply here). I do not wish to have the block moved as there is no reason to do that, as doing so would simply mean that I would not be able to edit the 150 or so solar articles that I update from time to time. Out of the last 15,000 edits I have probably made 1,000 using this alternative account and it is simply not practical for me to use "FuuFuu". Slows me down way too much to have to every time I want to edit here log out and log in again, and simply prefer to use only one username when possible (the exact same thing that Wikipedia prefers), and these restrictions do only one thing, prevent me from properly improving Wikipedia. Not only are restrictions not supposed to do that but are prohibited from doing that. It would not make any sense to have restrictions that only hurt the development of the encyclopedia, which all of these clearly do, which is why it is urgent to remove them. The idea that I was a sock was brought up simply because I created a graphic in my primary username, as I almost always do and to avoid being a sock put it into the article using the same username that had been editing that article. But then someone clicked on the chart (clicking on a chart is relatively rare - while the charts I have created are viewed over a million times each day, far far fewer click on them), and with no basis for doing so accused this perfectly legitimate, and necessary, alternative account of being a sock which I am not and never have been. I always have and always will follow all guidelines and policies to the best of my ability. When I broke 3RR I had no idea it existed, and a warning would have been much better for Wikipedia than a block. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Two rangeblocks (or more) for Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Because of ongoing activity, I think we could use two rangeblocks to help deal with the long-term abuse case known as the Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal. The following two ranges are problematic:

• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:....
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:....

Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruption continues. Here are the two groups of IPs that, if rangeblocked, would greatly reduce the problem.

• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:B4:1162:81D:2001 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:F89E:B92B:3040:763F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 1 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:30EB:DCB9:4691:DD25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 1 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:64AA:F8CC:FFD0:B789 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:9D73:FE72:903C:2E10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:6425:B488:DD7:4BDA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:AC8A:C684:76A3:F869 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:D8EB:6A66:B806:16E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 28 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:5BF:42DF:82F:60ED (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 25 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:19D:A8E9:5C50:83C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 25–27 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:E1F6:7521:C02:2818 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 21 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:8456:6E75:6F01:5A3B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 17 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:3892:BF67:1313:6A00 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:658A:57B1:68B7:51BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 13–14 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:256E:561D:81E:47A7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 11 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:403:8439:1BBB:1398 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:89D7:A4D0:F3FD:FB41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 8 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:B084:6AC1:8683:A659 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 7–8 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:F9FE:A22E:9C4:7250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4–6 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:E1ED:7B8A:4B63:6CD0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:3DD0:4330:2D3A:94AE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:DCDF:4090:B6FA:1F9F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:A1B1:7026:F21E:EC88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:1065:F84F:3C30:D493 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 31 August 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:DCDD:7D4:CA78:2794 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 31 August 2016
• 2001:8003:2546:1B00:499A:978E:5D68:5762 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 30 August – 1 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2546:1B00:88EA:B279:8585:C7F6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 August 2016
• 2001:8003:2546:1B00:499A:978E:5D68:5762 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 24 August 2016

It would be great to see this extremely persistent person blocked. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

And another rangeblock is needed, to deal with more recent activity:

• 49.180.141.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.173.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.165.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.160.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
• 49.180.138.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
• 49.180.144.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 27 September 2016
• 49.180.145.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 16 September 2016

This guy is obsessive and persistent in his vandalism. Are we giving up and letting him have his way? Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Problematic behavior at Portal:Current events

The IP editor in question:

• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:C052:8350:C710:B155 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:4C61:46F5:F7F2:F9EF (talk · contribs)
• 70.209.67.17 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:C9D8:9FC2:D559:4ABC (talk · contribs)
• 98.167.194.3 (talk · contribs)
• 70.209.114.41 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk · contribs)

And potentially more. Judging by their editing patterns and Geolocate results, I believe they are one and the same person. While it's not exactly out of the ordinary to edit from multiple locations or from different dynamic IP addresses, it is rather alarming that their behavioral problems persist in spite of that.

The editor's field of interest seems limited to Portal:Current events, and they have been making consistent contribution to the page, which should be applauded. However, I would have to point out:

• Here and here the editor took it upon themselves to revert a permanently banned editor; unfortunately, the "banned editor" in question is still making contributions as of this moment, and appears to have a clean record. The reverts did not seem to have sufficient merits - certainly not given in their summaries.
• Here, in a rather contentious edit war, they accused someone who undid their previous revert of being a sock - without offering any evidence. Here they proceeded to make accusations of vandalism, on rather flimsy grounds. Possibly under the impressions that they had "consensus" and were fighting one single vandal, they attempted one further revert, going over WP:3RR. They were summoned to discuss on the talk page, but did not show up. The editor appeared to prefer arguing through edit summaries - which isn't what edit summaries are for. This kind of behavior has persisted.
• The editor's remarks have a tendency of being perceived as uncivil. Here they referred to someone as "delusional" - and while the previous editor might not have put the item under the appropriate heading, they did not either. Here they essentially derided an editor as having a pre-college grasp of the English language. In the page, they again went over WP:3RR.
• Rather snide remarks, as seen here, followed by a pointy dummy edit. Also seen here.
• They insist on using "Obama administration" in place of "The U.S.", and will rapidly revert any attempt to rephrase it, as seen here. I was personally a party in one of such instances, during which I was reverted, accused of committing "bias through omission", accused again, and again. I do admit in the heat of the moment I did not disengage when I should certainly have - although to be fair, I omitted the phrase because it did not appear anywhere in any of the sources given, a fact seemingly entirely lost to the editor. It appears while accusing others of perpetrating a bias, the editor also has a POV to push. Notably in the process the editor also reverted, without careful consideration, other edits that might be far less debatable, purely because they were angered by the debatable ones. In an unrelated case, source was yet again disrespected.
• Very quick to make accusations of bias, as seen here and here. Might have a point, though it could always have been expressed more elegantly.
• "who th fk is this biased guy!"
• Remarkably specific accusation.
• Not on Current events, but "are you a "PAID" agent for Mr. Doocy?"

I admit I might not be able to entirely keep my cool when dealing with this editor, so for now I should disengage. But this editor - if they could be brought from the venue of edit summaries - should be allowed an opportunity to rethink the way Wikipedia works, as well as how to deal with other editors, like-minded ones or not.

I would also like to bring to everyone's attention the hectic scene of Portal:Current events, where edit wars happen almost on a daily basis and where there is hardly any moderation going on. Given its time-sensitive nature, issues are rarely resolved through dialogue, consensus is rarely reached or even attempted. If nothing should be done, irrelevant content, POV-pushing and counter-POV-pushing will remain a recurring feature of that particular place. [User:Morningstar1814|Morningstar1814]] (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As of now I am unsure whether the editor in question is willing to engage in discussions regarding their behavior - though it appears they've certainly received the message, as seen here, again through edit summaries, which is slightly confusing. If I'm reading it correctly, this complain has been regarded as a henious piece of propaganda. Morningstar1814 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Users adding references to Paolo Rampini die cast books

There are multiple IP that add in the "References Cited" section, several books of "Paolo Rampini" on diecast subjet. This users are adding the links also in the italian wikipedia. If you insert "Paolo Rampini" (with inverted commas) in the search box you will find 25 pages with this books. There are tecniques to block this advertizing users and clean the pages?--Arosio Stefano (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

IPs adding these (and nothing else):

• 37.176.229.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.57.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 93.68.207.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.176.114.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.57.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 31.157.192.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.176.134.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.27.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.159.39.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Defo looks like spamming to me. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm happy to start cleaning them up. For prevention, I'm not aware of anything other than the spambot, which is (afaiaa) for links, not text. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

All done. Edit filter is the only obvious way to fix this if it continues. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Add 93.68.234.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 12:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Add 31.157.41.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Any chance of an edit filter? Guy (Help!) 10:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Having a look at the possibility of a filter now - testing at Special:AbuseFilter/773 for a little bit to see what we're up against -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Spamming confirmed

I think [7] removes any residual uncertainty. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock of 67.44.208.0/22

Several IPs in this address group have been vandalizing a number of articles about Western films from the 1940s to 1960s for at least the past couple of weeks: The Yellow Tomahawk, Fort Yuma (film), The Nebraskan, The Battle at Apache Pass, Colorado (film), California Conquest, and The Black Dakotas, to name some of them. The common vandalism theme across these articles is the insertion of today's actors/actresses in the cast credits and prose of these articles, a number of those names I recognize from Disney Channel and Nickelodeon programs (Jenna Ortega, Rowan Blanchard, Isabela Moner, etc.). Obviously, these actors/actresses weren't around when these films were released.

I normally do not watch these above articles, but what got my attention is these IPs have also been vandalizing a more modern movie, Summer Forever (film), and inserting the same actors/actresses, who are not in that film. Looking through the contributions of the IPs linked me to their vandalism in the above Western films. The vandalism in the Summer Forever article dates back to late August.

Some of these articles are presently semiprotected, but this is looking like a problem that isn't gonna stop anytime soon. I specify 67.44.208.0/22 as the range, since the IP addresses have been starting with either 67.44.209.*, 67.44.210.* or 67.44.211.*. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The netblock there is 67.44.0.0/14, assigned to Hughes Network Systems. Obviously, a /14 is too large to block, and you are asking for a /22 range. Just be warned, the vandal may be able to hop outside your /22 range. You may wish to ping a checkuser to see if there'd be significant collateral damage. /22 looks to be the right size to capture the 209, 210, and 211 addresses. --Yamla (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

May need help finding checkusers, but using a tool I found at WP:COLLATERAL, I haven't seen any new edits from anyone in 67.44.208.0/22, since the early hours of October 2, which is almost 48 hours. So probably not necessary right now for a rangeblock, unless they start up again and do more damage to the above articles or other related ones. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee‎‎

