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

Template hijacking

A template (not sure which one) has been vandalized to redirect clicks anywhere on certain article pages that use it to a Youtube live feed ([1]). One of the affected articles is Barack Obama. To demonstrate the issue, navigate to that page, then attempt to click on any blue link (or even in the white space of the page, as the exploit actually uses a transparent overlay). General Ization ^Talk 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to reproduce it on mobile ... maybe fixed already? Or just not working on my browser? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not working on your mobile browser. General Ization ^Talk 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work on my desktop either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This was fixed; see the VPT thread. {{Excessive citations inline}} had a overlay element added to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently fixed now -- either undone by the initiator of the hijacking or corrected by someone else. General Ization ^Talk 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

See my recent contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this same exploit before (redirecting clicks, as I recall, to the same webcast). I won't say more because last time it was all revdel'd so as not to give anyone ideas (WP:BEANS). General Ization ^Talk 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Spam blacklisted. SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed a few templates in my watchlist getting protected the other day; apparently this process needs to be speeded up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

One of these templates had 8 transclusions. Whatever standards are applied, a template like that is probably not going to be automatically protected, and even if it was there'll probably appear an autoconfirmed sock. However feel free to join the discussion at WP:VPR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've run a purge job on all pages where that was transcluded, so it should be clear now. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Can I take this opportunity to point out to people that if you see reports of template vandalism, "strange vandalism" or similar, then the first thing to check is this newbie template contribs link (it's easy to reconstruct). The edits are almost always immediately obvious. If there's nothing there you can always check recent changes for unregistered contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz: template "related changes" for a page usually helps as well e.g.. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Xaosflux and Zzuuzz: At least one of the templates in the "newbie" link above - Template:Conservatism sidebar - is still transcluding vandalism onto pages when logged out; this image was just appearing on Republican Party (United States) instead of the template when viewing the page in incognito mode. I've purged the page and it appears to be gone from there, but the template transcludes onto 128 other pages according to the tool. I'll see if I can find any others. Home Lander (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • • • @Home Lander: I'll have a bot purge them all now. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Thanks Xaosflux; by chance, can you spill the beans on how to do that? Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          •  Done @Home Lander: you can grab the 'what links here' list from the template, then feed that to anything to script either running WP:PURGE or null-edits to the pages. You could even use AWB and just append {{subst:null}} to a list of pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
            • @Xaosflux: Oh lord, you lost me quickly. I have no experience with the AWB or bots (other than the anti-vandal or AIV helpers). I think I'll just leave that to you. Home Lander (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Aww, dang it... I've been meaning to pull a list of our templates with the highest translusion count and make sure that any high risk or highly visible ones are protected. I'll put that back on my to-do list... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

MusikAnimal has done a lot of work to list and protect templates and modules. See the recent User talk:MusikAnimal#List request from Primefac. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! This is exactly what we need to be doing so we can reduce the risk of major template vandalism that would impact many pages. Thanks for letting me know that this is a currently in-progress task; I'll see what I can do to help (if it's needed). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac protected a boat load from a report I gave him (which I agree with, for the record :). I'm not sure how much further we should go without broader support, but anyway I have a script that I can run anytime you need me to. A bot task used solely for reporting is probably a bad idea, per WP:BEANS. I suspect however that at least one of the vandals we're dealing with is running their own queries. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to protect all redirects to such protected templates too? Don't know how worthwhile it'd be, but I remember a while back people were hitting template redirects too. ansh666 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We're just talking about redirects, right? Not any pages that reference them? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like how Template:Info box redirects to Template:Infobox. (Perhaps a bad example, since thankfully the former isn't used at all.) ansh666 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I got'cha. I don't think there's an automated way to do that (or at least easily). Cascading protection only protects subpages of a page, but what you're asking for sounds to be almost the same thing (except... with redirects). You'd have to find each one and do it one-by-one if it can't be done with automation... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, we'll need to stay a step ahead and do this ourselves. I agree that having a bot report these things is not a good idea. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Is diff an attempt for something similar? Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm no admin, so I can't comment on the previous, but yes, it looks like the idea is similar. Easy enough to turn into a transparent redirect. See User:Bellezzasolo/sandbox. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Another: Template:Delink question hyphen-minus + user. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Handled by NeilN. The take-home message is that this is not going to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The only real solution to this is to apply (as a minimum) extended confirmed protection to all templates, and template editor protection/full protection to the high-risk ones (which are mostly all done anyway). fish&karate 10:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone make a list of templates by protection status please? Mail me the list. I think this would need API access. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: The first part is here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dilpa kaur

• Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)

Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially these diffs here which clearly show that this account is engaged in meat puppetry. —MBL ^Talk 08:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's a disruptive meat puppet. See [2] filed a report just after JosephusOfJerusalem (another SPA) had his report rejected.[3] On report he writes, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[4] Same green font and sentence that JosephusOfJerusalem had applied, "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#India-Pakistan_2: A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block."[5]

Few things are clear here, they both are obsessively trying hard to get me blocked/banned, and using same templates/style/words and they are edit warring in tandem. Such deception needs to be dealt with indef block, because these accounts are WP:NOTHERE, all they care about is their disruptive ethnic agenda. Anmolbhat (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat:--Hmm..Some similarity at the AE report but I ain't seeing much meat-puppetryin light of Ammarpad's evidence, the overlap looks to be strong except the hazy overlaps which is not uncommon, given the highly polarised editing atmosphere at your main-space overlaps with Dilpa.You can file a detailed SPI report, including relevant diffs etc.And, Anmol, it's best to comment on content and not on contributors, at article talk-pages.Winged Blades^Godric 08:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@WBG: I don't think it is ripe for SPI but I believe the above report is beyond talkpage comments. Do you think this is also mere happenstance? Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) removed content with claim of MOS violation. Reverted by Raymond3023. See the next edit –Ammarpad (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I ran Interwine but missed the diff.Thanks:)Winged Blades^Godric 09:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Saving a template from the preceding report, working on it when the reported person displays more bad behaviour, as is the case here with Anmolbhat, is not meatpuppetry. Your other diffs [6] are a misrepresentation, sometimes i struggle with making my pre-planned edits on my mobile because it gets frozen and goes haywire and copying from my phone notes and pasting and saving becomes a hassle. This[7] was a temporary notice on my part on the page to underline the issues with the text I was trying to remove, until I could fix the text properly when my phone improved, which I did within 5 minutes[8]. This seems like a detraction from the current AE case against MBlaze Lightning's friend Anmolbhat who has just broken the civility restriction. My guess is that when I by mistake pasted my report on Anmolbhat by mistake in the wrong place and came back to insert it in the right place later, during that time MBlaze Lightning started planning a diversion from the AE case against Anmolbhat. What should be looked into is the long-term tag-teaming between MBlaze Lightning, Anmolbhat, Capitals00, Kautilya and some others. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You can make up whatever you want to but we have already understood that you and other disruptive SPAs are meat puppets, with nothing to do here except edit warring in tandem and pushing your disruptive ethnic agenda. According to you, we should investigate long term editors like Mblaze, Kautilya3, Capitals00 so that your meat puppetry can be justified. You make no sense. Anmolbhat (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a comment from somebody who has closely watched this go down for the last few weeks but has mostly been a bystander. I have not directly interacted with Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs) or JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs) but have noticed their edits and their editing behavior so far has not been typical of a Wikipedia editor and raised some doubts in my mind. There was a RfC at Talk:Kashmir conflict recently and there seemed to be a Wikipedia:Vote stacking on that page. Now this might seem typical of India-Pakistan pages given the different views. But quite a bit of editors participated in that RfC with little or no edits on the actual page. What was even more concerning was the fact that many of these editors had been dormant for quite some time before the RfC, commented on the RfC and went back to their dormant selves. This behavior clubbed with the behavior on recent articles like Kashmiris, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Violence against women during the partition of India is concerning. In these cases editors have been recently created (past 1-2 months) accounts who have very little editing history on Wikipedia and most of it resolves around a limited set (4-5) of India-Pakistan pages and seems to be pushing a certain POV. An editor was recently blocked for a week for violating the 1RR block for their edits which they falsely claimed were copy-right violations. In my opinion, the administrators need to have a closer look at this since there seems to be something more than what meets the eye. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80's uninvolved observer comments are exactly accurate. I couldn't have said it better myself. There is serious tag teaming/meatpuppetry going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Bishonen I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at this and see whether indefinite blocks are warranted. —MBL ^Talk 00:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am happy and satisfied reading Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)'s explanation of the diffs. I don't see any evidence of meat puppetry. I have in the past been falsely accused of socking by MBL and I would encourage people to take into consideration just how many of these accusations he throws around. --Xinjao (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why you bothered to come back to Wikipedia 29 days only for supporting such nonsensical "explanation"? You can describe though if they are any sensible. Capitals00 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• @GeneralizationsAreBad: could you take a look, please? —MBL ^Talk 15:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'm finding it quite difficult to reconcile Dilpa kaur and JosephusOfJerusalem's ostensible identities with their actual editing activity. Dilpa professes (by their username and on their user page) to be "Khalistani" (and hence by implication associated with Indian Punjab), and Josephus claims to be a "Jewish historian, academic and foodie". Yet their editing patterns, by the way very similar to those of KA$HMIR, show an almost exclusive focus on several very niche Kashmiri topics that are contested between India and Pakistan, and they've both shown a detailed knowledge of the specific literature, a very strong pro-Pakistan slant and a keen interest in the related meta-discussions (ANI and AE threads etc.). – Uanfala (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several other articles, related to ancient and Jewish history, so your argument falls flat while I am a long time (dynamic) IP editor. My IPs' which I edited from while mistakenly logged out, after I had registered this account, are visible for all to see[9][10] geolocation [11][12] shows clearly I come from the Indian Punjab. How is it possible that an Indian like me can collaborate to produce a pro-Pakistan slant? But yes it is true that there is a strong pro-Indian and anti-Pakistan bias across the articles in the Indo-Pakistan topic area, which several neutral senior editors such as Fowler&fowler have pointed out.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bride_burning#Request_for_Comment) As a responsible citizen I am committed to removing this imbalance and would not be surprised if neutral editors from non-subcontinental backgrounds, such as Fowler and Josephus, have also observed this imbalance and taken it upon themselves to fix it.

I am more interested in how you turned up on a RfC to support Kautilya3's vote,(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict#Comments) even though you yourself admitted you were not well acquainted with the topic? You even argued that those opposed to the sections up for deletion had not made a case for removing them, even though Winged Blades of Godric said good points were made. What's going on between you and Kautilya3 in the emails? Dilpa kaur (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Says the obvious sock who filed a firolovous complaint against me[13] after other obvious sock had his firovlous complaint rejected.[14]. Anmolbhat (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Filer's tag-teaming and harassment

The filer has been part of several spurious and failed attempts at getting blocked the users he disagrees with. Just last month on here MBlaze Lightning created a report against Dilpa kaur so ridiculous (he could not differentiate between the different IPs of @Dilpa kaur: and @Danish.mehraj26:) that he had to revert himself [15]. He also paarticipated against me and @Danish.mehraj26:/@JosephusOfJerusalem: in a frivolous SPI which ended up confirming our innocence. The question is why is the filer so desperately making multiple attempts to get others blocked (his own block log is hardly one to envy)?

And what was happening in the middle of all of this? Two IPs,[16][17] located in two different [18][19] Indian cities, turn up to frame me and @Owais Khursheed: for meatpuppetry. Both IPs were had knowledge of a user known as @Kautilya3:, which indicates they were old users IP socking to frame me and Owais. The different locations of the IPs suggest collaboration between multiple old users is happening on IP levels, and even worse is happening through the accounts where they are using hook and crook methods to get opposing editors blocked.

Senior editor @Mar4d: is had also complained of this trend of a group of editors close to @Kautilya3: wreaking POV havoc across articles in the India-Pakistan topic area.

MBlaze Lightning, Capitals00, Adamgerber80, D4iNa4 and Kautilya3 have an extensive record of tag teaming and supporting each other on articles, often where they have had minimal or negligible contribution to article content or discussion on the talkpages.

For example the senior editor @NadirAli: observed on Talk:Violence against women during the partition of India that Kautilya3 suddenly arrived on a talkpage discussion for an article he had no contribution to. Even more interestingly, MBlaze Lightning turned up on the same page to do a revert[20] to ensure the page looked the way Kautilya3 wanted [21]. This despite MBlaze Lightning not contributing much to the article either.

Another example is Talk:Annexation_of_Junagadh#MBlaze_Lightning_cuts where Kautilya3 turns up, after a long absence from contributing to the article, to support MBlaze Lightning's POV.

And even more. During extensive discussions on Talk:Kashmir_conflict#KA$HMIR_revert_justifications between me, @NadirAli:, @Kautilya3: and @Mar4d:, MBlaze Lightning is absent. He then suddenly turns up only to agree with Kautilya3 and Capitals00 here Talk:Kashmir_conflict#NadirAli_edits, though again this contribution is no more than a line. Despite having no contribution worth the name to the discussion he then reverts to Kautilya3's preferred version.

And then comes in Adamgerber80, who had no contribution to the discussion, to restore MBlaze Lightning and Kautilya3's preferred version during the edit war [22]. Note his edit summary ad then check how much he has contributed to the discussions on talk.

Just recently, MBlaze Lightning again proved to be part of a tag team. Until now he has had no major contribution to the discussion on Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus except for one vague statement (and no response thereafter when he was questioned) in support of Anmolbhat and Kautilya3's POV [23]. He then did a disruptive revert on the article [24]. Fortunately the edit war has been ended graciously by the admins who have locked the page now so MBlaze Lightning and Anmolbhat can no longer break WP:NOCON and do disruptive reverts.

Then there is Capitals00. In an extensive discussion on sourcing between Kautilya3 and JosephusOfJerusalem Capitals00 turns up to make vitriolic comments,[25] with no other contribution to the discussion, and does a revert [26] to Kautilya3's preferred version while there is still discussion going on on the talkpage.

I do not believe for an instant that we can ignore all this collaboration as a coincidence. KA$HMIR (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• But they are years old accounts with thousands of edits. That's why the actual issue here is with the disruptive tagteaming/meat-puppetry involving you and other very new accounts with no edits outside this subject (WP:SPA). Also you have selectively canvassed only those editors in your message that push same POV as yours. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I am adding to my comment since I have been accused of "tag-teaming" by KA$HMIR. I do have all these pages on my Watchlist for quite sometime including the ones I have mentioned. Even though I have no edits on them, I still keep track of all the discussions on their talk pages and additions by other users. I only interject when I feel the need to. This was the very reason that I had reverted some edits of your earlier username on a different page. My edit comments on that revert was out of the fact that the page was turning into state of constant reverts and it was me who requested the full protection of the page to ensure a proper discussion took place. I reverted those edits to a point in the page which was before the edits by NadirAli since they were the topic of discussion on the Talk page to maintain STATUSQUO. Lastly, I do not believe in Vote-stacking and unnecessary "show of support comments" as was on display during that RfC. Other editors had raised valid points and continue to raise valid points in the on-going discussion and I have not felt the need to interject so far. And as a matter of fact I have add disagreements with Kautilya3 and MBlaze Lightning on different topics in the past so your accusation of "tag-teaming" seems pre-mature and ill-thought. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, let us see KA$HMIR. Here are your edits intertwined with Dilpa kaur's (who is supposedly a Punjabi and Khalistani), and your edits intertwined with Danish.mehraj26, and your edits intertwined with Josephus (who is a Jewish historian no doubt).

On the the other hand, here are the filer's edits intertwined with mine, those intertwined with Capitals00 and those intertwined with Adamgerber80.

Do you see the difference? I doubt you would. So let me spell it out for you. We all watch whatever pages interest us, and we jump in when we see the need. In contrast, your troops show up wherever you go. No matter what their professed interests are. That is what we are talking about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Intertwined contributions only display the ″last 1000 cumulated contributions of the two users″. It does not show intersections. To check intersections you need to use this tool [27]. The tool shows that Dilpa kaur and I have only edited in 4 same places,[28] of which only 2 are talkpages and the remaining two are ANI and AE boards, likely not even on the same threads. JosephusOfJerusalem intersects with Dilpa on 6 pages,[29] of which 1 is the article you mysteriously turned up to 'uninvited' and only 2 are talkpages. His intersections with me are also only in 6 places.[30] JosephusOfJerusalem has contributed to several places [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] where I and Dilpa have not and similarly Dilpa[41] and I[42][43][44][45][46] have contributed where each other has not.

The same is not true for your friends. The tool shows you and MBlaze Lightning intersecting on 404 pages,[47] many of them talkpages. You intersect with Capitals00 on 404 pages too.[48] All three of you intersect in 103 places,[49] many of them talkpages, whereas I, Dilpa and Josephus intersect only on 2 places[50], 1 of them an AE board. Whatever you say now does not wipe the proof I have provided of obvious tag teaming between your meat puppets. I would even request admins to check your emails. Do you really think you can get away with all the tag-teaming without the rest of us knowing that all this is not a coincidence? KA$HMIR (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That is bogus logic. A sample has to be fair for it to have any validity. The size of the intersection doesn't mean a thing. The longer people are here, the more pages they watch, and the more they watch, the more they will intersect with the others. The intertwine results show a fair simple, and they are showing for you and your friends, people moving into pages they never visited before and siding with one another. This confirms Adamgerber80 observed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Its very curious isn't it how you all end up reverting to each other's versions, even if your meatpuppets such as MBlaze Lightning and Capitals00 have had scant input on the discussion talkpages/article content. The tool for catching the socks and meats is intersection tool. The intertwined contributions show nothing except the last 1000 cumulated edits. The intertwined tool, unlike the intersection tool, is not useful for showing overlaps and tag-teamers supporting each other. KA$HMIR (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

MBL is not helping himself by persistently throwing accusations of sock puppetry, meat puppetry or single purpose accounts. He has been doing this for months, perhaps years; only recently accusing me of sockpuppeterring. He is offending numerous people with such accusations. If he continues, he should be topic banned from filing any ANIs and SPIs or at the least strictly warned. This is becoming too much.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's probably worth noting that User:NadirAli has edited ANI 48 times in the last eleven years: 46 of those were to a single thread about him last July, one more was this, and then there was the above. Posting comments like the above about an editor one doesn't like to threads in which one is not involved is generally seen as a form of hounding. Even if one was ping-canvassed. The good faith way of responding to canvassing like KA$HMIR's above would be to tell them to buzz off. I know nothing about this dispute, but interactions like this make me really, really think that the various editors not on MBL's "side" should be at the very least cautioned. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, it's almost as if you've missed the fact that MBL filed an SPI against me despite having almost no prior interaction with me. He has been doing that numerous times. Given all this, are you still sure it's me who's doing the "hounding". Forgive me but your comment is indeed humerus, even if not intended to be so.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is having prior interactions with someone a prerequisite to opening an SPI? I would think most SPIs are opened to report accounts one has not interacted with before. Anyway, I didn't miss anything -- you showed up on an ANI involving a user you had conflicted with some months ago (at which time said user had managed to convince a quite conservative CU-enabled user to perform a check on you), and, as a former (repeat) victim of hounding that looked very similar to this, I decided to call it what it was. It seems like MBL opened only one SPI on you, so it's really unclear what you mean by He has been doing that numerous times. [...] it's [not] me who's doing the "hounding" -- are you accusing MBL of hounding you? If so, I would encourage you to present evidence or read WP:KETTLE and retract that baseless accusation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

PS, your comment about my ANI edits are incorrect. I have edited more ANI threads than that in the past 11 years, with only two being directly against me and one indirectly against me and another group of Pakistanis.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait, did you do so under an alternate account or something? I did a pretty thorough check, and it wasn't hard (you've made less than 500 WP-space edits in that time). Are you being pedantic and saying that technically February 12, 2007 was less than 11 years ago? If that's the case then let's just say 10 years, 11 months and 5 days. I was rounding up. The above 2014 diff is the only edit your current account made to ANI between February 12, 2007 and your above off-topic remark MBL, whose edit summary did not include Tendentious editing by NadirAli across Multiple Articles. Ctrl+F "Incidents" and that section title yourself here if you don't believe me -- the former brings up 48 results, the latter 46. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Geogene

For this comment in response to my prior. At what point does such suppression warrant a topic ban? Can someone kindly evaluate? Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Suppression"? And no, one comment observing that apparent endless sealioning of an issue "looks like trolling" is not ever going to "warrant a topic ban," so I'm not sure what you're proposing to accomplish here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, Humanengr has been aggressively using article and user talk pages to promote personal (non-mainstream/fringe) beliefs and Original Research, and he has persisted without acknowledging the good faith responses of other users. In particular, instead of building on other editors' responses to try to reach synthesis or common ground that might result in article improvement, he responds with leading questions that unilaterally attribute POV to other editors with whom he disagrees. This pattern of interaction is unproductive and provocative and in my opinion, yes, it's what we call "trolling". And far from "suppressing" Humanengr, the editors on American Politics articles have bent over backwards to AGF and try, in vain, to explain basic WP policy and guidelines. If anyone has the energy to document OP's behavior in detail, we could consider some restriction on him to end the huge waste of time and attention he brings with him to these difficult topics. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to point out that Humanengr has, since March 2017, made over 500 edits to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but in that same time, only 21 edits to the article itself. I'm not going to dive into that pool of edits to evaluate their quality, but, at least on the surface, it does seems as if Humanengr may be attempting to dominate the discussion by volume of edits, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, But the article edits are key framing edits as noted in my comment below; to which I’ll add my cleanup of cites for the lede para to provide better temporal ordering. Thoughts, given those additional details? Humanengr (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at the WP:CPUSH essay, checking off how many of these things describe what Humanengr has been doing in the Russian interference article every day for months.

