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

User:Turkish air con is causing ANI trouble...

User:Turkish air con has been adding useless content to this very page. The thought of it! I still don't understand how diffs work, but all you need to do is click "edit history" right up there. The edits I've noticed have mostly been about how his car stopped working in the middle of the road. Why's that on ANI? Not to mention the swearing... Could we have an admin over here, please? TomBarker23 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I already blocked them. Looks like the same vandal that had been posting nonsense on the page previously that lead to ANI being protected. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going off to support the suggestion for a new ANI filter. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if an edit filter for this LTA is even possible. I can understand hesitating to protect ANI indef, but he'll keep coming back as long as an expiry date is there. Sro23 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we even know who it is? --Tarage (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect (X) but he at least posts pertinent stuff, as opposed to the total logical disconnect we see. There's only a very small handful of LTAs I can think of who would use an autocon-buster to troll AN/I this way. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Bangladeshi editor

মাখামাখি (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor, presumably Bangladeshi, who has been creating a vast number of new articles, many of which have no evidence of notability. He/she has been warned, for example at User_talk:মাখামাখি#Kindly stop, but continues with the same problems. Among other problems he/she was repeatedly copying within Wikipedia without attribution, despite having been warned & having the process for attribution (and for splitting where applicable) explained to him/her. He/she was also warned about trying to use IMDB as a reliable source, but again continues despite the warning. A number of editors have given warnings, but these are all ignored. I fear that a block may be necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

He is also creating new categories with only one article, so of doubtful value. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Check that I've already corrected all the language issues in the film articles and I've added Bangladeshi editor category to another article Abul Khair (actor) who earned 26th Bangladesh National Film Awards for best editing (see inside the article). I'm new here, so I made a lot of mistakes. I think you should forgive me now. মাখামাখি (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As a new editor you ought to read the advice which you have been given by more experienced editors, and take notice, rather than merely deleting the warnings. I see that you are still creating numerous new articles, most of which are considered (by various editors) not to have evidence of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ravi Shaw, created 7 days ago, uses http://bollywoodcelebfacts.com/ravi-shaw/ as its only reference. Taken from the bottom of that page is " Note: We provided you all available detail of Ravi Shaw. All Above information is collected from different sources such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter and different news channels & big magazines so we do not liable for any inaccuracy." thats pretty much textbook bad sourcing, yet you defended the article against deletion, claiming this as a reliable source just earlier today on the talk page. Both your edits to the Abul Khair (actor) article were reverted, because you did not reference them. I started editing June last year, same as you, and I have only created one article, but there are plenty of things to do here. You need to slow down, and stop creating articles until you read, understand and follow WP:RS. Until then, you are just making work for other people to clean up. Curdle (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding interaction bans

Is linking to an edit by an editor who is party to an IBAN, which is obviously not an IBAN violation a breach of an IBAN? As in, is blatant block shopping a violation of an IBAN? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Typo fixed. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the second phrasing: I'd say "absolutely". Regarding the first, "Not necessarily, but likely so." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, I thought I was going to talk about dropping sticks, until I saw what's going on here. There's no obvious violation here, but I think at one point the patience will start to wear down. Alex Shih (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, DS, if you don't want to be reported for IBAN vios, you could stop editing pages immediately after CWG... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes&diff=prev&oldid=818787054 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Still don't know what the IBAN policy is then Sarek? And I was pinged to that cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I know you were pinged to it, that's why you're not already blocked. However, most people under IBANs go out of their way not to appear to violate them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

What Sarek said. Whether or not you were pinged is not the point. You cannot continue to keep commenting after them while complaining about them. This is a two-way interaction ban, and you also must exercise the same kind of sensitivity that you have been demanding. Alex Shih (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to: make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. - If you are under an IBAN and link to an edit by someone you are IBANed with, that is making reference to them. The exception would be where you are reporting what you perceive to be a violation in the correct forum. Almost all admins would also consider a request where a diff is provided as part of a 'Is this is a violation of the IBAN?' query legitimate. If said admin then said 'no' and its forumshopped until an admin says 'yes' then I would expect some form of extended discussion about it in the event of sanctions. If someone you are in an IBAN with is pinging you, it would depend on the circumstances. This is why general questions suck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(ecx2)Like I said, read the IVAN policy, you already got it wrong once. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, so looked a bit further. Someone you are in an IBAN with linking to your edits and asking an admin is not a violation. Any more than you linking to their edits if you were querying if it is a violation would be. If a third party pings you to something (because you both edit in the same area) as long as you are not directly interacting, its not a violation. The whole point of an IBAN however is that you both stay away from each other. That almost always means, do not edit directly after them if you are both editing the same article lest accusations of stalking appear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Darkness Shines, are you seriously taunting us to read IBAN policy? Alex Shih (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I said Sarek needs to, he already blocked me once and had to unblick cos he made policy up on the fly. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, I took a look at the two interaction-banned editors in question here with the editor interaction analyser, looking only at edits made since their two-way IBAN was put in place. This was the result. It's not proof of a violation by any means, and I'm not saying a violation definitely took place, but to my uneducated eye it doesn't look like either editor has fully embraced the spirit of the IBAN. (For comparison, I also looked at five other IBAN'd editors over the same time period, and four out of five had 0 pages in common. The fifth only had large-scale discussion pages like ANI in common; no articles or article talk pages.) Marianna251TALK 17:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Its not particularly useful in this case due to the overlapping subject area and that one (for a significant period of their editing) was effectively a SPA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; that's why I only looked at edits since the IBAN. I wasn't aware that one editor had such a narrow focus. Marianna251TALK 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a benighted observer here, but even if there's some reason for overlapping editing, the timing of, say, the first 5-10 interactions seem instructive to me, if not dispositive. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Non-Administrative commitment: [1] @ Alex Shih I feel like someone is breathing down my neck and following my steps and right on my heels.[2] [3] P.S. I followed SarekOfVulcan (talk) to this page and this is what I wrote [4]. I only requested that I not be followed, as [5] this is tiresome, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Help Please, help stoping the stalking: I post this [6] on CYBERPOWER Talking Page and in less than 20mins [7] shows up. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry... what the what??? EEng 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In straightforward terms: I had been TBAN by Cyber from posting on 'Patriot Prayer' pages due to my interaction with D/S. I went to Cyber's page to ask him if an image of The Proud Boys at a patriot prayer rally wearing their black polo shirt and yellow pinstripe unofficial uniform violated the TBAN and within 20 minutes that exact image ended up on 'Patriot Prayer' page mislabeled as Joey Gibson by D/S. This is now the second time that this is happened since the IBAN has been in effect, that I have posted to an administrator's page and within hours things that popped up on Wiki by D/S. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

No, what's "stoping the stocking"? Sounds like something I'd ask the dry cleaner to do. EEng 11:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Look at all the images of the rally [8] and those of Joey Gibson from the rally [9]; why use my image of '3 Proud Boys' and (mis)-labeling it as Joey Gibson [10] within 20mins of my posting it on Cyber's TP? This is stalking but worse is the poor quality of the editing this stalking has caused. There were plenty of images of Joey Gibson at that rally, why use mine and do it incorrectly? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