Extended content

I'm requesting an indefinie block from editing User:Springee‎‎ for several forms of Disruptive editing, including: Forum shopping [8] Discussion of addition began on August 30, was 3 to 1 against Springee Starts RfC instead of letting it go Canvassing [9][10] Springee was accused of canvassing in December 2005 and not blocked for canvassing, but was criticized for at least pushing the boundaries, and should have learned what this policy says. Also received warnings for BLUDGEONing process Refactoring others' talk page comments: [11][12][13] Gaming the system Several times during the March RfC at Talk:Chrysler, Springee tried to declare the discussion over, in his favor. After a back-and-forth [14][15] over whether an RfC should be kept open, a Request for Closure was made. As more participants trickled into the discussion, the weight was shifting against Springee. Springee "innocently" changed the talk archive settings from 6 months to 1 month. And it works like a charm. Instead of waiting for the Request for Closure to end the discussion, Springee has enlisted a bot to quash it. Dionysodorus asks to delist it, since a bot archived it. After pointing out the ploy Springee had used here, I unarchived the discussion and subsequently it was closed, in favor of keeping the proposed text. At last, RfC closed after 3 month, the result is "keep" the addition. Was it added? [16][17][18][19]. Nope. It's as if the RfC never happened (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Heads, Springee wins, tails you lose. More recently, at Talk:Ford F-650 two editors disagree with Springee, and none agree, he declares the discussion over, and that he shall get his way [20] because there is "no consensus" for the edits the first two editors wanted. When a third editor disagrees, and none support, there is still "no consensus". Instead RfC is started (above) Again Behaving as if the RFC has already been decided in his favor, Springee proceeds to delete similar material from another article, saying that the content must be removed because there is an RfC taking place. Heads, Springee gets his way, tails, Springee wins. Counting 3 !votes to 2 in his favor after the RfC has only run a few days, Springee is again ready to declare that he gets his way, for the time being. When it's 2:1 against him, he wins. When it's 3:1 against him, he wins. When he finally finds a venues he likes, it's 3:2 in his favor, so of course, he wins. Hey, where'd that third !vote go? Bad-faith wikilawyering: At Talk:Chrysler, Springee argued that a proposed addition had to be rejected because the text had flaws, and would never be allowed to be fixed. Meaning, no RfC could ever support adding any text to Wikipedia because, Springee claims here, the addition could never be edited again. Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy: essentially entire arguments related to Chrysler recalls, and Ford truck, consist of strictly applying only the due weight portions of the NPOV policy, while choosing not to apply the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality section at all, let alone taking into account Editing policy. Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy: citing "notability" to delete content after having been made aware of WP:N#NCONTENT multiple times. Citing WP:TRIVIA to delete content after having been made aware that TRIVIA is about section layout, not content policy. Violating WP:CANTFIX and WP:PRESERVE ad infinitum after having been made aware Citing WP:NOTNEWS as reason to delete entire sections of articles because some of the content cites newspapers and magazines!? WP:NOTNEWS deals with creating new articles about news events, not deleting paragraphs describing events related to a topic merely because they cite news sources. Springee knows this, but has repeatedly made up new rules and new interpretations of policy as needed. Stonewalling or filibustering -- too many diffs to collect. Any of these discussions shows Springee replying to every single comment, repeating his arguments over and over. Bad-faith negotiating: moving the goal posts by adding new criteria to meet. A new red herring this belongs on some other article -- EXCEPT nope, if you did add it to some other article, Springee would oppose it for reasons previously given. A bait and switch Removing a large addition for a minor error. [21][22][23] I can't go on; it's too much work for one person. I haven't even gotten to "Mischaracterizing other editors", "Borderlining", "Retribution" and "Playing victim". The number of blockable offenses goes on and on. Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times, and has accused others may times. Often the boomerang went one way or the other. Many of Springee's rivals were themselves violating rules, but what is the common denominator in this years-long record of conflict? The common denominator is stonewalling, bad faith, and gaming the system. Springee has been warned many times, has tried voluntary topic bans, interaction bans, 1RR sanctions, and has had every opportunity to become intimately familiar with what sorts of behavior are not allowed. This is never going to stop. A topic ban or temporary block are pointless. An indefinite block is necessary to stop this disruption. If you review Springee's previous AN/I cases, what will follow is his counterattack on me, in the form of a wall of text. This AN/I discussion will grow to thousands of words. Look at each of the past RfCs, and AN/I threads. They grow so large they're unreadable. What is the common denominator in all of them? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Several of your diffs have nothing to do with Springee and several of your claims of misconduct have no evidence. On the other hand, there is evidence of canvassing. I would not consider this refactoring, but it does appear to putting one's thumb on the scale. I think it is very unlikely that ANI will resolve this. If "Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times,..." is true then I suggest you whittle this down to 10-15 clear, compelling, obvious instances of disruptive editing and request an Arbcom case at WP:RFAR. - MrX 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC) I demur on the CANVASS bit - neither Arthur Rubin nor I are predisposed in any way to do anything more than express our own fully independent opinions, and anyone who thinks they can count on us to support their opinions is apt to be disappointed. Collect (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Both of canvassed editors had previously expressed strong agreement with Springee's interpretation of WP:UNDUE. Predictably, both of you went on to say you supported Springee's interpretation of that policy in this case. You also share Springee's habit of nuking large blocks of content for one flaw, rather than fix it, tag it or removing only part. You don't acknowledge the existence of the WP:PRESERVE policy. Like Springee, you are relentless. Nobody has said you're not independent. The fact is, drawing you into any discussion means an ally for Springee. You proved it by doing exactly what the canvassing policy says not to do when canvassed. Arthur Rubin had the sense to stay out of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Alas - you are so wrong as to make your charge ludicrous here. [24] shows my opinion, which is quite dissimilar from the impression you seek to give about it. Is the make and model number of the vehicle in each case of special and notable significance to the reader? If it has special significance, more than mere mention in sources, then it may be useful information. If not (that is, the make and model of the vehicle is of no special significance at all, and removal of the make and model would in no way harm readers) then it should not be included. Consider a mass murderer who left a "Brand X" soda can at a murder scene (that is - the brand of soda was noted, but of no significance to the crime or solution of the crime in any material way) would you expect to see a reference to "Brand X" in an article on that person? I suggest this be the actual basis for determination on a case by case basis, rather than setting an "all or none" rule here. does not seem to show any evidence of being a CANVASSed position at all, and I find your imputation that I nuked material for non-policy reasons to be absurd here. Kindly redact your imputation, as I find such stuff to be quite toxic to collegial editing. Collect (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Collect, here are 3 diffs of you doing so on Chrysler: [25][26][27]. Your deletions also contradicted the letter and the spirit of the recently closed RfC which was decided in favor of keeping the addition. You could have fixed any minor issues, but instead you deleted it all. Over and over. In the thread Talk:Chrysler#Removal of 1979 bailout, another editor said, "Bad delete. Collect, why would you delete this... These are hardly embattled opinions. You even deleted completely innocuous mentions of Simca, Rootes, and Barreiros. Seriously. Mr.choppers". Removing content this way is found under WP:STONEWALL, "Removing a large addition for a minor error". You restored uncited gross inaccuracies, which had been in the article since 2013, and claimed the reason for your revert was because the citations were not quite perfect enough. Talk about bad faith negotiating. I don't mean to make this about you, but there is overwhelming evidence that Springee chose you well when he canvassed you. He wanted somebody like-minded to help him win his RfC, because he will do anything to win. I could have hand-picked a dozen editors to "ask for advice" *wink* *wink* and those dozen hand-picked editors would proceed to post !votes favorable to me in any RfC. I could hand pick a dozen right now and they would come to this AN/I and post "support". It's easy. That's why canvassing is bad, and the AN/I record shows that Springee has litigated canvassing multiple times. No excuse for not knowing what he was doing. I don't want to make this about you, but that's the facts. Anybody can read the diffs for themselves and see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Mr. X, I also have to insist that this is never OK. An editor may choose to comment on an article talk page, but that doesn't obligate them to be drawn in, against their will, to a larger debate on a WikiProject RfD, or AN/I or any other protracted debate. We must always respect both the content and the context of an editor's words, and not change them or move them unasked. When I objected, Springee, as always, was deaf to it and reverted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Edits like this and this stand out as problematic. I find it stunning that such large swaths of sourced, relevant content would be removed. I shudder to think that well-sourced information about millions of recalled vehicles would be swept from the article. I may be missing some context, but it looks like blatant whitewashing to me.- MrX 13:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC) It's OK to think the article is better with out it. But when you go on removing it after an exhaustive debate that settled the question, we have disruptive editing. The pattern behind all these incidents is that Springee never stops gaming the system unless forced to do so.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC) MrX, I would suggest you need to review the Chrysler edits in context before deciding. That material was the subject of a long RfC and with quite a few editor's weighing in. If Dennis (or anyone else) felt the final edits were wrong they should have voiced concern at the time (or now on the Chrysler talk page). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Springee, I did. What I see is an article that goes into elaborate detail about the management team and marketing campaigns, but says almost nothing critical of the company or their products. The talk page seems to show you object to any content about recalls [28], which I assume relates to the July edit wars. I'm not sure if this is just an unpleasant content dispute, or editor misconduct, but only Arbcom would be able to unravel it in my opinion. Fyddlestix' comments seem on point.- MrX 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC) MrX, Thanks for looking into it. At a high level that was a dispute regarding WEIGHT and BALAS. Recalls do have a place in automotive articles but there is a limit. All the major car companies have many recalls each year. At some point we have to say we can't cover them all and that many are not notable (the common vernacular version, not NOTE) in context of companies that have been around for nearly a century. There is an archived Automotive project page that talks about which recalls should be covered with respect to car models but not at the higher level manufacture articles. I would also note that the RfC Dennis referenced only covered quality/reliability material not recalls. Recalls were discussed separately. More importantly, if Dennis was unhappy then why not address it then. Instead he is using this as an excuse to attack me with accusations of bad faith now. The issue now is basically a non-issue except for Dennis trying to make a mountain out of his mole hill. In this case the issue is Dennis starting off with an assumption of bad faith and going from there. Please look at this example[[29]]. Dennis's first post in the RfC was mostly an attack on me. How does that help anything? Consider the penalty Dennis is demanding? Indef block? Keep that in mind when reading Dennis's claims. When/if I get time this evening I will try to point by point reply to the accusations. (posted from my phone, please forgive swypos) Springee (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Oh jeez, not this again. Springee has a long history of getting into intractable disputes with a specific editor, and just not being able to compromise or let go. Usually the conflict goes on for weeks (if not months), spilling across multiple noticeboards, talk pages, and articles, and creating a giant time-suck for editors who have much better things to do. This is not Springee's first rodeo at ANI, and I've lost count of the number of times he has been brought here (and brought others here) over similar conflicts. Some examples: [30][31][32]. There are a number of 3RR and AE threads that show a history of problematic behavior as well: [33][34][35] Previous long-running conflicts with HughD and Scoobydunk were particularly disruptive, I outlined some of the most problematic behavior in their interactions with HughD here. Not saying an indef is warranted (seems overly harsh, doesn't it?) or that there might not be problematic editing on both sides (this was certainly the case in the dispute with HughD, no idea if that's the case in the current dispute) but this is an editor who definitely has problems editing collaboratively, and has been at the center of a whole lot of disruption. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Fyddlestix, I would ask that you review the recent interactions related to the recent RfC[[36]] and understand this issue before dragging out old issues. Please look at the way Dennis attacked me with accusations of bad faith almost from the word go[[37]]. Please also review the conversation that followed before assuming this is an issue with me vs Dennis (who also has black marks on his record). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Like I said, I'm not claiming that Dennis is squeaky clean - I don't know if he is or not. But I'm not sure that it matters: conflicts like these are always a two-way street, and this is the third time I've seen you get involved in a prolonged feud like this. In fact, looking at your edit history and your edit count, those three feuds seems to make up the vast majority of your edit history. This is not good. You should have learned long ago that wikipedia is not a battleground, and how to de-escalate rather than prolong these kinds of disagreements. We're here to build an encyclopedia not get embroiled in interminable pissing contests, and people whose primary activity on the wikipedia seems to consist of such contests should not be surprised if/when the community loses patience with them. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you for fixing my format wrote above. I'm not really sure we have a big conflict here. Yes, I guess I could have just walked away the moment Dennis accused me of bad faith. Then again he could have done the same when he, wrongly, felt I was working on bad faith. Beyond that what do we have here? This isn't some sort of long running feud. I disagreed with an edit and other editors and I started the usual discussion process. It certainly appears that we have exactly that other than the accusations of bad faith from Dennis. When it was clear that we had about 3:3 related to the issue and when Dennis made it clear any action of mine would be seen as bad faith I asked for help and started the RfC. Again I ask, what do you think I did wrong here? (posted from phone, sorry for any swypos) Springee (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC) "...if Dennis was unhappy then why not address it then", Springee lied. I did address it then. Anyone can see that. I called you on it repeatedly. You're lying right now in the face if diffs that anyone can see show you are lying. You are "playing victim" when you wail about not assuming good faith. Per AGF: "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I caught you stonewalling and gaming the system once, and warned you. Second time around, I caught you repeating the same stonewalling and gaming the system. I called you on it. You'd have me play the fool. This is one of your favorite tactics. Every time you get caught with these tricks and schemes, votestacking, canvassing, wikilawyering, you play the AGF card. This is why I don't think a temporary block or a topic ban is sufficient. This is a deeply ingrained pattern of behavior that you couldn't quit if you wanted to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Support block or topic ban on automobile-related articles. The amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and gaming the system shown here was painful to read.v74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Are you another sock of the blocked KochTruth IP editor? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) I disagree with your actions, so I must be a sock! So much for AGF. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Reply from Springee: I don't currently have time for a point by point refutation of the accusations made by Dennis but I strongly disagree with the accusations he has made. Dennis seems to have read all my actions in the worst light ever since throwing down an accusation of bad faith after I realized the material we were discussing was outside of the scope of the F-650 article (the F-700 in question was a 1993 truck, the article covers the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar). Because I realized this issue after we were already in discussion (note that no one else noticed this sooner), I was accused of bad faith negotiations [[38]]. I was concerned about the nasty accusations and asked Arthur Rubin for suggestions (unrelated to asking about the content dispute) [[39]]. I have worked very hard to avoid counter accusations of bad faith or personal attacks. Please note Dennis's first post on the RfC was as much an attack on me as anything [[40]]. I'm very frustrated that Dennis isn't willing to discuss these issues or offer any sort of benefit of the doubt [[41]], [[42]]. Dennis has a number of errors in his presentation of the facts. Please note that the RfC was started on Sept 9th. Many of his claims that I was ignoring RfC results predate the RfC! He also seems to confuse the limited conversations that occurred on the article talk pages for the longer discussion (involving all the same editors) on the Automotive Project page. The Chrysler material Dennis refers to was extensively discussed by a large number of editors. I think he is grossly misrepresenting things, including claiming the material that was the subject of the RfC wasn't added to the article (it was). Unfortunately something Dennis did get right is the wall of text from Springee. He has posted so many accusations and to answer each with context would require a lot of text. One final note, despite Dennis's claims that I was misreading WEIGHT and other policies/guidelines etc the current RfC favors removing the material in question by something like 15:5. Dennis is one of the five. Is this an editor issue with me or an attempt by Dennis to use an ANI to block an editor he doesn't agree with? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Springee just wrote 400 words defending his behavior on the grounds that I should have given him the benefit of the doubt, assumed good faith, read his actions in a positive light, blah blah blah. Poor Springee. In the exact same edit, just above, literally separated by a single line break, he accused IP 74.70.146.1 of being a sock of one of his old enemies. Of which he seems to have many. Springee, is there any way for you to grasp just how much bad faith is expressed right here in this one edit? It's like some kind of performance art, seeing how far you can flout policy before you get blocked for it. Bravo, I guess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Well well well. If our policies mean anything, it's high time for admin action. AGF is not a suicide pact; the central issue is a turd of well-documented: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#IDHT, WP:EW, WP:STONEWALL violations, and there's no reason to WP:IAR (i.e. ignore the policy violations) when the policy violations are in service of a currently successful effort at keeping text/info including this (!) out of the Chrysler article: National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) levied a $150 million fine on Chrysler for failing to complete 23 safety recalls on more than 11 million vehicles, the largest fine ever imposed by the NHTSA at the time.! Bravo, User:Dennis Bratland for bringing this here as this is exactly what ANI is for. Concur with 74.70.146.1, User:Fyddlestix, User:MrX and User:Dennis Bratland regarding need for a block, battleground behavior, blatant whitewashing and disruptive editing. Springee claims below, "I've quoted the original complaint so I can reply more methodically." The truth is- the complaint was quoted selectively. --166.216.158.165 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Detailed reply I've quoted the original complaint so I can reply more methodically. Please note there are some fundamental issues with this complaint. Dennis is focused on edits and discussions surrounding a current and RfC and one from several months back. Why is he only complaining the old one now? If he is going to complain about that RfC then he should notify the involved editors so they can give their views. We have already seen that Collet doesn't agree with some of Dennis's claims. The recent RfC stems from two recent additions to the Ford F-650 article (Aug 28th [[43]]) and and the Chevy Caprice article (Sept 7th [[44]]). An initial discussion was posted on the F-650 talk page on the 29th after I removed the text noting "The use in a crime isn't notable in an article about the vehicle" [[45]]. The original editor, CuriousMind01, posted a question about the removal on the talk page and I suggested bringing it up on the Automobile Project page which was done on Sept 3rd [[46]]. Dennis was the first to reply and in all honesty I thought we were in agreement [[47]] though I was clearly mistaken [[48]]. At this point Dennis focuses on my use of the word "notable" to remove the text in question [[49]]. I apologize noting I was not referring to the WP:NOTE but just a common use of the word [[50]]. The first accusation of bad faith followed with an accusation of STONEWALLING [[51]]. Note at this point the discussion was somewhat stalled and consensus seemed to be 2:2. At this point I realized (no one else had noticed) that the F-650 article is only about the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar and thus doesn't cover the older 1993 F-700 that was used in the bombing. Thus I argue that in addition to any other issue related to WEIGHT etc the material simply doesn't relate to the F-650 article. I would have thought that would be enough to justify removal. I was wrong... and at that point Dennis really started with the accusations of bad faith [[52]], [[53]]. I see NOTHING in my talk page actions at this point that could be seen as problematic and I feel nothing that would deserve the hostile replies Dennis was adding to the talk page. As of Sept 6th consensus was 3:2 against. On the 7th another editor joined the conversation in support of inclusion and then added very similar content to the Chevy Caprice article. I reverted the addition, Dennis reverted me. At that this point it was becoming clear that this was something that was not going to be solved through a normal back and forth given the accusations of bad faith Dennis was aiming at me and his insistence that WEIGHT and BALAS really only apply to balancing of opinions, not relative weight given to material within (or not within) an article (example from Sept 5th [[54]]). I ask Arthur and Collet what might be the best approach for this issue since we are now talking about two articles and NPOV wasn't the only policy mentioned hence it might be outside the scope of NPOVN. To that end I started an RFC on Sept 9th. The RFC was posted on the two car pages, at NPOVN, and "Economy, trade, and companies" and "Maths, science, and technology". I'm sorry that was a long backdrop but I want to make it clear that this was and largely still is a content dispute going through the usual channels. From the original complaint: *WP:FORUMSHOP [55] Discussion of addition began on August 30, was 3 to 1 against Springee}} Starts RfC instead of letting it go Not clear when it was ever 3:1 against. Additionally, the primary discussion was ALWAYS on the Automobile Project page. It isn't forum shopping to stick with the results of the main discussion, especially since Dennis was aware of that discussion. The RfC wasn't forum shopping either. It came about because we were 3:3. *Canvassing [56][57] Springee was accused of canvassing in December 2005 and not blocked for canvassing, but was criticized for at least pushing the boundaries, and should have learned what this policy says. Also received warnings for BLUDGEONing process Yes, I was told to be careful about canvassing. I was careful and made sure my questions were neutral and focused only on how and where to answer the question. Not sure where the bludgeon comment comes from. A keyword search of the link turned up nothing. *Refactoring others' talk page comments: [58][59][60] The first was out of frustration but I do think it was deceptive that Dennis didn't make it clear that he was the one making the claim. The other two (the original and the restoration because Dennis refactored my post! [[61]]) are quoting two editors who replied to the RfCs posted at the article page. Note that I pinged the editors, made it clear these were quotes and where they came from. *Gaming the system Several times during the March RfC at Talk:Chrysler, Springee tried to declare the discussion over, in his favor. After a back-and-forth [62][63] over whether an RfC should be kept open, a Request for Closure was made. As more participants trickled into the discussion, the weight was shifting against Springee. Springee "innocently" changed the talk archive settings from 6 months to 1 month. And it works like a charm. Instead of waiting for the Request for Closure to end the discussion, Springee has enlisted a bot to quash it. Dionysodorus asks to delist it, since a bot archived it. After pointing out the ploy Springee had used here, I unarchived the discussion and subsequently it was closed, in favor of keeping the proposed text. At last, RfC closed after 3 month, the result is "keep" the addition. Was it added? [64][65][66][67]. Nope. It's as if the RfC never happened (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Heads, Springee wins, tails you lose. Dennis is wrong in claiming the RfC material was never added. The RfC neever covered recalls (discussed separately) and if Dennis felt the material that was added was not sufficient then he or any of the many other editors involvedat the time could have added it. Again, why bring this up months later?Springee (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC) **More recently, at Talk:Ford F-650 two editors disagree with Springee, and none agree, he declares the discussion over, and that he shall get his way [68] because there is "no consensus" for the edits the first two editors wanted. When a third editor disagrees, and none support, there is still "no consensus". Instead RfC is started (above) Simply not true. As I said before the primary discussion was always on the project page and at the time of Dennis's claimed "no one agreed with Springee" the actual count was 3:3 [[69]]. **Again Behaving as if the RFC has already been decided in his favor, Springee proceeds to delete similar material from another article, saying that the content must be removed because there is an RfC taking place. Heads, Springee gets his way, tails, Springee wins. The editor who added the Caprice material added it after joining the F-650 discussion (it was 3:2 against inclusion just before he joined). Note no RfC was taking place at this time. Dennis seems to be inventing facts here. **Counting 3 !votes to 2 in his favor after the RfC has only run a few days, Springee is again ready to declare that he gets his way, for the time being. When it's 2:1 against him, he wins. When it's 3:1 against him, he wins. When he finally finds a venues he likes, it's 3:2 in his favor, so of course, he wins. Hey, where'd that third !vote go? There was no RfC at this time! The RfC was 2 days away. The count was based on the current project page discussion. **Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy: essentially entire arguments related to Chrysler recalls, and Ford truck, consist of strictly applying only the due weight portions of the NPOV policy, while choosing not to apply the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality section at all, let alone taking into account Editing policy. Not sure how I would argue against a vague accusation like that. Currently the RfC is about 15:5 against inclusion and many editors have cited the same policies as me. **Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy: citing "notability" to delete content after having been made aware of WP:N#NCONTENT multiple times. Citing WP:TRIVIA to delete content after having been made aware that TRIVIA is about section layout, not content policy. Violating WP:CANTFIX and WP:PRESERVE ad infinitum after having been made aware This is another bad faith argument on Dennis's part. When I first removed the text from the F-650 article I said it wasn't notable in context of the article. I didn't mean WP:NOTE and said as much when Dennis brought it up. What can I say when an editor tires to accuse me of meaning WP:NOTE (and makes the accusation repeatedly) when I clearly state I didn't mean NOTE and, like many editors, used notable when I should have said weight etc. **Stonewalling or filibustering -- too many diffs to collect. Any of these discussions shows Springee replying to every single comment, repeating his arguments over and over. Then how can I tell if the claim is legit. **Bad-faith negotiating: moving the goal posts by adding new criteria to meet. There is no Wiki rule that I'm aware of that says we can't suggest new arguments when previous ones fail to convince. **A new red herring this belongs on some other article -- EXCEPT nope, if you did add it to some other article, Springee would oppose it for reasons previously given. A bait and switch I've addressed this BS before. I think my replies on the project talk page were clear. I would point out that Dennis seems to have a history of confrontation with editors who disagree with him. Dennis has taken a hostile approach to other users as well [[70]], [[71]], [[72]]. This should be a simple content dispute that was moved to an RfC but for a series of accusations of bad faith starting with Dennis. I'm sure I could have handled things better (not nibbled at the bait a few times) but his telling grossly distorts the events. (Sorry for typos, it's late) Springee (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC) * I'm restoring this from the archive. Hopefully we can have a resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Apparently, nobody cares. So this will get archived again shortly. 68.193.51.117 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC) FYI, altho I agree with your sentiment, by posting to the discussion you delayed its archiving by a day. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC) I would really like a response. Today Springee goes on playing his games, pretending he doesn't know that Wikipedia is not a Democracy and we determine outcomes by Consensus, not voting. He declares disputes "over" at will, whenever he feels like it's to his advantage. At Talk:Ford F-650, things weren't going his way, so he jumped over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and started an RfC to see if he could get a different outcome. Now he claims the outcome is decided and he wonders why anyone would want his RfC to be formally closed? Why start a formal RfC if you don't want it to be formally closed? It's more of the same gaming the system. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Now, a sudden interest in the 2014 Oso mudslide! Who knew Springee edited articles about disasters in small towns in the state of Washington? Obviously, Springee is tracking my edits and hounding me now. See WP:HOUND "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. ". Springee has history of tracking others' edit history in order to harass them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Today Springee is pretending that the RfC over Talk:Ford F-650 "not contentious". A discussion that has spread to 8+ threads and counting, spawned an RfC and an ANI thread, is "not contentious". And further, Springee thinks "consensus is obvious". When has Springee ever not thought consensus is obvious? Always in his favor, naturally. More gaming the system, bad faith. RE: Wikihounding, Here is Springee's bread-and-butter Wikilawyering. All Wikipedia is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, so why wouldn't he casually pick through 7 bot notices on somebody else's talk page and choose one or two where he could follow one of his personal rivals? And never leave out "I would suggest you read WP:AGF". Always playing the victim, always using AGF as a shield to cover any level of disruptive editing. Please indef block Springee so this can end. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Nope. Deliberately unarchiving discussions where your request to indef an editor might easily boomerang. [73] was a fairly poor idea. Collect (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC) I'm surprised it took this long for the old reliable boomerang threat to rear its ugly head. One of the ways Springee has been so successful in his long term abuse is playing the victim and turning any complaints about his disruptive editing against the accuser. Classic Wikilawyering. Speaking of boomerang, your own behavior is not exactly something to be proud of. See above. I welcome further administrator attention in this case. All of the uninvolved editors (see above) who have taken the time to look a the diffs have seen that these blockable offenses are real. Springee's best hope is to bludgeon the process to the point where nobody wants to take the time to read all this crap. Who can blame them? Dealing with people like Springee is a time-consuming, thankless task. He uses that to his advantage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I'm hatting the above discussion, so that this is visible but users can still review the above. I've seen very little admin (or uninvolved user) participation in this extremely lengthy and nasty thread. The involved users' interactions have devolved into straight-up name-calling: [74] and what does appear to be hounding [75]. So I'm proposing an indefinite two-way interaction ban between Dennis Bratland and Springee because frankly, the community doesn't appear to have the time or the patience to unravel what happens when the two of you interact. I'm requesting that if either of you comment, you make only a single brief statement. I think you've each said quite enough above. agtx 03:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the devolution to name calling but protest the claim of hounding. CuriousMind01 and I have been discussing a joint question for the NPOVN (Discussions here [[76]] and here [[77]]). The general topic (the core of the F-650 RfC) is if A has weight in article B does B automatically have weight in article A? On CM's talk page, under my comments, are several RfC links two of which deal with that question (Mini-14 and Oso Mudslide). Having weighted in on several of these type questions (Sig MCX, Aug 16th [[78]], Mini-14 (starting on Sept 19th) [[79]], and the RfC discussed above) the Oso RfC caught my eye for the same reasons. My Oso comment was not directed at Dennis or reference his reasons arguments[[80]]. This is only one of perhaps 20 differnent articles Dennis has edited in the last few days? Not following or hounding. I would be quite happy if Dennis would drop the accusations of bad faith etc and we can leave one another alone. That said, I don't want to be accused of violating an IB for acting on the results of the RfC I started above [[81]]. I don't see an IB as needed. If problems persist after the RfC closes then bring on the ban. Springee (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't support an interaction ban. It lets Springee off free, and silences one of the few who care enough to pay attention to his pattern of behavior. There's no doubt that unraveling this is time consuming. But I maintain somebody has to step up and read through all of these threads. I'd like to know what's going to happen when Springee gets sent on his merry way to start more of these protracted disputes, and somebody else gets fed up, and brings the same complaints back here to AN/I. What will be said to them? "Your diffs aren't formatted nicely enough. Too long. Don't want to read." Who benefits from me being unable to say a word? I know the community doesn't want to devote time this kind of thing, but an interaction ban only pushes the necessary homework down the road onto somebody else, and allows Springee to bully more editors unopposed. It won't stop until somebody rolls up their sleeves and slogs through the muck.