* They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.

* They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. Like trying over and over again to put "alleged" in front of "Russian interference".

* They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information. Like they were doing immediately before I called them out on trolling.

* They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."

* They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.

* They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view.

* They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors.

These behaviors would be considered "trolling" pretty much anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if Humanengr is trolling or just a POV pusher, But I have not been impressed with some of Geogene styles of attack either. Both users I think have issues with NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'd like to see some examples of my "issues" with NPOV. Thanks. Geogene (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

[51] is a dismissive comment that implies you accept there was interference we we should accept there was (As no RS does explicitly say there was interference). It is certainly POV pushing as much as the OP is a troll. This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives [52], with this added for good measure[53]. This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation. But what many of them are (including) the trolling accusations are disruptive in that they make article talk pages about users, not the article. As you say about the IP's here [54] these posts are a huge time sink, and wastes everyones time.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you claim it's "POV pushing" when I told somebody to quit casting aspersions? [55]. Also, you just accused me of violating NPOV because I accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Are you serious? Geogene (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I said "This can also be seen as POV pushing as you clearly comment on another users motives", as I also went on to say "This is (of course) borderline and not actionable, but then neither is the Trolling accusation.". My point is that (yes) if you want to assume bad faith and read the worst possible motive into a users comments yours can be seen as POV pushing (and how about the first link, are there any RS that say unreservedly that Russia interfered?). No I did not say you violated POV because you accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election (which is by the way a POV, one you claim you were saying in an article talk page). I said you claimed RS agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask another question. Do you have any sort of positive doubt that Russia was involved in some way in Donald Trump's election? Are you trying to influence the article in that direction? Geogene (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not about my views (or me). Oh and this can also be read as POV pushing, it does not matter what you or I think, what matters is what RS say. Anything else is POV pushing "it did happen and our article must not be allowed to imply otherwise) is POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: this is about you, since you're deeply involved there, and since you have found your way into this thread and begun to throw accusations. And, where are those sources that say it didn't happen? I'm assuming you must have them. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Found my way? [56]. You cannot prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. I do not need a source saying "it did not happen", as that is not the basis of an argument I am making, but you have claimed RS have said something. It is thus down to you to either provide that source or admit there is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Slatersteven: That link shows a straightforward summary of the problems with Humanengr's longstanding behavior wrt American Politics. Personally, I would characterize Humanengr as a user who does not understand site policy about due weight and original research, but it's been explained over and over and other editors have concluded his behavior is not constructive and have lost all patience with him. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I said he has issues, I do not agree he is a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And if you want to wikilawyer this, I didn't say they were a troll. I said they were trolling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is the same thing, and you know it. But agreeing he has issues, but not the one he had been accused of is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that it is. And I think you should be introduced to WP:SPADE. Geogene (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec)I think both Geogene and Slatersteven are great collegial editors who've made lots of article improvements. "You're a troll" is a personal remark and cannot be evaluated. "You're trolling" describes a specific action and is readily verified or falsified. Humanengr often trolls, according to the definition of that behavior we commonly understand around here. Geogene did not label him a troll, which would be an hurtful personal remark, especially where the problem arises from incompetence rather than ill will or malevolent intention. The two statements are formally and substantively dissimilar. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering in a nut shell "ahh I did not say he was a "X", I said he wrote like one". As I said I agree that Humanengr has series issues that should have been reported here a while ago. But I do not accept that saying someone is trolling is not calling them a troll, after all are you not what you do?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Helpful guidelines - Fair enough. Let's not get sidetracked, however. Here is guidance we can use to consider Humanengr's behavior:

• Disruptive editing and the pages WP:DE WP:CIR SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems from the above that SPECIFICO agrees with Slatersteven that Geogene called me a troll? Do I read that correctly? Can some more neutral party pls weigh in on this point in isolation? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Humanengt I went out of my way to defuse the label "troll", which I said is not useful and could be a hurtful label, and to concentrate on your behavior, which is what Geogene did. So as I have explained at too much length already above, I do not think it's useful to accuse Geogene of something he did not say. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, SPECIFICO, the issue is not what you said but what Geogene said. [Cont’d below in response to Geogene.] Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You want someone to weigh in on that point in isolation? Isolation from what? The question of whether or not you were trolling at the time? Why would you want to separate those two issues? I was pinged again. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ll broaden the issue. Can an admin please weigh in here regarding the issue of verb vs noun (saying someone is ‘trolling’ vs calling them a ‘troll’)? That would be informative. Thx in advance, Humanengr (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Note also here that I credited you specifically for a compromise re ‘concluded’ and ‘high confidence’ in the lede. And this is how you repay? Humanengr (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've noticed a tendency to not learn from RS, but to constantly push views that can only come from fringe and unreliable ones. This creates endless circular discussions with no progress. This makes them a time sink, where we cover the same stuff again and again. No positive learning curve shown by abandonment of debunked views and adoption of newer and improved ways of seeing things. An inability to see the difference between a RS and an unreliable one gets right to the heart of WP:COMPETENCE. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, re ‘views’: cites pls for where am I pushing ‘views’. Humanengr (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can see how that comment could look like trolling (I can't imagine a person who follows this issue would actually need a citation for that), but I don't think that it was trolling. A number of points could be made by first asking for a citation, and then responding when such is given.

I can't speak to the disruption caused by either party on that page as I've not been paying close attention to it lately, but I will say that I've seen both editors contribute positively to discussions in the past, and haven't seen either behave in an over-the-top partisan manner, or engage in disruptive behavior before. One or both may well have become disruptive in the past few months, but given my experience with them, I'd need to see some pretty clear evidence before accepting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, Have you taken into consideration this post? Are you of the opinion that all know the trend in “the general public’s sense of ‘interference’ as being ‘allegations’ was becoming weaker”. (I, for one, have not seen polling data either way.) Thx, Humanengr (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Denial of the Russian interference went from plausible ignorance to fringe conspiracy theory nonsense over the past +/- 2 years. Of course that could change when the 400 pound basement Hackensack hacker is apprehended. In the meanwhile however, for Humanengr and a collection of IPs to bring up a continuous unfocused stream of carping complaints without the remotest suggestion of workable edit improvements is unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether it's called trolling, it should be prevented and as long as we're here we have the opportunity to craft a fair and constructive restriction on this kind of disruption. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think Humanengr (talk · contribs) was extremely unhelpful on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This is WP:TE. They should stop editing this page or this may finally lead to a topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My focus all along has been the framing of this article. Toward that end, it was

1. This exchange between JFG and myself that led to the insertion of “is highly confident” (later helpfully further changed by The Diaz to “with high confidence”, a direct quote from the PS) in the lede sentence.
2. The effort starting here, progressing through this and ending here that led to 3 words of context in a navbox at the bottom.

The lede sentence and the bottom navbox; the former to start the body with an accurate statement of what the ODNI did find and the latter to show any such alleged activity is not unique.

But I failed on one issue that Slatersteven captures perfectly when he says: “no RS does explicitly say there was interference.” Note that Geogene misinterprets by responding “where are those sources that say it didn't happen?”.

And the title presents ‘interference’ as fact.

I regret my failure to correct the top of the frame. Apologies for that.

I believe if you look at the record, you will see that the frame has been my focus.

I will comment further anon as necessary, Humanengr (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

no RS explicitly state there was such interference that is such spectacular bullshit [57], [58], [59]. You have a bizarre POV that's at odds with reality. Worse, you're perpetually trying to Debate Club it into the article. You never let anything go. You were just now complaining about the article's title. You're still trying to plant "allegedly" in there to cast aspersions on the mainstream view. People have been trying that since December 2016. It never goes anywhere. The reality of Russian interference, per sourcing, never goes away. You know the former, you must surely be aware of the latter, yet you keep bringing it up. This is unacceptable. Geogene (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And I can't remember exactly what Slatersteven said earlier. If you quoted them correctly, then shame on them, they should be embarrassed for such an absurd falsehood. But--this is a key thing--they're not tendentiously trying to wear everyone down with endless argumentation to change the article to reflect their (alleged) POV. In fact, their lashing out at me here earlier is probably the first time I've seen them cause any problems. Geogene (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, are the links provided by Geogene in the preceding para sufficient to change your view expressed above that “no RS does explicitly say there was interference”? thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Care to comment? I’m getting a better handle on our differences but think we are in sync on this. I await your take here given your exchange with Geogene above. Humanengr (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well people need to read more then the headline "– a security research firm said that the same Russian hacking group" "and should largely be considered an arm of Russian intelligence as they attack American institutions." "The hackers, said to have links to Russia’s GRU military intelligence unit" "The intelligence community concluded last year that Russian hackers probed election systems". So in fact they seems to be very careful to attribute or caveat the accusations whilst saying it happened. As I said we need a source that unequivocally says it happened.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Examples - It's in the nature of this kind of behavior that single diffs don't readily convey the extent of the problem. So I am linking a few threads. These are just from the current talk page. This has been going on for a long time. Other editors may have further examples. There is a long history of the same behavior at article talk and elsewhere. Keep in mind, the concern is what Geogene correctly described as trolling. It's not overt incivility, personal attacks, etc.
There's_still_little_evidence_that_Russia's_2016_social_media_efforts_did_much_of_anything[60] [61] [62] Then after that long first thread went nowhere, he reopens the issue again here: Recapping from above § on WaPo’s Philip Bump on social media SPECIFICO talk 14:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is a diff from December, 2017. Humanengr gained no support in a long thread rehashing a previously settled issue on the article talk page, but he continued to press a pointless and circular discussion of the question. So @MrX: launched an RfC to definitively settle the issue. The link shows some of Humanengr's engagement at the RfC. Note that he mass-pings @MrX, Neutrality, Geogene, O3000, SPECIFICO, My very best wishes, Slatersteven, Fyddlestix, Casprings, Gouncbeatduke, and ValarianB:, which can only be expected further to prolong the repetitive discussion. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[returning to main section as the subsection below has been closed]

Request for guidance from admin: In this very discussion, Geogene invokes vitriol: 1) here with “Whatever happened to lance the boil?” in response to Jusdafax’s suggestion of compromise* and 2) here with this “You'll be lucky if you get out of this without a TBAN”. At what point does this warrant sanction in this community? Humanengr (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr:, a TBAN was proposed for you. Some (including me) thought it should be a month. Others thought it should be indefinite in length. It was just closed as "No Consensus". Do you not understand what that means? Geogene (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@admin, I do not believe #2 above was a necessary component of the argument. Note also that the response to my post does not address #1. Humanengr (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose TBAN from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

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

---

Let's see where we stand on this. Per MVBW above, please indicate your views on a TBAN of @Humanengr: from this article and related topics, broadly construed. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per above. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I can see where you're coming from, but I'm reluctant to TBAN him from the whole subject area at this point. It's a gut feeling, that's all. What would 'broadly construed' consist of? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia definition for TBANs -- just means that the user could not go to an article on the CIA, e.g. and remove a reference to the report on Russian hacking. Unless others have a better definition for this case, I think using the common framework makes it easier to deal with. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Has he been warned before (I am not sure this has been raised here before). If the answer is yes I support a TBAN, if the answer is no then he should be warned that his actions are unacceptable and that if he continues he will get TBAN (with maybe a small temporary sanction at this stage).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Humanengr has been engaging in polite dialogue and careful editing of the contents (as noted above, he made many more edits to the talk page than to the article itself). I understand that he can be criticized for verbosity and insistence, but that's a far cry from "trolling". Most of his contributions and questions are designed to try and improve the article. Sure, some editors disagree with his POV, and this is why we have talk pages. In my view, neither Humanengr's nor Geogene's behaviour are actionable. They should go back to the talk page, mutually AGF, and strive to reach consensus. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the "regulars" at that article, so I'm well-versed in the events reported, their history, the evolution of the article, and the perennial disputes about it.) — JFG ^talk 12:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a serious issue with him raising the same damn thing 15 times worded slightly differently whenever he does not get consensus (over, if I recall rightly, over multiple forums). But without kind of community Waring it seems unfair to ban him over this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would add I find it very odd that no one deemed his actions report worthy, until he reported another user, and then they leaped straight for the TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

When someone is just being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU, it is not an easy case to bring, and even harder to get action on, from what I've seen. Most editor don't want to risk WP:BOOMERANG and gain nothing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Humanenegr has been warned more than once by Admins, and numerous times by civilian editors, on talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So now admins have been militarized? EEng 16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Cf. GorillaWarfare, NuclearWarfare and Bongwarrior. - MrX 🖋 17:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention D'Armies. EEng 01:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

EEng, why are you dragging me into this? What topic ban am I getting? I'm militarized? Y'all heard I got a Daisy Red Rider for Xmas? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural comment – SPECIFICO is under an April 2017 sanction enjoining her to refrain from requesting sanctions against her fellow editors, except via the WP:AE process or an uninvolved admin's talk page. Her public call in this thread for a boomerang against Humanengr appears to be a violation of her own AE sanction, which arose due to similar inappropriate behaviour in the past. Pinging NeilN for comments, as the administrator who imposed the sanction on SPECIFICO. — JFG ^talk 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• @JFG: I agree that input from NeilN would be helpful here, but this discussion could at least be argued to be about community sanctions, not discretionary sanctions, which would therefore fall outside SPECIFICO's sanction. Of course an admin could unilaterally impose a TBAN as a result of this discussion and then who knows where we'd be? GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• @JFG and GoldenRing: While the wording of my sanction restricted SPECIFICO to those two specific places, the purpose of the sanction was to stop SPECIFICO's practice of calling for sanctions on article talk pages and user talk pages. Requesting sanctions on an admin-geared noticeboard is not disruptive and does not go against the purpose of the editing restrictions I placed on them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – It seems almost prejudicial to "see where we stand" on a topic ban on an editor without a proposal for the topic ban which has been backed up with accusations of bad behaviour supported by diffs. This proposal lacks such evidenced accusations, and cites this post by My very best wishes which neither proposes a topic ban, nor contains supported accusations. Cjhard (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Links are provided in upper section. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I think that comments by Humanengr do not help to improve this page, but result in significant waste of time by other contributors. However, this should be up to contributors who frequently edit this page. If they want to debate these issues with Humanengr to infinity, this is their business. My personal inclination, as an occasional participant of this page, would be to support this proposal. If there is a clear violation of anything (I do not really know), this should be reported to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, seems like much of this is a difference of opinion rather than actual disruption. And jumping straight to a topic ban is a step too far. fish&karate 15:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly way beyond a difference of opinion. A TBAN or page ban seems less restrictive than a block, but if you feel there should be, say, a 6-month time span set for the TBAN that would be less of a restriction than a TBAN that would need additional community process in order to lift it. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments like that on article talk page can be viewed as an WP:NPA problem. When repeated multiple times, this is a WP:TE pattern. Hence my vote above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support per previous comments by SPECIFICO, Geogene, Bullrangifer, and Beyond My Ken. This user is congenial, but their many voluminous posts are a time sink and a net negative in this subject area. Volunteers should not have to waste hours upon hours of their unpaid time swatting at every oddball theory this user comes up with. Several attempts have been made to get Humanengr to alter their approach, to no avail. They show a lack of understanding and inability to grok our core policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 16:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Considering the obvious contentiousness that led to this, I could get behind a 1 week TBAN for one or both parties. Note that this is exceedingly short on purpose: I've seen them both engage productively, so I know they can. But apparently tempers have been rising, based on the discussion here, so maybe doing something to cool them down would help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a one-month topic ban on Humanengr, for all things Russia/Putin. Now that I'm aware they've been arguing "nationalist bias" over at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. [63]. I guess if they can't cast doubt on whether Russia interfered, next best thing is to say America does the same thing. This is obviously tendentious. Geogene (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Time-sink, tendentious, POV pushing. Needs to stop. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Geogene. This is a specious, other things argument. Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations, BUT that's not the subject here. For me, the tipping point is the continued pushing of doubts about whether Russia interfered in the election. To me, competence as an editor is intimately related to a positive learning curve. We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. For scientifically falsifiable "facts", the best we can do is trust good research and place it above our own opinions. The same applies here. We should place our trust in RS, and change our minds, giving up the opinions which differ from them. We can "have our own opinions, but not our own facts" (Moynihan). It's not imperfect, but science and RS are self-correcting, unlike erroneous opinions.

Until Humanengr starts openly admitting that Russia interfered (and is still interfering in US politics) in the election, I will not totally trust their competence. A month-long topic ban seems appropriate, and I think we have a right to expect evidence that the topic ban has effected a change of their opinions on the matter. Otherwise, in the future, I'll support a much longer, and wider, topic ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Et tu? Let’s start here: “Yes, America does interfere in the politics of other nations, and has done it for generations”. How many of those were reported unequivocally (Slatersteven’s term above) as “America interfered …” (your terms) by your vaunted RS news media? Tia, Humanengr (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not the subject of discussion. This is about Russian interference, not American. That's for a different article. Bringing up American interference is a red herring to change the subject. It doesn't help you. This diversionary tactic is also an example of the tu quoque fallacy. Just because America interferes does not justify Russian interference, and in this article we're only dealing with Russian interference. United States involvement in regime change is thataway >>>>>. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The subject of discussion is the standard you offered to judge one’s behavior: “We should learn from RS, and trust them in the same way we should place our trust in scientific research. Etc., etc.” I offered a test of that standard by applying it to a different sample set. In response, rather than admit you can’t provide data to validate your proposed standard, you improperly accuse me of tu quoque:

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

I do not claim Russia did not interfere. I dispute the unequivocal claim that they did.

As Slatersteven noted, no RS news media source makes that unequivocal claim.

The issue is not my competence but, judging by your own criteria, yours and Geogene’s and SPECIFICO’s in reading RS news media as stating unequivocally that Russia interfered. Humanengr (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You are ascribing statements and views to other editors that you can not document with diffs. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You, here:

Oh. Glad to try to explain my view. The article is about the interference in the election. Some aspects of interference were first reported in the press around March 2016 I believe, then in subsequent reports in various media throughout the balance of the campaign. Then after the election we had official confirmation that the intelligence community had been tracking this and then we had the so-called JAR in early January, 2017. Now I think it is important to differentiate between the events themselves and the sources and reporting that revealed those events. Obviously the process of investigation and revelation is ongoing and we do not yet have a full accounting of all of the various modes of interference and their extent and effects. So, whatever was in the JAR was placed there by its authors to balance two sometimes conflicting needs. By the way this is true of any revealed national intelligence estimate. The goal is to give the public as much information as possible about the interference while not revealing our intelligence sources and methods. Given that constraint, the information in the JAR was incomplete. The information available to officials with security clearance was far more extensive and detailed. That's still the case today.

After the JAR came out, we started to get various editors who claimed, because the JAR could not reveal those still-classified details, that the conclusions in the report are incorrect. We initially had many such editors. Now we're down to a small few. They cite marginal sources for this fringe viewpoint, and are quite adamant about their POV. They are attaching great significance to the level of detail in the JAR because they seem to feel it casts doubt on whether the Russians were involved in any cyberwarfare against the US. But this is nonsense. The report is just one account of part of the story. The story itself is the interference itself. That was my point -- that this fetish about the report itself is off-target.