For clarity: "stalking". -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed my spelling error. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Right, I'm pointing out three things. 1 Gilmore posting in this section violates the IBAN 2 Cyberpower's talk page is on my watch list, so no interactions have taken place. 3 It is not me following anyone, as is obvious given I was discussing The Root as a source on the Proud Boys article, and Surprise This block shopping needs to be stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• BTW, 4 Gilmore commenting on my edit to Patriot Prayer violates not only the IBAN, it violates his TBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Note -@ Alex Shih, the admission of actions taking actions based upon my posting to Cyberpower's Talking Page. I post to Cyber's page and actions are taken within 20 mins, clearly shows that the post is in reaction. IBAN [11] "A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other." I just want to be left alone, not followed or have my actions followed by a reaction within minutes of my posting. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

COI editing on Victoria Jackson page

The actress Victoria Jackson just announced on her facebook page that she edited her wikipedia page to remove "bias" and implied a desire for her fans to help out. We might want to have recent edits scrutinized and semi-protect the page. --T1980 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Recent changes by subject. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• I have temporarily blocked the account, and left the instruction for the user to confirm their identity through OTRS ticket. Alex Shih (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Glad to see the username Ukulelegal isn't being interpreted as "xxxx LEGAL" and everyone going nuts about legal threats as usual. EEng 18:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is legal for a gal to play a ukele, EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Block him! He said legal! EEng 18:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh-huh, uh-huh, he said "legal"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• This has high potential to get ugly. Political activism + entertainment/celebrity. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban evasion

In December, Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned for 3 months from Israel-related pages. WP:TBAN says:

"a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:

• weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;"

Today, he removed and modified (and was reverted) several parts of the section "Views on antisemitism and Israel" in George Soros: [12], [13]. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This would certainly seem to be an up-and-down breach of the ban, but I want to hear an explanation from Avaya1 (talk · contribs) before looking at what action should be taken. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC).

I agree that this appears to be a breach of the topic ban. Drmies was the administrator who imposed the topic ban. Perhaps he has a comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

These are quite blatant. Thank you Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I was attempting to remove off-topic content about Steinmetz with this edit and Hungary. I was removing the non-Israeli content about Steinmetz and Hungary. The Israeli stuff I have left intact. The original section was written by me and is largely about Israel, this was back in May before my topic ban. There's since been added paragraphs about Steinmetz and extra parts about Hungary which is off-topic to antisemitism and Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether you wrote it yourself or not, as our topic bans do not currently have a feature to physically prevent users from editing in the banned areas, this is still a breach of your topic ban. I don't believe you maliciously breached the ban, but WP:TBAN is quite explicit. I'll let other admins decide what to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In these edits, Avaya1 removed two (and modified one) pieces of text, which are directly related to Israel and contains word "Israel". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lankiveil, Cullen328, Drmies, and Kudpung: What are the next steps? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User Fisted Rainbow - Conflict of Interest

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

---

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

I would like to request User Fisted Rainbow is blocked from the page Earthcore for WP:COI reasons. He has freely admitted he is the owner of the Earthcore Festival here on the article's talk page, in this section [[14]] but frequently edits the page to remove negative comments about it. The page had controversies section, which in the past, he has completely removed. He is currently trying to remove some negative press for the festival. This issue has been questioned before by a number of editors, and has been going on for some years, however, I believe it hasn't been brought to the attention of the admins. He has been editing the page to present the article in the best light. Checking his contributions, it appears to be the only page he edits. As per wikipedia policy, I have asked him if he in a COI with this page, and he has said he is not, even though he admitted it in the talk page for Earthcore, above. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the link you provided, and read the text there three times, but I don't see where Fisted Rainbow admitted to owning the festival or otherwise having a COI:

Why in your list of articles above there is not a single article you have listed that provides balance like the following one http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/ amongst numerous other articles that provide balance.

You claim you are trying to be balanced yet here we are with you only posting links to one side of a story. Its clear you have a conflict of interest as you are obsessed about this topic and refusing to allow the article to have balance.

You are also using "facebook" posts and other non credible stories as "proof". At no stage can you provide a factual story that lists your claim that 32 acts did not perform let alone 32 acts not performing and not being paid. Get your facts right and show balance or admit you have a alterior motive to skwere article in one perspective. Cease starting a edit war and discuss here so we can work on a balanced article.

What am I missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Beyond My Ken - there is a lot to read through on that page, I should have made it easier. User Fisted Rainbow writes two posts in the talk page, controversies section, (you need to open the green extended content bar to see it) [[15]] signing off as "Spiro Boursine" and "Spiz". Spiro Boursine is the owner of Earthcore, as indicated in this article [[16]] (and you can just do Google searches for Earthcore and "Spiro Boursine" to confirm that)Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(First Quote)"Here we go again. Yawn........ For starters The Sphongle tour had nothing whatsoever to do with the Earthcore festival of which the article isn't written about so therefore Cognitive's arguement trying to include something that has no relevance to the Earthcore festival is a no brainer and not even worth discussing any further. The tour (NOT EARTHCORE) he is discussing tour was cancelled and refunds were made for that "concert" and no legal action happened by any parties. If cognitive disident can provide a valid link that shows that 1. Sphongle (live) was performing at a Earthcore festival in 2008 or 2009 then by all means please show all of us. 1.5 That the article above (via the age) is not written about Earthcore in anyway. The drug overdoses DID not happen at Earthcore and therefore have no bearing on Earthcore. 2. Show any documented legal action that was taken (ie court order etc etc) in the regards to <snipped to reduce length> What really is pathetic is the fact Earthcore is no more anyway in the first place and stopped over 2 years ago. Cognitive is flogging a dead horse and getting a mental erection from it I am assuming or as I said is a rival promoter afraid that we will be re entering the market which unfortunately for him we already have and will be putting on events in his region (his market) very very shortly. Could someone with some editing skills please include the artists I have listed above be added the artists who have played at Earthcore please ? With thanks and happy new year everyone !! Spiro Boursine (See Cognitive how easy it is to put your full name behind what one says ? ):-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 04:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)"

(Second Quote)::::"Mr Anonymous - I find it rather amusing that you continue to hide your identity yet make claims that you volunteered at my events. Due to the fact you continue to not put your actual name to your claims your words mean absolutely nothing to me yet your motives present themselves as clear as a blue sky. You are a rival promoter who has vainly attempted to personally discredit me and my old festival. If you really really feel like flogging the dead horse then why not start or add a Shpongle tour wiki subject and say that we(I) failed to get them over to australia or whatever rocks your boat and makes you happy. (Removed personal contact details due to recent harassment by Cognitive Disident 60.242.37.151 (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC) I have nothing to hide nor am I what you think I am. Cheers Spiz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisted Rainbow (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)"