Id' like to hear what User:Fyddlestix and User:MrX say about this interaction ban, and I wish the IP(s) would create accounts to be taken more seriously. Springee continues to play innocent with the obvious hounding. He's incorrigible.

I prefer an admin gives this the attention it deserves and take action. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Bratland appears to have a single aim, and used many thousands of words to promote it. An "interaction ban", judging from Bratland's post above is not the answer. The proper ban should be one of Bratland from initiating any complaints about Springee, or of Springee initiating complaints about Bratland on any noticeboard. In the case at hand, it is clear who is the aggressor, alas. And keep the posts down to a reasonable length, please. I trust this is an evenhanded response, but otherwise I fear that it is Bratland who is "not here" to work collegially. Collect (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It amazes me. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize the knowledge available on any given subject in reliable sources, right? It is no accident that succinct and summarize begin with the same two letters. Why is it when someone feels the need to complain here that compels them to write the equivalent of War and Peace? Dennis Bratland, you should have never resurrected this. The reason nothing ever gets done about your ongoing battle is you can't keep your hands off your keyboard. It doesn't take 5000 characters to register a complaint. You can do it in under 500 complete with diffs. You don't need to respond to everything said. Say your piece, shut up and let the community debate. This is especially important when the person you are complaining about also has an affinity for opuses.

To that end, since neither of these editors can get along and neither can form a complaint we can actually deal with here, I suggest that they be restricted to complaining straight to ArbCom. There, they will be forced to keep it under 500 characters, and restricted from sniping at each other during the process. A warning to both tho....The outcome for you both will not be to your liking. My suggestion would be you both leave the wonderful world of automobiles alone for a while. Find something else to work on. I can direct you to literally hundreds of school articles that would love some attention. John from Idegon (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This. - MrX 12:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with this too. Same outcome as far as the community is concerned. We're simply not interested. agtx 15:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I don't favour iBans. If an editor is bad enough, just a simple ban. An iBan just shouldn't be necessary for two competent, good faith editors, whom both of these are.