Thank you again for explaining your position. Humanengr (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

1. That blockquote is from 3 months ago. 2. It is from your personal talk page, when I went there hoping that you could refocus your participation on sources and article content. 3. It doesn't document the political stance you ascribe to me above. You will never be able to document that, because I have not said it. 4. This shows (more clearly than anyone else could ever hope to explain} why the TBAN is necessary. And, to update my view: I think it should not have an end date. It could, of course, be lifted according to standard policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Where did I ascribe a political stance to you? The boldface terms in the above simply show your use of the term ‘interference’ without qualifier. For an example of ascribing political stance, see what Geogene ascribed to me. Humanengr (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment This is a helpful example of what attempting discussion with Humanengr is actually like: Endless sealioning, Whataboutism, and a tendentious pro-Russian POV. This is why they need a TBAN, because they're still not getting it. Geogene (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Pls provide a specific cite for “pro-Russian POV”. Thx Humanengr (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to say Humanengr you are not doing your case any good here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I followed this article and participated in talk page discussions for quite some time. I don't remember Humanengr edit warring or otherwise forcing text on the article against consensus. Their worst crime seems to be insistence in arguing for their position on the talk page. This editor is clearly making an attempt to improve the article through collaboration with other editors, otherwise they wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to convince people. That might get tedious if the same points are repeated, but it doesn't seem deserving of a ban. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Lean Support. I can see why this topic ban might be deserved now, especially given behavior in this thread. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Once again, a proposal to block someone for courteously maintaining their position on the talk page: a position in this case consistent with the editorial line of the BBC (that Russia may have attempted to interfere in the election, but that this is not established as a fact). Someone should give Humanengr a medal for maintaining their cool in the middle of all this nonsense. -Darouet (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet:, when did the BBC say that this "is not an established fact"? Geogene (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geogene: As I've pointed out on a number of occasions, e.g. here [64] or here [65]. Last I checked their editorial policy remained the same. -Darouet (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any copies of the BBC's editorial policies in those links. All I see is a couple of editors repetitively and tendentiously trying to cast doubt on the mainstream viewpoint. Here's a recent (last month) AP source that explicitly makes the connection between the Kremlin and the DNC hackers. [66]. It's not controversial. It's not even in serious dispute, outside of the RT/Sputnik News orbit. Thank you for the timely reminder that this is not the first time TBANs have been discussed for disruptive editors in this topic area. It makes Humanengr's conduct harder to understand. Geogene (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So what do the MAJORITY of RS say? We can find one or two sources that say it did happen, that does not make it "mainstream". Also what do you think "mainstream means"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That it happened, obviously. When Twitter is contacting users to tell them they were in contact with Russian propagandists, the debate is pretty much over. [67]. That said, it's not my job, or any other editor's job, to inform you about things that you should be able to figure out on your own. It's absurd that you seem to think that it is. At this point, if you're having trouble understanding that your own apparent views are not in the mainstream, then you're a net negative to that page. Read a newspaper. Geogene (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And what is my view? As to the majority of RS saying it happened, really provide a source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet:, "courtesy" and "cool" are not at issue here. There's plenty of documentation been cited regarding competence, tendentious refusal to get the point, and other disruptive behaviors that are not rebutted by kudos for courtesy. If you have substantive rebuttals to the concerns that have been documented here, that would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: All you've documented is that Humanengr has routinely disagreed with you, Geogene and MrX. That's not enough to have someone banned. -Darouet (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that is something I have neither mentioned nor documented, nor do I know whether it's true. The fact is I have no opinions about politics and the like and I have no idea whether the many other editors who favor a TBAN have any such opinions. I have opinions only about article content and conforming it to reliable sources, as I stated to Humanengr in his talkpage thread he linked. Frankly Darouet, your snide dismissal and personalization of this long ANI thread is a stain upon the page. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You're not impressed I managed to do all that in so few words? -Darouet (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Darouet and Red Rock Canyon. The parties involved need to learn how to compromise, and bringing this dispute to AN/I was not the way to do that. Jusdafax (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: Whatever happened to lance the boil? Geogene (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I certainly hope the new norm is not relentless topic bans of the opposition simply because they view an article from a different perspective and have sources to support their views. We're supposed to be abiding by NPOV which means all views should be included if properly sourced. Of course there are going to be pods of editors with like views that will dominate local consensus - if there's a challenge, call an RfC and resolve the issue fairly. There will always be situations wherein an opposing view or challenged edit falls in the minority - that doesn't automatically make it wrong. Opposing views are how we reach NPOV, otherwise our political articles would appear as though they were written by the same political party which is of far greater concern. Discuss, discuss, and discuss a bit more and if you feel you've lost patience, take a break, but let the discussion continue until an agreement is reached. My suggestion here is to issue some trout slaps, and recommend a  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough or two but please, can we move away from always wanting to TB the opposition so the dominant POV can have free reign over an article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

For editors who are not familiar with the history of this article, I think it is grossly misleading that a small number of editors should come here -- editors who deny the overwhelming mainstream RS consensus that Russia interfered in the 2016 US elections -- and pretend that this is a simple content dispute, that WP should "compromise" with their fringe POV, that there's no such thing as civil but disruptive interaction. I was struck that @Darouet: went to the trouble of providing links in his/er comment above [68] or here [69] that show Darouet is one of those who refuses to get the point and drop the stick. In fact, the "highly motivated" editors who reject mainstream RS are begging the question of disruptive editing, which is the only issue that's been put on the table here and which is sufficient to require a preventive TBAN. Just so you don't think this is a sneaky sidewinder stab at Darouet or others, look here -- this is from Admin @Neutrality: seven months ago in the very thread Darouet apparently thinks supports hiser view: [70]. Darouet's other link shows himer arguing (two months earlier) against the result of an RfC that had just concluded by continuing to harangue the article talk page rather than as other suggest to him, challenging the close of the RfC according to process. Frankly, the only reason Darouet has not been propopsed for a similar TBAN is that shehe is not nearly as energetic as others who've already been banned. The significant point is that several editors have appeared here to raise straw man arguments and other deflections without addressing the clearly presented concern about civil but egregiously disruptive editing. And no it's not about AGF, either. It's more likely an issue of competence and ignoring our basic editing policies. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What do "hiser" and "himer" mean? -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are widely mooted gender-neutral English neologims [71], so that be you! 👌 SPECIFICO talk

I was going to suggest a compromise, but cannot countenance your repeated misrepresentation. Again, as Slatersteven noted, there is no mainstream RS (and, I’ll add, much less a concensus) that states unequivocally that Russia interfered. That is not the same as denying “that Russia interfered”. Humanengr (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The current article text accurately summarizes the RS narrative of significant events related to the topic. You seem to be looking for a curveball but it's a changeup down the middle. It's fairly simple to paraphrase what's in the bulk of mainstream sources, and the article reflects the best efforts of the community to accomplish that. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Compromise? When you don't have any sources backing your position, and consensus has been decidedly against you for months? This is WP:CIR territory. You'll be lucky if you get out of this without a TBAN. What is about guaranteed to happen, is that I'm going to disable the ping function from you (because you are constantly pinging me for no apparent reason) and pretty much ignore you on the talk page from here on. Because you endlessly drag up issues that have already been settled, because you ignore sources that don't fit your POV, you repeat the same false assertions repetitively after they've been disproven, and your tendentious lack of WP:CLUE is a timesink. Geogene (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Humanengr said he is going to fight something he perceives as a "repeated misrepresentation", but that something is actually a majority view, probably even a mater of fact. That does justify a topic ban in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Geogene’s bad faith accusations on my Talk page

User:Geogene, who on his User page claims to have ragequit Wikipedia because he disagrees with Jimmy Wales, came to my Talk page a couple days ago with this bad faith accusation. I banned him from my page, as I was working on an article and the accusation was on its face absurd. Indeed, while I !voted against the idea of a boomerang topic ban for the OP, in my Oppose I noted that the OP should not have brought the matter to AN/I in the first place, urging compromise.

In my response to Geogene specious allegations, in which I note I could recall no previous interaction between us, I pointed out on my Talk page that his astonishing accusations were a breach of WP:AGF. Despite my ban, he returned with the declaration “let that be a lesson to you.”

I again asked him to stay off my page, and gave the matter no further thought. However, I then noticed a ping from Geogene, made before his Talk page attack, where he wanted to inform me of his snarky comment [72] on my !vote regarding the boomerang, which is his reference to a contentious ArbCom case from 2015.

Geogene has a long memory, it seems. So long, that it seems clear to me he sees me as an enemy and assumes (wrongly) that I feel the same. It’s clear to me that his edits are acting on a grudge, a clear violation WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Now it occurred to me to use the Editor Interaction Tool, where I discovered this MfD discussion, [73] also from 2015, that I had completely forgotten. In the thread, in a section later hatted, Geogene accuses me of making a personal attack, gains zero traction, and, though unable or unwilling to trouble with the correct spelling of my Username, apologizes for his accusation, but only after being urged to by others. [74].

In his cherry-picked diffs on my Talk page, Geogene purports to show I am following his edits, and worse, prepping my !vote-stalking with set up edits to other threads on this page, which if true would be a very high level of devious behavior. Until now, Geogene was someone I couldn’t recall, a minor player in a minor dispute from years ago, and after 75k edits, frankly an eminently forgettable editor. But now I see that his meretricious attack on my good name is not the first time he’s done this. And this time, an apology won’t cut it.

I hereby ask that Geogene be sanctioned. I ask for a non-involved admin to review this, with my choice being that an admin indef block Geogene now, pending further review. If the above matter, initiated by Humanengr, is closed, I ask that this section be kept open for further discussion and review until it can be closed with resolution. Geogene’s attempt to bully and intimidate, as I see it, requires prompt and firm action.

And if my own truthfulness and trustworthiness are in doubt, I’ll point out that my identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation, having been personally active in the San Francisco WMF offices. Jusdafax (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

They could "indef" me for....something or other. Or, Jusdafax could quit stalking my edits at AN/I. Does anyone give a damn that they volunteered to answer phones (or something) in San Francisco? Sad. Geogene (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Make your case for me being a “stalker.” But I’ll observe you don’t begin very well. Jusdafax (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's on your talk page. Where you should have left well enough alone. But seriously. Do you think it matters if you were the best toilet scrubber (or whatever) that the WMF could find who would work for free? Do you think the community owes you for that? I don't. I think you're minimally competent as an editor, you seem to have that weird sense of entitlement, and you stir a lot of drama. And that wouldn't be any of my business, except that you have an uncanny way of knowing when I'm at AN/I for something. Am I the only participant in the GMO arbcom case you've been stalking? Should I have a look? Hmm... Geogene (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did you un-hat this? SPECIFICO talk 04:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It was somebody logged out [75]. But the rationale is doubtful, since you're not involved in this subsection. Of course, that's the structural problem with AN/I. An editor that causes disruption can be brought here, several editors can endorse a sanction...and then any busybody with a long-term grievance against any editor(s) in favor of sanctions can derail it out of spite. Everyone has seen that once or twice before. Geogene (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As you mentioned the GMO topic, Jusdafax was warned at AE as a result of this tendency to follow around editors to admin boards. I honestly wasn't expecting to see their name here when I saw the initial conflict. This looks like be a retaliatory attempt in continuing that battleground behavior that can easily boomerang on them given that previous warning. The above known identity / WMF stuff looks like some very strange special pleading too. It's concerning that this is still going on after all this time.Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That cuts both ways, King. Rather than relitigate the GMO case and its aftermath, I am asking for action to be taken on the matter I raise above. Geogene’s charge that I am a “stalker” is a serious one. You want to make this about me as a tactic, but it’s all about Geogene’s abusive accusations, for which no substantial evidence has been produced. Your continued hostility toward me doesn’t change the facts that right here, right now, there is active WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Geogene, and you are coming here to stir the pot.

To review: I made a !vote at ANI, on the above thread, for no sanctions for the OP but asking for compromise. Geogene has the gall to claim that !vote is stalking (with added gratuitous insults towards me) and that I !voted here three days earlier to set up my !vote for no sanctions, which by the way a goodly number of others agree with. So, he attacks me on my Talk page, intended to have a chilling effect and snarks on my !vote about the ArbCom case, which he, and now you, want to make it seem to the community that I can’t get over. But ANI is a highly public page, and I have a long history of comment and discussion here.

It seems to me that Geogene’s 2015 direct apology to me, which I utterly forgot as trivial, for the same type of bad faith accusations he is making here, has festered, and when I spoke up here he snapped. It also seems you both expect me to be afraid of you, with your veiled threats, which I think is the core of this matter. I mentioned my WMF work proudly to establish my good character, as opposed to the hateful rant Geogene expresses on his user page. Furthermore, Geogene attacks my character with references to “cleaning toilets.” This is who you are standing up for? Right. I again ask for an uninvolved admin to review this matter. Jusdafax (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I consider Jusdafax to be one of the top prima donnas in Wikipedia. The WMF thing is either something they bring out to try to convince everyone how very special they are, or they actually believe that the Office owes them a few free blocks or something. Neither explanation is flattering. This sort of character, combined with their GMO conflict history, their tendency to fly off into bombastic rages at the first sign of criticism, and what seems to be a biased cluelessness about policy are all reasons why I'm not excited that they keep inviting themselves into board threads about me. This needs to stop, and if it continues, then I have every right to continue to initiate discussion about it on their talk page, if they like it or not. If that fails, I'll take it to AE. If they want to convince anyone they're not hounding me around the boards, I'm not sure how repeatedly complaining about some apology I gave them in 2015 is supposed to clear them of anything. I also think it's ridiculous that they started this thread claiming they don't see me as some sort of enemy, and then immediately called for me to be blocked indefinitely. That's weird; a lot of things about Jusdafax seem to be like that. I dislike them, that sentiment is clearly mutual, and it would be best for everyone if they would just stop looking for opportunities for conflict with me. Geogene (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

At this point, given how Jusdafax is trying to ignore the previous warnings (more special pleading) about the long history of the vexatious use of ANI/AE to follow around editors as you and others have described, it would be fair for an admin to enforce the GMO discretionary sanctions here for something like a one-way interaction ban without a need for the community to vote on it. That being said, you could also document the long history, especially in the GMO topic that both you and Jusdafax (as well as myself) have been involved in to varying degrees at AE as a followup to their previous warning there. It would be a mixture of GMO and politics DS since the disruptive behavior in the GMO behavior seems to be proxying over to this politics topic now.

Otherwise, this section really should have been left closed given the rest of it being closed unless Jusdafax is really intent on ignoring their previous warnings and risking a boomerang for the same behavior that's gotten them in trouble before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Everybody calm down

If I dare submit an oversimplified thread summary: Humanengr came here to complain about Geogene, didn't get much traction, then Specifico agitated for sanctions against Humanengr, got mixed reactions (7 support, 7 oppose), and now Judasfax is opening a secondary case against Geogene. I believe everybody should cool down: nobody needs to be sanctioned for getting a bit obnoxious about what is ultimately a content dispute. Civility and AGF warnings may be enough to bring all editors back to productivity. — JFG ^talk 09:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

OK consider yourself warned. You may resume editing. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

False Allegations by Unscintillating

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

---

User:Unscintillating has repeatedly disrupted Afd discussions to accuse me of outing another editor. The most recent accusation occurs here: [76] This comes after I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop making such accusations, which he completely ignored, here [77]. Other times he made the same allegations are: [78] [79] [80] and [81] Besides the fact the allegations are false, deletion discussions are not the proper venue to bring such claims.

The outing allegation actually originates from User:Alansohn here: [82] [83] & [84] I pointed out the obvious reason I could not possibly have outed Alansohn [85], Alansohn has not made that claim again, but Unscintillating continues to do so. The reason Alansohn could not have been outed by me is because he clearly stated on his talk page his name (as if you couldn't have guessed) and town where he lives here [86], which only now has been removed (you can check the deletion log on that).

As per Wikipedia:Harassment, "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." Based on this I believe Unscintillating is actually engaging in harassment himself. Also looking at his edit history over the past week, he has almost exclusively only participated in discussions that I have which borderlines on WP:STALKING--Rusf10 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Unscintillating: I don't think these outing accusations are valid. In fact, they seem rather bizarre. WP:OUTING is meant to prevent and protect against the accidental or intentional leaking of personal information that a person does not want on-wiki. It was almost comical for Alan to warn someone for outing when they literally referred to him by the name provided by his own username, and stranger still for you to be citing such a warning in an unrelated forum, in order to generally discredit the user who was incorrectly warned to begin with. Look, if you have a case to make that this user actually has some sort of "anti-New Jersey" bias, now's the time to make it. But otherwise the personal commentary against them is, obviously, going to have to stop. Swarm ♠ 06:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm:Opps, I think you just outed alansohn now (don't ever use his first name). But seriously, can it be made clear to Unscintillating that if he does this just one more time, there is going to be consequences. If nothing else, it is completely disruptive.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

• It was high-time someone reported Unscintillating for his behavior at AFD because he is an absolute time-sink. Whenever his odd assessments are wrong (which is often) he makes non-sequitar or extraneous arguments simply for the sake of arguing. Editors like Bearcat have tried to explain the proper approach to him but he has a bad case of WP:IDHT. Here are some AFDs that display his behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the list goes on. But the anatagonizing does not end there; after the AFDs are closed not in his favor (which, again, is far too often) he'll usually question the competence of admins at their talk page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: There is a procedure to follow in the case of outing. It does not involve bringing it up repeatedly at AFD. This has already been explained to you, here among other places. I presume here that your motivations are good, but for the avoidance of doubt, I am asking you now to engage with the functionaries if you think someone is engage in malicious outing, and to stop making off-topic accusations about the same during deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

• Lankiveil, In the terms used by WP:OUTING, an editor's "legal name" is "Personal information".  I provided a diff to the functionary list in December, with a 2016 edit comment that included the word "redact".  So even though they knew that the editor's personal name was protected by OUTING, they didn't take action, because the information Rusf10 posted to Teaneck, NJ in December was sourced public information, not an alleged personal name of a Wikipedia editor.
  Nonetheless, Rusf10 has used the alleged personal name in multiple other edits, and retains one such instance openly on [his/her talk page even now].  He/she generally is opposed to mayors and lower offices being used in Wikipedia articles, so why does he/she make an isolated exception for Teaneck, with a name that coincidentally matches the alleged name he/she is posting?  And then on 11 January he/she AfDs an article that discusses Gallucci, "a former township councilman in Teaneck, New Jersey".  And, "The case promised to affect how the law views anonymous Internet postings and the liability and obligations of companies who facilitate those postings." 
  As for my !vote, bad faith nominations are on-topic as per WP:DGFA.
  Rusf10 claims that I've made "false allegations" in my !vote, but so far he/she only disputes one specific set of details, which he/she is defending by conflating the issue of his target's city of residence with his target's alleged personal name.  IMO, hyperbole is common in Rusf10's rebuttals.  This ANI post is an attempt to disenfranchise my AfD !vote, a !vote which seeks to improve the quality of AfD nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I didn't see that message to the functionaries list, but if you can contact me privately by email with the subject line of that email I'll look into it for you. Dealing with outing is serious, I agree. But AFD is not the place to do it; it is akin to complaining to a library clerk that your house is on fire. If the fire department have concluded that your house is not on fire, then the guy checking books out at the library is unlikely to be able to assist you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

@Unscintillating: You just don't get it do you? Multiple uninvolved people (not just myself) have now told you there was no outing. It is impossible to out an editor's name when he uses his real name as his username. How many more people have to tell you this? Nearly all of your AfD votes (including those in discussions I have no involvement with) are non-sequiturs that are completely irrelevant to the discussion. In addition to the examples that User:TheGracefulSlick posted here are some discussions where you have disrupted the process with irrelevant comments, including your favorite "this !vote is disputed" (every singles time someone disagrees with you) and nothing can be deleted because WP:ATD prevails: [87] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turing College, Kent [88] [89] [90] That's just a sampling, I could keep going. And how about this one where you are arguing with a admin about your bizarre view that nothing can be deleted due to WP:ATD: [91] Maybe the only solution is to ban you from commenting at AfD. I don't know.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And please learn to archive your talk page. It's longer than the only talk page visible from space. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone go ahead and remove Unscintillating's comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Street Co-op? Nothing he posted is relevant to the discussion. I'd go ahead and remove it, but I think it would be done better by an uninvolved admin.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