(EC)...What's more, Deathlibrarian's post on that talk page ends with "btw I'm totally not connected with this group". So we have an editor who claims to have no connection with a group despite not being asked about such, edit warring, and then falsly reporting other editors for COI? Um... boomerang? --Tarage (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

...On second viewing, based on the above, there does appear to be a COI. I stand corrected. --Tarage (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah ... I was confused myself, but this is the main diff, I think. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to hear from Fisted Rainbow, since the above diff seems pretty damning. --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, the section is hard to read, I should have posted the excerpt straight off to make it easier. You may note Cognitive Dissident also noted this as a COI *6 years ago*, but admins weren't notified. Better late than never, I guess!!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(Quote from Earthcore talk page) - "Mr Boursine: I have no interest in "contacting you personally". why would I? I have no interest in you or your organisation. you continually trot out the line "rival promoter" yet have no evidence for it. A slanderous approach and against the rules of wikipedia.* I don't understand why you are allowed to edit the wiki page of an organisation that you started, thats conflict of interest, and, again, against the ethics of wikipedia.* I also draw exception to your intimation that i have added falicious information to this article. all i did was wikify an article that was (poorly) written in the form of a self-aggrandising personally essay. any information in the body of the article that you claim to be false has not been removed in the several months that this argument has dragged out. you are welcome to add or modify information, as you said you would, but it hasn't been forthcoming; leading me to believe that your main interest is not historical record but protection of your (as you so strongly point out, now defunct) "brand name". Also, do yoiu think I would be stupid enough to name myself when you have shown your passion for threatening litigation time and again? This is a public encyclopedia, to be edited by the public, for the public. welcome to the 21st century. (By the way: sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "rival promoter!" is not an argument, its a tantrum.)I'm curious why you have edited the rainbow serpent page when you have such a strong moral veiw on "rival promoters" editing wiki articles? Awaiting your forthcoming vitriole with baited breath :) Cognitive Dissident (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)"

• All of the above aside, maybe I've just been on the Internet too long, but the username "Fisted Rainbow" raises my eyebrow just a little in the direction of WP:U... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• It definitely has a certain odor about it, but perhaps not strong enough to justify action? Unless, of course, the phrase has some underground meaning that I'm not aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• It could be referring to this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Might also be a reference to Rainbow Serpent Festival, a very similar Australian festival. Black Kite (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Re my username. Now you are going being paranoid. The username is what I use for playing poker and general chat on the internet and no form of bizarre conspiracy. Please cease attempting to divert from the issues presented which is very far from questioning my innocent username. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is no conspiracy or paranoia. There's a name that looks a lot like it could be a violation of the username policy, so it's going to be discussed. There's a lot of usernames you can use anywhere else on the Internet that are not acceptable on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've dropped a hand-rolled notice on their talk page about WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:Casting aspersions and WP:NPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have broken no Wiki policies for starters and have attempted to put forward a balanced article which quotes two sides to a story and have been constantly threatened by Deathlibrarian to forbid this from happening. Deathlibrarian's stubborness to allow two sides of a story shows "bias". I even went as far as posting on his talk page a balanced suggestion with footnotes to the article of which he has ignored. Instead Death Librarian prefers to make threats and ignore common sense. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Fisted Rainbow responded on my talk page:

  I have done exactly that. Made suggestions on Death Librarian's talk page for a fair and balanced article. If he doesn't allow 2 sides to be submitted into the article I am sure there will be others that will also put the same forward. It's clear you are a personal friend of Deathlibrarian and therefore simply bullying me and not being impartial Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  Also you have failed to carefully read the talk page of the article about the use of credible sources and other issues that are all in support of my suggested edits.

  Using your personal bias here is def a breach of Wiki polices so I suggest you change your path here.

  So, instead of taking my comments to heart and adjusting his own behavior, FR chose to cast more aspersions and make claims that have no validity at all. (I've never heard of Deathlibrarian before.) He appears to be heading straight for a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've apologised for casting asperations claims direct on Beyond My Ken talk page. Won't happen again however why is Death Librarian not allowing the following counter claim to be placed on the article in question ? Why in your list of articles above there is not a single article you have listed that provides balance like the following one http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/earthcore-festival-accuses-artists-keeping-money-refusing-play/ amongst numerous other articles that provide balance. Fisted Rainbow (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• AN/I is a venue for discussing behavioral problems to be considered for action by admins, it is not the place to discuss content disputes. The proper place for that is on the article talk page, where a WP:CONSENSUS of editors decides what can and cannot be included in the article. Please take your arguments there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I know its not relevant here, but I've added that content on behalf of Fisted Rainbow, and noted it on the talk page for the article. Also Thanks Beyond My Ken,Tarage and Black Kite for dealing with this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor needs a much sterner warning than I am capable of giving. I'm out. --Tarage (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

One last thing, I encourage anyone and everyone to check out Fisted Rainbow's latest contributions which are bludgeoning at this point. This needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can't help but notice that FR wrote this as their first edit. They went on to briefly edit war ([17], [18]) disparaging comments on the talk page of Boing! said Zebedee, and followed up with making personal attacks against them. Note that this was entirely within their first 24 hours on this site. Several months later, FR was involved in an ANI thread in which they issued a legal threat, which they later retracted in a logged-out edit. Another few months later, FR was back to casting aspersions on JamesBWatson. After this, FR fell quiet for several years. After beginning to edit the article again in December of 2017, they quickly found themselves back at another editor's talk page, making more personal attacks. Since then, as other have pointed out, they have been a few bludgeoning other editors with personal attacks and aspersions.

I see some common threads in here. First is the obvious battleground mentality. Second is a propensity for presuming to dictate what other people think or feel to them, or what other people mean by what they say (accepting "apologies" that were never made, expressing mock sympathy for editors feeling "pressured", etc, etc). Finally, is the on-again, off-again nature. If you read the content discussions, you will see that each time this editor stop editing for a while, they had recently gotten their way on content.

So from examining that, what I see is an editor who is only here to ensure that WP says what they want it to say about a single subject from which they profit, in the way they want it said and who does this through combative tactics including personal attacks, the casting of aspersions and even threats of legal action. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Fisted Rainbow

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

---

• User talk:Fisted Rainbow
• Fisted Rainbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time to remove TP access yet? Guy (Help!) 18:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Using the unblock template for wikilawyering isn't a good sign. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Fisted Rainbow is a truly alarming username. EEng 19:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thankfully, the user page does not contain any illustrations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

<hurries off to create an illustration> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

"Songs about..."