I've had problems with both of these editors in the past, but I'm happy that they're both basically well-meaning. It should be enough for them to work out their own personal grudges, or simply to sit on their hands and edit quietly despite. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass creation of articles

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

---

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

Muhd FUad has created a large number of articles in quick succession, most of which are of the form Foo is a Malaysian badminton player, and a single source, the same website in every case (a results database, so not a RS to establish notability). Most of the articles have an infobox, which includes a ranking, and these are often so high that it's unlikely the subject would ever pass notability. A number have been tagged for deletion. Some don't even have the sub-stub text, just an infobox and the website. I think a mass delete is a good start here. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree; this seems to be a good example. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, they have gone through and deleted most of the BLPPRODs/PRODs/CSDs. Working on a clean-up now ... Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted all the ones that were infobox only, or "X is a badminton player" without any other claim of notability - a total of 53. All the rest (a dozen or so) have at least some claim to notability and/or sources, although some if not all are probably candidates for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I prodded all of them, told the user that they'd have some time to fix the ones that might pass notability, and I also warned them that taking the Prods off without fixing the problems would be a bad idea. They didn't listen, removed the prods and fixed almost nothing. Oh well. You can lead a horse to water...  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Other edits like this are slightly odd. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly... that's just weird. This guy saved a few of his articles. Why would he do that?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Initially, Muhd FUad wasn't writing article text at all, posting just an infobox. There wasn't even an indication that the three-digits rankings of these players were in badminton. Now someone else is adding actual article text, and I'm measuring what's being said against WP:NBADMINTON. At least a few of these people may be notable under those criteria. Largoplazo (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait...s/he blanked someone else's talk page? That's a WP:TPO violation (albeit inadvertent). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of blanking talk pages in this discussion. Did you mean to ask this somewhere else? Largoplazo (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

S/He is back making more articles. See Soong Joo Ven. As to the mention of blanking someone else talk page, it is above where Muffled said: "Other edits like this are slightly odd. ". However, I'm willing to AGF and guess that edit was probably a mistake.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

After a couple of rounds of restoring maintenance and BLPPROD tags removed by this editor and leaving warnings on his talk page, I've filed a report at WP:AIV. Largoplazo (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked him for 48 hours for disruptive editing, in a last-ditch attempt to get his attention. If he makes no attempt to understand what he did wrong, next block should be indef. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Unidentified editor making unsourced changes

I am not well versed enough in the U.S. census to know if this unnamed editor is a vandal or is actually contributing something to the encyclopedia. I hope somebody can check out these changes. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of those edits are being reverted. It would help if the IP provided some sources for the changes. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jurre27 and Netherlands national football team

This user has been editing the article Netherlands national football team for a few years, and while his edits are helpful (updating the squad is all he does), they also consistently include wrong birthdays for players (see here for example: the birthdays of Jeroen Zoet, Michel Vorm and Karim Rekik are wrong. All of his contributions are similar). I've tried many times to reach out to him on his talk page, but he ignores anything posted there and keeps introducing the same errors to the article.

Maybe I should have posted here sooner, but I do believe he's editing with good intentions. Unfortunately, he just doesn't seem to listen, which means the article always has to be fixed after his edits. So yeah, posting here because I'm not sure what else to do. Kinetic37 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

He has now also reverted my edit in which I fixed this (That IP is his). Kinetic37 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a short block will help him get the message? 68.232.71.82 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Filter? Rangeblock? Synthesizer patch trivia LTA case from New York

There's a person using multiple IPs from New York who adds unreferenced trivial stuff to music articles. The most recognizable pattern is like this one in which a song article gets something like the following text clumsily inserted into the first sentence:

• ...(where the [model of synthesizer] patch/sound was/were heard)...

Here are some examples:

• 3 Oct 2600:1017:B829:DB9A:602B:3727:3BD2:2ADB (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27 Sept 2600:1017:B81C:911D:A591:6D14:580A:3E3F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 Sept 2600:1017:B80C:8923:3931:FD2A:6643:B8AA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 Sept 2600:1017:B802:AECC:7180:7036:B70D:8F0C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 Sept 2600:1000:B10B:9C5:384B:2589:1406:1C07 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 July 2600:1017:B82C:A4C4:2453:58A4:DD3E:A3E6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 21 July 2600:1017:B818:FC2:7452:75E3:151E:7E75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 17 July 2600:1001:B116:9629:DD5:5BD9:18FD:2C41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 16 July 70.192.67.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 June 2600:1001:B128:4F85:DDCF:A0E6:3C6C:4C44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25–26 June 2600:1017:B40A:E3AB:3D69:CC5C:6589:1B2E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25 June 2600:1017:B81A:7B1D:1CC1:4BC0:E2BD:409F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 21 June 2600:1017:B814:6C8C:85F2:2AF:B89F:D435 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 10 June 2600:1017:B809:3743:9DA3:6F49:B45D:B193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 22 May 2600:1017:B808:590F:8C6A:ABD7:252C:FA9E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 May 2600:1017:B40A:79F6:F51A:9F70:F038:5217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 April – 1 May 2600:1017:B81A:4F01:1977:B827:7A34:6E12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 20 April 2600:1017:B80B:5A78:E817:36EB:13FD:31B6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 March 2600:1017:B80F:61EF:2582:6E38:CB38:42E0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 13 March 70.214.107.246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 March 2600:1017:B820:33DD:F095:AED6:C1A7:D8D6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 26 February 2600:1017:B42C:452:E03B:F767:B25B:5695 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12–13 February 2600:1017:B81A:597C:F81E:2DFF:EAE0:334 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27–28 January 70.199.102.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25–26 January 2600:1017:B822:9C5C:E85B:E505:981B:C8B9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19 January 2600:1017:B817:3A18:219E:798A:6F87:558B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 7–9 January 70.214.96.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 December 2015 2600:1017:B806:BC85:D991:4755:1262:82D7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19 October 2600:1017:B818:4D25:44A:DF1:5914:41F4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Some of these IPs have been blocked for this disruption, for instance a few weeks ago on 1 September and on 8 September, both blocked by Widr. If this disruptive person stuck around for more than a few days on any IP address I would try to reason with him or her, but that hasn't happened. So to stop the disruption, do we put a filter together to stop the clumsy insertions of trivia? Or do we set a rangeblock in place on the most frequently used group, 2600:1017:B...? Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think an edit filter is the way to go here. He's not editing frequently enough to justify a rangeblock for 2600:1017:b800::/42, and for the rest we'd have to block the /64s or /128s individually. Katie^talk 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have requested an edit filter. Let's see how that goes. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Incivility and use of profanity by user Jytdog

Hello,

I'm writing to express concern over the response of editor Jytdog in regards to edits I made on the page Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell. Editor Jytdog referred to my edits as “an orgy of laziness”, “a f***ing mess” (with the actual word), and “shot full of invalid claims”. I hope that in posting to the ANI, this issue can be properly addressed.

In response to the claims made by Jytdog: I believe that the “aftermath of laziness” refers to my inclusion of references as links to Pubmed. These linked to the appropriate research article, but did not include author name, title, etc directly in the Wikipedia entry. If there is a systematic way to format and include references in this style, I would be happy to know and incorporate this.

The “shot full of invalid claims” was part of a larger comment: "way, way too many primary sources and claims of "in X year Y lab was the first to do Z" sourced to Y's paper. shot full of invalid claims. that paper cannot be used as the source that it was first. need third party to say that”. Jytdog’s claim of invalidity is inaccurate and unfounded. The use of primary references does not equate to invalidity. Furthermore, in my edit [82], I included two review articles (references 11 and 12) to corroborate the primary sources (references 13-17; the information from reference 18 had been put there by another user). However, in an effort to address this, Jytdog introduced an inaccuracy that would be upsetting to the authors involved in the studies. Such issues with references would be better handled through discussion of content, rather than deletion or use of vulgar language.

Moving forward, I ask that the use of profanity and incivility by user Jytdog is dealt with appropriately by the community. Thank you,

CellbioPhD (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In response to the aversion on the use of primary literature sources, I believe that including this information is helpful to scientists and the public looking to understand the development of a field. As a scientist, I would rather see direct references to publications in an area (e.g. the paper that discovered gene X) than a link to a review article (although knowing the primary source has been corroborated is helpful). In a new field (like iPSCs), it takes time for review articles to be published. It makes more sense to post information as it becomes available from primary sources, then to include corroborating secondary sources as they become available, and to discuss content as needed. This may be different from medical articles where patients may be looking to base treatment options on what they read from Wikipedia, and use of careless citation can be harmful. As someone with experience in iPSCs, I would like to continue citing primary sources in addition to relevant review articles, and hope that questions of inaccuracy can be resolved through amicable discussion within the community.

Relevant links:

• Page: Induced pluripotent stem cell
• User: User:Jytdog
• History of edits: History: Induced pluripotent stem cell
• Relevant diff: 742294863

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CellbioPhD (talk • contribs)

I notice you made no attempts to contact Jytdog about this issue. You didn't even notify him that you opened this thread, though maybe you are busy doing that right now, I hope. ANI is where you go when an issue cannot be resolved by discussion with the users involved - it's not where you run to tattle on someone for using bad words, or to complain that someone disagreed with you. Regarding the disagreement over references, ANI doesn't care. Content disputes are to be resolved through dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note: The previous close was:

  Not a matter for ANI. As Someguy1221 hinted at, this is a content dispute, and should thus be discussed on the article's talk page (although Jytdog does need to scale back on the profanity-laden edit summaries). (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

  Rebbing 16:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I have reopened the thread after it was closed by Erpert because I believe the usage of inappropriate edit summaries is a recurring issue by Jytdog. Although I'm glad that Erpert acknowledged the issue he merely claimed that Jytdog needs "to scale back on the profanity-laden edit summaries". That was accurate, but it was a little bit soft IMO. There was no suggestion of how it may be enforced if Jytdog doesn't comply and I'm pretty sure that Jytdog will simply continue with inappropriate edit summaries. Over the past two months I can recall five separate people complaining about Jytdog's incivility. I would have attempted to gather all the examples of incivility or simple strawmans and other ridiculous edit summaries but my computer is too sloppy and slow for that. I have to go by my memory unfortunately. Let me reiterate. Jytdog is not a bad editor, but a lack of respectful communication is not conducive to a cooperative and community-generated project such as Wikipedia. If you do not express your concern in edit summaries after a major revamp it suggests a lack of respect for other editor's, as if they do not deserve to know about a specific concern. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal I propose that Jytdog either (a) is required to receive mentorship in regards to edit summaries for two weeks (14 days), wherein an established editor monitors his usage of edit summaries. Or (b), there be a formal notice in the closure of this thread that requires his edit summaries be focused on content in a civil manner. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support A. I support option A because I'm going to assume good faith and assume that Jytdog is unaware of how distracting his edit summaries can be. As far as I'm aware, no previous admonition of a formal nature has been aplied to Jytdog so I think this is an appropriate first step. A formal notice or a caution with consequences might be more appropriate on subsequent violations if it continues. The positive thing about proposal A is that even if it accomplishes nothing, at least we are acknowledging that Jytdog has an edit summary problem - thats a step in the right direction. What irks me is that most of the time this incivility is directed at newer editors which does not help our aim of attracting new contributors. I support option B as a secondary option. Pwolit iets (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose both so-called 'remedies' as being for an imaginary problem. 'Distracting' edit summaries, indeed. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way to waste people's time, Pwolit iets. Is it uncivil to call a fucking mess a fucking mess? Discuss. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Its fine to call it a motherfucking mess. But shouldn't he mention why its a sisterfucking mess? Pwolit iets (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, we can close this with no further discussion, as it seems it's not the presumed incivility that is now the issue, but the fact that no causal link was offered. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

To me its the combination of no causal link and incivility that crossed the red line. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We do not get to describe other editor's work thus: "fix aftermath of an orgy of laziness". Jytdog knows this, he has been warned for it often enough before. Let alone this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support the second. Which is unsurprising as isn't, "edit summaries be focused on content in a civil manner" a requirement upon all of us?

Jytdog is a superior sort of editor to the rest of us. Because he limits his editing to absolutist hard-line imposition of his sourcing policies (which might be agreed by MEDRS but are in excess of our general policies and are downright unwelcome outside MEDRS) then he has achieved some status as a tenured editor, above the petty rules on civility which constrain the editorial proletariat. He is happy to exploit this; he is regularly abusive to others: either by simple uncivility, high-handed reversion of the lesser editors and even bright-line harassment by raising fatuous SPIs.

We should not have two degrees of editorship like this. If any of us are constrained by such as CIVILITY, then all should be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

But are we constrained by it, Andy Dingley? You, for one, seem to frequently get away with a surprising amount of passive aggression and nastiness (as here, "a superior sort of editor to the rest of us", "the petty rules on civility which constrain the editorial proletariat") without getting sanctioned for it. According to WP:CIV, that you reference, editors "should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably". I believe habitual combativeness, sarcasm and a victimized stance harm the "pleasant editing environment" more than the use of salty words when provoked. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC).

Its not merely incivility for Jytdog. I once saw him being asked a genuine question on a content dispute and he dismissed it rudely. Therefore it is not limited to edit summaries, nor incivility, but that is the most obvious thing that is out there. But I am currently restricted to writing my responses on a typewriter and subsequently copy-pasting here since my computer does not work properly. Andy on the other hand I do not see problems with in the most important regions where civility is prized - in the midst of content disputes, in edit summaries and talk pages. That is where a clear head, decent temperament is valued most. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A "victimised stance"? So when Jytdog lies by stating that it would be ridiculous to open an SPI on me and he would never do such a thing, then goes right ahead and does so, I have no right to complain? Jytdog is an abusive bully. He uses his established position as a bastion from which to attack other editors he perceives as weaker. Often these are simply newer editors unfamiliar with the arcana hereabouts.

Two of the worst problems here these days are cliques and the two-tier ranks of editors. Editors like Jytdog, ********* and **** are given a free pass on civility which is not extended to others. Jytdog goes past this into overt bullying too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What has this got to do with me? I have to say that I find your continual aggression to be very offensive, so kindly remove my name from your list above, or I'll do it for you. Eric Corbett 15:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support B per the very first bullet in the civility policy. The policy does not solely refer to the use of profanity. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Propose Close this thread. Trout all those who took part, including me I suppose. (ADD, but not Bishonen, she frightens me). -Roxy the dog™ bark 15:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @CellbioPhD: is asking to do something that is deprecated in our NOR policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
• As an aside, what he was fixing that he called an orgy of laziness seems to have been references. I'll also say that Eric shouldn't have been dragged into this, that could be seen as provocative. The same goes for Cassianto, or any other editor in fact. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If Jytdog has a problem with CellbioPhD's use of primary sources (and might be right to do so, per MEDRS) then a far more useful action would have been to raise this with them and to explain why those primary sources were a problem. Abusively removing them, as he did, is not an appropriate or useful response. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Andy. Pwolit iets (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, Jytdog (along with Doc James) DID politely point out the error of CellbioPhD's ways, multiple times, and were ignored. This whole thread is silly. Capeo (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a formal warning or sanctions at this point. In context, the edit summaries "shot full of invalid claims" and "such a fucking mess" are plain, fair descriptors of content and do not violate the civility policy. I agree that describing good-faith editing as "an orgy of laziness," while accurate—leaving a mess of bare URLs for another editor to clean up is lazy—is somewhat disrespectful.