XfD Topic ban proposal

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

---

• Every time I see Unscintillating around he's wikilawyering endlessly, antagonising people, and incorrectly accusing them of all sorts of things. I was the target of his harassment campaigns for a while; back then the issue was whether or not you should go back and strike through peoples' votes on closed AfDs if it later turns out they were a sock. Most people thought that was a bad idea, but he got so upset over being told to stop it that he spent the next year accusing me of "undermining and sabotaging" the banning policy, bringing the issue up in a lot of unrelated places. Much the same as he's doing with Rusf10 now. This nonsense, and these two threads are typical of his antics. Elsewhere, he got so upset over the Wikipedia:Article_Incubator getting shut down despite Unscintillating's bizarre attempts to reanimate its corpse that he went to ANI to call User:Beeblebrox, then an arbitrator, "objectively delusional" and demanding he be removed from the (nonexistent) "oversight committee". Now he's hanging around AfD making a lot of "wrong venue" and "procedural keep" votes on perfectly legitimate nominations, wrongly claiming they're invalid in some way, and only to annoy the nominators. He's been carrying on like this since he registered here; the only thing that changes is the topic he's wikilawyering about and the target of his harassment. I support a topic ban from XfD on the grounds that competence is required and trolls most certainly are not. Reyk _YO! 19:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That should read "XfDs and deletion processes, broadly construed" as pointed out by Begoon and Winged Blades of Godric, further down in the thread. Reyk _YO! 08:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from XfD - Mainly per my above comment. If that, and Reyk's even more revealing evidence, isn't enough, I can also dig through Unscintillating's AFD contributions to find the comment where he stated anyone who agrees with Bearcat, a highly respected contributor to AFDs, suffer from a "personality disorder". Unscintillating tactics at AFD range from harassing well-informed editors to "procedural keep" and "wrong venue" !votes which never stick; I am on the verge of proposing a CIR block but we will give this a try first.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @TheGracefulSlick: If the Bearcat comment was from the last year or so, I'd like to see a diff please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I am not very graceful and only a little bit slick, but I think I can help you out @NeilN: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_A._Nulman That's from just over three weeks ago. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Concur with Reyk above that Unscintillating has some kind of problem and it may be competency related - hard to believe it is willful trolling, perhaps an issue with logic/fairness/rules. After marginal edit warring themselves at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Second effort for a nutshell they were determined to convict only Rhododendrites of it despite it being pointed out that they had both made two countable reverts and had equivalent behavior. And they would not let it go and even brought it up again in a subsequent section. Not sure what all the history is here but that encounter was enough to convince me that there was some kind of fundamental problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• As an active AfD closer, I agree that many of Unscintillating's contributions there are unhelpful at best and frequently hostile as per Slick and Reyk, but most seem to be in good faith. I'm still neutral on a total XfD ban, but I can be convinced either way. ansh666 20:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  Well, there's this argument where he's clearly playing "I know you are but what am I?". It's a little while ago now but it definitely shows his habit of trying to infuriate other AfD participants. Reyk _YO! 20:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  I've seen enough of Unscintillating's AfD contributions from my normal activity. What I want to see is their response to this criticism (about general AfD contributions). I'm pretty sure what I know it'll be, but just in case. ansh666 20:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Ansh666:I know you're trying to be neutral here to be fair to everyone, but how can an edit like this [92] possibly have been made in good faith?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  That's cute, especially "The nominator has gotten an editor from a topic related to New Jersey indeffed for being an AfD meatpuppet", but I think the question is whether this is more pervasive than one instance... Which it does sound like. Fresh examples would be helpful. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  What Unscintillating was referring to was this [93] There was clear meat/sockpupperty and I simply reported it, so I don't see what the issue was. Of course, Unscintillating attempted to take the SPI way off course by attacking me, those comments were deleted, but can be seen here [94]--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  Changing to support for an indefinite topic ban on XfD in general (i.e. "broadly construed") given the lack of response from Unscintillating, plus the wide support from other editors. ansh666 20:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is unsurprising to me to see this report. We haven’t butted heads in a long time, but it is clear to me that nothing has changed. This is a user who, when they have no real argument or their points have been refuted, will change their arguemtnt to something new whether it makes any sense or not. The day of the radical inclusionist is long over, people who still behave like this need a topic ban at the very least. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic banning Unscintillating from all deletion discussions and processes, broadly construed (including voting at AfD, commenting in AfDs, adding prods, removing prods, any CSD work, replying in policy discussions at WP:VPP that concern deletion policy, etc). This has been a long-term problem. Unscintillating somehow combines misunderstanding policy with aggressive wikilawyering, making this editor an unpleasant time sink in this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from XfD; the comment about editors suffering from personality challenges at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Nulman is beyond the pale. WP:CIR issues are also apparent in the editor's AfD contributions; please see sample: "Groundless discounting of a source". There's distinct lack of a learning curve, with the same issues being discussed with them year over year, as can be seen here: "Bloomberg News vs S&P Market Intelligence". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a deletion topic ban in light of NeilN's final warning below. In light of what's been discussed above, Unscintillating is at the end of his or her rope and is not long for this project. I'm all for hastening this process, and I think a deletion topic ban will just slow the inevitable and provide more wiggle room for wikilawyering and driving off other editors. When the bull has already rampaged through the china shop, there's no sense in risking life and limb trying to lasso it while it's still in there. Set up a line of pikes and the bull will probably come charging out into them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support blanket deletion process topic ban in the event the standards laid out by NeilN are followed. Even if they manage to not hit those tripwires, they still need to stop their specious and tendentious AfD activity. In the Gallucci case AfD Rusf10 mentions above, they informed me I was "supporting outing" by contributing a Delete !vote and they have rather bizarrely taken to using WP:DGFA as a Keep rationale with no reasoning (here and here) They have in the past similarly demanded a WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD analysis from nominators. Its clear that any time they use a policy or guideline shortcut it's merely an attempt to disrupt the discussion and not an honest attempt at achieving a consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Just to clarify, did you mean "in the event the standards [...] are not followed"? Because if the standards are not met the next step is already spelled out as a block. In other words are you supporting an immediate topic ban? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: the second possibility: and immediate and indefinite topic ban whatever the outcome of their compliance with the conditions spelled out below. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• SupportComment Hopefully the below will sort out the major issues. I would however suggest that bullet point 2 apply anywhere on the project, rather than just "deletion discussions". AfD is not the only place the editor has done this. Yeah well, that didn't work, no response, sod it. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support XFD and prod topic ban - The continuous outing claims at various AFDs honestly make no sense at all .... The wikilawyering thing has been an issue for as long as I can remember - Unscintillating is correct and we're all wrong or atleast that's the impression I've got with him, Anyway he's just one huge timesink to the AFD process and is obviously more of a hindrance than of help, AFD's pretty much better off without him and his constant wikilawyering. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Also I also support the block stuff below regardless of what happens above. –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support deletion-related topic ban. Based on this thread and what I've seen over the years, Unscintillating adds more heat than light to deletion discussions, seemingly more interested in wikilawyering, gaming, ad hominem, and rhetorical time sinks than applying principles that have very broad consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support for AfD ban. Not that this should surprise anyone, but I just want to make my position clear. Unscintillating almost never adds anything of value to an AfD discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support for AFD/XFD topic-ban.The topic ban should be from all deletion-related pages and discussions, broadly construed.I can pull out a bunch of diffs at ease and he is one of the most troublesome and disruptive wikilawyers, I've ever seen.I've slowly come to appreciate Drmies' advice to stonewall him but a TBan is surely better.Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Winged Blades of Godric, I'm not sure if, when, and where I said that, but it does sound like something I could have said in this context, having had many fruitless and frustrating interactions with Unscintillating in AfDs. I think a topic ban is warranted--while I appreciate Unscintillating's zeal, they are really, really hard to deal with in AfDs. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support AFD/XFD topic ban. This disruptive behavior has gone on far too long and the repeated ugly attacks on other editors seal the deal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POT. The OP seems to be engaged in a vexatious deletion spree and his vision seems to be that, instead of having a series of stubs about public parks, we should instead have a series of AFD pages filled with rancour and wikilawyering. This would be not an improvement and there's no consensus for it – see Webb Mountain Park, for example. This activity is unproductive and could be avoided by following the good advice at WP:BEFORE which encourages us to seek alternatives to deletion. That's long-standing policy and so it is good that we are reminded of it when the occasion arises. Unscintillating is therefore right to do so. If there is a tiresome, repetitive aspect to this then this arises from the tiresome and repetitive nature of the nominations. If editors tax our patience with excessive zeal then they should be advised and then restrained. That's what's happening to TenPoundHammer above and this case seems quite similar. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: If the only thing Unscintillating was doing was suggesting ATD at discussions, we wouldn't be here now. Your just upset because I called you out. First because you DeWP:PRODed multiple articles without explanation. While you are not required to provide an explanation, it is strongly encouraged. When I asked for an explanation on your talk page, you yourself engaged in wikilawyering, see User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#DePRODing. So in a way you forced the AfD because I had no way of knowing what you were thinking. Then when you came to AfD you've claimed articles have sources without actually producing them as here: [95] [96] [97] Claiming you have sources without actually adding them to the article or at the very least linking to them in the discussion is not helpful at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support an XfD topic ban at the least. I too have ruminated on a WP:CIR indefinite block when I've seen some of Unscintillating's nonsense wikilawyering. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose - I'm not seeing much more than an ordinary personality conflict such as those that spring up in heated AfD debates from time to time. This ban proposal smacks of a kneecapping more than necessary action against longterm abuse. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Bishonen. This user has some of the most convoluted wikilawyering in XfDs and DRVs that I have ever seen to the point that it has caused disruption over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• support - related to this, Unscintillating has also recently been disruptive at N guidelines. See for example the recent edit warring at NCORP (that is a link to the history; the edit warring is right at the top) as well as this strange effort to start an RfC, but see all their contribs to that talk page and their recent contribs to the talk page of N itself have been similarly unhelpful. They have been much more together and helpful in the past; unsure what is going on with them. But for now I think the TBAN should include notability discussions as well. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POT. Recognizing Unscintillatiing's name, I typed it into an editor interaction search to look at his behavior in AfDs in which we have both recently participated, and I must say that I am troubled to notice that several editors arguing for a topic ban have tangled with Unscintillating with the sort of "rancour and wikilawyering" flagged by Andrew D.. I got here via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey, a discussion that amazed me because why should an AfD about a suburban park have gotten so nasty so fast? I took a closer look, and was reminded of User:Rusf10's aggressive, rancorous wikilawyering at a long string of AfD discussions about New Jersey mayors he nominated for deletion in December. (Another editor who showed up in my interaction analyzer regularly tangling regularly with Unscitillating is User:TheGracefulSlick, whose behavior at AfD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Arkema plant explosion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer and other AfDs where she disagreed with Unscintillating make me uncomfortable with her pushing for an edit ban, because WP:POT.) But it is the escalating series of dust-ups between Uncsintillating and Rusf10 at articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Avenue Bridge (User interactions here: [98]) that make me really uncomfortable with this proposed edit ban for User:Unscintillating. Both editors should be advised to back off as per WP:POT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a personality clash between Rusf10 and Unscintillating, both of whom can be acerbic and a bit of a trial; for whatever reason the disagreement has led to prospect of a one-sided and seemingly quite unfair sanction here. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory and Carrite: Because Unscintillating's behavior extends far beyond their interactions with Rusf10. ansh666 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory and Carrite:, this is not a Rusf10/Unscintillating personality conflict. It is a long-term radical inclusionist pattern of behavior with specious or poorly-supported arguments by Unscintillating where Rusf10 is one of many who has been annoyed or attacked. None of these examples below involve Rusf10:

• Unscintillating !votes "Procedural close" based on a non-existent two month moratorium on AfD nominations after a previous close (Yes, this involves a TenPoundHammer nomination and there is also a discussion here about their AfD participation but the point is the twisting of WP:NOQUORUM.)
• Unscintillating !votes "Keep" with accusation that WP:BEFORE was not done and demands WP:ATD analysis
• Unscintillating !votes "Snow keep" as the second !vote with a list of requirements which are not actually required and then accuses Legacypac of "falsification"
• Unscintillating !votes "Speedy keep" based on "No arguments for deletion" despite clear statements to the contrary from nominator and prior voters
• Unscintillating comments that the nominator has apparently nominated too many articles in a similar class for their liking and makes the rather bizarre assertion that: "Nor do topics on Wikipedia require notability"

There are other examples of obstructive behavior that are not evidence of a personality conflict but I think 5 recent examples are enough. None of these were closed as "Keep" by the way (although Jesse Rice is still open it doesn't look like a convincing Keep at this point). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are good examples, Eggishorn, but another piece of ruleslawyering (?) from Unscintillating that literally made me reel, just a month ago, was this comment in favor of keeping an article: "This nomination is not for notability. Since notability is not questioned, it is inappropriate to assess notability." (I suppose he meant the nominator, a competent editor, hadn't actually used the word notable/notability in the perfectly good nomination.) That's not a clash of personalities, it's either cluelessness or trolling. I'm sorry, but it just is. I still feel a little dizzy from it.[99] Bishonen | talk 20:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Amend: Reversed the names as I typed , sorry: Oh I acknowledge that Rusf10's Unscintillating's "pattern of behavior with specious or poorly-supported arguments" does not always involve Unscintillating Rusf10, but it is equally true that Rusf10's behavior is so frequently tendentious, specious or poorly-supported that it is simple to adduce examples of articles that he brings to AfD - often doubling down on a challenged Prod - with so little evidence of having looked for sourcing or of familiarity with the subject that it truly verges on disrupt (and then BLUDGEONS editors who disagree.) AfDs like: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas R. Amato, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Reformed Church Hackensack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Sullivan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellsworth Jones. I think that both editors should be warned to rethink their poorly-researched comments and BATTLEGROUND attitude, and that Rusf10 should be more selective about PRODding and bringing articles to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC) I add that I do not mean to defenc Unscintillating, only to point out that Rusf10's behavior is so problematic in its own right that he amazes me by coming here to call other WP:POTS black.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory:, I think you may have misread my statement exactly backwards - I was not saying that Rusf10 had such a pattern, but that Unscintillating had a pattern of such arguments. This proposal wasn't started by Rusf10 or TheGracefulSlick or even myself or anyone else that has a record of having "...tangled with Unscintillating..." as you said. It was proposed by Reyk and I'm not aware that the latter has any reason to have unjustified personal animosity towards Unscintillating. Even then, whatever the failings of Rusf10's behavior you think exist, for Unscintillating to state that topics on Wikipedia do not require notability or that it is inappropriate to assess notability in AfD discussions is either trolling or an inexplicable lack of understanding about standards and practices. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Amended per correction above@E.M.Gregory:, Thank you for your correction, I've struck the relevant sentence above and I recognize the issue you raised. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory:, I really hate to do this, but since you won't back off of it, you leave me no choice. It is extremely hypocritical of you to accuse me of WP:BLUDGEON when others have pointed out this is exactly what you do at AfD. Here's just one of many ANI's relating to that [100] Just putting it out there, anyone who wants to look at it can judge for themselves. And you want to talk about WP:POT?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Both of you have given excellent examples to show its not just a problem I'm having. And @E.M.Gregory:, I'd be very careful with the WP:POT accusations if I were you, since we know your behavior at AfD has been the subject of multiple ANI/arbitration cases.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per Bishonen, Cullen and others. The topic ban should be from all deletion-related pages and discussions, broadly construed. For just one example of relentless, disruptive wikilawyering way past any sense of reality see [101] and the 3 sections which follow it. Unscintillating's approach in this, and many other cases, is correctly described by Bishonen as "nonsense wikilawyering". It's also persistent and creates numerous time-sinks. As is often the case it has taken too long for this to be addressed, but there is no doubt in my mind that their contributions in deletion related areas are a significant net-negative for the encyclopedia. Cries of pot/kettle are irrelevant. There is a genuine pattern of behaviour here which needs to be addressed. If there are also problems elsewhere, then address them too in a separate discussion. -- Begoon 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• + per below, clarifying that my support is for an indefinite topic ban. I don't see this as something that will just magically go away after an arbitrary period expires, rather that the community will need to be convinced that Unscintillating understands the issues and is both able and willing to correct them. This could be a couple of weeks, a month, a year - it's impossible to know - which is why an indefinite ban seems the best workable solution. I'm not sure I'd prohibit the first appeal for 6 months, but certainly if appeals became too frequent or tendentious without real progress then there would be a need to limit them. -- Begoon 11:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Unscintillating seems to be taking things a little too personally right now. I suggest a time-limited ban, perhaps three months. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see it, Guy, since the problem has been so long-running and persistent, and such a negative for discussions at AfD. I assumed Reyk's proposal of a "a topic ban from XfDs and deletion processes, broadly construed", without specifying any length, meant an indefinite topic ban, and I think that's what most people above have been addressing. Just looking at the things they say, I'm fairly sure of it. Anyway, I believe it should be an indefinite ban with the option to appeal in six months. When you say "taking things a little too personally", do you mean merely that he hasn't edited for 36 hours? Bishonen | talk 11:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

Indefinite with an appeal allowed in a few months works fine for me, I am just a bit nervous of a permanent ban for someone who is, over all, a good faith contributor to content. By taking things too personally, I mean that he seems to be investing too much, emotionally, in the outcomes of these debates. This can be a failing in both inclusionists and deletionists, in which I explicitly do count myself. So: I don't see this as evil, but as an excess of zeal. I feel empathy. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Just a quick comment: I don't really see this as "my" proposal because there was talk of a topic ban by Rusf10 and TheGracefulSlick prior to my first comment. It's just happenstance that my comment has had the topic ban heading plopped in front of it. Anyway, I didn't mention a time span but assumed that it would default to indefinite. I'd agree with that length anyway since IMO Unscintillating does what he does primarily to annoy people. Others may interpret his antics as mere incompetence, stubbornness, and IDHT, but I believe most of what he does is calculated to get on peoples' nerves- so a longer rather than a shorter sanction is appropriate in my view. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered how many months before an appeal, but I do think it's quite important that there is an appeal, and that it shows some understanding of the issues. (No, I'm not looking for the famous "grovelling".) A bad scenario, by contrast, would be one where Unscintillating simply waits out a set number of months and then returns to business as usual at the deletion noticeboards. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

• Support indefinite broad topic ban on AFDs, XFD, XFD process pages, and guideline pages, per Bishonen and the Wikilawyering, convenient misinterpretations, personal attacks, and general pure insanity of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Panzer 88 and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Panzer 88. The problems seem deeply entrenched, and the mere passage of time won't automagically make things better. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Close, please? Those pages make my toes curl, Calton. Perhaps this topic ban discussion could be closed now? The sense of the community seems clear, IMO, and it's been open for three days, so if Unscintillating wanted to respond he's had a reasonable amount of time to do it. We don't need to pile on further, surely. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose. As an admin that closes XFD discussions, I rarely find this person's contributions to be all that useful. As noted above, while they do attract some wikilawyering and personalisation of disputes, they typically give as good as they get. But there is a solution to this that doesn't require a ban, and that is simply for closing admins to ignore such irrelevancy when closing discussions. The user is not so disruptive that I think it is worth going to the trouble of disenfranchising them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC).

• That's only a solution to one limited, not to say minor, aspect, Lankiveil, because it's not just about the closing admins and their closes. You can see eloquent testimonies in the discussion above to how people are affected, and discussions derailed, by Unscintillating's ugly attacks, irrelevancies, and lawyering. Heck, I'll trot out my hobbyhorse (sorry about that): the time, energy, and enthusiasm of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and users who squander that resource do a huge disservice. "The trouble of disenfranchising them" is pretty small compared to the trouble and timesink of keeping them around. Bishonen | talk 05:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC).

• To my mind, that's a problem best addressed by other editors not rising to the bait and engaging in fruitless discussion with this editor. With that said, it's clear which way this discussion is going and I don't intend to die on this particular hill. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC).

• "Everybody else should change" strikes me as a pretty bad idea, especially since you yourself admit he's not actually adding much worthwhile to the proceedings. --Calton | Talk 05:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to how the tacit suggestion that every other editor, and specifically any closing admin, should essentially ignore one user's AfD contributions is any less disenfranchising than a topic ban on that user contributing to AfD. The only practical difference I see is that a community-supported topic ban is both enforceable and ongoing, while "let's all ignore them" would have to be constantly reinforced and therefore at least as disruptive as the issues raised here, if not more disruptive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Having looked at some of the examples of disruption, it dawned on me that I had seen this style of argument before in a MFD nomination. To quote Premeditated Chaos Your previous comments on this and other MfDs have demonstrated your unwavering ability to ignore the point of any comment you're responding to while simultaneously presenting total nonsense that you expect the other party to debate. The time for soft hands with this editor is at an end. Hasteur (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the strict block warning given below seems to cover the main issues Atlantic306 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Specific note to Unscintillating

Unscintillating, irrespective of what the community decides above, the following will result in a block from me or another admin:

• Any further accusations of outing anywhere on the project. If you think outing has occurred, email Arbcom.
• Personally attacking or disparaging another editor in deletion discussions or discussions about deletions. This is not supposed to occur anywhere on the project but leeway is given for the minor day to day stuff. However you've reached the end of your rope.
• Sidetracking discussions like this. If you think an editor hasn't performed a WP:BEFORE you are welcome to add a normal deletion !vote with diffs showing sources the nominator should have found. If a specific editor is consistently nominating articles that obviously should be kept then open a thread here and let the community decide what to do.

In short, cut out the disruption, and comment on the deletion nomination, not the nominator. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Does this qualify as a violation?[102]--Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: The first two comments in response to your !vote seem to be valid and then we get into sidetracked territory. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:- Right, I was only referring to that diff though since it was the only one posted after your notice above. In other words, he was trying again to engage me in an irrelevant discussion there after he should have seen your notice.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: I've dropped a note on their page linking to this subsection. It may be a good idea to disengage with Unscintillating for about a day or so to let things cool down and see how the above discussion plays out. If there is consensus for a deletion discussion ban then point three becomes moot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see what happens.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Mate4Malta

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

---

I have been contacted Mate4Malta 11 times between July 2017 and Jan 2018, with no responses and the issues not addressed, although the editor has continued to editor. The concern is the lack of communication and the repeated creation of unreferenced articles.

I have repeatedly pointed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V - no response. Below is a list of creations which are tagged for serious issues, many for being unreferenced. Most of the articles have neither sources nor external links. I have spent hours of my time cleaning up these articles and messaging Mate4Malta to try to resolve the situation, but have got nowhere, they will not communicate or add the sources. They do know how to edit talk pages, as they have edited their page several times, but not in the past year.

• Articles with issues include: Andrzej Kalwas, Il-Gelmus, St. Lawrence Spurs F.C., Munxar Falcons F.C., Żebbuġ Rovers F.C., Xwejni Bay, Marsalforn Bay, Villa Rundle, Sikhism in Poland. Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Mate4Malta has edited since this ANI was opened, but hasn't communicated here or on their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And has edited since I pinged them with the above message. That's 13 attempts at communicating on the issues over six months, and that's just from me, not including the other editors. As Mate4Malta is still refusing to communicate here or elsewhere, I think we need to move to an indefinite block, until they address the issues and agree to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock for Meg Maheu?