Just a heads-up that over the past couple of days, an anonymous IP has been fairly persistently making unsourced and illogical changes to various song articles, primarily but not exclusively by changing their "Songs about..." categories to things the songs definitely aren't about. By far the most common form was the addition of songs such as "Rolling in the Deep", "You Oughta Know" and "Look What You Made Me Do" to Category:Songs about domestic violence (which, er, no) — although there were other variants as well, such as adding "Since U Been Gone" to Category:Torch songs. I've temporarily editblocked the most recent incarnation and reverted most of the obvious WTFs, but as I don't have most of these songs watchlisted I only noticed it because they hit one that I did, so I just wanted to bring this to everybody else's attention as well in case it continues. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be 2601:248:C400:CF0::/64. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Martinevans123, does Light My Fire count as a torch song? EEng 09:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Just as much as "Flashlight"... Binksternet (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, in the same way that PlentyMoreFish is about half a pound of smoked cod loin. Torchyevans123 (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC) {...or we could always ask The King... )

User:Aroniel2

A Nazi fanboy User:Aroniel2 (106 edits since: 2009-05-09) posts raw links to Hitler speeches and vehemently racist and antisemitic blogs associated with the White Network full of articles like the "Holo Frauds & Quacks" and "the Jewish Problem and the HoloHoax". This one account better be blocked indefinitely as soon as possible. Poeticbent talk 04:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Aroniel2 (talk · contribs · count) : Gleiwitz incident: Difference between 3 revisions including and

References

• Yeah, there was some undiscovered OR/SYNTH that this editor inserted, from as best I can tell, to tie fairly mainstream Catholic social teaching to Franco's National Catholicism. It looks like much of this editor's work involves a rather... unconventional view of the Church and fascism. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What you say is absolute nonsense. I post Hitler speech as EVIDENCE he did not mention the incident as excuse for his invasion or Poland. If he did mention it during his speech, please let me know. A Fact is a Fact and during his Speech he did not mention it. I say there is only one single source to the false flag theory, a man under arrest. That FACT is universally accepted, and noone else has found any other source to the theory. I mention there are historians that do not believe in the False Flag theory which is true as it is not universally accepted fact. Please let me know if Hitler used this incident in his declaration of war speech and I will erase my edit. I will be waiting. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note: User:Aroniel2 does not know where to stop. He just sent me a email from Wikpedia with the exact copy of the above (unsigned) post, with one extra line (which isn't here) reading: "Let people see all theories and all evidence. Do not try to brainwash people in any given ideology." He says (above) "there are historians" ... but cited antisemitic, Holocaust denying and racist spooks. And now, Aroniel2 is edit-warring like there was no tomorrow. Poeticbent talk 18:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gleiwitz_incident&type=revision&diff=819133541&oldid=819129375

The reality that the "attack" on a German radio station by SS men dressed in Polish uniforms, who left behind dead men (taken from a concentration camp), also in Polish uniforms is generally accepted by all creditable historians as the deliberate creation of a false casus belli for the invasion of Poland. I have never seen any mainstream historian doubt it, and the amount of detail to back up the story is appreciable -- it is no more a "theory" than The Holocaust. Anyone who doesn't accept that as historical reality is living in a fantasy WP:FRINGE world, and their work on other subjects should be subjected to extremely close inspection by those familiar with the details of those subjects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, anyone suggesting a site strongly involved in holocaust denial be used as a source probably should be WP:INDEF since at a minimum their understanding of WP:RS seems to far gone to be salvagable. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing

It appears that Yessentuki4 (talk · contribs) thinks everything has Russian origins. I'm not sure if this is just WP:POINTy editing, nationalism gone amok, or some sort of misguided plot, but the editor has only made reasonably good edits to Antonov An-225 Mriya, and even those had to be reverted. There is clearly an agenda I suspect a block is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It all looks good faith to me, though nationalistic, and buying pretty much exclusively into nationality by location of birth. There's certainly not a whole lot of it either. Yessentuki4 changed Arnault Tzanck's listed nationality to Russian (Tzanck is French but was born in Russia), marked Abraham Maslow's ethnicity as Russian Jew (which is probably not incorrect given his parents were Jews from Kiev), and marked Mykola Leontovych as a Russian composer in two articles because his place of birth was then in Russia (now Ukraine). I mean, I think it's good faith even if it's pretty clearly ethnonationalistic. My experience is that we usually give warnings and time to respond. Your only warning to Yessentuki4 was immediately followed by this thread, without giving him or her any time to respond or even to make any more edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good-faith to me as well. In my experience, Russians often have difficulty on the topic of Russian nationality, because the nuanced difference between "русские" and "россияне" ("ethnically or culturally Russian" and "legally Russian") doesn't translate well. ‑ Iridescent 11:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a pretty common thing with Eastern European articles, unfortunatly; sometimes it can be really hard to distinguish the good faith. It's best to try to correct first, though, before reaching for the squeaky-hammer of blocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the clarification. I have sternly warned the subject. Perhaps someone could go and clarify that warning in a way that the subject may understand—I would do it, but it may seem as though I'm just piling-on—and then we can close this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Admitted meatpuppetry and proxy editing for blocked users

M.A. Martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse-me John from Idegon, could you explain to me what is this about, please ? I don't understand what "meatpuppetry and proxy editing" is, and you refer to your question about the use I made of "we", as I told you "we" referred to the friends who helped my collecting sources, among whom some of them have written articles on related subjects. Not any of them have ever been blocked from Wikipedia, if that's what you want to know, but blocked on Twitter, Facebook, our personnal computers, etc. And for any other question, I'll be happy to get advice and help from you and other administrators about the access to draft / sandbox about my article on Vanessa Beeley. Thank you very much !--M.A. Martin (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean Twitter, right? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure, Twitter, I'll correct at once. Thank you. But could you please explain to me what is this all about ? (I'm not a native English speaker) I'm working on very controversial and complicated subjects, directly linked on propaganda, and it's quite complicated, even with reliable sources from The Guardian and several main secondary sources... M.A. Martin (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and am not involved in this issue, but from the diff provided it looks like concerns were raised about your use of the word "we", wikipedia policy requires that an account is used only by 1 person, and calling yourself "we" implies shared use. You have also been accused of meatpuppetry (recruiting a bunch of people who agree with you to sway consensus in a content dispute). Tornado chaser (talk)

Thank you very much for your reply, Tornado chaser. Yes, indeed, we are a small group, outside of Wikipedia, to work together to collect sources and help each other, but when I first tried to make an account reflecting this "Challenge propaganda group", I was explained on Wikipedia (not here, in my mother tongue), that this could be seen as a group of pressure or lobby, and that an account had to be personnal (which was the case). When I explained where did my username came from, this was good for them, and they accepted my articles and helped me. Here on English Wikipedia, this was diferent, andI had to change my username to replace it by my personnal name (which took me quite long to understand). I've understood that I needed to be the only author of the article, with responsibility on what I write. Which is the case. But I thought I could mention the people who helped me gathering sources and preparing the subject of the article without any problem, because this is not on Wikipedia, but way before I published here (for instance, someone who speaks better English than me can help me correct a sentence, but not here in Wikipedia drafts, no, at home !).

As for recruiting a bunch of people who agree with me to sway consensus in a content dispute, I don't know to tell anything like this about me. Anyway, even if I had this idea (but I don't, I don't think number matters, I think facts matter), I can't because I have no friends who have an account here, I was a complete beginner not long ago and I asked for much help on Wikipedia in my mother tong !