  However, for better or for worse, this kind of snide remark is well within the norm. Some of the comments in this very thread are far more personal, damaging, and unmerited than the edit summaries under discussion: this comment dripping in venom and casting aspersions without diffs and this comment making even more serious accusations, still without evidence, and going out of the way to slam two uninvolved editors stand out. Yet will those be punished? For the unawares, the proposer has a long-running grudge against Jytdog's application of MEDRS—see here (proposing to use ANI to draw attention to Jytdog's editing), here (ordering Jytdog to cease and desist from his application of MEDRS), here (Jytdog's response), or here ("I have tracked your edits going back to April")—and recently employed another ANI thread to suggest that Jytdog's use of the English idiom "it's all Greek to me" could be perceived as racist. The civility policy is not a cudgel to bloody one's enemies. Rebbing 17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think I have a grudge against you, you are mistaken. I have on at least three occasions said positive words about you. Even within this thread I have said that my primary (if only) concern about you is you concescending attitude in your edit summaries (and less commonly on talk pages) and other than that I'm cool with you. If you improve that, I am totally fine with you as an editor and may even nominate you for adminship. I literally have nothing against you. We don't even edit in the same topic area. How could I possibly have a grudge against someone who by and large edits completely different articles to myself? I do however dislike newbies being disrespected. I have seen you disrespect newbies a couple of times in edit summaries and don't like it. I also dislike it when a possibly constructive debate is derailed by condescension. Simple as that. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I was meant to reply to Jytdog but he seems to have removed his comments. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I commented here and then thought better of it and within the minute I removed it, before anyone had replied. As noted above this is the second time you have created dramah at ANI about me, your kind words here (thank you for saying them) notwithstanding. You are clearly overly focused on me and the drama you are trying to create; we have work to do building an encyclopedia Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes we should build an encyclopedia, but on this website that requires teamwork, not a one-man show wherein one-side vents his frustration on others through his edit summaries. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a very sucky sort of record. I wonder who Pwolit iets was before he or she was Pwolit iets. I'd be much more inclined to sanction Pwolit iets than Jytdog based on the above, for what seems like an abuse of process to fight personal battles; exactly the sort of drama we can do without. I'd settle for closing this waste of time thread. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's par for the course was with him. After I posted my comment above, he left me this message: it seems he views my inconvenient pointing out his grudge against Jytdog as part a "hallucinatory and defamatory campaign" against him. The evidence suggests otherwise: less than a week ago, he started this smear thread about me at a WikiProject; there's also these indefensible, harassing reverts from a few weeks ago. Rebbing 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been in content disputes with roughly 50 people so far on wikipedia. Do I have a grudge against all of them? Thats ridiculous! What makes Jytdog stand out is his condescension in his edit summaries. My proposal is not punitive. It is meant to be preventative because these edit summaries are not constructive. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If I truly had a grudge against Jytdog in that way don't you think I would have proposed to have him blocked or topic banned rather than merely focused on his civlity in edit summaries? If so, it is truly disturbing how inconsequential incivility is on Wikipedia. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

TBH, you look & smell like a troll, Pwolit iets, not here to build the encyclopedia but to play some sort of game of your own devising and rules. And what sort of shitty argument is that: "If I truly had a grudge I'd have harrassed him in that way rather than the way I'm actually harrassing him." ffs. So go on then. Who exactly were you before you registered your current identity? Because sure as shit, a user with your edit history was not new to wikipedia a bare few months ago. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Account just over 2 months old, fewer than 1000 total edits, with only 227 to article space, and I have been in content disputes with roughly 50 people so far on wikipedia. That's an impressive other people's time to contribution ratio. Oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support B. As a first choice since that was what Someguy1221 seemed to hint at previously and some of the arguments for B above. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You already said that and your grudge is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay I will prove to you that I don't have a grudge against you (even thought I don't need to prove it) by assuring you I will contact you a few weeks from now after judging whether your edit summaries have chnaged at all. If so, I promise you will sense a completely different vibe from me - a positive one. How many times do I have to repeat that i'm fine with with your general edits in the article space. Its primarily your edit summaries that need work. It needs work in the sense that it needs to acknowledge that editors are not paid to be here, but rather edit for free and there should be some appreciation for their effort, even if it has mistakes by at least giving them some respect. I believe that any action that makes good-intentioned and feasibly constructive newbies feel unwelcome should not be tolerated. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

that just proves you are obsessed with me. your proposal is as weird and stalkery as your very first comment to me. i am starting to wonder if you are not yet another sock of biscuittin, who also is/was weirdly obsessed with me. I don't understand how people get caught up in the social/drama part of this place. Only about 30% of your edits are on content. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense for someone to be obsessed with anoter person who edits a totally different subject area to another. We by and large edit completely different topics. Why the hell would I be obsessed with you? Pwolit iets (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am just describing your behavior; I can't explain it. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you get over your solipsism. The moment you treat your fellow editors more humanely (especially in edit summaries), and make more of an effort to explain why their contributions are wrong, and you treat wikipedia as a collaborative project rather than a 1-man spectacle, I will have no interest in you whatsoever (thats if I had any to begin with). In fact I completely forgot you existed until I recognized your name here. Pwolit iets (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• As I noted in my withdrawn remark I am aware i am too harsh sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

So why do you keep doing it? No wish to, or an inability to? Neither of those are good attributes in an editor here, especially not one taking such a high-handed standpoint on content matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am human and have character flaws; I fail sometimes to manage them adequately and I generally ackowledge it when I fuck up. I was too harsh in my edit notes with regard to CellBioPhDs edits. Please answer this - why are you an inch away from a one-way IBAN with regard to me? Why did you ignore that and afterwards continually disrupt the SPIs against Biscuittin? (note that the archive doesn't include this removed by an admin) Real questions. Please answer. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In short series you filed an SPI against CaptainYuge and drove him off the project within days. You filed one against me with the comment "It feels weird to file this", shortly after you had lied and said "No I wouldn't raise an SPI over you. You are Andy Dingley, and are known around here." and you then went on to award me a "Moron Diploma". So after that, your filing of a third SPI against an editor you were in dispute with was less than convincing.

You are not careless, or flawed, you are nasty. You are a bully and you use your reputation as "the defender of MEDRS" to attack other editors who are less well established. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer the question; which is why did the community almost impose an IBAN on you and why did you ignore that community feedback?

You are continuing the behavior that brought you to the edge of an IBAN. You again have misrepresented every one of those events and it is clear now that you have twisted these things into some picture of me that you carry around and hate. That is not my problem; it is yours. I am sorry that you carry that around. I am also sorry that you cannot see what you are doing - that you too have flaws you are not managing well. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and someone please close this. It's becoming unproductive. When the now-reverted close was made a while back, I was concerned about the reference to the edit summaries in the closing statement, because I've been giving Jytdog advice about this sort of thing for quite some time, and I was worried. So I took a careful look at his contribution history during several days leading up to this complaint. And that is hundreds of edits! And I found exactly two (2) edits with edit summaries that fit this description: [83] and [84]. That's it. The second is just annoyance over a bot message at his own user talk page. The first is, I assume, what brought us here. And it's one edit in a long series of edits cleaning up citations that were messed up at Induced pluripotent stem cell. It's not directed at another editor. There is no personal attack. It's annoyance over a long clean-up process. This ANI thread should have stayed closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi Admin. Usser Lugnuts With lies and slander deleted my accurate work. My work Translate the site SourehCinema and Farabi. My work not copy. but usser Lugnuts Does not understand!. Please prevent bad work lugnuts. Irbox (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Irbox was blocked by Lugnuts for copyvio after multiple warnings about both copyvio and failure to cite sources, and unblock-request was declined by User:Oshwah basically as WP:CIR. Irbox takes the block as a personal insult, despite the run-up warnings by multiple editors that include both standard templates and personally written explanations trying to get through a possible language or comprehension barrier. Irbox responds with explicit incivility beyond merely responding to discussions at hand. Upon expiriation of the block, immediately returns to copyvio behavior (cut'n'paste from a variety of years'-old publications, no evidence of being the original translator). I'd say indef/CIR. DMacks (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just seen Irbox's contributions flash-up on my watchlist. Again. It finished with this one at ANI (still not been directly notified of this, but lets leave that to one side for the time being). This user's talkpage is littered with notifications about failing to cite sources, requests to use reliable sources and, most importantly, copyvio notices. They seem to either ignore or be unaware of the issue around copyright. This morning they've gone through a wave 20 or so articles, restoring text that has been removed for either being unsourced or copyright violations. Lets look at some examples: Restore copyrighted text, unsourced awards] (fails WP:BURDEN), BLP violations, another copyvio plot, another BLP violation. And so on, and so on. They were blocked for doing just this, yet return to continue adding this straight after being blocked. They've also tried to do the same under at least two IP addresses (‎93.110.44.176 and ‎93.110.24.233). WP:CIR is clearly an issue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I was half-tempted to block Irbox indefinitely per WP:CIR last time he appeared here, but another admin blocked them temporarily first. This time I have done so; they may be unblocked when they indicate that they understand the copyright and other problems, although I suspect that may be difficult given the language and other issues. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BK. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Volleynet (talk · contribs) is now engaging in the same uncited additions (literally) as Irbox. DMacks (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I reminded them of citing reliable sources and dropped the ANI notification on their talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This user is demonstrating a clear and fundamental lack of competence: suggestion. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked Volleynet as well. But this is a weird one; they have created stub articles in reasonable English in the past, which is something which appears to be completely beyond Irbox. Unless they copy-pasted, of course. I've left a note telling Volleynet that they could be unblocked if they can explain their behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Black Kite: -If they're distinctly different editing styles, is a compromised account likely? _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 aka User:Little Silas aka User:2602:306:3134:6180:848e:9e67:8ee5:670a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/POV-pushing at Winsor McCay

2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk · contribs) aka Little Silas (talk · contribs) aka 2602:306:3134:6180:848e:9e67:8ee5:670a (talk · contribs) has been altering the Winsor McCay to reflect a POV that McCay was born on a certain date or in a certain order before his siblings. John Canemaker, McCay's most prominent biographer, goes into detail about why McCay's birthdate is uncertain in the second edition of his Winsor McCay: His Life and Art (doesn't appear to be available on GBooks, but I've quoted it ad nauseam at User talk:Little Silas). All of this is detailed in the article itself, but said user continues to push this WP:OR/WP:SYNTH stuff, as they have for over a year now (and have even introduced at Talk:Winsor McCay an undocumented theory that McCay was born in 19661866, supported by not one source).

You mean 1866? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with this incessant disruption? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Despite having been warned, the editor in question is now engaging in an edit war. Re: "They are simple facts directly cited to Canemaker"—I've already shown this to be false at User talk:Little Silas. Canemaker goes into detail why a birthdate cannot be determined. Little Silas knows this. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Curly "the jerk" Turkey is making false claims of OR, POV, and edit warring. I attempted to insert two simple facts into the article: 1) that Winsor McCay was his parents' firstborn child, and 2) that his sibling Arthur was his younger brother. Both facts are found in two important sources: Canemaker(2005) and Bien(2011). These are sourced facts, not OR, and I made no attempt to interpret them. And I put nothing in the article about McCay's date of birth. Curly "the jerk" Turkey doesn't like, or doesn't understand, the possible implications of these facts, so he claims that they are actually contradicted by the sources, which is absurd. His false claim can be easily dismissed by simply reading one page in either source. Any POV problem here belongs to Curly "the jerk" Turkey. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• The above manure has been refuted repeatedly at User talk:Little Silas. Arthur was born in 1868, while Winsor was born in either 1867, 1869, or 1871, which can't be determined for reasons Canemaker details on page 22 of his book, which User:Little Silas has demonstrated to have read. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I made no reference at all in the article to McCay's birth year. I am mystified why Curly "the jerk" Turkey thinks that I did. 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Winsor cannot be Arthur's older brother unless he was born before 1868. Let's stop pretending—we've been over and over and over this, and you're even editwarring over it. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Curly "the jerk" Turkey just might be on to something about 1868, but I'm just interested in what the sources have to say. Canemaker calls Winsor the “firstborn” (p22) and the “eldest son” (p24), while Bien (p123) calls him “the oldest son”, and refers to Arthur as his "younger brother". It can't get any clearer than that: Arthur McCay was Winsor's younger brother. Both sources say so, repeatedly. What this might mean for Winsor's disputed birthdate is anyone's guess, but these sourced facts speak for themselves. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• • Canemaker takes great pains to demonstrate why McCay's birthdate cannot be determined, and there is no reason to call Arthur a "younger brtoher" or Winsor an "older brother" when it's already clear they are children of the same parents. Your goal is to push an earlier birthdate, which you've been pushing for over a year—including trying to obliterate the other dates from the article, and continued to editwar over it (until an admin stepped in). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• When are they going to remake this film? And totally ruin it? Doc talk 09:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hopefully never. Curly "the shithead" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's safe to say we've not seen eye-to-eye, but you're signature did make me chuckle! Got to agree with you here. Either someone blocks the anon or makes the page protected. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute with conduct issues arising from it. Often resolving the content dispute in a civil way causes the conduct issues to subside. Read the dispute resolution policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is here because of the incessant behaviour and the POV/OR/SYNTH issues. The "content dispute" has carried on for well over a year, with Little Silas slipping in their POV/OR/SYNTH under two IPs. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: an admin has stepped in before "rev OR" that Little Silas had added. Is OR to be upgraded to "content dispute" status? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Curly "the jerk" Turkey continues to misrepresent my edits as OR, when I simply introduced two brief sourced facts, without comment or interpretation. And Curly "the jerk" Turkey continues to carry-on about Winsor McCay's birth year, which I never mentioned in the article.