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

---

Someone identifying herself as Meg Maheu[103] was blocked three times in December (by Widr,[104] Jauerback[105] and Ferret[106]) for promotion of herself and her boyfriend Brent Alden who is in the band False Alarm. Because of continued disruption, I reported her at COIN a week later, but nothing happened. The problem is that the range she is using is wide, and a block on Special:Contributions/2600:1:B14D:FC8C:0:0:0:0/43 will have collateral damage. The issue has arisen again with a bunch of disruptive, promotional edits by Special:Contributions/2600:1:B14D:FC8C:5655:AE81:76D4:BE44 showing up today. What can we do? I think a rangeblock is indicated, and we should incur the collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

While I was typing this up, NeilN blocked today's IP address.[107] I still think a rangeblock is necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblocked for a month. While going through the contribs I saw the aforementioned disruption, a lot of unsourced trivia and BLP additions, some outright vandalism, and precious few good edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the blocks. Yeah, the contributions from the range are largely poor quality. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking again at the affected articles, it appears the range Special:Contributions/2600:1:B11F:DC:0:0:0:0/43 was also involved. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Also blocked a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Update. I just got a request for semiprotecting Punk rock, where apparently the same vandal has been recently active, and blocked 99.203.11.112 (static IP) for a month as well. If more IPs turn up, I suppose we'll have to semi a range of articles, but I'm holding off on that for now. Bishonen | talk 04:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: Since the edits are all about self-promotion, an edit filter might be more effective. If more disruption occurs, I'll put in a request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lovely, Neil. (I don't know how.) Bishonen | talk 05:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC).

• Reappeared as 99.203.10.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) here - Arjayay (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Edit filter requested. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Solitaire rock

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

---

Solitaire rock has posted what I would consider to be a legal threat on my talk page, in relation to edits I have made on a pair of articles he has created. Greyjoy ^talk 07:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Purely promotional/COI account.[108] —DIYeditor (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Pankaj Gupta (Investor) but this article looks like a classic example of a LinkedIn profile dressed up as a Wikipedia article. And it wouldn't be surprising to find out who created and wrote most of it.-08:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Since every source in the article is about his company, not him, I have redirected his article there. Black Kite (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And since it wasn't IMO quite a legal threat, I have final-warned the editor. Anyone else is welcome to NLT them if they think I've been too lenient. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is an edge case in my view, based on the changes in community standards for NLT blocks in recent years. Nowadays, NLT isn't supposed to get invoked unless there's a specific threat that the editor is going to take legal action against another editor. In this case, it's a bit of a conditional threat. Solitaire rock complains that Greyjoy has been editing the information that Solitaire rock contributed, asks to Greyjoy to explain it and asks if it's for personal grudges, asserts that Solitaire rock's contributions are authentic and include proof, and demands Greyjoy give a detailed explanation before Solitaire rock takes legal action.
  On the other hand, I think there are grounds for sanctions for blatant promotional editing. At the very least, a topic ban on Oxxy and all associated persons. One of the contribs Solitaire rock made to the Pankaj Gupta (Investor) appeared to be copied and pasted from an e-mail that was to Solitaire rock, from the article subject himself, and included the e-mail headers... which indicated that Solitaire rock is Sheetal Kapoor, who is another person associated with Oxxy. Note that Solitaire rock created all of the articles here. Considering the Sheetal Kapoor article (before it became a redirect) claimed Kapoor is a "qualified brand evangelist", I think we should be concerned with what's going on in these articles, and trips to AfD should be considered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Oxxy is now deleted (it's an Indian health care company). Before any of this is recreated, it should meet WP:GNG and not be edited by users with a clear conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• "do give a detailed explanation before i take the matter legally" qualifies as a legal threat, i.e. "do what I ask or else." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a clear legal threat. I've asked the user to clarify and/or retract the statement; if he fails to do so, I will block the account per WP:NLT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User is blocked per WP:NLT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

Help. He is constantly deleting my posts. Please someone stop him now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Mak (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

From a brief sample, your contributions were rightly removed from the articles. The only reason I hesitate to use the word 'vandalism' is that they were not actively attempting to make the articles worse. They certainly did not improve them in any way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The bot is working properly. Your edits, while not actively harmful, were correctly identified as unconstructive. Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, who's the LTA who periodically pops up here to complain about Cluebot deleting their posts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This sleeper wasn't hard to spot.

-EEng

It's WikiVandal. I'll open an SPI to check for sleepers. Home Lander (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The CUs/clerks don't believe there's enough behaviorally to run a CU, but see [109]. Pinging above users Beyond My Ken, Acroterion, Only in death. Home Lander (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

We have an LTA that whines about ClueBot?! Argh. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Do the CUs ever need behavioral evidence to re-run a CU on an account that has previously been determined to be a sockpuppet/sockpuppetmaster? I would think that we could do that regularly to make sure old socks aren't spawning new puppets, without specifically having a new puppet in mind beforehand. bd2412 T 03:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Would this edit warrant further investigation? Nzd (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Gaming, or maybe just failure to comprehend, by User:Dilidor

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

---

I spend a good deal of my editing improving details in articles, i.e. copyediting them, which is encouraged in WP:Copyedit. Some of my changes include adding the missing comma as specified in WP:Copyedit#Punctuation. Almost all of this goes unchallenged. Recently, I copyedited two articles:

• First Continental Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• United States Declaration of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dilidor (talk · contribs) then reverted both articles, citing "added much misplaced punctuation--other changes were good, just don't insert all those wrong commas" and "again--wrong punctuation" respectively.

I notified Dilidor of the relevant MOS guideline (above), after which I assumed this would be the end of it, and thus re-reverted, indicating the guideline in the edit summary too ("please see WP:Copyedit#Punctuation"). Dilidor, apparently without reading my notification on his talkpage, at least without reading the guideline, then re-re-reverted, with the ridiculous comment "do not begin a revert war; take it to talk". I just started a discussion on his GD talkpage!

I then started a discussion on both articles' talkpages, and eventually Dilidor responded on one. From his response ("Your punctuation changes were wrong. I reverted them. What part of this do you wish to discuss?"), it's obvious that he has not understood that part of the MOS, as he claims that those commas are misplaced, when they are in fact required. I asked him to point out the details that he thought was wrong, which he tried to do. I then explained in detail how the guideline applies, even stripping out "extraneous info" (year and state respectively), and adding them back, one at a time, including the commas.

There was no response, despite pinging. Finally, I asked him on his talkpage if we were now in agreement ("Since you have edited since my last post on Talk:First Continental Congress#Punctuation, and since I last pinged you, can I assume that you have recognized your mistake?"). He responded "I responded to you on the appropriate talk page. Alas, you could not comprehend my point, and I don't have enough interest in this silly debate to rewrite it in words of fewer syllables. So please: assume whatever you like. Elsewhere.".

Naturally, I assumed that this was his way of admitting that he was wrong, and went ahead re-re-re-reverting both articles. I even thanked him on his talkpage.

And what happens? He re-re-re-re-reverts both articles ("HandsomeFella engaging in revert war")! And then he has the nerve to template me about unconstructive editing!

I may have made mistakes in assuming that he realized that he was wrong, and re-reverted too early, but they were honest mistakes. I have now had it with Dilidor's gaming, and am reporting him for disruptive editing.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Commas are so small, though, HandsomeFella..! But I agree Dilidor's uncooperative demeanour and edit warring aren't really small things. They're convinced they're right and our guidelines are wrong, I discovered here. I've given them a pretty sharp warning, and explained that if they really think so, they need to work to get the guidelines changed, rather than warring with everybody who follows them. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC). P.S. Dilidor's talk about 'rewriting in words of fewer syllables', so that you may comprehend, is pretty offensive, too. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC).

• Um, Bish? I don't mean to rush you, but you used the past tense (I've given them a pretty sharp warning"), but I don't see any such warning. Did that get lost in the ether somehow, or are you still crafting the response and I should just shut up and be more patient? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Funny, that, Floq, I was peacefully reading WaPo online (new hobby) and just now caught sight of a Wikipedia tab with unsaved changes. Bah. No, I was all crafted out and thought I had posted the warning. Now I have. The question is, I guess, if I'm careful enough to meddle with tiny stuff like commas. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC).

• Shameless promotion: WP:MISSSNODGRASS. EEng 17:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Dilidor's response to this was highly inappropriate, mischaracterising legitimate warnings as harassment: [110]. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

IP address: 114.125.xx.xx

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

---

A user under this IP address range is persistently removing text from List of awards and nominations received by Wanna One despite multiple warnings and a block.[111]

All the same disruptive editing done by the user these past two days:

• [112]
• [113]
• [114]
• [115]

And also another identical one done by a newly registered user:

• [116] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.24.242.115 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

114.125.0.0/18 blocked a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For reference, the user on blocked range looks like the indef blocked user Bae Hye Jeong. Blackmane (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Maker of Grammy nominee lists

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

---

মাখামাখি has created a large number of lists of Grammy nominees by nationality, including lists with one person--or even zero people, after people with misassigned nationalities have been removed. There are now several Afd's going on about these. He's been spoken to. Yet he's continued building these articles, adding false BLP info (Joaquin Phoenix on the Hungarian list, George Harrison and Boy George on the American list) after having already been told that people don't have this or that nationality because of where their grandparents were born or because they lived in the country for a few years. He needs at least a time-out and a talking-to. Largoplazo (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This editor has numerous problems, and has steadfastly continued with problems about which he has been frequently warned, including unattributed copying within Wikipedia. He seems to be determined to create as many articles as possible, and one can't fault his enthusiasm, but his competence (and inability to take advice) is a problem. His user talk page, including versions before deletion of warnings, tells the story. A lot of time is being taken up with clearing up after him. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Ecuadorian Grammy Award winners and nominees is problematic. I'll leave a message on মাখামাখি's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd meant to list the deletion discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Beninese Grammy Award winners and nominees
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino Grammy Award winners and nominees
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian Grammy Award winners and nominees

And I just discovered all these discussions, 19 of them, including this user's name. They're all from the last four weeks. I didn't read through all of them, but the ones I did were all about articles he created. The majority of the closed discussions ended in Delete. Largoplazo (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not all of them are about articles which he created, but many are. In addition there have been many Prods & speedy nominations. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Geo_Swan

This edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:BLP_zealot&oldid=822055068) by Geo_Swan goes too far. They are not only forum shopping but making baseless claims against other editors, "I am afraid what was really going on is that the delete camp included terrible right-wing prudes, who felt she really did deserve punishment for allowing her daughter to enjoy sexual relations prior to marriage -- and they were prepared to use AFD to make her pay.". Seriously, this went form PROD to AFD (because they contested it then Geo_Swan claimed that this was done out of process) and now is trying to put a spin on it to make it sound like people are pushing religious/political points of view. 129.100.58.76 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out your canvassing claim. The details in Geo Swan's talk page post do not seem to refer to the article they just created which is now up for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)129.100.58.76

I saw the aforementioned talk page post earlier. I couldn't quite figure out what the issue was even about except that Geo Swan was angry about some right wing conspiracy to delete a BLP. I was more concerned about whether there was an edit war about to break out at Ela Darling. Now that you reminded about that, I'll probably add that article to my watchlist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

May as well add St. Catherine University‎ to your watchlist now and save time. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the IP is confusing Geo Swan's sorry tale about something that happened years ago with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tnuza Jamal Hassan. It too was originally a WP:PROD, but Geo Swan's long-winded ramblings convinced @NatGertler: that it needed an AfD. Geo Swan should probably be banned from creating BLPs. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:129.100.58.76, who are you?

  Using an anonymous ID to initiate an ANI ccomplaint, so you can insulate the complaint from the reputation of the ID you use, day to day? Do you really think that is OK.

• Yes, my comment at Wikipedia_talk:BLP_zealot concerns an AFD from about ten years ago. The heroic grandma who was the subject of the article has since won. Her state reformed the draconian law that classified her as a sex offender because she let her underage daughter continue to have sexual relations with her fiance, after he sired a grandchild.

  So, there is no substance to the complaint I was forum shopping.

• With regard to NinjaRobotPirate's observation about the potential for an edit war breaking out at Ela Darling... Thanks. I am also concerned with that. I noted, on the talk page, that there is a practice that frequently triggers an edit war -- namely making a controversial edit, and offering an edit summary as the only justification for that edit.

  There is a huge temptation, when we see an inadequately brief edit summary for an edit we strongly disagree with, to offer our rebuttal in a brief edit summary of our own, when we revert their edit.

  The result is an instant edit war. This kind of edit war is particularly damaging, because an uninvolved third party can't read it, can't hope to understand it, without stepping through the edits on at a time, and trying to read both the edit and the edit summary. After a period of time even the arguing parties would have trouble explaining what the edit war was about.

  In my opinion the best way, the policy compliant way, to stop that kind of edit war in its tracks, is to try to get all the parties to return to the appropriate talk page, and offer meaningful, substantive, civil explanations.

  That is what I tried to do with these edits at St._Catherine_University and its talk page, [117], [118]; and at Ela Darling and its talk page [119], [120].

  I believe there is absolutely nothing to criticize about these four edits, of mine. They are not edit warring, they are attempts to stem edit warring. Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Geo Swan seems to tend to believe that there is nothing to criticize with his edits (as witness this lengthy screed he just left on my talk page to complain about my having corrected his damaging falsehoods and POV in a BLP while it is under AFD consideration.) His edits on the St. Catherine University article clearly don't follow WP:BRD - while he did start discussion, he simultaneously edit-warred, and was edit-warring in a criminal accusation against a living person who has not been convicted. There are WP:CIR matters going on here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock for: 197.211.32.0/19

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

---

• 197.211.32.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Ever since this range was unblocked (only a couple of days ago), there's been nothing but spam and other disruptive edits. Also please disable talkpage access, as this is where most of the spam is taking place. 46.120.202.51 (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging KrakatoaKatie and Primefac from the block log. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

On it. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor repeatedly changing information to contradict sources

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

---

User:Jwoch has persistently tried (under his user name & a number of IPs) to change a number of railway-related articles based on what he says is his memory but without any sources, and contradicting numerous published sources (including from the owners of the stock in question). He has been repeatedly told about the requirement for verifiability and warned at his own user page and at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 17#British Rail Class 153 but repeatedly tries the same edits. He steadfastly ignores warnings, so I fear that a block will be the only way to stop his behaviour. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

IIRC this all began with this edit on 2 October 2016, and Jwoch (talk · contribs) took up the reins with this edit one week later. Also relevant: User talk:Jwoch (most of page); User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 19#Class 153 DMU; User talk:Redrose64#Class 153 conversion carried out by Leyland Bus at Workington NOT Hunslet Barclay at Kilmarnock. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Given the history, I have blocked for 31h with a warning that if it continues he can expect escalating blocks, but also advised him to work with those who have commented on his talk page to find out how to identify and cite sources. Let me know if you think this strikes the right balance or not. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Strange occurrance on Jeff Bezos page

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

---

Try clicking or tapping anywhere on Jeff Bezos. You will end up with a link to the GNAA's Facebook page. !dave 09:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now it's fine. Odd. !dave 09:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I checked several links using an Android smartphone immediately after your post, My name is not dave, and all those links performed properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

See vandalism and #Template hijacking above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, great, appears to be resolved. That's some real good subtle template hijacking there... !dave 09:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Another day, another template vandalism. We REALLY need to lock these down. --Tarage (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This was happening in all kinds of places yesterday. !dave 07:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Template vandalism. Did we find which one it was? I'm looking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Found the problematic user. The vandalism has been reverted and the templates now protected. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock possible?

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

---

There's a very persistent IP who has been active since at least November 2017. They mostly vandalize pages related to Filipino celebrities and the Super Sentai series. Currently active on User:74.12.122.27, past IPs include: User:184.146.207.74, User:184.147.31.235, User:74.12.123.59, User:74.12.122.234, User:184.146.206.100, User:184.147.28.56, User:184.147.31.76, User:184.146.206.103, User:184.147.29.85, User:74.12.120.15, User:184.147.30.178, User:70.31.127.9, User:70.31.125.221, User:70.31.124.58. Page protection doesn't seem effective, since they just come back under a different IP to vandalize a new page. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

74.12.120.0/24 would work but has not been used since 12 January.

74.12.122.0/24 blocked for one month as there has been immensely disruptive behaviour in this range for a few days.

74.12.123.0/24 would work but has not been used since 19 December.

70.31.124.0/24 would work but has not been used since 11 January.

70.31.125.0/24 would work but has not been used since 26 November. Minor collateral damage (one edit 20 January)

70.31.127.0/24 would work but has not been used since 24 December. Minor collateral damage (one edit 2 December)

184.146.206.0/24 Two IPs used in this range are already blocked.

184.146.207.0/24 used as recently as 24 January. Blocked for one month.

184.147.28.0/24 would work but has not been used since 31 December.

184.147.29.0/24 would work but has not been used since 12 January

184.147.30.0/24 would work but has not been used since 5 January.

184.147.31.0/24 would work but has not been used since 1 January.

I’ve worked my way through each of the /24 ranges for the IPs given by the OP to see what is going in each range. The disruptive user is distinctive and there is very little collateral damage in each. I’ve blocked two ranges for a month each, others have not been active for some time and I would suggest holding off blocking these unless the user makes an appearance. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The ranges I'm coming back with that are allocated and distributed to the various networks are 184.144.0.0/13, 74.12.0.0/14, and 70.24.0.0/13 (all from Toronto Bell Canada). These ranges are enormous, and the risk for collateral damage is high. I agree with Malcolmxl5 by attempting to block sub-ranges and as small as possible to mitigate possible collateral damage. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User: Gushing seems to be trolling

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

---

I noticed this morning that Gushing (talk · contribs), brand new as of this month, made a series of seemingly normal edits, then dove into a long series of stale reverts of edits made by Lacypaperclip (talk · contribs), including to talk pages. [121] Lacypaperclip is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Gushing is screaming WP:DUCK. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack By Deli nk

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

---

The Deli nk (talk) is engaged in personal attacks against Wikipedia: personal attacks. See Talk:Allen Estrin. Despite disagreement we are no longer talking or addressing the issue I am being attacked by this editor when I asked them to stop I was dared to file an ANI. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a real stretch to call that a personal attack. This seems to stem from a recent report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring where I warned both editors for edit warring. Jamesharrison2014's recent editing has been aggressive to the point of perhaps being disruptive. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Jamesharrison2014 you also failed to notify Deli nk on their talk page of this report as you are required to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The first line of Wikipedia: personal attacks is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." All I ask is that I not be called incompetent or a troll. This is an attack on me. I am happy to have a productive discussion. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ehh... I wouldn't call this comment a "positive and collaborative" one... I don't think that it was necessary, and I'll agree that it was a bit of a personal swing by questioning one's competence in that manner, but his other responses and comments seem to be just fine. The best response to the comment I linked here is to simply remind Deli nk that comments like these aren't collaborative, and to remind him to refrain from doing so. So long as this doesn't represent a pattern of such issues (and I don't see any of such), I think things here are best left at that and I don't see the need for action. Just... be peaceful to one another :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there is some real misrepresentation here by Jamesharrison2014. Deli nk responded to Jamesharrison2014's threat to report him with "If you want to go to ANI, that's fine". To characterize that as "I was dared to file an ANI" is simply exaggeration. The WP:ANEW report seems to have stretched the facts as well. It's as if Jamesharrison2014 is trying to game the system to get an upper hand in a content dispute. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I can very close to blocking Jamesharrison2014 for his edit warring at Ryan Fournier. Based on the behavior at Allen Estrin, I think he needs to learn how to properly engage in editing rather than hitting the undo button and misinterpreting policies. To quote NOTSOCIALNETWORK (and to not quote it accurately) in an article discussion is a major misinterpretation and makes me question competence too. only (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not good. Added a couple of discretionary sanctions notices on Jamesharrison2014's talk page so any future disruption can be more easily dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014 moved the page to a better title a few seconds later. (Special:diff/821898940) Billhpike (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, they really didn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch to question Jamesharrison2014's competence because he confused WP:SOCIALMEDIA with WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Billhpike (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

More experienced editors have made the same mistake. Billhpike (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Brians198

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

---

Brians198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been persistently changing the date of birth on Chris Morris (satirist), despite this being currently sourced. Morris' IMDb profile features a different date, which is the date they insist on changing this to. The current source is a published (authorised) biography. I have explained through edit summary that IMDb is not considered reliable for such things. His actions have also included refactoring an existing reference. Having reached his final warning for doing this, it now appears he has logged out and made the exact same edit as an IP user (diff). Nzd (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If the biography is authorized then it's not independent of the subject, so could potentially present an incorrect birthdate that the biography subject wants people to believe (people sometimes like to misrepresent their age). I don't see the issue discussed on the talk page, so it should be brought up there. IMDb is somewhat reliable (if it were total nonsense we wouldn't like to it from 1000s of movie articles) so if the birthdate discrepancy is significant then I'd want the article to show both versions, with citations. The current stated birthdate has no citation at all so it would be helpful to add one. Also, per WP:DOB I think we're better off leaving out the day and month of the birthdate unless it's relevant to some issue in the article. I'd only worry about the IMDb discrepancy if the years are different. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Linking IMDb - which is a wiki, mind you - as a "further reading" is one thing. Citing it as an actual source is quite another. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing IMDb covers that in more detail. For an issue like this IMDB isn't a source we should be using for sourcing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@173.228.123.121: Yes, the years are different. The DoB actually is directly cited in the infobox. The year is also confirmed by another citation to findmypast (one might argue that isn't a valid reference, but that's probably another argument). A previous discussion on the talk page has a post from another editor saying that they checked with the author, who confirmed that the date had come from the births and deaths register, rather than Morris himself. Nzd (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• See WP:Citing IMDB - IMDb cannot be used as source at all, If his DOB is incorrect then I'm sure there are means and ways of him telling us. –Davey2010^Talk 21:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