Propaganda is really a complicated thing to deal with, but I really didn't think it would be the case here too... thank you very much for your explanations. talkM.A. Martin (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon I hope you can read all my explanations above and tell me wether it is a problem or not, please.M.A. Martin (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the concerns arose when you talked about blocked users it sounded like you were editing on behalf of others who were blocked from wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand better. Thank you. Tornado chaser This is not the case. I was just trying to explain my page was not an "attack" page, I am just a human rights defender, and I don't aim at attacking anyone, even a propagandist, and I wanted to explain ths were not our methods, not our ways of thinking when we gathered information and sources, this is the way of doing of propagandists. I also spoke about insults, harassment, hacking computers... this is not on Wikipedia ! Here, I even thought I could find help to restore the truth, which an Encyclopdy does, and I still hope it will be possible !M.A. Martin (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think M.A. Martin was talking about editors who had been blocked from Wikipedia based on that post, but was stating that he couldn't give information about his compatriots because he was concerned for their safety. That said, describing oneself as editing on behalf of a group of "human rights defenders" and talking about "propagandists" and wanting to use Wikipedia to "restore the truth" raises serious concerns about what M.A. Martin is editing Wikipedia to accomplish. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mendaliv for your answer. Yes, that's what I meant. Just to be precise, I didn't say I was editing on behalf on a group, just that this group helped me to gather information sources and think about the subject previously, because some of them share common interests with subjects that are linked to mine. What I write and publish is my own text (but that does not mean I couldn't ask help to correct a sentence to a friend before writing down here ?) (English is not my mother tongue). Am I the only one to do so ?

As for your other concern, I fully understand it, it's better to have fears and be cautious on such subjects, because, yes, it is a very controversial subject. I said "propaganda" because itt was established as such, by main media. And as it deals with conspiracy theories, there are fake information that were proved, this is why I'm talking about restoring the truth, maybe it's not the good vocabulary, I don't know. But for a similar article in my mother tongue, I was helped so that it could fit the Wikipedia rules. I'd like to be helped here as well, but I was told by the administrator who deleted my article that I would be blocked if I continue, so I think I won't dare it, because it's important to me to be able to edit again in my mother tongue on several subjects, including this one.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have made it clear on M.A. Martin's talk page that POV pushing regarding their chosen topic will not be permitted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen³²⁸, yes, this was clear, and this is what I intended to do, I'd like to be able to discuss this and build the article with help, but I don't want to be blocked.

Or if any of you are interested, I think you have access to my deleted article and sources (I have some more I can give you), you can also write an article on Vanessa Beeley. It would be great. Thank you.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@M.A. Martin: Yes it is ok to ask others for help and advice, you just can't give them your password to edit, ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. No, sure, I won't, they don't even know how this works here, as for the help I asked it long before started my draft here. Now all I would need would be help from wikipedia editors to manage to write an article on this subject without being deleted and blocked, which until now doesn't really seem easy to achieve.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• @M.A. Martin: When you respond to a comment on a talk page, please indent your response one more tab that the comment you're responding to. You do this by adding an additional colon (:). Thus if the comment you're responding to has no colons, your response should have 1, if it has 1 (or an asterisk) yours should have 2, etc. In this way the discussion is easier to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

My concerns about meat and proxy have been addressed, but there remains WP:NOTHERE, for which there seems a clear case. John from Idegon (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, John from Idegon, I would have loved that you answered my questions above or that you would have told me what was the problem about. So, please, may I know why you think I am a doing clear case of WP:NOTHERE? You already claimed I "Admitted meatpuppetry", whih I did not. So please understand my question. What would be my aim, according to you, other than building an encyclopedia ? Why would articles on Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley would not be useful in Wikipedia and would not be useful for readers ? But if that's really alarming you so much, please read what I answered on my talk page, and you'll be happy to know that by now I've understood it'll be too complicated for me to struggle against your claims and reports, added to the ones of an other editor and of an administrator who denies my sources while acknowledging he hadn't read them all, or hadn't read them before deleting my article, so I prefer to give up. I can't say I'm happy about that, because is really think one of the role of an Ecyclopedia is to share information, and to help people findind neutral and unbiased information, which is more important because more difficult, on such subjects as current war propaganda, and I don't really see what English Wikipedia community nor readers will benefit from my giving up. I really think the only ones who will benefit of this are the one who defend war propaganda.M.A. Martin (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Herodium and Malik Shabaz

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

---

Recently an edit was made to Herodium, which has since been reverted by to editors, but Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) insists on his preferred version despite the clear lack of consensus (as shown both from the reverts and on the talkpage). Please stop this editor. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, you both appear to be gaming the 24 hour 1RR restriction on this article and claiming consensus. Regardless, this is inevitably a content dispute and therefore probably doesn't belong at ANI. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• There is a difference -- I acknowledge that the two of us are edit-warring, and Debresser thinks that only one of us is (and it's not him). See his behavior at B'Tselem as well. Calling your preferred version "the consensus version" doesn't make it so. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not gaming anything. I strictly refrain from editing within 24 hours.

As to your point. I beg to differ. An editor who ignores the burden to establish a consensus for a change is a behavioral problem. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you (a) read WP:ARBPIA or (b) looked in a mirror recently? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "I am not gaming anything. I strictly refrain from editing within 24 hours." One doesn't follow the other. Do you understand what Wikipedia:Gaming the system is? As Wikipedia:Edit warring explains, making a revert just outside the time period is often considered gaming. OTOH, reverting within the disallowed the time period (without any exception applying) is not gaming, it's a clear violation. So while it's good if you aren't editing in clear violation, this tells us nothing about whether you are gaming. Remember that the bright line rule is a strict limit and not intended to be some sort of right.

Also both sides should be aiming to achieve consensus for what the article says. WP:BRD generally means the norm is that something stays as it was if both sides feel strongly enough about the issue. But it doesn't mean only one party should be attempting to achieve consensus. If you're approaching things from the POV that my version is right because it's older, rather than trying to achieve a wording which has consensus the moment it's clear there's resonable dispute, this does not reflect well on you.