More troubling, however, are his false claims of "incessant disruption" extending "for well over a year". I first attempted to edit the McCay article over the course of a week or two in June 2015. I then ignored it for well over a year, until a few days ago. On Oct 2 (05:22), I inserted the sentence "Winsor was the first of three McKay children", and the phrase "Winsor's younger brother Arthur", with sources for both.

Two days later, on October 4 (03:20), after a routine exchange about date-range formatting, Curly "the jerk" Turkey suddenly went ballistic and reverted all of my edits, calling them "OR bullshit" and threatening "to take this shit to WP:ANI? I'm reverting all this horseshit." I restored only the two brief disputed edits at 05:03 & 06:00, pointing out that they were sourced facts, not OR. Unfazed, Curly "the jerk" Turkey reverted them again (07:32), with the command to "stop the horseshit now." I restored them at 07:42, explaining that "You are disrupting these edits with false claims of OR." He then reverted my edits yet again (07:46), with the kiss-off comment "You've been reported. Have fun with your block." So, I restored my edits twice (first, 2 edits from his mass deletion), with valid explanation, while Curly "the jerk" Turkey reverted and threatened 3 times, with false claims of OR. That's the extent of his "edit war."

And clearly Curly "the jerk" Turkey's charge of "incessant disruption" lasting "for over a year" is ridiculous, since I ignored the article for more than a year. The current dispute is confined to barely 4 hours on October 4. What Curly "the jerk" Turkey calls "incessant disruption" is just anything that threatens his POV.

This complaint by Curly "the jerk" Turkey is based on distortions and downright lies. His statements cannot be trusted. He is cynically using ANI as a weapon against an editor he disagrees with. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Canemaker details on page 22 of his book why Winsor McCay's birthdate cannot be determined to be 1867, 1869, or 1871. On the same page he tells us Arthur McCay was born on 1868. This is all in paragraphs 3–4 of Winsor McCay#Family history. There is no reason to call Arthur Winsor's "younger brother" or to call Winsor the "eldest son" in the article—the article makes it amply clear that they were sons of the same parents. Wikipedia cannot prefer the 1867 birthdate, even if particular authors do. The only reason to include superfluous language such as "older/younger brother" or "eldest son" is to POV-push a preferred date that the most prominent source tells us: "The exact date and place of birth of the child who became Winsor McCay are uncertain because of lack of documentation." (Canemaker 2005, p. 22). Read through the edit history of the Winsor McCay article and you'll see User:Little Silas and his IPs detailing how they came to the personal conclusion that McCay "seems" to have been born in 1867. This WP:OR/WP:SYNTH cannot be classified as a "content dispute". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these three accounts are Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts focused entirely [85][86][87] on this POV-pushing/OR/SYNTH ("Silas" is a nom de plume of Winsor McCay's). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do I detect a desperate attempt to move the goalposts? >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"Goalposts", because this is so obviously a game to you. Nothing has changed, including your disruptive behaviour. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Possibilities for Closure

I suggested that this is a content dispute complicated by conduct issues. User:CurlyTurkey, on my talk page, objects that this characterization too often derails ANI discussions. (At least, that is I think what CurlyTurkey says.) Rather than have this discussion first derailed and then archived to nowhere, I suggest some sort of resolution. First, if this really is about a date of birth, and about edit-warring over a date of birth, in view of how long it has been going on, the two editors can be sent to request formal mediation, where a skilled mediator will cut through their antagonism and get to the issue of the date of birth. Second, the article can be fully protected for a month to force them to discuss on the talk page. I am not optimistic about that and do not recommend it, because I think that a third party may be needed. Third, both editors can be warned that incivility is not permitted and that future incivility and future edit-warring will result in blocks (and that the first block should be at least 72 hours, because some editors think that a 24-hour block is cheap). Fourth, I don’t have a fourth alternative, but maybe someone else does. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Better idea: someone take an actual look at what's going on. This is not a content dispute. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Another Possibility for Closure

First, there is so a content dispute, which has to do with the birth date of the subject. If there weren’t, the filing party could simply leave the edits alone. Insisting at length that there is no content dispute does not change the fact that there is a content dispute. Second, however, there are conduct issues. I see incivility on both sides. Third, there is an unnecessary use of IP editing, since we have agreement that Little Silas and 2602.306.3134.6180.* are the same. I suggest that the article be semi-protected for six months because there is no reason for Little Silas to edit logged out. Fourth, if Curly Turkey thinks that there is no content dispute, they can just ignore the birth date nonsense. Fifth, a community interaction ban should be imposed between them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• "if Curly Turkey thinks that there is no content dispute, they can just ignore the birth date nonsense."—You're acting as Little Silas and I were disputing preferred birthdates—which only demonstrates that you've given the evidence no more than a cursory glance, if that. Pause for thirty seconds to read through the evidence and you'll see how ignorant, ridiculous, and disruptive these subsections are. If you can't do even that much, then you have no business here. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Pldx1 appears to be trolling me, and isn't doing much else

Pldx1 (talk · contribs)'s behaviour has been brought up here twice before with several users agreeing that his edits were troubling, but with the threads getting archived without a proper close. He hasn't added much good content to the encyclopedia (his English is very poor and always needs to be proof-read by others, and his sourcing standards are not great either). After a three-month absence, he recently re-emerged and made one possibly-bad edit and one definitely-bad one, which I reverted.[88][89][90][91]

In a discussion on MOS peripherally related to the former, which had until then been unusually civil for MOS, he posted a long comment that was barely legible but appeared to be unrelated to the MOS problem and to be trying to make the discussion about me.[92] After I called him out for this, he posted a piece of sarcasm that served no purpose but to get a rise out me.[93] When I told him that if he continued doing this I would report him on ANI, he replied with this. (It's very annoying being called out for the odd misprint on a talk page by the editor who added this to the mainspace.)

Note that I have told him several times to stop pinging me, but he has kept doing it, including in all three of the recent comments. Despite the ping, I didn't see the last one until after User:Curly Turkey had reverted it as "trolling", but it still seems like something should be done to address this problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear User Hijiri88. You put yourself in a hole. You better stop digging and let it snow, before unearthing a boomerang. Pldx1 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope; Pldx1, no boomerangs here today. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that Pldx1's constant abuse of the words "snow" and "boomerang" was addressed in the previous ANI discussions. I linked those archive threads rather than mentioning it here. The fact that he has used the word "snow" to describe several debates he was on the weaker side of as being in his favour on so many different occasions, and I have explained to him why it is wrong each time, is just another example of WP:IDHT on the part of this user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've encountered this user before, and I can confirm that their tone is often smug and taunting, and that they have very, very low sourcing standards. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dear user Reyk. Let us see what sources are saying. According to http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=reyk&users=pldx1&users=&startdate=20140101&enddate=20161005&ns=&server=enwiki, this encounter occurred at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer)_(2nd_nomination). Perhaps you perceived the remark:
  Moreover, it doesn't seem that "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery" are established cricket technical expressions
  as smug and taunting. How do you perceive, some months later, your own expressions ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC).

• This is eaxctly the haughty trolling I was talking about. Thank you for making my point for me. Reyk _YO! 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jvm21

Please can someone block this user? Why? Well this diff in my sandbox, and if that wasn't enough, there's this and this. My original post on his talkpage is in relation to their continued additions of unsourced information, which they was previously blocked for at ANI. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a big believer in WP:ROPE, so I gave him a 4-im for NPA. I have to step away for a while, so report it here if he continues. Katie^talk 14:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jvm is lucky Katie saw this first. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read the earlier ANI thread, the one which led to a block, apparently, but if they continue to add unsourced information than a NOTHERE block may well be appropriate. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

So I'm OK to call someone on here a cunt and only get a warning? Nice message that conveys. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I told someone earlier that they can call me a dick if they like, so sure, you can call me a cunt too. Anyway, I understand your response but if they've been warned already I can't really negate that and block. One hopes that this would be enough, and a next time they won't get away with it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, my blocklog says otherwise  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

There won't be a next time, as that was the first (and I'm 100% certain) last time they've ever edited outside of the article space. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement review

Can I have some eyes on this AE filing against Sean.hoyland?

The tl;dr:

• Editor makes several reverts to an ARBPIA related article they never edited before.
• Two of those reverts are 5 hours apart, violating the 1RR restriction. In the edit summary of the second revert (but neither of the two previous ones), the editor says they are removing a BLP violation.
• Editor does not participate on the talk page, refuse to discuss their reverts or explain what exact BLP violation they see.
• Editor is reported at AE.
• Editor posts a BATTLEGROUND filled rant at AE, claiming, among other things, that he is not required to discuss anything with "ethno-nationalist POV-pushers"
• One admin mentions and rejects BLP claim. Other admins do not address it.
• No admin addresses the editor's outright refusal to discuss his reverts.
• No admin addresses outright BATTLEGROUND behavior.

There is elaboration of each point in the actual AE filing linked above. What do you guys think? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not previously encountered the law of holes. I think it unlikely that this incident, stale as it is, will result in sanction. Come back if and when there is a repeat of the purported problem. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this incident was handled badly at AE and would like a review. I think the way it was handled sets a very bad precedent in which an editor can refuse to discuss their edits just because they don't like some of the people participating in the discussion. I think this goes against some very basic Wikipedia principles and would like to hear from the wider community. I don't care if it results in a sanction or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems you do care quite a bit, judging by how may user talks you've posted on about about this and the related AE thread. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that as the closer, when they appealed to me I suggested notifying the other uninvolved admins who participated in the AE request, as their comments are under review as well. I also believe the editor is acting in good faith, so I do not believe a WP:BOOMERANG is needed here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I notified the admins who participated and the editor the original filing was against, per The Wordsmith's suggestion on his talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Brawer was quoted as critiquing Khalidi's work on the ethnicity of original populations in Palestine. The article in dispute was:

• Walid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See some related threads:

• Discussion at NORN
• Complaint on the article talk page.

The complaint filed about Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) at AE seems to be that he reverted without discussion and technically broke 1RR, though he claimed a BLP justification for his second revert. (BLP because the sentence quoted from Moshe Brawer may show Brawer slightly misquoting the original primary document, Village Statistics 1945, by putting together two sentences into one and omitting some material). I made one comment in the AE but then didn't return. The whole thing seemed to fall into a gray area. If anyone could document an ongoing problem with Sean.hoyland's editing over numerous I/P articles, you might have a case. But my guess is that he doesn't stand head and shoulders above others who work in this area. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I've changed 'slightly misquoting' to just 'misquoting' above, per User:Zero0000. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so here's what happened. Sean.hoyland committed a technical infraction. A couple of the usual suspects got worked up about it, but nobody else cared so nothing got done. It was weeks ago now, so nothing will get done. The close of the AE was procedural, the closer merely reflected the general apathy evident in the discussion. And now, back to editing Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, you wanted more eyes on it (though you already got quite a few, I count six different admins discussing the matter.) So if seven will be enough, I agree—the close was fine, and drop it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Ed, with respect I disagree with the phrase "slightly misquoted" in your description. Actually was a major distortion. To summarize, Brawer's review charged Khalidi (the subject of the BLP), with using an inaccurate source by quoting it as saying "The population estimates published here [are the result of a very detailed work conducted by the Department of Statistics, by using all the statistical material available on the subject. They] cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerably, from the actual figures." but with the bracketed text silently removed. The information that the government authors of the source worked very hard on it using all the information at their disposal is obviously essential in assessing it. Every historian would consider such a distortion as an unwarranted attack on their professionalism and I don't think it is too much of a stretch to argue that the BLP rules require us to not repeat such distortions on Wikipedia. Zero^talk 22:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close - The purpose of a review isn't to retry the case, it can only be to see if it was closed within policy and no major mistakes were made. Unlike ANI, community discussion doesn't have to be given weight as we are looking at the application of Arb restrictions, a purely administrative function, so for me it is more a matter of looking at the diffs, the policy and the close. An admin doesn't even have to consider the opinions of other admin, for that matter. Blunt, but factual. The BLP claim was weak at best but plausible, as demonstrated by the lack of discussion. Sean was warned by EdJohnson, both of you were mildly warned by Drmies and Guy, and three other admin wanted to topic ban Epsom Salts. Admin aren't robots, they are encouraged to look at the totality of circumstances and act accordingly. They are not limited to only looking at the evidence presented by the filing party. In this case, I don't see any technical errors. Wordsmith's close does not need to reflect any consensus, per policy and Arb precedent, but actually DID reflect a consensus of admin so it shouldn't be a surprise if it has broad support. On a personal note, I think you are drastically overstating your case, Epsom Salts No More Mr Nice Guy, and this is not benefiting you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that neither the filer of the original report, nor this challenge, is User:Epson Salts. Both were filed by User:No More Mr Nice Guy, another editor entirely. Epsons Salts hasn't even posted here yet. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Corrected, but obviously the result is the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

List of American Crime episodes

Please check the recent history of the page. My guess is there is some class project or a group of friends set out to mass-create new episode pages like American Crime Season Two Episode One and American Crime Season Two Episode Two (whose titles unfortunately do not follow TV episode titling guidelines). Users in question (there are possibly more):

• Svancleve (talk · contribs)
• Kmhart12 (talk · contribs)
• Kbrennan13 (talk · contribs)
• MeOgren14 (talk · contribs)
• Jennaboelter (talk · contribs)
• Mgaffke (talk · contribs)
• DavidEuerle (talk · contribs)
• Linneascherber1 (talk · contribs)
• JManglos14 (talk · contribs)
• Alloyd12 (talk · contribs)

I don't have a doubt that these editors are acting in good faith and want to contribute, but it's clear that the new users are unfamiliar with article guidelines and titling, and needs some cleanup. I'm currently suggesting that the new page creations are not ready for the article space and should either be deleted or moved to draftspace (with more appropriate titles). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

From the ongoing page creations, pages like American Crime Season Two Episode Five are the same as American Crime Season Two Episode Four, etc. and essentially have no content. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of the new page creations can be listed at Special:PrefixIndex/American Crime Season. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You might want to start a discussion at Talk:List of American Crime episodes. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Snapdragon2727

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

---

• Snapdragon2727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continued disruptive editing at the Deathstroke article, even after the final warning. The user tried to hide it by blanking their Talk Page. DarkKnight2149 04:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is already at WP:AN3. Why are you bringing it here? Patience, grasshopper. John from Idegon (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Users are allowed to blank their talk page, they stopped after receiving the edit-warring notice, and have since taken to the talk page. They should have been given more of an explanation besides a generic vandalism template that doesn't tell at all them what the problem was. Reporting here is overkill. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I wasn't aware that an edit war report had been filed. My apologies for unknowingly filing a second report (I guess this case is dismissed).