We could just remove the birthdate entirely for now until we find a reliable source that's agreed upon that can be used to cite it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had no particular involvement in this article (other than recent reversions), but it seems to me that the current date of birth is reliably sourced, and that appears to be the consensus of editors of the article. A single user, with no previous editing history, has persistently tried to change it, citing IMDb and "Google". Having been told that these are not reliable sources and being warned not to do this unless they can provide an actual source, they have now made the same edit while logged out. It was this behaviour I was hoping to address. Nzd (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is a odd one, and just shows what a problem things like IMDB are. The 5/9/65 birthdate seems to have spread to a number of places on the web - probably from there. However, the book makes it quite clear that it's wrong. It contains, for example, interviews with people that went to university with him from 1980 to 1983 - a date that clearly backs up a 1962 birthdate and not a 1965 one - including obvious statements like "I have a photo of us (students) taken in 1980...". Ditto interviews with people that played in a band with him in 1984 after he left university, and worked at Radio Cambridgeshire, or the fact that his mother returned to work in 1974 as "he was approaching his teens". Pretty much every single date in the book up until the 1990s would have to be wrong. They're clearly not. Incidentally, the book is independent of the subject; Morris did not contribute to it, only gave permission for interviews with others about himself to be used. Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• In an attempt to close this off, can I propose that an administrator drop a note onto the talk page of the editor to reiterate the points re: WP:RS and WP:CITEIMDB? I think the note placed on the IP's talk page is enough at this point with regard to socking. I'm not looking for a block or anything, but it would be useful for the editor to know that one would be a realistic outcome if such an editing pattern were to continue. Nzd (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the user chose to ignore their level 4 warning and change information on another article without a source, so I've blocked them for 48 hours. Not understanding that IMDb is a reliable source is forgivable, but continuing to add unsourced content after all of those warnings regarding this is exact thing is not. Anyone is free to try to assist this user, but this is pretty straightforward disruption. Swarm ♠ 22:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting closure of an AfD discussion that has expired and relisted 3 times in a row (twice by Spartaz)

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

---

The Papa Joe Aviance article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2018 by User:Reddogsix [122] - an editor known for nominating newly created articles the moment they are created without giving editors especially newbies the opportunity to develop those articles, even worst, disregarding WP:BEFORE as evident here. The discussion for Papa Joe Aviance can be found here. It was relisted on 8 January 2018 by User:Killiondude [123]. After the 7 day time limit, it was relisted again by User:Spartaz on 16 January 2018 [124]. The nomination attracted fewer contributions from other editors, but as evident in the discussion, those who advocated for "keep" were basing their rationale on policy and sources whilst those who advocated for "delete" merely saying so because they just didn't like it. The result should have been a keep or at the very least a no consensus result and should have been closed on 23rd January 2018. However, instead of being closed, it was left open. On 24th January 2018, I pinged Killiondude and Spartaz asking them to close it and mention that it should have been closed the previous day as per policy [125]. Killiondude has not been active in the past few days going by their contribution so I appreciate they might not have seen it. As such, I went to Spartaz's talk page and notified him that this discussion should have been closed since the previous day (23rd Jan 2018) [126]. However, instead of Spartaz closing the discussion, he relisted it for the 3rd time in a row on 24th January 2018 [127]. I went to his talk page and notified him that is clearly a contravention of Wiki policy in regards to relisting [128]. He started telling me I should assume good faith and not to lecture him. I told him this is not a lecture and I'm merely stating policy [129]. The full discussion on his talk page can be found here - where he told me the concerns I've expressed are too long and he didn't read them, and asked whether I haven't got something worthwhile to spend my time on, and to "go away" (see that link). That was then followed by this disingenuous edit about the concerns the editor of the article (User:CultureCouture) and I have expressed in the Afd [130]. His conduct is a blatant abuse of policy and if he was unable to close it, he should have left it with an admin/editor to close it. I am at the end of my tether with this editor and nominator because their conduct is driving away editors especially newbies that work on Black /African related articles which is under represented on Wiki. Full disclosure: I tried to seek advice from Rich Farmbrough regarding the issue [131] - who is a long standing editor and someone I highly respect here, having come across some of his work over the years but I suspect he is busy and probably haven't seen my message. This is the last place I wanted to come regarding this issue, but I'm put in a position where I have to bring it to your attention having seen Spartaz and Reddogsix blatant disregard for policy. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Normally, relisting certain Articles for Deletion is acceptable to help gain a more thorough consensus. That may be to get more editors to participate and for all arguments to kind of flurry out in favor of delete or keep. Though in this case, the policy you are quoting specifically allows relisting past two times as long an explanation is given why: Per WP:RELIST Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. Which the administrator did, so there's really nothing wrong in policy. I believe the administrator was acting in good faith, but I do agree with you that ~24 days is long enough for an AFD to be open. It should be closed and consensus assessed. Tutelary (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering. AFDs for tiny articles can sometimes take several relistings to get consensus. Remember, Wikipedia is not on a deadline. You seem to be casting a LOT of aspirations about editors here, and the fact that they aren't answering things RIGHT NOW somehow means they are being shady. On top of that, saying that the delete folks are just using they just didn't like it is frankly insulting. They are citing policy just like you, and to claim otherwise is not at all good faith editing. Quite frankly, this is the wrong place for this, and I suspect you might want to duck... --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tutelary for your contribution. Your wisdom is always highly welcomed and respected. You always discuss the issues maturely and with respect to policy rather than rant about irrelevant stuff like "shadiness" or "ducking". I'm glad we have wise people like you here. Who needs a rag when one can have lovely Tutelary? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is no problem whatsoever with the relisting of that AfD. Participation was scant, other than long posts from the article creator and the OP here. The purpose of AfD is to find consensus, and if a relist can help to do so, rather than the "no consensus" close the OP seems to prefer, then a relist is a good thing. Aspersions such as "This is merely a ruse in my opinion, and a deliberate attempt to flout policy and enable certain individuals to canvas and vote according to their own biases. The deliberate targeting of Black / African articles is just foolishness. We need editors in this field but some individuals are chasing them away from the project with their foolishness."[132] are uncalled for, unhelpful and, quite frankly, disruptive. That you desire an article to be kept is no excuse for wild, flailing, unsupported accusations of bias (or worse). -- Begoon 01:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Regardless, the relists served their purpose, as a clear consensus was established when I looked at the discussion. I've closed it accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting is that a reference to the Daily Mail was a major source for the now deleted article. For those who do not know, consensus is that this newspaper is not a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and removed its multiple uses shortly before deletion. Maybe it was the use of the word "rag" above that alerted me..? -- Begoon 02:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Sock puppetry and personal attacks

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

---

• Deloop82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sorinele833 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Drama novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Asking another admin to take look at this. Sorinele833 (talk · contribs) recreated the category Category:Drama novels with the same exact wording used by Darunia02 (talk · contribs), its original creator. The category had been previous deleted in a CfD. Sorinele833 proceeded to add it to the same articles that Darunia02 had (for example, [133] and [134]; [135] and [136]; [137] and [138]). I nominated the category for speedy deletion, and Sorinele833 reverted the speedy deletion notice, just as Darunia02 had done to the original CfD notice. Alright, you're probably wondering why this is here and not SPI. Well, Deloop82 (talk · contribs) just recreated the category and bragged about having done so on my talk page. As if that weren't enough, while reverting my cleanup of removing red-linked categories, Deloop82 used edit summaries of "Undoing deletion by cocksucker" and "Shut up cocksucker, valid genre". I am looking for an uninvolved admin to indefinitely block Sorinele833 as a sock puppet of Darunia02, block Deloop82 for personal attacks and disruptively recreating deleted articles, and salt the category. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Deleted/salted the category, reverted the novels that had been added to it, blocked Sorinele833 indef, blocked Deloop82 for a week. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. In retrospect, there seems to be quite a lot of overlap between Darunia02 and Deloop82. Could be unrelated genre warriors, though, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User Jp113040

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

---

User:Jp113040 account appears to have gone on a rampage and is mass deleting content from articles and mass adding content to their sandbox. I first noticed this with removal of content from articles on my watchlist here, here and and here. I immediately reverted all three and then I warned the user here. They then repeated the exact same removal of content here and stated Look, listen, it doesn't matter anymore, I'm the boss of everything on these articles, if you DON'T like it, that's too BAD!!! in their edit summary. Upon checking their recent user contributions here I realized this is a bigger issue. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted their mass edits made without consensus and advised the editor to build a consensus at a centralized located. I have also warned them on their talk page that some of their edit summaries appear to violate both WP:OWN and WP:NPA, and can lead to their being blocked from editing. I leave it to an admin to take any further steps, if warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Update user is way overlinking episode titles on NCIS season articles which serve as redirects back to the same article despite aditional warnings on the talk page from User:Beyond My Ken and User:NeilN. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

He's probably just being eager to "fix things" before making sure they're not problematic first - I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume such. Now that he's aware that he's causing issues, I hope that he asks for assistance and lets us help him. Hitting the "turbo button" like that can be disruptive if you don't do it with care - slow down, Jp113040 ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This user has ownership problems going back more than two years - this is the earliest that I could find. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's problematic behavior. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

RevDel request

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

---

Hello, I was wondering if the edit summary with this edit could be redacted. The edit itself seems OK. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

331dot - I think it's better left as-is and available for the public to scrutinize. I usually justify and consider rev del'ing a revision for RD3 if hiding it from public view is more beneficial than to keep it visible. In this case, hiding the edit summary would keep it from being seen, scrutinized, and used as evidence. Unless someone strenuously objects or disagrees, I think it's better to keep the edit summary public. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly OK with me but I wanted to ask. Still learning how things go. :) 331dot (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

331dot - Sure, no problem at all! Please don't hesitate to ask if you feel that something needs revision deletion - it's typically best if you email these to an administrator instead of asking publicly (if possible), so that the diffs aren't subject to unnecessary attention by users who "quickly want to see what it is before it gets hidden". You're welcome to email me any of these questions or requests for rev del any time you need to :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: I think that you mean this edit summary. The one that you linked is presently "remove stray character", which seems highly inoffensive to me. It might change: the partial query string &diff=cur&oldid=prev means "compare the current version with the one immediately previous", so once another edit has been made, the most recent edit summary will again differ. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed; please pardon my incorrect linking. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries - that's the diff I was looking at when I responded earlier. I figured that's the one you meant to link here ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Edit Warring at Coachella Valley Church

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

---

I've been asked to help protect the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coachella_Valley_Church because of the frequent edit warring. I requested full protection which seemed to have been guaranteed for a while, but is now gone again, and the disruptive editing has resumed. If possible, I strongly suggest that a neutral admin verifies the facts of the page and locks it at least for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loryry (talk • contribs) 11:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've re-applied full protection and extended the duration. It's clear that the content dispute over the article summary paragraph (case in point: the opening statement and how the article subject is described there) is still ongoing from before the previous protection was applied. If it continues, I'll consider if adding extended confirmed protection for a longer duration is the best solution long-term (if needed). Also, the proper place to request page protection is at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - make sure such requests go there instead ;-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Trxch

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

---

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

"Trxch" is an account created on 20 January 2018. So far, literally every single one of his edits have been of a disruptive kind. Examples;

• Edit warring on the Azerbaijan page, mass removing sourced content; (rv #1, rv #2, rv #3, rv #4, rv #5)
• Edit warring/tweaking content on the Tabriz page ([139])
• Edit warring/tweaking content on the Template:Azerbaijan topics page;[140]
• Edit warring/tweaking content on the Urmia page;[141]
• Edit warring on the Borchali page. Also removed a source and added unsourced content;[142]
• Ignoring numerous warnings;[143]
• Removes "Template:Iranian architecture and "Template:Largest cities of Iran" from the Ardabil article, an Iranian city (!), and adds the "Template:Azerbaijani population" instead; (Rv #1,Rv #2)
• Adding unsourced content on the Marneuli page; [144]
• Never providing sources to back up his claims
• Added spellings in an alphabet not used in Iran, to articles about numerous Iranian cities, towns, and districts, in order to spread a pro-Azerbaijan Republic POV.[145]-[146]-[147]-[148]-[149]-[150]
• Never using edit summaries

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that user "Trxch" is on a mission. And that mission is clearly not to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. First of all - I am not on a "mission". Second, I have already made my points clear to LouisAragon, but unless he/she ignored/did not pay attention to them, I will repeat them here:

I have already cleared up the disagreements faced with user User:CASSIOPEIA ; there was not and is not any disruptive editing or edit war going on here. I fixed spelling errors, removed misplaced/biased sources, added missing links to different related articles in various words wherever possible; there is nothing wrong going on here. I hope that clears it up.

If in doubt, feel free to at least take a good look at the edits made and see for yourself. Nothing slanderous or otherwise malicious intended.

P.S. I consider your arguments as to the removal of Azerbaijani Latin texts from certain Iranian Azerbaijan-related articles unfounded; there are numerous articles about cities, regions, etc. inhabited by different ethnic groups in other countries where (despite the differences in alphabets) one can find the names of any toponyms given in various languages *and* alphabets. For example, there are articles about cities and other inhabited areas in Iraq which contain their Turkish and Kurdish names, written in the *Latin alphabet* (eventhough Arabic language and the Arabic script are the officially used ones). In other words, there is and should be nothing wrong when considering this.

Thank you. - User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

You can tell 1+1=3 all you want. Fact remains, you're incorrect and being highly disruptive on every ground. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Persistent as this disruptive user is in adding unsourced POV content by all means, he just rv'd once more on the Marneuli page; [151] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That is merely your opinion and point of view, and again - nothing "disruptive on every ground" is going on. If you think that no one should edit something and it must be kept the way it was (e.g) two years ago, when it was last edited by someone whose work you did not tamper with - that's not my problem. Besides, it's best to cut on the hostile tone and rhetoric here. - User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

There is no "POV content", just because you lack the information on the topic of the given article doesn't mean I'm just posting "my" point of view. (*smh*)

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

In fact, some of the Latin entries you "fixed" were not even written in Azerbaijani (Latin) alphabet, but rather in Romanized Persian, and some in Romanized Azerbaijani (which, clearly, some Iranian Azerbaijani users tried their best to romanize using the English alphabet, on their own; as - despite Azerbaijani having a standardized romanization in the form of its Latin alphabet - many Iranian Azerbaijanis mainly use the Perso-Arabic script and not all of them have a profound knowledge of the Azerbaijani Latin alphabet, as there is no official education/teaching of the language (or its alphabet - Azerbaijani does not have a standardized alphabet for the Arabic script) itself.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

User:Trxch - You're very on the line of edit warring on multiple articles - especially Azerbaijan. You need to stop this, participate on the articles' talk pages, and resolve the dispute properly. I agree that you're very well within the threshold where an edit warring block would be justified - I'd really like not to do that :-). Can you work with LouisAragon peacefully and let him try and help you? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I'm not entirely sure in what I could "help" him here. Its evident that user "Trxch" is on a mission. He tried to remove reliably sourced content from the Azerbaijan page on no less than 5 occassions. He removed Iran-related templates from Iranian cities, and added Azerbaijani-population templates instead. He's edit warring on tons of pages in order to keep unsourced/ungrounded additions inside the article. He hasn't provided a single source to back up his claims so far. For example, on the Borchali page he's literally edit-warring over unsourced content. That's ridiculous. Please take a look at the other thousands of "new" accounts with similar agenda's/editorial patterns on Wiki, and tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I get that it may seem like that at a first glance, yes; however, it should be clear that none of this misunderstanding would have occured had LouisAragon not interfered all of a sudden. There was a discussion with the user User:CASSIOPEIA, but thankfully we quickly resolved our issues. None of my edits carry any malicious intents behind them; in fact, the articles are actually mostly intact and not much has been changed in them, save for added links in some words, correction of spelling errors, addition of spelling in other languages, and removal of biased/misplaced content that was clearly posted there with a particular purpose, it seems. I hope this clears it up. Feel free to take a closer look yourself!

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

LouisAragon, chill out dude, what're you on about? -_- What "reliably sourced" content is it that was removed from the Azerbaijan article? Claiming that Azerbaijan's name wasn't Azerbaijan? That is ridiculous, not what you think of it to be. As to Iran-related articles, the template removed was "Iranian architecture"; for being in non-architecture-related articles. Otherwise one wouldn't mind it. The "Azerbaijani population" template was added since the articles were about cities located in Iranian Azerbaijan - it's a sensible choice if you think about it, no need for its removal. Take it easy and don't go ballistic on it all(, seriously though -_-).

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

P.S. LouisAragon - And there is and cannot be any "pro-Azerbaijan Republic POV" via the addition of the Azerbaijani-language names of the toponyms. You base your claims based on your slightly distorted vision of what's at hand (no offense intented, I mean it), and that is unfortunate.

- User:Trxch, 26.01.2018

The sources are written by academics. Neither mine nor your opinion means anything. We go by what the reliable sources state. And the reliable sources on the Azerbaijan page, which you outrightly removed, clearly illustrated that the soil to the north of the Aras River was not called Azerbaijan until 1918. You have brought no sources to prove any of your points. No sources to disprove the reliability of the existing sources. All you've been doing so far on Wikipedia is trigger finger edit-warring (illustrated above), removing sourced content (illustrated above), POV-pushing (illustrated above) and giving feigned "explanations" (illustrated here @ ANI and on your own talk page). In other words; WP:NOTHERE in every single aspect of the definition. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I blocked for 24 hours for the ongoing edit warring. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Drmies - Unfortunately, I think it was the right call. I wanted to try and help the user to avoid that, but it doesn't sound like it was going to happen. Thanks for responding to this while I was away. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks. This also to say that I do not have the time to look into the substance of their edits, so I won't comment on NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just counted; "Trxch" made a staggering 24 reverts in total, before he received the 24hr block by Drmies (a few minutes ago).

Even now after receiving the short block, "Trxch" still displays 0.0% intention to build this encyclopedia. "Trxch" also continues to display a complete lack of understanding about the disruptive nature of his edits. I quote, his response, on his own talk page;

• "My edits did not contain any sentences, or paragraphs, no entries regarding my personal opinions and views on a particular subject (...) Just because they are not well aware of (and maybe even oblivious to) the topics that are covered in the edited articles is not my problem; my problem is people like them interfering with my work on a website (...) So you can probably tell where the problem lies here; it's one-sided."

Based on my experience, I can guarantee that this charade will just continue after the block expires. IF admins don't review the posted evidence/concerns, that is. People shouldn't forget that this topic area is highly contentious due to 18th/19th/20th century events, so it attracts "people" like "Trxch" relatively often.

I just can't help but to repeat that I don't see any intention from "Trxch" to edit constructively. Not during his "24 revert-spree", nor after he received the 24 hr block. He's just completely and deliberately oblivious of the purpose of this project. Removing sources, adding unrelated content, adding unsourced content, ignoring warnings, etc. He basically literally admitted (see quote above) that he's just here to make others kow-tow to his self-interpreted unsourced/ungrounded tales. Go figure, ladies and gentlemen.

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

+1 - He clearly has a BATTLEGROUND mentality and I have a feeling he'll revert the second that block expires, Just gonna throw this out there but preferably I'd prefer throwing him some rope and someone with more authority than me go over to his TP and make it plain as day his next revert will result in an indef block, We can only give him some rope and he can either take that rope or he can strangle himself with it .... It's up to him what move he chooses. –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I say we leave the block as is and give em a chance to prove us wrong. If the disruption continues at all after the block expires, an indef is what comes next and it's not difficult to apply. The ball is in his/her court - either the user learns from this and lets us try and help and educate them, or the status quo continues and the block is re-applied indefinitely. Their choice :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Discretionary sanctions request

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

---

Resolved

I am not sure if this is the right venue, or if it is even an administrator-only action, but would it be possible to bring Kirsten Gillibrand under the auspices of WP:ACDS (per WP:ARBAPDS), please? The article appears to be gaining prominence because of the subject's potential 2020 presidential run, and I am concerned that reversions are becoming more common than discussions. I feel certain the threat of discretionary sanctions will cool a few jets. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey - Just trying to make sure I understand what you're asking for exactly... are you asking that discretionary sanction alerts / notices be left on the user talk pages of certain editors? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I just wanted permission to include {{American politics AE}} on the talk page. I will only start dishing out DS alerts if they become necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Added {{American politics AE}} - was that what you wanted? Guy (Help!) 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, that is what I was seeking, thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  Scjessey, not all articles in the topic area are under active sanctions. Administrators need to place them at their discretion. The article is in the topic area, so it is under the DS generally until an administrator deems it is necessary to place them. JzG, you need to place an edit notice (I typically use the language at Template:Editnotices/Page/Jeff Sessions, since it is under the same sanctions) when I place these. You also would need to log the action at WP:AELOG/2018. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Thank you for the explanation, Tony. Obviously making the request here was the right thing for me to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Yeah, was just checking that this is the required result. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Easy peasy then ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Algernon64/sandbox/jq

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

---

Could an admin help me close this MfD? Since that page has been already deleted. Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Pakistani nationalist editing

PAKHIGHWAY (talk · contribs) was previously sanctioned for nationalist behaviour after reports here, eg: last September. They were also reported here. They successfully appealed their block here but with strings attached.