Ultimately if both sides keep edit warring, either the article will be locked (with no preference to any version per WP:WRONGVERSION) or everyone is likely to be sanctioned for edit warring. There are of course exceptions like for WP:BLP and WP:ENGVAR issues.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne What you say comes down to: if one or two editors insist long enough on their version, they can ignore the normal rules of inclusion of material on Wikipedia. Wikipedia must insist that editors abide by its rules, and one of them is that articles can not be changed if there is no consensus for that change. Now please enforce that. You may have noticed that other editors on the talkpage have also mentioned the [{WP:BURDEN]] and WP:WAIT issues of Malik et al at the above-mentioned B'Tselem article, see this edit. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Still haven't read WP:BURDEN yet, have you Debresser? It doesn't say what you think it says. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've protected the page while this lame edit war is sorted out. It is a content dispute which should be handled like any other. I have provided Debresser with policy guidance on their talk page, in response to their false claims of "consensus". Swarm ♠ 08:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal abuse

User:IcehouseCover has, over the last few days, repeatedly added original research at George IV State Diadem (16:20, 4 Jan, 20:47, 4 Jan, and 17:55, 7 Jan). Today, I posted a warning on his or her talk page ([19]), to which I received the following responses: "You're a twat" ([20]), and "you narrow minded twit … You'll die long before me, and I'll get my way eventually" ([21]). Firebrace (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You know it's a common practice to adjust currency values for inflation in articles? See WP:INFLATION. I've just done that for you at George IV State Diadem. I'm not saying the other editor was right (given the figures he or she was using didn't include an appropriate source per WP:INFLATION), but you weren't exactly right either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Last time I saw WP:INFLATION it came with a warning: "Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research. If you yourself do not have economic training, then please consult someone who does before using this template". The warning was removed in November 2016 ([22]) without my knowledge. But can we have something done about this troubled user who seems to enjoy the prospect of my death because he wasn't "getting his way". Thanks. Firebrace (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Firebrace, it is your responsibility to assume good faith of the other user when reverting something that is not clearly vandalism. Your first notice on the user's talk page was a level 3 warning about disruptive editing. Believe me, I know it's tiring to type out explanations instead of using templates. But you might get a better response if you revert once and offer a good-natured explanation before things escalate into an edit war.

That being said, IcehouseCover is editing with the wrong mentality and needs a clue adjustment, IMO. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Firebrace describes himself as a "Western troll", "patronising jerk", and "sarcastic asshole". I was simply speaking the language he professes to use and understand. I am no Wikipedia editing expert; I felt my edit added value to the article. If there were a better way, a collaborative user might have explained how to achieve this. The "sarcastic asshole" did not chose this avenue.

The first thing I did to contextualize the figures in the article was look up the calculated adjustments for inflation. Here nor there do I frankly care, but Firebrace, is an abusive editor, so received a complementary response from me which apparently sent him over the deep end crying and tattletaling.IcehouseCover (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, just so you know in the future, IcehouseCover, we don't really do that sort of speaking the language he professes to use and understand, particularly not where it amounts to what would be considered abusive language in a professional environment. The statements on Firebrace's userpage actually appear to be something of a "trophy gallery" of instances where he was called unkind names in disputes. While I think that sort of thing is in poor taste, it's not my userpage.

I do actually agree with you, by the way, that what you contributed to the article added value. The problem was that it needed to be supported by reliable sources. In this case, Firebrace actually knew about WP:INFLATION (though apparently didn't know it could be used for large capital figures). It would've been more helpful had Firebrace sought to explain things, say by linking to WP:INFLATION and giving his understanding of it, rather than just reverting. That said, telling Firebrace off didn't make things better.

In any event, I think that you understand the situation, and I don't think you're going to go around hurling insults in light of the above. If so, there's not much else to do here and we can all go back to editing. I really don't think there's a need for sanctions in this case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Next time I will just sink to their level. Firebrace (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely the wrong takeaway. There are a ton of dispute resolution mechanisms on Wikipedia that don't require anyone being blocked or reported to ANI. My (Non-administrator comment) advice is to use those whenever possible. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Saboteurest

Saboteurest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is randomly reverting my edits (see here and here) and those of Joeyconnick (see here). It's clearly retaliation for Joey and I reverting their changes to Light rail in North America, which are in opposition to previous talk page discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything but this is how my attempt to discuss the issue with the user went at Talk:Burnaby-class ferry § abbreviation or not. I can't speculate as to their original reason for the revert but I don't feel they are discussing the issue in good faith. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Assistance requested reverting unsourced changes to Super Bowl LII

• Super Bowl LII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 68.192.253.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP 68.192.253.189 is continuously making an unsourced change without looking at the whole paragraph in which they are editing. The Winter Olympics were never held in 2012. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeated Addition of Unsourced Material to List of Bible verses not included in modern translations.

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

---

• List of Bible verses not included in modern translations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Our issue here is the repeated insertion of unsourced claims by Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:V, which states, among other things, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Sussberman continues to ignore WP:V despite various reminders over a period now a month long of weeks.

A Timeline

At 12:51 17 December 2017, User:Sussmanbern was told by User:Dimadick about the importance of making sure that all new additions to the article have proper inline citations, in order to avoid having the material deleted. (There had been earlier conflicts, among other parties, over the addition of unsourced material to this article, which can easily be seen at the talk page). Here is the diff of Dimadick's statement: [23].

Sussberman asked for a summary of the earlier conflicts, "so tI know what to avoid doing." [24]

Reiterating Dimadick's point, I told Sussmanberg that the thing to avoid doing was the addition of unsourced material to the page: [25] (31 December).

Sussmanberg assured me that they "can appreciate the problem of additions without source citations." [26].

At 04:18, 7 January 2018, I took a look at the article and found it to be filled with uncited claims. I removed a number of them: [27]

At 19:50, 7 January 2018, Sussberman left a notice at my talk page announcing his ownership of the Wikipedia page, and that I am not allowed to interfere with anything he writes, "until Feb 14, 2018 . . . PLEASE DO NOT TAMPER WITH MY WRITING WHILE I AM WRITING."

At 19:54, Sussberman complained that their Second Amendment rights were being violated at the talk page: [28].

At 20:22, Sussberman posted a statement of WP:OWNERSHIP directly in the article text itself: [29].

At 20:28, I replied at my talk page, notifying Sussberman about the contents of policy pages WP:OWN and WP:V. [30]

Sussberman ignored my reply.

At 20:35, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [31].

At 1:01, 8 January 2018, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [32].

At 1:22, Sussberman reverted my previous edit, restoring a great deal of unsourced content despite the previous repeated reminders about this: [33].

At 1:36, I wrote a second reminder, this time on the talk page: [34].

In the interests of avoiding an editing war, I asked Sussberman whether they were now willing to abide by WP:V, or whether I should seek dispute resolution. I have received no reply, and Sussberman continues editing away.