@Ian.thomson: They were told the problem in edit summaries. Not only that, but the Deathstroke edits constituted their only edits. And that's without taking into account that an anon was already edit warring with the same edits on both Deathstroke and Jason Todd before this new account suspiciously popped up ([94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]). As for the page blanking, I wasn't suggesting that that in itself is disruptive, but rather pointing out why the final warning isn't visibly seen there and that the blanking seemed like a means to hide it. DarkKnight2149 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

State-sponsored terrorism

Hello Admins... I wanted to take it with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who performed admin actions at the recent Afd of an article which is draftified now at Draft:India and state-sponsored terrorism. But their talk page is locked for IPs. The same content that was discussed and removed from this new draft space has been added by pro-Pak editors now at the subject article space. This is very much against how CONSENSUS works. This disregards efforts of so many editors in reaching consensus and various admins who have been controlling these discussions. I request FPaS, or any admin actually to take action on that article space too before edit warring and socking and all start there. 106.209.140.57 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Before we take you seriously, please identify yourself: what's your previous role in that discussion? (Please name previous IPs under which you've participated to show you are not another sock yourself). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You may check the timelines of both articles and notice that after the Drafted article was locked on 5:43 4th October, chunks of texts were added on the subject article. Incidently, in fact intentionally, these chuncks are same which User:Vanamonde93 removed in his edits since 30th Sept to 2nd Oct. This is malicious editing pattern exhibited by two editors. 106.209.206.41 (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question. You have one more chance before I treat you as a sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am on a slow mobile network and am fetching info. I hv participated on the draft space and its talk space with 106.209.153.145 and 106.209.233.10, basically the 106.209 series... 106.209.206.41 (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you have protected the subject article and also placed a warning on its talk page. Although the current revision has all text which Vanamonde removed, i trust that he will remove it from here as well. Meanwhile the talk page of the draft article is also protected which prevents me from discussing the points. Can that be unprotected? 106.209.211.18 (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Which edit about adding content are you referring to? Is it this edit? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Am not complaining about any content added to the draft article. Its draft, its out of article space and in time that will be mended. While the draft was in article space, content was removed after consensus on draft's talk page by Vanamonde till 2nd October. After the draft was locked and the Pak-POV could not be pushed there anymore, that removed content was added by Sheriff guy and re-added by Mar4d on our subject article. Now wikipedia had two battlegrounds for same content dispute. THAT content addition is what am objecting to. This means editors have to restart discussion for same content which was deemed unappropriate elsewhere. Thats waste of efforts and time and mallicious behaviour. Btw, i dont think FPaS misunderstood any of my earlier posts. Or are there any more ambiguities? 106.209.172.253 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Anupmehra and User:Drajay1976 have had to restart the discussions and reinvent the wheel. Admins should keep check that once concluded consensus is abided by and no sneaky POV pushing is done like this. 106.209.215.254 (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's wiki page has been hacked

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

---

What appears to be a Trump supporter has hacked into Hillary Clinton's webpage and made it redirect to Porn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.71.164.237 (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's already been fixed. Due to web caching issues, the fix may not be visible to everyone immediately, if they had visited the bad version of the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible hard-right propaganda on a user page

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

---

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

---

I am deeply confused about the user page User:Zaostao. Why would he display "Die Partei" by Arno Breker on full scale? Does this amount to hard-right propaganda? I should add that such may be illegal in Germany. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mathmensch: But not in ?California, which is really all that matters. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried asking him? Deli nk (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Its a picture of a statue. It is hardly 'propaganda'. And even with Germany's restrictions on nazi imagery, I highly doubt they will be able to successfully prosecute someone for having a photo *absent any comment* of a statue. Given the framing, you would have to know what the statue is to be offended by it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mathmensch, what is the outcome you're looking for here? Do you think that the image, as displayed, violates Wikipedia:User pages? A Train^talk 10:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It may well violate that policy. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I continue to wonder about why we allow editors to display things like User:UBX/flat earth on their user pages, honestly. I mean, Wikipedians can believe whatever they want, but user pages are supposed to be about us as Wikipedia editors, and having userboxes that specify that we hold to views that have no place in Wikipedia articles is hardly useful. Anyway, the bible verse named and preceded by a hyphen, as though it was meant to quote the verse but the words were cut for some reason, reads in the NRSV: Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." The passage appears to be John's characteristic de-apocalypticizing of Jesus's message, but also includes John's characteristic antisemitism where Jesus's enemies are "the Jews". This edit is also pretty disturbing. All in all, the user page really looks like that of someone who is WP:NOTHERE. I haven't actually looked at their edits, mind you; I say they should be strongly encouraged to remove potentially offensive material, and if they refuse then we should start asking why. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In what way? Blackmane (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense The Nazi artwork would itself be problematic enough, but its prominence on the page makes it pretty difficult not to interpret the stuff about the antisemitic gospel reference and Wagner in that light. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(Yes, I cut off the example of pro-pedophilia advocacy. While that example is probably even more likely to bring the project into disrepute in most countries than sympathy with the Nazi Party, the latter is also up there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC))

The user page does appear to carry at least three antisemitic dog whistles.

• File:ArnoBrekerDiePartei.jpg is a prominently-displayed image (the only image on the user page) of a part of a sculpture by Arno Breker. The image caption in our article reads: "Die Partei, Breker's statue representing the spirit of the Nazi Party that flanked one side of the carriage entrance to Albert Speer's new Reich Chancellery." This is the only image on the user's page.
• The notation "—John 18:36" appears right next to Die Partei on Zoaostao's page. That Bible verse reads: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." This is the only body text on the user's page.
• The userbox User:Gduwen/USBX-Wagner ("This user enjoys Richard Wagner's music") is problematic in context, as Wagner is often regarded as having incorporated racist and antisemitic themes into his writings and works. In the context of this discussion, the Nazis (especially and including Hitler) made regular and enthusiastic use of the most antisemitic portions of Wagner's work. Of nine userboxes, this is the only userbox relating to music or culture.

Any single one of those elements by itself might represent an independent and innocent interest in sculpture, religion, or music. All three together (particularly as the only references to sculpture, religion, or music on the page, and the only image and text on the page) are a deliberate and obvious signal. Either the user is trolling, or the user is an antisemite. Either way, this isn't acceptable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your inferences may be correct, but I think if you have to go to those lengths to explain its meaning, it can hardly be characterized as propaganda. Looking at the user's edits, I think WP:NOTHERE may apply though, as noted above. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Where there is smoke there is fire—unless there is an absence of fire. There are red flags for misuse of the User page. But if the User denies all references to "hard-right propaganda" we should assume good faith. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the page at present is incredibly offensive to anyone who gets the references being made, particularly (I must assume) Jews. Whether it is meant as propaganda or as something as "innocent" as trolling or (much less likely) just an unfortunate coincidence is somewhat beside the point. If they deny any antisemitic or fascistic intent, they should be asked (politely!) to remove the offensive material (either the image or the Bible verse or both) and to provide some explanation of what they actually meant. If no explanation is forthcoming, then either they should be blocked, or their edits monitored very closely going forward. AGF means we shouldn't block him outright for what is almost certainly an antisemitic fascist userpage because of the very slight possibility that it is all just an unfortunate coincidence; it doesn't mean we should let him maintain the unfortunate coincidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't "have to" go to such lengths. The 'meaning' of each of those references is painfully obvious to anyone with a whit of familiarity with antisemitic hate propaganda. I explained in detail because there will always be a few editors who are lucky enough to be naive to the meaning of these symbols.

Incidentally, he added the Die Partie image and the Wagner userbox at the same time, in the same edit that used them to replace the previous text of his userpage, "Death to traitors." That phrase comes from Thomas Mair, the neo-Nazi who is currently awaiting trial for the murder of British MP Jo Cox.

Can we please stop sweeping this stuff under the rug of "it could be accidental" now? Wikipedia is really bad at this sort of thing, and I feel icky every time we decide to protect the comfort of subtle (sort of) neo-Nazis at the expense of the rest of the project's editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• But Ed, "if you have to go to those lengths to explain its meaning" is what Dog whistle politics means. Besides, even I understand the userpage message at first glance; I think it quite jumps out. I agree with TenOfAllTrades that the three elements in combination are highly offensive, especially the way the statue image and the bible verse are placed together. I have asked the user to remove them (not the Wagner userbox, though), as an appropriate first step. Bishonen | talk 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC).

• If the page had swastikas, 1488 references or other Nazi imagery, I would agree that the page and the editor both need to go. As it is, though, we have a statue, an interest in a composer, and a Bible verse. None of these things are evil, separately or together. Thematic issues aside, Wagner was a brilliant composer who had a profound impact on the music world that echoes even today as having influenced early heavy metal. And we certainly don't block people for being openly Christian. The combination of these things could, if you turn your head sideways and squint, be considered offensive to some, but that would seem to fall well short of the "widespread offense" standard cited above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  Every damn time. Every damn time. Wikipedia shelters the subtle, dog-whistle haters. It's okay to have hate speech on your userpage as long as only the targets (and your fellow neo-Nazis) recognize it.

  Oh, and he's got a 1488 reference in his fucking edit summaries, if you really need it, @The Wordsmith:. The four consecutive edits to his user page between 15 June and 26 July have the edit summaries Replaced content with '1.', 4. 8. 8.. It turns out that unless you actually cover your userpage in swastikas Wikipedia doesn't give a flying fuck. As long as it's possible to pretend that the antisemitic and neo-nazi content might be a terrible accident, we're going to sit on our goddamn thumbs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I hadn't seen that. That may be a different story, then. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  @The Wordsmith: Really? "may be"? I found exactly the neo-Nazi marker you specifically asked for, and it's still just a "may be"? How much effort do you want to expend to protect a neo-Nazi? Surely this neo-Nazi anti-semite isn't subtle enough even for you to tolerate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith makes a good point, but this is still most likely pro-nazi material. If the user only had the Bible verse and the Wagner userbox, that wouldn't seem to be an issue. The statue image combined with those things, however, makes the userpage look like it could be antisemtic. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: The point is that if we have to spend all this time analyzing them, separately and in combination, to find antisemitism then it probably doesn't meed the "widespread offense" standard. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Its true. Jews are only about 0.2% of the global population, so that's hardly "widespread offense". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith:Just because something's not glaringly obvious doesn't mean that it should be kept. @TenOfAllTrades: It's still a good amount of people. We shouldn't keep racist material just because it's not offensive to a massive group of people. Also, 14.5 million people isn't exactly small. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• User page deleted, editor blocked indef. Thanks, ToaT, I was unaware of some of the references, but together they make an irrefutable case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk about a scary fucking thread. We have several people who are trying to establish an upper limit of obvious dog whistles. A Nazi statue and a Bible verse that, without context, is obviously antisemitic? Okay. But "1488" is going too far. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support indefinite block For all the obvious reasons given by colleagues above. Not hugely subtle coded Anti-semitism on a user page does it for me. Irondome (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block. The initial evidence was open to interpretation, but the 1488 reference removes all reasonable doubt as to their intentions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• I see no disruption from the user. We don't (or at least shouldn't) block people for political opinions. POV-pushers and people with loathsome political views are a dime a dozen on Wikipedia. However, I see we are already in moral panic mode, so I am not optimistic. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Nazi, anti-semitic bullshit is a "political opinion" now? I will try to remember you said that, so if I see your name attached to any other opinions in the future I can give them very little weight as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, pro-Nazi opinions are political opinions. I couldn't care less about what you think of me. In the meantime, do tell us what disruption was caused and what was the need for a block without even allowing the user to respond? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Being pro-Nazi necessitates being anti- many things, which falls afoul of Wikipedia's civility policy. clpo13_(talk) 19:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What things do you mean and how exactly was the civility policy violated? Indeed, I see nothing at all in the discussion above about civility. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Good block Smash the fash, as we say around these parts. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Fully endorse block, good judgment displayed by Floq here (as usual). The "1-4-8-8" edits alone are quite enough to make this a clear case of neonazi propaganda – and in light of these, the content edits elsewhere, focussing as they do on the apologetics of various far-right political movements and figures, no longer look that harmless either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block Yeah, this is clearly the right call. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Guidance at Wikipedia:User pages seems fairly clear that the preferred course of action in the case of offensive user page content is to request the user remove it, or to remove it immediately in extreme cases, which this may be. A request does seem to have been made to remove the content, but the user appears to have been offline for a period of about 13 hours, and had no edits between the ANI notification and the block. Their second action after returning was to say that they would leave their user page blank, so I'm not really seeing any preventative effect here. If the core issue is the userpage content, the issue seems to be resolved. TimothyJosephWood 19:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block -- plenty of disruption from the user at Jared Taylor (a white supremacist), for which the editor in question was blocked at least once. The disruption extend to the Talk page; see for example this six-part thread: Talk:Jared Taylor#Journalist. A community ban may be appropriate given the evidence presented at this ANI thread. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If there was disruption on Jared Taylor why wasn't it brought up in the discussion above? This smacks of "verdict first, trial later" to me. Also, why weren't alternate methods, like topic-bans from far-right politics (after sufficient evidence is presented of course) considered? I should mention that this editor has a GA Edmund Kemper to their credit, which doesn't have anything to do with far-right politics which I can see (it wouldn't matter even if it had). So WP:NOTHERE clearly does not apply. Perhaps people might want to lower their pitchforks to see how ridiculous this block is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