As I said on their talk page yesterday, they have in the last few hours created some nationalist redirects, eg:

• Punjabi wedding songs and Kashmiri wedding songs redirected to Pakistani wedding songs
• Kashmiri wedding and Punjabi wedding redirected to Marriage in Pakistan

They know that the Kashmir and Punjab regions fall under both Pakistan and Indian administrations, cultures etc, so these are point-y redirects. And it would seem from contemporaneous comments at Talk:Bhat that they have a bit of a bee in their bonnet concerning Kashmir stuff at the moment. I've not been following their edits since the last report here, mentioned above, so I have no idea if this is a re-start of seemingly nationalist-driven contributions or if it is continuation of what was going on before. Either way, it isn't good and I think they should know better than this.

Can their contributions be restricted to subject matter away from India-Pakistan topics? Should they be thus restricted or am I making a mountain out of a molehill? And what should be done about those patently poor redirects? Convert them to dab pages even though they will only have at most two entries apiece? - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia admins reviewing this case. Kindly open my editing history and make a judgement for yourself. The vast majority of my edits have good intentions attached. I'm not here to disrupt. I'd like to add, that this particular user unfortunately seems to have a personal vendetta against me. The previous accusations and complaints about me came from this particular user as well. Next, raising questions about the Bhat article is not disruptive. I did not split the article, I simply questioned why the previous articles were merged and raised a proposal in the Talk section about the POTENTIAL of the article being split. I did not split the article. Raising questions and debating is not illegal last time I checked. Furthermore, I made edits on the Bhat article by adding in personalities and fixing up the translations. That's not disruptive last I checked. As for the Punjabi wedding and Kashmiri wedding articles etc., there are no articles present. I simply created the article to redirect temporarily as I expand on the parent article. If Sitush (talk · contribs) is that concerned about Punjabi weddings and Punjabi wedding songs, he can feel free to edit those articles and fill in relevant information. I simply made a redirect because the majority of Punjabi speakers and Punjab are in Pakistan anyway. That's just a fact, I'm sorry. I'll be more than welcomed to remove the redirect if he contributes to the article. The same in regards to the Kashmiri weddings etc. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just typed "punjab wedding" in the search box and it came up with Punjabi wedding traditions. That is an appalling article but it does seem to be about Indian Punjab. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know "Punjabi wedding tradition" article exists? How does one even come to think about a name like that to search in the first place? I think you're trying to make something out of nothing. There is no lock on Punjabi wedding songs article which I created. It was just temporary while I fixed the parent article (ie. Pakistani wedding songs, Marriage in Pakistan). If it bothers you that much, go ahead and change the redirect. Better yet, I suggest that you should write the article if the redirect is causing that much concern. Furthermore, I also created Pashto wedding songs and Baloch wedding songs as well. You deliberately left that out, in an attempt to showcase that I intentionally only redirected Punjabi and Kashmiri. That is dishonest. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not deliberately leave anything out in order to cast you in a bad light. I genuinely have no great knowledge of how Baloch and Pashto topics fit into the big scheme of things - I see them quite often in relation to Afghanistan, which may also make those redirects problematic, but I am not so sure about it. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

8 million Baloch people live in Pakistan. That's the largest population in the world of Baloch. The Pashtuns in Pakistan are also larger than the entire population of Afghanistan combined. Not sure what you're talking about. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, which is why I didn't mention it. Not particularly relevant anyway: you will never convince me that you were unaware of the ramifications of those redirects. As I said on your talk page, you are perfectly capable of doing good stuff here but for some reason you drift into these contentious areas and make a mess of things. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to convince you of anything, nor am I aware of your mentality or what you think or don't think. I simply made the redirects as a temporary measure, no different than Provincial Highways of Punjab which was originally a redirect to National Highways of Pakistan, later which I decided to create its own article. It's not my fault you live in a land of conspiracy and distrust. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You are digging yourself a hole here. Any distrust is directly related to your recent history. If not that, it can only be presumed that you lack competence to take sufficient care in what is a notoriously problematic topic area. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really, I'm actually defending myself quite well. My edits were not done in any negative manner, you just took them in a negative manner. Why that is, I have no clue, but that's not my fault. I look forward to the admins getting in touch with me and making a decision on my stay at Wikipedia. This will be my final word with you on the matter. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Propose topic ban for topics that concern both India and Pakistan. Note that the specific wording may need to be clarified here. I'm meaning to imply topics only about Pakistan with no overlap with India, that's fine. But topics with some amount of overlap are off-limits. I worry this may be unworkable. I believe PAKHIGHWAY is a well-intentioned editor who gets carried away; you can see the results on PAKHIGHWAY's talk page. I think a topic ban would help reduce the conflict and allow PAKHIGHWAY to demonstrate high quality edits on less contentious topics. --Yamla (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for you calm insight. I don't mind agreeing to those terms, however, just to make it clear. The articles I started had no bad intention. Alongside Punjabi wedding songs and Kashmiri wedding songs I added Balochi wedding songs and Pashto wedding songs, which Sitush conveniently decided to leave out, because his intention is to portray me as a disruptive editor, which I am not. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from South Asian subjects. He was indeffed for WP:NOTHERE. See Pakhighway's recent edit warring and soapboxing on Point 5353 on the talk page, one example is that he claimed that Indians are engaging in "very clever effort to try and downplay the embarrassment".[152] The article ended up getting fully protected because of his edit warring. This article has nothing to do with ethnicity still Pakhighway is very disruptive there. His above reply show he is not capable to understand the mistakes and he is still here for WP:RGW. That's why he should be topic banned now per WP:CIR. Anmolbhat (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: I disagree that Pakhighway should be allowed to edit Pakistani-only articles. He has been very disruptive there as well. I am mentioning what occurred on Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, an article he first deceptively moved during the page move discussion,[153] and the page move request failed.[154] But given that Pakhighway takes his POV over anything, he unilaterally moved the page to his preferred title 2 days ago without getting consensus and knowing the page move request failed. [155] I can cite more examples but this one alone justifies topic ban from whole South Asia. Anmolbhat (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Kindly revise your definition of "disruptive". Furthermore, I live in Pakistan and I'm very well aware of what localities and neighborhoods are called what. I moved the article because it makes sense to move the article. Nobody lives in a place called "Defence Housing Authority"...that's the name of the administration of that locality. This would be akin to saying that if someone lives in London, they live in "London Metropolitan Authority" rather than London or "Capital Development Authority" rather than Islamabad. It's important to first understand the grasp of the request before hastily making a decision based on your own negative view of me. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Talking about awareness and understanding, your failed page move request speaks enough about it. Also that you deceptively moved the page months after the failed request. What else would you like to know? Anmolbhat (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You failed to be aware or understand that a locality name does not equate to the administrative body name. Despite the fact I explained CLEARLY what the difference was and anyone who spends 2 seconds reading "Defence Housing Authority" well understand what that means. The move also aligns well with Defence, Lahore and Defence, Islamabad-Rawalpindi articles. The names of the articles are now proper and describe reality. Defence Housing Authority article remains a list, which I will now edit to include administrative setup. This is simply a non-issue. You opposition to my request was simply done out of spite, not for any logical reason. Hence forth, your opinion is invalid. If you can explain to me how Defence Housing Authority equates to the name of the locality, I'll happily change it back. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from South Asia for indefinite period. I had made request on RFPP regarding Point 5353[156] where he edit warred and attempted to distort. Another recent evidence is his comments on Talk:Bhat.[157] There is clearly no improvement since the last block. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I was simply trying to get a particular quote highlighted via BlockQuote...the quote which states that "Pakistani soldiers must have had wry smiles on there faces while watching Vijay celebrations down below, for they held Point 5353, the highest peak in Kargil". Apparently that's disruption? And in the talk page, I have already discussed in length my intentions and how I will resolve the matter once Praveen Swami gets a hold of the maps he claims to have. As for Bhat article, what exactly did I do wrong? Questioning and discussing something isn't illegal or against Wikipedia rules. Try harder. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban Are we seriously here again? Did you learn nothing from being indef blocked? I have half a mind to propose your unblock be revoked. It hasn't even been six months and you are already causing problems... --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Who's we? I don't even know who you are. Were you present during the last discussion? Secondly could you elaborate exactly what "problems" I've caused. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's start with the ones in this thread. Bludgeoning anyone? --Tarage (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I have just spotted another somewhat bizarre series of edits around here. You created that redirect page at 16:29, after editing Desi hip hop, then moved back and forth between those two articles over the next few minutes. I don't understand why, after reading Desi hip hop, which includes a section on the Punjab, you thought it better to create and redirect Punjabi hip hop to a Pakistan-specific article. At best, it is another example of you not appreciating the sensitivities of the Punjab topic area. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing really bizarre here. The invention of Punjabi hip hop is credited to Pakistan. Pakistani artists began experimenting with rap and hip hop as early as 1994 when Fakhar-e-Alam released his Rap Up where it features a Punjabi rap song. This was followed by Boehmia in 2006, who laid the foundations for Punjabi Rap and who refers to himself as "Punjabi Rap Da Badshah" or King of Punjabi Rap. Follows in tune with Sindhi hip hop and Pashto hip hop. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

But the Desi article goes on to mention developments in the Indian Punjab, which your redirect ignores. There is more to the genre than the people who originate it. I don't like the way you have just invoked the "credited" word, either, but assuming you weren't trying to blow that nationalist trumpet, it is known that the sport of rugby originated in England but that doesn't mean Rugby union should redirect to English rugby. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so Punjabi Hip Hop should have its own article is what you're saying right? Great...I'll get started on it right now. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not my point and, to be honest, I'm not convinced that you should start such an article. Certainly not until this discussion is closed. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen Pakhighway's edits to Pakistan-related articles and they have invariably been constructive. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Uanfala: Ironically I came to know about this as PakHighway's talkpage was added to my watchlist when I notified him about a page move he carried, while the discussion was still going on. special:diff/803671919 To be noted, he was the initiator of that move discussion. So I would use "mostly" instead of "invariably". I think he is good contributor in general, but gets carried away when the topic is related to "India-Pakistan", or "India". —usernamekiran(talk) 18:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support time-limited topic ban - Pakistan topics need experienced editors and PAKHIGHWAY is as good as any. I support Yamla's proposal to topic ban from India-related or India-Pakistan conflict articles. I would recommend limiting the topic ban to six months and see if PAKHIGHWAY can come back with improved conduct afterwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that it is fuzzy whether a topic is India-related, I would say that PAKHIGHWAY needs to back off if an involved editor tells him that it is the case or seek the advice of an administrator. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I landed up here after I notices this user's disruptive edits on the Sindhi diaspora article and saw the ANI notice by Sitush on their talk page. I have had little direct interaction with the user but it seems that other editors have noticed the same behavior which I have noticed. What makes it more surprising is the user continues with such POV edits as recently as 27 January even they have been warned before and taken to ANI only a day ago. This leads me to believe that either the user has little understanding on POV and are engaging in POV edits grossly unaware of their actions or are fully aware of their edits and are still engaging in them. Both of these are not ideal and need to be rectified. Since, I have had little direct interaction with the user I won't speak for or against the topic ban but I think some corrective action needs to be taken. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban, but not sure if it should be indefinite, or finite. Given the previous history, and observations; PakHighway has been to ANI for several times. Recently, he has decreased communication a lot with other editors, which is a good thing (it was one of the reasons why he was brought-up here). As I stated in my reply to Unfala above, I think currently he is a good editor, but gets carried away when the topic is related to "India-Pakistan", or "India". A topic ban would be a good idea here. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment PAKHIGHWAY is generally a good editor but has the unfortunate tendency to personalize the discussion (for e.g., [158] here - where, I think they are probably right about the edit but this sort of comment detracts from the merits of their arguments). I'm not sure if Yamla's suggestion is workable but, I guess, it is worth trying since PAKHIGHWAY seems to be willing to adhere to it. I'm not keen on a wider topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 23:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• ’’’Not in support’’’ Nationalism isn’t a reason to be banned. Lots of editors express a Nationalist viewpoint, even those from India. It seems we have a battle of nationalisms though, whereby members of opposing nationalism try to get each other blocked. It’s personally happened to me to from indian nationalist editors. As long as sources as provided, nationalist viewpoints aren’t the problem. It’s only a problem when people refuse to budge in the light of evidence.Willard84 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Vailskbum

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

---

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

Either vandalism-only account, or utmost degree of incompetence.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Made a scan through his edits; literally couldn't find more than 1 proper edit. Everything else is within the reaches of WP:VANDALISM and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Fact that he doesn't use edit summaries, and sources makes it even more troublesome. So yeah, I'd support a block. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Canterbury Tail--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah came across the account. Blatant vandal. Never going to be a productive account, not even worth opening a discussion with. Blocked and moved on. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Appeal

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

---

• I XFDed 4 articles and three have been closed (by a non-admin) within hours after nomination. The result was described as 'speedy keep' when there were 0 (zero) speedy keep votes in all three AFD. I request that all three articles should be re-opened for discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samina_Khan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mufti_Said_Janan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_Sheeraz  M A A Z   T A L K  17:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Speedy keep" isn't a vote, it's a declaration by the closer that the nomination was hopelessly unfounded. While I'm not sure this is the case here, I'm pretty sure the WP:Snowball clause applies, since, as was stated, we have an encyclopedic interest in having articles on legislators. But if you insist on getting the closure reviewed, please see WP:Deletion review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I would also read over WP:BEFORE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Yuriy Urban

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

---

Yuriy Urban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A mix of good edits with clear vandalism, a performance at Kiev and at their own talk page is particularly impressive. Probably in a need of a block. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the superfluous photos that interfere with the text. Ymblanter violated the rule WP:3RR --Yuriy Urban (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is incorrect, I did not break 3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

They now try to talk to me in Russian on their talk page and refuse to start talking in English. Note that one of their edit summaries was "Fuck Roma and Polish", and now they pretend they do not really understand what is going on. Looks like a WP:COMPETENCE problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing that edit summary right here is extremely troubling, and almost worthy of a block in itself. Ymblanter made 3 revisions, which is clearly within the guidelines of WP:3RR. I'm starting to wonder if they are here to build the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Their next edit summary was "Fuck Yankee from Baltimore".--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. The first edit summary should've resulted in a block, IMO; the second sealed the deal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Spamming company info

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

---

173.79.207.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a particular interest in adding information about RIDGE-LANE Limited Partnership into the bios of people who are associated with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

They should be probably best blocked for spam.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

They have been blocked 31 hours for spam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

IP (well a user with so many IPs) making a desruption.

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

---

Lately, a user using different IPs is making disruptive edits. He is adding Cuneiform characters to several articles. But, he add no sources. So, he could be adding non sense and no one will know. Cuneiform is not like adding non english characters that are used for living other languages. Cuneiform is a dead writing system and its the field of specialists and we need a source when a certain name is rendered in cuneiform.

I approached the guy on the talk page of one of his IPs but he just revert and dont care about talk pages.

He is also uncivil and ask others to "fuck off". He has been warned by many other users to no avail.

The IPs in question (the ones I know about): User:47.21.27.58, User:47.20.180.99 and User:72.89.182.55

• The mess in the page of Palmyra here

• Me trying to convince him to source his edits here

• Him telling others to fuck off here

So, can Palmyra be protected until he is gone (He is covering many articles and I dont know if they can all be protected but Palmyra is featured and it would damage it to have unsourced material that could be curse words tbh as he provide no source to the meaning of those characters).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and left this message in hopes that it will convince and encourage this user to try and work together with you. I agree that these changes and additions need some way to be verified or at least referenced somehow... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've also requested that they leave explanatory edit summaries for every change they make. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be one thing if there were a one-to-one mapping, but transliteration never being exact, a source must be presented, and presenting it (as here) as indeed deriving from a source is an outright hoax if it doesn't derive therefrom. I've semiprotected the article for a week. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

62.28.64.102

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

---

• 62.28.64.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Continued disruptive editing after expiration of block. Mostly addition of unsourced material but also an edit war at Jack Cassidy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Four blocks in three months. Longer block time needed. I would have taken him to WP:AIV. Which you could still do, and see which way is faster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is now on a six month block, and I've reverted all of their recent edits. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Please help. I am being constantly Harassed, Hounded, and Threatened to be blocked.

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

---

I really need help. This has gone too much for a small editor like me to handle. User User:Hijiri88 is Hounding WP:HOUND me, Harassing WP:HAR me, and threatening to permanently block me under false accusations. I have already tried to contact several administrators.

Initially, I was dealing with content removal events on the page: Goguryeo. Editor User:Zanhe was blanking multiple phrases and multiple sources that supported them. He also altered the details of several statements to contradict or misrepresent the sources supporting them. For these reasons, I have accused him of vandalism (as well as other charges), warned him, and requested the article to be protected. The article itself has now been protected by another administrator who viewed my request. However, after the protection has taken place, User:Zanhe pinged User:Hijiri88 on the Goguryeo talk page. User:Hijiri88 has ever since supported User:Zanhe by claiming that my charges were "bogus", "illegitimate", and that 'it does not qualify for vandalism'. And now he is threatening to block me for "false accusations". Additionally, he threatened to block me for "personal attacks", simply because I acknowledged the pattern of him changing his words, simply ignoring certain details, and distorting sentences. He accused me of 'renaming talk page sections' and also threatened me for that - it was renamed, but it was renamed to a different neutral name because it was unorderly. However, on his talk page, it notices: "I reserve the right to remove all or part of any comment that I find personally offensive or that others have requested be removed". He surprisingly claimed my word, "Sinocentrism" to be 'racist' while he freely uses the phrase "Korean-Ethnonationalism". He page blanks my the sections that I have posted on his talk page also. I simply cannot deal with this continuous and hypocritical all-denying behavior. It only appears to me that he is defending User:Zanhe while selecting me as a Hounding target simply because my reversals in Goguryeo (which is protected now) were contradictory to his own set of opinions and beliefs. I am in a great deal of need of assistance. Please help me get out of this faultless misery. Thanks. Discussion Links:here, here, and here Wandrative (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Such coincidence! I was posting my complaint about Wandrative's behaviour practically the same time Wandrative was posting his against me and Hijiri88. I guess my thread below can be treated as a reply to his accusation. It's ridiculous that he claims Hijiri88 was hounding him when Wandrative himself posted huge walls of text containing a dozen warning templates on my talk page, see User talk:Zanhe#Warning. -Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same thought as Zanhe, but as I just told User:Nyttend on his talk page I really don't want the hassle at the moment. If someone could block the OP at least until they calm down that would be appreciated. I can provide diffs if anyone needs them, but it seems that virtually every single edit they have made in the last two days has been a violation of some kind of behavioural policy. Needless to say, it's not "hounding" when someone shows a very poor understanding of policy and you check their contribs to see if it's a recurring problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have clearly defined the reasons why you and the other editor has been charged. The warning templates come from are not false accusations, reguardless of how much you find it excessive. And coincidence? This level of deception is abhorrent. You are turning the attention by opening a new section against me instead of refuting it here?Wandrative (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If you continue making personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing. There will not be a 2nd warning. El_C 06:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Most ironically, among the dozen+ warning templates Wandrative posted on my talk page, one warns that "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." I have serious doubt about this user's competence to make coherent edits. -Zanhe (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The content that has been subject to this event are these two qualities:

1- "Goguryeo (고구려; 高句麗; [ko.ɡu.ɾjʌ], 37 BCE–668 CE), also called Goryeo (고려; 高麗; [ko.ɾjʌ]), was a Korean kingdom[4][5][6]" The two editors mentioned above are constantly removing the bolded word; which goes against these three supporting articles cited.

"Koguryo". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 15, 2013. States that Goguryeo as one of the three Kingdoms of Korea Byeon, Tae-seop (1999) 韓國史通論 (Outline of Korean history), 4th ed, Unknown Publisher, ISBN 89-445-9101-6. Emphasizes Goguryeo as one of the most powerful Korean State that arose throughout Korean History "Complex of Koguryo Tombs". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 2013-10-24. The current article simply talks about its geographical location. However, the article stated that Goguryeo was Korean when it was retrieved.

2- "Goguryeo has been described as an empire by many scholars", "Goguryeo was a powerful empire and one of the great powers in East Asia" Phrases in relation to the bolded word are getting removed alongside their supporting citations:

신형식 (2003). 高句麗史. Ewha Womans University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9788973005284. Retrieved 12 September 2017. 이덕일; 박찬규 (2007). 고구려 는 천자 의 제국 이었다. 역사의아침. ISBN 9788995884973. Retrieved 12 September 2017. Roberts, John Morris; Westad, Odd Arne. The History of the World. Oxford University Press. p. 443. ISBN 9780199936762. Retrieved 15 July 2016. Gardner, Hall. Averting Global War: Regional Challenges, Overextension, and Options for American Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 158–159. ISBN 9780230608733. Retrieved 15 July 2016. Laet, Sigfried J. de. History of Humanity: From the seventh to the sixteenth century. UNESCO. p. 1133. ISBN 9789231028137. Retrieved 10 October 2016. Walker, Hugh Dyson. East Asia: A New History. AuthorHouse. pp. 6–7. ISBN 9781477265178. Retrieved 20 November 2016

All these sources explicitly describe Goguryeo as an empire or have been described to have developed into an empire. In fact, the main thesis of the first two articles is about Goguryeo being an Empire. The same sources also state that Goguryeo is Korean.