I request that administrators take some kind of action — it doesn't matter to me exactly what — to ensure that the addition of unsourced material to this article does not continue. I do not want to edit-war here, so I can't just keep removing the stuff myself. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Having received Alephb's comments, I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Even within the last few hours, even as I was adding citations, Alephb was still erasing my stuff - I found I was collecting citations for text that no longer existed, and he took particular pains to repeatedly delete a quotation WITH citation that I went to some effort to find. I am ready to dump this whole project. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If it helps, I would be happy to copy the entire deleted text to the talk page or any piece of your userspace that you specify, so that you can add citations to it and then re-add it to the article. If I deleted anything that was properly cited, that was certainly a mistake, and if you just show me the quote, I would be more than happy to add it back in myself, if you like. Alephb (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It is worth noting, at this point, that the continued addition of uncited material by Sussmanbern has continued even after the beginning of this ANI thread: [35]. The added material there speaks to the motives of the translators of various post-1880 Bible translators and editors. He added that to a previously correctly-cited quote from a writer in 1832. The quote is cited -- the additional material about what people were thinking several decades later is not. WP:V is still not being followed. In the interest of not edit-warring, I'm simply going the leave the uncited material there, but I would urge Sussmanbern to delete his claims about the motives of these translators until he can find a reliable source backing up the claims. And I would ask Sussmanbern to substantiate his claim that I removed a properly cited claim, or to strike out the accusation. One of or the other. Alephb (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's another edit by Sussberman, still as this ANI goes on: [36]. It purports to give the "Reason" that modern Bible translations omit a particular verse, but does not cite any source that confirms that the "reason" given is in fact the reason the modern translators have omitted this verse. This is also a violation of WP:V. I'm surprised to see this behavior going on MID-ANI. Alephb (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And . . . here's a third WP:V violation, also made while this ANI goes on: [37]. The unsourced part is, "Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,ƒ<super>1</super>, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources." What somewhat later sources? Why no citation? How difficult is this? Alephb (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And now we have a fourth WP:V violation: [38]. It makes an uncited claim about what motivates modern translators, about what is written in the original handwriting of a particular manuscript, uncited claims about which manuscripts are more, or less, ancient, and an uncited claim that uncited editors "seem confident." Alephb (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a fifth: [39]. It alleges that several books have been written on a particular passage, without citing any books written on that passage. Alephb (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's number six: [40]. It alleges things about "most modern versions" and their treatment of two passages, without a supporting citation. It also says the passages are supported by a "wide variety" or uncited sources, and the uncited claim that "there are strong reasons to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels." Alephb (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's number seven: [41]. It alleges that "some Italic mss" include a particular verse. No source is cited. Alephb (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Reasons" that Alephb says are unsourced cite mss listed in the critical editions of the Greek NT mentioned by name in my Intro to the article (Souter, Nestle-Aland, etc.), having mentioned them anyone can find the relevant verses. As for not specifying "some Italic mss" and the like, these are (1) recondite and (2) the usual citation forms involve a complicated typography, often with layers of superscripts; as this article is intended for beginners in this topic (non-beginners would not need this article) it was not my goal to baffle the reader. Again the specific mss can be found in the critical editions I named. I had said in my Intro that I would cite only "four or five" of the leading mss evidence for inclusion or exclusion, and those motivated to dig deeper can look it up in the named critical editions. Listing all the mss evidence, including versions and patristic sources, as appears in those editions, would make this article very bulky, require some difficult typographic tricks, and make the article less reader-friendly. I would like to emphasize that this article lay fallow - useless and unrevised - for more than five years until I saw it a couple of weeks ago. Even Alephb had not attempted to improve it in those five years. But once I started, he could not contain himself for as little as five days. I am ready to let him roll this boulder up the mountain, while I play the critic. And could someone please ask him to stop misspelling my name. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve your content disputes, that should happen on the article talk page, or in Dispute Resolution. Here, only behavioral issues are considered, and Alephb has presented fairly compelling evidence of your ownership behavior. I have left a comment on your talk page to explain in further detail why that is a problem, and why not editing collaboratively can lead to being blocked from editing. Please read that and the links it includes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No one is asking you to list every italic manuscript. It's just that, when you restore text that has been removed for not being sourced, we need an inline citation confirming that "some manuscripts" say the one thing or another. Just name whatever source you're copying the claims out of in a footnote. And likewise, when you make claims about the motives of particular people (some still living) you should find reliable sources for those claims as well. That would work fine. I can quote the wording about inline citations in WP:V again if that would help.

The accusation that I made no efforts to improve the article prior to you showing up is false.

Speaking of accusations, I am still waiting for you to show us the diffs of the properly cited quote that you say I "repeatedly" removed. Either that, or I would ask you to strike out the accusation. One or the other. Alephb (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sussmanbern: Have you considered drafting your changes in your sandbox or userspace? I hope that you are planning to add sources to the content as you said (I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can.) - taking you at your word, drafting in userspace first would resolve this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I give up. This article was seriously neglected and I was a volunteer trying to improve it, but ingratitude wins out. I leave it to Alephb to finish the article to his satisfaction. Sussmanbern (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are serious about letting this one go, I think that resolves our problem. Given Sussmanbern's statement that they are no longer interested in working on the article, I would assume that it would not be considered edit-warring if I waited a day or two and then stripped all non-verifiable content out of the article. Given that the "other side" has thrown in the towel, and there's now no one left to edit-war with. Alephb (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User has been indefinately blocked for threat of violence. I recommend we close this discussion. Alephb (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually he wasn't complaining about his 2nd Amendment rights being violated in that diff. I've blocked indef for a clear threat of violence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Good eye. How'd we all miss that one? --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Become Famus [my company], Get your WikiPedia Page at 85% off

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

---

I got an email solicitation today from (Redacted). Among other things, she offered me:

What do we propose? We will take you and your business truly global with a place on the world’s largest online encyclopedia, taking you instantly to the top of your league! It might look like a simple page on Wikipedia but here is what you really need to know to understand the real power of Wiki.
Interested to know more about it? Don’t wait any longer! We are offering a Special 85% discount on our Digital Services this New Year Click Here to Activate your 85% Off Deal Now.

Rhadow (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Their website is already down (suspended by their webhost), so someone seems to have acted fast on this... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Potential COI and disruptive editing

TheCorageone1 seems to be a WP:SPA which was created to solely edit Defiant Wrestling. He has been an extremely disruptive editor and continues to add information to the article which goes against the stubify result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling. He was twice been asked on his talk page about potential COI, including once here [42] which provided evidence that they did declare themselves the owner of the logo in question, which would make them affiliated. He has not responded yet continues to edit the page. Despite the AfD on the initial article they started three spin off articles which all resulted in delete at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Championship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Women's Championship, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Hardcore Championship. Despite the delete closing result, the information was merged and redirected by this user. We now also have 27 redirects to this page [43] and a template filled with redirects Template:Defiant Wrestling Champions.

All of this for a wrestling promotion who barely passes GNG if at all. Of the 41 references currently on the page, 12 of them are YouTube, 5 are WP:PRIMARY, and 9 are from cagematch (which is an RS for stats but not for notability). This user has clearly not done anything to benefit the purpose of the stubify, only to fluff the article. - Galatz^Talk 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweet Caroline editing

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

---

• Sweet Caroline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I was searching the Neil Diamond song "Sweet Caroline" and I noticed two users, ( Piriczki and Binksternet), had changed the official release date of the song from the correct date of "September 16th, 1969" to a date of June 1969... I changed it back and explained why on the talk page, but they are relying on obscure references and sources other than Neil Diamond himself such as here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/nov/20/usa.musicnews

http://societyofrock.com/neil-diamond-serenades-the-crowd-with-sweet-caroline-live-2/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808898/I-needed-three-syllable-Singer-Neil-Diamond-reveals-Sweet-Caroline-love-song-wife-Marcia-not-rhyme.html

The June date that is constantly being changed to is incorrect based on the words of Neil Diamond himself who was interviewed by the Associated Press, The Guardian and Daily Mail. Mr. Diamond revealed that that OFFICIAL release date was September 16th, 1969. Apparently, the song must have been given to some local markets prior to that date where it started to actually chart on Billboard... However, the actual official release date was September 16th, 1969 per Neil Diamond himself in the above sources.