For what purpose, do you imagine, an editor would hide the Nazi code-word "1488" in their edit summaries and add plausibly deniable racist-right dog-whistles to their userpage? Zaostao is not blocked for what they believe but for covertly signalling those beliefs to the like-minded to solicit their support. This is far from the first such incident on Wikipedia and it's common elsewhere across the internet; the purpose is always the same and pursuing that purpose on Wikipedia gets you blocked. CIreland (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, if we could use a topic-ban on a blatantly neo-Nazi editor to guide him into increased work (as suggested above) on articles like Edmund Kemper ("American serial killer, necrophile and cannibal"), I don't envision anything going wrong. EEng 21:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse block wholeheartedly, per K.e.coffman. Neutrality^talk 21:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• endorse block fwiw i was interacting with this editor at Alt-right and the interaction was definitely off; not so horrible to bring here but weirdly unconstructive and dank. not surprised by the white supremacist signalling on their userpage. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Wiki Abuse

Nothing to see here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Users User:331dot and User:Clubjustin have been harrasing me on my talkpage and reverting my edits. Hortonhearsawho (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC) You keep removing warnings. That's why we revert you. Clubjustin Talkosphere 13:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC) To be fair, they can remove warnings off of their page. It's current declined unblock notices that are not to be removed by a user on their talk page. (See WP:BLANKING) RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I would hardly describe my actions as "harassment"; I have simply encouraged the user to discuss the dispute. I have reverted their edits, but the edits were removing seemingly valid information with little explanation. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Some diffs showing actual harassment are called for in an ANI-report. Providing none at all is not a good sign. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Technically, the OP is allowed remove warnings from their talk page. Technically, 331dot should not have reverted this removal. Technically, 331dot was in the wrong for templating them in a manner that implied they are not (that template is for people who remove others' comments on pages other than their own talk page). That said, calling this "abuse" and "harassment" is making a mountain out of a molehill, and if by "have been ... reverting my edits" what is being referred to is article reverts rather than the one instance of 331dot reverting on the OP's talk page, then it is definitely inappropriate to call that "abuse". I say close this thread as needless escalation. If there is a content dispute let it be worked out somewhere else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC) @Hijiri88: I don't recall reverting a removal of Hortonhearsawho's user talk page content, nor did I warn them about doing so. I warned them about removing article content. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)Technically it was Clubjustin that reverted the removal of the talk page warnings and Clubjustin that templated Hortonhearsawho for removing the warnings from their talk page. -- GB fan 13:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I am assuming good faith and hoping Clubjustin forgot about that to not warn them about removal of warnings. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Shit. Missed that. But that just means that the OP's saying that they both "have been harrasing me on my talkpage and reverting my edits" is more misleading than I thought. One of them reverted one of his edits in an inappropriate manner, the other misused a template once, and no bonafide harassment has taken place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Which of my edits was inappropriate, and why? If one was inappropriate, I would like to know for the future. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I don't see anything inappropriate from 331dot's part. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Yeah, I haven't caught up on the "you can remove warnings" part. Sorry on my part. But was OP reporting me to WP:AIV appropriate? Also, can I remove the warning that links to nowhere now? I imagine this will cause a bit of problems if we can't glance and know if they reached 4r warnings now. Clubjustin Talkosphere 14:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC) User is blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Not OUTING, right?

In (Redacted), I note concerns with a user's unblock request. Specifically, I believe that user was disingenuous with their claim that they did not work for the company. My justification for this involves off-wiki evidence, which I did not post and will not post publicly. I firmly believe this is not a violation of WP:OUTING, but would like another administrator to review this to make sure. This isn't a dispute, there's no claim that I have violated OUTING, but it's an important policy and I want to be sure. I have not notified Ozvision1 (talk · contribs) because I'm looking for a quick review of my actions, not those of Ozvision1. --Yamla (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I've RevDel'ed the edit. I believe you weren't intentionally trying to, but revealing that info is against the letter of policy. They are blocked, but if you have a concern about that, their talk page isn't the right place, you would mail to an admin at WP:COIN, who would take action. No sanction as I don't see that in any way as an attempt to do wrong, but please be more careful in the future. As far as I'm concerned, no further discussion is needed or desired. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

IP address Blanked a page

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

---

There was an ip adress named 69.14.153.184 He Blanked Someones Editing I Reverted his edit and i warned him Shark32322 (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see this. The IP made a small edit and you reverted them. That is perfectly normal Wikipedia practice. Why did you see fit to issue them with a warning against blanking pages?[109] That is completely over the top and uncalled for. RolandR (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user "Sachin sharma bhopali"

• Sachin sharma bhopali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could any admin deal with this disruption/vandalism-only account and his sock IPs? Feel free to take a look at the baseless/unsourced/unreasoned edits constantly made, and the same constant bogus edit summaries added on top of that, to every edit ("Yes"). He has been blocked not that long ago for the same reason. Lastly, he has been abusing these two IP ranges as well to rack up some pretty nice IP socking repertoire, as all these IPs are marked by the same type of edits, the same target articles, the same geolocation, and by the usage of the very same weird edit summary the entire time ("Yes"), all in a completely similar fashion to his account;

• 27.97.66.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.75.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 106.79.239.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.44.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 106.79.229.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.77.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.73.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.152.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.235.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.47.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Pinging 220 of Borg and Kansas Bear as well, for they have encountered the same matter and/or aspects of the matter before as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Bazooka500 vandalism

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bazooka500 has repeatedly vandalized wikipedia, their talk page is studded with warnings about vandalism, including doing the same thing I just reverted 2 days ago, changing the picture of Donald Duck to Donald Trump.... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Duck&type=revision&diff=742858138&oldid=742847120 is the difference Wgfcrafty (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Indef'ed by User:Zzuuzz. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User:SwisterTwister's continued AFD disruption

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

---

SwisterTwister (ST) is a user whose disruptive behaviour has been brought to this board quite recently. The previous ANI discussions about ST's behaviour discussed his unilateral "banning" of other editors from his talk page and his careless and disruptive behaviour at AFD, where he was nominating and !voting on scores of articles with terse, cookie-cutter reasoning. ST had become one of those fixtures at AFD that closing admins start to tune out as white noise. In regards to the latter, ST has been advised to start elaborating on his reasoning to turn his !votes into actual arguments.

In the past few weeks, SwisterTwister has taken this advice with gusto, to the point that he is now being disruptive at AFD in a whole new way. ST now provides enormous, unformatted walls of text in AFD nominations, PRODs (what he calls his "extensive PRODS", as though this were a virtue), and in discussions. These are, by and large, not helpful or collaborative -- they are Wikipedia policy word salad that resemble the output of a Markov bot.

• Here is ST's AFD nomination for the Squarespace article, which is about 250 words packed into three sentences and makes on the most tenuous sense. Most of ST's recent participation in AFD is like this.
• When a fellow editor makes a keep argument in an AFD that ST is participating in, ST tends to drop several kilobytes of word salad in response. There are many, many more examples, and there's no need to take my word for it. If everyone who participated at AFD worked like this, AFD closes would take three hours apiece.
• SwisterTwister is almost certainly a native speaker of English, as his user page and contributions that predate this new "verbose" mode indicate.

When I made a note on ST's talk page asking about his behaviour, he simply blanked it and curtly dismissed me in his edit summary -- something I didn't notice until it was pointed out to me by another editor. Everyone's entitled to blank their talk pages, of course, but this is plainly not ideal for collaboration. AFD is (theoretically) one of the most collaborative spaces in the project. We're supposed to make persuasive arguments and change each other's minds and come to a consensus. SwisterTwister is not changing minds, he's alienating people. He's not making persuasive arguments, he's just bludgeoning. He's not even an effective force at AFD, as MelanieN pointed out at one of the previous ANI discussions of SwisterTwister, less than 60% of his AFD nominations are actually deleted.

With this new mode of verbose and obtuse commentary, and his continued brusque manner of interacting with other editors, I think it's pretty clear that SwisterTwister is no longer a net contributor to deletion discussions and is just creating unnecessary work for closing admins and other editors. I propose a topic ban from deletion discussions. A Train^talk 08:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- Ugh, this again? First ST gets kicked in the teeth for making terse and cryptic comments on AfDs; he stops grunting and starts explaining himself better; now he's getting kicked in the teeth for allegedly being too long-winded. This continued whinge campaign is actually about ST being resented for being a prolific, primarily deletionist, editor at AfD. We do not treat people who mostly vote keep the same way- I can think of several prominent inclusionists who make short and incomprehensible votes all the time, and others who habitually hog huge amounts of screen real estate with long-winded ranting and extensive use of block quotes, and none of them ever change their behaviour like ST has, but somehow it's only a problem when he does it. WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER continues to apply. Reyk _YO! 08:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The long block quotes that have started showing up in recent weeks are also bad, but they're besides the point in the matter of SwisterTwister's behaviour, and it's definitely not because he's a "deletionist". If you run my AfD stats you'll see that the vast majority of my !votes are votes to delete. Most users were in favour of a deletion topic ban last time, just shy of a rough consensus, so this isn't some personal vendetta. I have nothing against the guy, I just shudder when I think of closing AFDs that he's participated in.

Also, if you think he's explaining himself "better", you haven't looked at any of the diffs I've provided. A Train^talk 08:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

He rambles, but I seldom have problems getting at his meaning, and he is including more detail than last time. So yeah, I would say he's explaining better than previously. It's likely that ST will eventually reduce his posts to a moderate length and stop with the comma-infested runon sentences, just because nobody can keep that up indefinitely. But if he does, I have little doubt he'll be dragged back here again anyway (can't have people dealing with all the spam on Wikipedia, the horror! the horror!) and I'm actually a little curious what next week's pretext might be. Reyk _YO! 08:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The gist of your argument is that ST's disruptive behaviour is discussed too frequently. Well, I have proposed a solution to just that. A Train^talk 09:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the gist of my argument is that he'll keep getting dragged back here no matter what he says or how he says it. The guy's in a position where he's going to get kicked no matter what he does, and it's fundamentally unfair. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. You admit yourself that's he rambling, and that is making AFD a more difficult place to work. You suggest that eventually he'll stop rambling, so are we just hostages until then? If he was making cogent points at AFD and not spurious nominations and word salad arguments I guarantee you that he would not be here. Your entire argument assumes factionalism and bad faith on my part, when in fact I had nothing to do with the previous ANI discussion at all. A Train^talk 09:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see rambling as particularly disruptive, I don't see AfD participants as "hostages", and I see no reason to solve by topic ban an issue that's only an overcorrection for a previous issue and will go away on its own. If you want to usefully police AfD behaviour, there's far more annoying people than ST. May I suggest looking at all the chuckleheads who like to wind up nominators by going "speedy keep- no argument for deletion" on perfectly well-argued nominations? Reyk _YO! 10:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This continued whinge campaign is actually about ST being resented for being a prolific, primarily deletionist, editor at AfD. Exactly! Patent WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER. Somehow "keep" voters don't get dragged to ANI, despite some of them having a much lower accuracy rate, placing walls of text on AfDs and being obnoxious. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Everyone has their own editing style: if you really want to start blocking people just for TLDR, that would set a dangerous precedent. WP:BECAREFULWHATYOUWISHFOR. ST isn't doing anything in breach of his previous AfD closure (and noting that the other did not close at all), which is the important thing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suggest WP:BOOMERANG per WP:HOUNDING Kleuske (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose So ... I haven't actually read the OP, but is FIM correct in implying that someone is suggesting blocking SwisterTwister for TLDR? Because if so, A Train should be the first to be fed their own medicine. Also, despite the (apparently accurate) claim that the OP was not involved in the previous ANI threads, it is nonetheless true that the second one was already pushing it (as I pointed out then) and continuing again so very soon after the community rejected it the last time is ... well, unless we can prove the current OP was aware of the previous discussions, I guess a boomerang might not necessarily be in order. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Edits promoting terrorism

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

---

Please see here. David A (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@David A: That edit isn't technically promoting terrorism; it did nothing to the part of the text that essentially said Qutb rejected terrorism. It may be whitewashing, and may be inaccurate, but it isn't promoting terrorism. Honestly, it looks more like vandalism -- changing "violence" to "peace" looks a lot like what some people might consider humorous. Also, you talk about "edits", plural: can you give some more examples? What exactly do you propose be done? Semi-protect the page? AIV would probably be better for that. IPs can't be indeffed or banned, unless you think they are somebody's sockpuppet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @David A: That just looks like standard vandalism to me, it's been reverted. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the change was done through a series of edits. That is why I used plural. In any case, please take note of the following wording:

"The Islamist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine participate in democratic and political process as well as armed attacks, seeking to abolish the state of Israel, which is one of their rights as rightful citizens who are being robed of their country. Radical Islamist organizations like al-Qaeda and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and groups such as the Taliban, entirely accept democracy (since it is in their beliefs), often declaring as kuffar those Muslims who support it (see takfirism), as well as calling for their rights using /jihad."

This clearly seems to promote terrorism to me. David A (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, claiming that those groups engage in activities other than terrorism is not promotion of terrorism. It might be promotion of groups that engage in terrorism, but it does so precisely by downplaying terrorism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand how stating that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are rightfully using jihad, does not qualify as promoting terrorism? David A (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by Hello2u3

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

---

Hello2u3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has twice made threats:

• edit 1: "If this user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qed237 vandalises one more time you will be heading of strait to jail"
• edit 2: "If this user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qed237 vandalise this page one more time I will report it to the police at ceop for racism"

These threats have happened as part of edit warring at the Mesut Özil page by the same user. The edit warring has been reported (here).

Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Also a third threat "If if then last victim converts this to German they will immediately be reported to CEOP and it is very serious.". Qed237 (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, left uw-lblock on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by Luke de paul

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

---

Hi, Luke de paul is unhappy over their sandbox being deleted so they've posted this on BDDs talkpage, I'm not entirely sure if it would count as a legal threat so figured I'd post here just incase, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really a legal threat, more of a "I'm gonna get you for this!" type edit. Possibly a frustrated editor if anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. If the predicted payment will be in barnstars, barnstars melted down into barnstar bullion, thank-spam or some other on-wiki currency, then it certainly wouldn't be a legal threat. Although it's a silly comment to be making to a fellow editor anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought but would rather be safe than sorry, Okie dokie I'll close this up, Thanks for helping anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 16:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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