I have attempted to be reasonable with this and yet these users will not rely on the Associated Press affiliates like The Guardian, Society of Rock, etc.

I will post this to both users' Talk page.

Thanks for your help in this. Weintzer (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Weintzer. You are describing a routine content dispute and this noticeboard does not get involved with content disputes. Discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

However, Weintzer is engaged in an edit war to restore his preferred wording. That is a conduct issue. I've warned him on his talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, SarekOfVulcan. I am now involved because I have expressed an opinion on the content dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have discovered that Weintzer himself is very likely the source of the date confusion, having introduced the wrong date to the song article 11 years ago, using an IP address from Crossville, Tennessee. My findings are reported here. This could be a good-faith mistake, but it also has the appearance of a purposeful hoax. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a mistake...I am in Baxter Tennessee, which is miles from Crossville and a different county. Weintzer (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking for the song in Newspapers.com (a pay site), I see a reference to Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline" on a Top 40 type of chart dated June 27, 1969. Looking a little further, the earliest reference I'm seeing to the song on a chart is June 14, 1969. So it would seem that a September release date is incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if the date in the sources provided above was based on what our article said at the time; the ideal should be to try and verify the September date from sources published before it was added to our article. Alternatively, I suppose it's possible there's some odd convention in the music industry for what "release date" means, though it being charted well before that September date would seem to indicate the single was on sale then. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Arthistorian1977 and NPR right

Moved to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Arthistorian1977 and NPR right

Primefac (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Offensive sectarian vandalism edit should be deleted by admin

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

---

A user called "UnrepentantFenian1916" (a username which suggests an Irish nationalist bias) has been blocked indefinitely for offensive edits on players of Rangers F.C., a club with a British unionist ideology. Most of these edits have been deleted by admins. However, one edit here has not been. The edit mocks Nacho Novo, a former Rangers player, over his heart attack yesterday. As Mr Novo has been subject to death threats from similar people recently, this horrific edit should be deleted straight away. Harambe Walks (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

LTA sockpuppet

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

---

Could an administrator please revoke talk access for this LTA sockpuppet who since he's blocked apparently now believes that his talk page is the place to go. Not notifying user as there's no point. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. I'm tired of cleaning up after his hoaxes, and we don't need even more in user space. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Please revoke talkpage access

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

---

Benson tan at work was blocked for making legal threats. After continuously mentioning lawyers again, they're now using their talkpage to write an autobiography, despite warning not to. See Special:Diff/819324417. Please revoke TPA. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Alex Shih (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Funnily enough the person who opened this thread got blocked soon after. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Comment reconsidered --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: It's not that funny, please re-consider your comment. Alex Shih (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Suspected automated edits to Wikipedia main space and talk pages with blank templates

It seems that the user Thsmi002 is editing Wikipedia with an automated program to add to the edit counts. Most of the edits are spaced within a minute of each other Special:Contributions/Thsmi002 and does not seem to demonstrate any real purpose. All the edits in the Mainspace insert the template Authority Control. Most of the edits has been flagged as suspected Vandalism, but since the number of edits is very large I wanted to bring this to the ANI for investigation & suitable action as I suspect misuse. Hagennos (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. I suggest you go to Thsmi's talk page and raise any issues you have there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

They don’t look like automated edits. The template should be in the articles, according to Template:Authority control#Description. Peter James (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Its of variable usefulness. Because it draws its content from wikidata the reliability is suspect in the first place. When it is accurate, it may not add any information that is useful to a reader - one example being on biographies where it has entries on writer databases for people who have never written anything. On the other hand it can be very useful on a biography for someone who has legitimate entries on a number of databases. What it shouldn't be is automatically added to a Wikipedia article without each entry on the AC being verified first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not editing using an automated program. I was adding WikiProject Women and the Authority Control template to articles about women that were missing them. I was also adding categories, photo requested, FSS, and annual readership. It is part of my interest in Women in Red to improve articles and their talk pages. I think this is evident in many of my contributions. I had no idea my edits were flagged as suspected vandalism. Thank you. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Hydrangea1 and Sarah Phillips (fashion designer)

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

---

Hydrangea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User repeatedly removing swathes of content and COI/other maintenance tags at Sarah Phillips (fashion designer) without discussion, despite warnings. Any assistance appreciated. Note there have been COI issues/paid editing concerns at this article since it was created by blocked editor Jeremy112233. Thanks. -- Begoon 07:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Intimidating words and improper editing by User:Malik Shabazz

While I haven't visited this board in a long time, seeing this morning a message that possibly amounts to a clear Wikipedia:Harassment violation on my talk page brought me here. User:Malik Shabazz threatened that if I continue contributing to Wikipedia (in what only he perceived was non-neutrality) then "things will not end well for [me]". Admins, please see for yourself, this is how the sentence ended, as a general intimidation. I ask that he states clearly what he means by that as I want to make sure the threat is focused on Wikipedia (which still does not make it okay, but at least should be resolved here).

This happened following the user's misconduct on the article Hillel Neuer, after he deleted and redirected that long and well-sourced article without any discussion or consensus(!), and when other users undid him, he reverted them 3 times in slightly over 24 hours, using another account of his his, User:MShabazz. (Again, take a minute to see for yourself. When that wasn't successful for said user, he proposed it for deletion. Shortly after, two anonymous IP addresses jumped into the article's deletion discussion in favor of deleting and redirecting, which a user reverted just now since they apparently had no permission/didn't meet the standards to do so, but that may be a different issue). Yambaram (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"Threatened"...sure. You seem to be misrepresenting the chain of events. Malik's edits were based on Drmies initial redirect months ago. Two SPAs (wonder who they belong to) who couldn't make edits to the article in the first place attempted to overrule Drmies; Malik, or any other editor with requirements met, should/could revert them as soon as possible. So, in reality, Malik only reverted the page once -- well within discretion -- and then sent it to AFD. I think you should close this now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The user used intimidating language - and this is not the first time coming from him though I'm undecided at the moment whether to provide additional examples - and he should clarify it. Dealing with such issues is exactly what this forum is for and it's important for the Wiki community. Malik Shabazz's repeated revets, and deletion/redirect of that article, even if some user did it months earlier, were not right for the reasons explained above. Yambaram (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yambaram, please read WP:ASPERSIONS. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why you brought this here. If you really need clarification you should ask Malik Shabazz directly, but really it's silly to think that the comment was intended to be a suggestion of off-wikipedia action since it's something people say all the time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Including on Wikipedia. It's nothing more than an overused slang expression. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Littlejohn

Mike Littlejohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User talk:Mike Littlejohn (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User has added nonsense on their talk page since being blocked for disruptive behavior. ToThAc (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Clean up the White people and the Romani people article...

Clean up the White people and Romani people article. The articles for White people, European countries and Gypsies need special attention and look messy.