"Sneaky vandalism": "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts)" link occurs in these instances-> here,here Wandrative (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Other diffs supporting the initial section claim

-Complete blanking of recent talk page sections:[159][160] -Harassment incorporated with false accusations (deliberate factual errors included):[161][162][163][164][165][166][167][ -Racial Harassment:[168][169] -Defaming Credited Sourced Content:[170][171] Wandrative (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Wandrative: persistent personal attacks and battleground attitude

Wandrative (talk · contribs) is exhibiting very similar behaviour to Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs), who has been blocked since September (see discussion). In fact, after Hijiri88 deleted Richeaglenoble's racist/nationalist rant on Talk:Goguryeo, Wandrative restored the message and made the baseless accusation that Hijiri88 "always accuse and demoralize the Koreans as being 'nationalist'" [172]. (It has since been deleted again by Bishonen [173]).

Wandrative has the nasty habit of calling everyone who disagrees with him a vandal. On Goguryeo alone, he's accused Kor Ph (talk · contribs) [174] [175], Koraskadi (talk · contribs) [176], Dldusgml1234 (talk · contribs) [177], and myself [178]. None of these users has done anything remotely resembling vandalism.

A few days ago I saw an IP change the lead of Goguryeo to make it a "Chinese kingdom", and Wandrative change it to "Korean kingdom". Familiar with the RfC outcome for neutrality, I reverted both editors to make it read "a kingdom in northeast Asia" [179] [180] [181], believing that was a neutral representation of the facts. However, Wandrative launched a vicious tirade on my talk page, accusing me of "disruptive editing, vandalism, adding original research, altering statements to contradict sourced materials, and not adhering to the neutral point of view" together with multiple warning templates [182]. After I warned him to take a neutral point of view (on Sinophobia) and not falsely accusing others of vandalism [183] [184], he posted two more huge walls of text with multiple warning templates, which again accused me of vandalism, harassment, as well as having an "extremest Chinese POV" [185] [186].

Wandrative exhibits a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. He canvassed many administrators and editors using highly inflammatory language (again) accusing me and Koraskadi of vandalism [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193]. When one of the users responded, Wandrative offered a quid pro quo: "You can always count on me for help in relation to Persian History" [194]. Then on Talk:Goguryeo, he made the laughable threat to "help the Vietnamese from the Sinocentrics if this continues" (see [195] and my reply).

In short, User:Wandrative is clearly WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia. -Zanhe (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed this problem because I was pinged by Zanhe yesterday, several months after Wandrative restored an off-topic racist rant that I had removed from an article talk page. I don't really care about whatever article content dispute the users had been having in my absence, although I have been trying to mediate the dispute as best I can by opening a talk section on it and asking all parties to explain what the problem is. Of the three named accounts involved in the recent edit war, Wandrative in particular has been displaying a very poor understanding of our behavioural policies. I am not sure if it is a good-faith failure of a new user to properly read up on how editors are expected to interact, but if it was I think a short block to force them to calm down and do the reading would at least prevent harassing messages like the ones Zanhe and I have been subjected to over the last few days. (If it is a good-faith editor who doesn't understand the policies, that just supports my view that a topic-wide ECP restriction for "Korean history" a la the I-P area would do nothing but good.) I'll provide diffs shortly, but the problems I've noticed include: repeated accusations of "vandalism" (Zanhe gave diffs, and my "canvassing" diffs below all include the same vandalism claim), bogus warning templates (including, without a hint of irony, Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates),[196][197] canvassing,[198][199][200][201][202][203][204] forum-shopping,[205] refusing to engage in meaningful discussion of article content on the article talk page by refusing to pin down what exactly his problem with the content is (the above "canvassing" diffs clearly indicate his issue is with the distinction between "kingdom" and "empire", but when I asked about this on the talk page he changed his story and has to date failed to respond to my several requests that he clarify the discrepancy), refusal despite repeated requests to withdraw a false accusation of TPO-violation and some other similar remarks (see reply to Baseball Bugs below), and most recently hounding of me by going back through my block log from years ago and sending "please block"-type message to an admin he had never interacted with before.[206] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a link to that racist rant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Baseball Bugs: Sorry if the above was unclear, but the racist rant was by a different, long-blocked editor so I'm not sure how relevant it is, but: here's the original rant; here's me blanking it; here's Wandrative restoring it and leaving a comment accusing me of (a) not providing a reason for the blanking and (b) "always accus[ing] and demoraliz[ing] the Koreans as being 'nationalist'" (claiming that I accuse and demoralize people of a particular ethnicity is a clear personal attack, and I want it removed); here's Zanhe's ping that notified me of the restoration several months later; here's Bishonen re-blanking it, agreeing that it was a racist rant, and requesting Wandrative explain his attack on me for having blanked it in the first place; here's a reply from Bish nuancing the use of the word "racist" (which I still think was entirely appropriate, if not necessary since NOTFORUM works just as well); here's (what I think was?) the most recent instance of me requesting Wandrative strike the accusation; here's the current version of the page with the accusation still live and unstricken. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If someone restores a controversial comment (racist or otherwise) it's reasonable to assume the one restoring it agrees with it. In this case, more like "nationist" - prejudice against another nation. I don't call that "racist" but some do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Normally I would agree with that assessment, but I (and I suspect Bish) was interpreting it in light of the same editor's other edits. I forget if anyone ever compiled the full list of diffs anywhere, but he also expressed a distrust of editors whom he believed to be ethnically -- not by nationality or citizenship -- Chinese; over on ja.wiki, he repeatedly accused me of being of Chinese "ancestry" (中国系の外国人), mostly while logged out. I actually told Wand that he should be interpreting REN's comment in light of REN's other comments here, a coupla hours before this thread was opened, and he ignored me (hence "not even racist" and "not actually racist"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• • • It is not even racist. Hijiri 88 is synthesyzing false accusations to systematically take me down. The "racist rant" was written by a different user. The phrase in question is deleted currently. here The 'rant' was not even borderline nationalist, but was rather ranting against Chinese Nationalism. Wandrative (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wandrative, do you even realize that in the diff you just cited, Bishonen wrote "Again removing primitive racist rant, with a comment to Wandrative"? -Zanhe (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Wandrative, you are the one synthesizing data to justify a false accusation here. Nothing I wrote above implied that you were the original author of the racist rant, just that you were wrong to restore it. And it is plain as day (per the above) that you have been refusing to strike your attack against me despite multiple users (first Zanhe, then Bish, then me) telling you it was inappropriate). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the implication of It is not even racist. By continuing to defend the blocked editor's racist rant, and your own restoration of it, in this manner, you are effectively "owning" it. If you say here, now, that the rant in question was off-topic, was racially motivated, and had no place on Wikipedia, and that you were wrong for restoring it and apologize for doing so, then maybe we can go on and discuss the other issues. Otherwise, you can still be held accountable for the comment as you are continuing to defend it in a manner that implies you mean to restore it again once you think no one is looking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Vandalism accusations are valid, and it's surprising for me that you still support Zanhe's actions. Warning templates can be looked as 'excessive' but were all in proper correlation to the actual actions practiced by the warning receiver. I contacted administrators because nobody noticed me dealing with multiple people alone - and informed the matter at hand to editors who have contributed to dealing with IP vandals within the article [Goguryeo]]. I have never refused to discuss the article content on the article talk page. This is a complete lie. I have no false accusations, an of course none to withdraw. And of course, Hijiri 88 finds ways of falsely accusing me of all the things that he has done to me - 'hounding' cannot be defined by a single instance of action. And I did not leave a "please block message", I have left the same message that to inform administrators that you are hounding me. The accumulation of blatant usage of false accusations are clear, and has been repetitive for Hijiri 88, I now suggest him to be blocked. Wandrative (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Wandrative: [207] Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons was "all in proper correlation to the actual actions practiced by the warning receiver"? Could you link to the specific edit that prompted that warning? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes: "promoting this minority/fringe view" Here, is a form of clear defamation, harming the reputation of the individual doctors and authors who published the credited sources. Wandrative (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That comment (actual diff here) was clearly directed at you, not the various authors of your still-unspecified sources. Accusing other editors of "defaming" you by responding to your comments on a talk page is a borderline WP:NLT-violation, and even if he had been talking about some author of a source you were citing, that would be covered by the longstanding consensus that BLP doesn't bar us from discussing our sources and even describing them as "fringe", as long as we don't go around posting harassing remarks about specific individuals with no relevance to article content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a disortion. I did not 'promote' anything, I reversed the edits to properly represent the sources that these doctors published, and User:Zanhe wrote that doing do is "promoting this minority/fringe view" here, which explicitly targets these individuals. WP:NLT applies to "external legal process; that is, outside Wikipedia." once again you are harassing me with false accusations. Wandrative (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No distortion. I may think you are promoting a fringe theory or nationalist agenda, but that's not what I said above: what I said was that Zanhe said you were promoting those things, to disprove your above claim that he was talking about some "individual doctors and authors". This is what I meant when I said you keep refusing to provide evidence for your accusations, instead just shifting into new accusations. And I said "borderline" because that's what it was -- when you accuse other Wikipedia editors of "defaming" you (or libelling you, or anything else of the sort), that is normally treated as a borderline legal threat, and editors have been indefinitely blocked for making such comments and wikilawyering over their not having explicitly said "I will sue you" after being asked to withdraw them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Supporting the statements to match the citations is not "promoting a fringe theory". Again, you are defaming the sources, and thus its authors. And again, deception used to make it sound as if I claimed that you 'defamed' me. Wow. Where did I ever say that? You are supporting the defamamtion of the cited sources. Wandrative (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Creating a hoax via rationalization. You are effectively using someone else's statement to accuse me of false things. Because of this I have investigated the validity of such an accusation and proved that it was bogus by acknowledging that the "racist rant" was not actually racist, but a particular obsolete interpretation to falsely accuse an innocent. And to rationalize that I'm "owning" it by supporting its claims. In the matter of fact, you are "owning" Zanhe's vandalization by continuously supporting and defending it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandrative (talk • contribs)

"Complete lie" is not what you ought to be saying. Anyway, that's a lot of text, but zero diffs. It's not looking good, Wandrative... El_C 07:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wandrative: "hoax"? "effectively using someone else's statement to accuse me of false things"? How could you get the above from the racist rant was by a different, long-blocked editor? Would you mind actually explaining your accusations, preferably with evidence, before moving on and making new ones? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I am going to post one reason by one: Claiming that "Wandrative (talk · contribs) is exhibiting very similar behaviour to Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs)" would be considered as personal attack, and you did not write any reason as to why that is the case. If you are to argue that the recovered post is "racist", then the phrases: "it's an indisputable fact that many Korean nationalist editors on Wikipedia (usually ones with poor English abilities) have a habit of interpreting "Korean" when used in English scholarly literature" and "Assuming this is not ethno-nationalism trying to assert that the Koguryons were "Korean" like modern Koreans and unlike modern Chinese", posted by Hijiri 88 here is also a racist rant. These are quotes directly coming from the editor, unlike the case used towards me. And the fact that Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs) was blocked was emphisezed -> I will emphisize that Hijiri 88 himself was blocked multipe times. Wandrative (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, you did restore a racist rant written by REN, after REN had been thoroughly blocked for his racist rants and other, even more reprehensible, behaviour, and are continuing to defend the rant here by calling it "not even racist" and "not actually racist", and you here expressed a belief in a conspiracy theory that "Sinocentrics" "desire to successfully incorporate [Korea] into its own entity", which is the same kind of moon logic REN was engaged in before he was blocked. And how is it "also a racist rant" to assume that other editors are not engaging in ethno-nationalistic POV-pushing and historical revisionism? Are you going to back up any of your accusations, or are you just going to keep making up new ones? Your digging a hole here... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

'Sinocentrics' does not represent a race or ethnic group. It represents an ensemble of people who adhere to the same set of goals and values. The phrases: "Korean Nationalist" and "modern Koreans" are phrases that represent race and a certain ethnic groups. Wandrative (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Umm... I didn't say Sinocentrics were a race or ethnic group; I said that your expressed belief that they were trying to take over Korea was a bogus conspiracy. And you haven't explained how my assuming that there was no nationalist POV-pushing was racist: in fact, that assumption is one that I am required to start from. Why do you keep dodging the questions? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment User:Zanhe has once again harassed me by saying that I have a nasty habit of calling people vandal. I unfortunately got into reporting many vandal activities because such events are very common on the Goguryeo article. But apparently it is because 'I am the problem', not the situation bombarded at me (Comment on content, not on the contributor) - another personal attack. You have deliberately erased credible cited csources in co-relation to the statements given in the article. You have altered the statements to contradict the cited sources also. This is a "Blanking, illegitimate" type of Vandalism. But the fact is continueously denied. Wandrative (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment User:Zanhe speaks of neutrality, and provided instances of him arguably adhereing to it. Firstly, the problem is not even about neutrality, but about erasing cited content as mentioned above. It has little relation to neutrality. Secondly, the instances of removing "Korea" was far more frequent then removing "China", giving the impression that it was deliberately planned. Thirdly, denying Goguryeo of being a Korean entity is already not a neutral point of view, as cited on the sources already in the article. Lastly, I forgot to mention that "Sneaky vandalism" type vandalism also took place in the previous comment.Wandrative (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, you brought this dispute to ANI, and now that it's started turning against you are presenting it as though it were a content dispute? Secondly, of course removing one of the two instances of "Korean" from the opening sentences is popular: it's redundant and poor writing. Thirdly, "Korea" did not exist as a distinct entity until after Koguryo fell; by definition, distinct Koguryo and the national entity called Korea never existed at the same time, and it's only Korean ethnic nationalism that projects "Korea" back to the Three Kingdoms period; when sources call Koguryo a Korean kingdom, they are using geographic shorthand to refer to the Korean Peninsula. Lastly, what? Are you referring to my "sneakily vandalizing" my own comment by retroactively adding the diffs that I said I would? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to stop accusing users in good standing of vandalism without proof. I won't warn you again. El_C 09:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I will post the proof in 10 minutes. Wandrative (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You brought this dispute to ANI. You should have gathered the diffs before coming here, like Zanhe did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I already have, I was just not aware what 'diffs' were supposed to mean.

Diffs are the things you get when you click the "diff" link on a contribs log or a revision history. The below is not diffs, and is not evidence of any problematic behaviour, let alone "vandalism". In fact it's word-for-word the same as what you already posted on multiple users' talk pages earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The content that has been subject to this event are these two qualities:

1- "Goguryeo (고구려; 高句麗; [ko.ɡu.ɾjʌ], 37 BCE–668 CE), also called Goryeo (고려; 高麗; [ko.ɾjʌ]), was a Korean kingdom[4][5][6]" The two editors mentioned above are constantly removing the bolded word; which goes against these three supporting articles cited.

"Koguryo". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 15, 2013. States that Goguryeo as one of the three Kingdoms of Korea Byeon, Tae-seop (1999) 韓國史通論 (Outline of Korean history), 4th ed, Unknown Publisher, ISBN 89-445-9101-6. Emphasizes Goguryeo as one of the most powerful Korean State that arose throughout Korean History "Complex of Koguryo Tombs". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 2013-10-24. The current article simply talks about its geographical location. However, the article stated that Goguryeo was Korean when it was retrieved.

2- "Goguryeo has been described as an empire by many scholars", "Goguryeo was a powerful empire and one of the great powers in East Asia" Phrases in relation to the bolded word are getting removed alongside their supporting citations:

신형식 (2003). 高句麗史. Ewha Womans University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9788973005284. Retrieved 12 September 2017. 이덕일; 박찬규 (2007). 고구려 는 천자 의 제국 이었다. 역사의아침. ISBN 9788995884973. Retrieved 12 September 2017. Roberts, John Morris; Westad, Odd Arne. The History of the World. Oxford University Press. p. 443. ISBN 9780199936762. Retrieved 15 July 2016. Gardner, Hall. Averting Global War: Regional Challenges, Overextension, and Options for American Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 158–159. ISBN 9780230608733. Retrieved 15 July 2016. Laet, Sigfried J. de. History of Humanity: From the seventh to the sixteenth century. UNESCO. p. 1133. ISBN 9789231028137. Retrieved 10 October 2016. Walker, Hugh Dyson. East Asia: A New History. AuthorHouse. pp. 6–7. ISBN 9781477265178. Retrieved 20 November 2016

All these sources explicitly describe Goguryeo as an empire or have been described to have developed into an empire. In fact, the main thesis of the first two articles is about Goguryeo being an Empire. The same sources also state that Goguryeo is Korean.

"Sneaky vandalism": "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts)" link occurs in these instances-> here,here Wandrative (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I went through the above, and none of it supports the vandalism claims: in fact most of it is word-for-word the same as the multiple "canvassing" diffs I posted above, or at least the one sent to Ronhjones, which is the only one I read in detail. I almost get the impression Wand posted an article-content-focused wall of text in an attempt to scare off any admins who might have actually tried to read it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

find the diffs yourself by reading the entire thing. It's inside the comment. You are only lying to deny your chargesWandrative (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Other diffs supporting the initial section claim

-Complete blanking of recent talk page sections:[208][209] -Harassment incorporated with false accusations (deliberate factual errors included):[210][211][212][213][214][215][216][ -Racial Harassment:[217][218] -Defaming Credited Sourced Content:[219][220] Wandrative (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@El C: Would you mind telling Wand not to accuse other editors of "racial harassment" without evidence? The two diffs he gives above clearly are nothing of the sort. Also, reporting someone on ANI for blanking sections of their own talk pages is pretty outrageous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I will be back in 12 hours - Im only humanWandrative (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang time

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

---

Okay, Wandrative (talk · contribs) has been given far too many last chances at this point. I'm proposing he be indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia, with preliminary unblock conditions set as (a) an indication that he has read and understood WP:VANDAL, WP:NPA, WP:CANVAS, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPO, and promises not to make such accusations again, and (b) an indefinite topic ban from "Korean history, broadly construed". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support But I think you should expand it to Asian history, or else he's gonna try to skirt around it by just removing China from things. --Tarage (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Soon after waking up, I logged onto Wikipedia and found that a huge discussion had happened on my talk page overnight, concluding with it being closed because it was redundant to this even longer discussion. I'll stay out, since a lot of other people have already participated; just saying this so that nobody thinks I forgot to respond. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As supported by the reasons mentioned throughout the talk page. This proposal by itself is a prime indicator of Hijiri 88 abusing his merit to Hound WP:HOUND me (Campaign to drive away productive contributors). Please note that he launched this poll once I indicated that I was going to be gone for 12 hours. The majority of his 'warnings' are based on false charges, as mentioned above. Wandrative (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• support indef; TBAN on anything about relationships among asian nations would be OK (so would be OK to write about anything in geography or culture but not a word about wars, who owns what island, etc). Wand does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia and does not understand how the community works and how we resolve disagreements about content, which is why "indef". But perhaps if we would just restrict them from their main passion, they could learn what we do here. Standard offer, in either case. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggest editors to be fully aware of the event before making potentially unjust decisions. I saw that Wandrative (talk · contribs) has been involved with combating disruptive editorials in Goguryeo, but over here he seems to be getting punished for doing so. TheDistinguished (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• TheDistinguished (talk · contribs) seems to always pop out to support Wandrative when the latter is in need. I've opened an SPI here. Can an admin take a quick look? -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Continued personal attacks after numerous warnings from editors and administrators. -Zanhe (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Notice -> This thread needs more attention from administrators

The majority of this section is composed of Hijiri 88, User:Zanhe, and my comments. The talk page only recieved direct involvement from just one admin (El_C). The high activity between the three of us seems to give the illusion of it being highly participated by many people. Wandrative (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Doc James

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

---

I believe that Doc James is censoring research that is not in line with his ideology.

This is the notice I posted on his Talk page: You have now reverted several edits I have made. The sources I have provided are of the highest standard, from experts and relevant to the subject area in which they were posted.

The only explanation you have given was for your initial revert, yet after this you have given no explanation. --Lifechariot (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on Talk:Antisocial personality disorder#Issues it seems like the sources you use are unsuitable and the ones that were removed earlier were as well. Merely being reliable - and another Wikipedia article is not - is not enough for medical topics, see WP:MEDRS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus--Lifechariot (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC) - I have read the [[WP:MEDRS]. I have just commented on the Talk:Antisocial personality disorder#Issues so you can see the issue. The criteria and reasons for the sources being 'unsuitable' are questionable to say the least, and one of the reasons was that I didn't include page numbers with reference to the books I cited when I most certainly did include page numbers in the editable description of the citation box.--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are the sources: 31 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753321/--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

32 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19673052--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

33 A. Damasio, Looking for Spinoza p95 ISBN 978-0156028714--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

34 The effects of oxytocin and vasopressin on partner preferences in male and female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-01069-019--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

35 Chapter57 p1097 The role of emotion on pathways to positive health, Handbook of Affective Sciences ISBN 978-0195377002 --Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

36 Oxytocin increase trust in humans http://www.nature.com/articles/nature03701.epdf?referrer_access_token=_rosrdsgLVbkc_w_S4mVvtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OSeVDAGS1CccKyFlI3yIpmkyVdRy4cN3s8zIYqVa2HlvbsHX-xGbYOl72QntD0BXmmYhP065XXMZDwKBtjX11fRGePEVG8aXyIJEYv4AgQNR2eHbF5Nmm2HYaY2DR3AEjmFR692ry1d5svaaM_1H2J_p1vqwoKyaxagCqu06YMZx_GC__Gt_TrWEaUN9xO6ZaOqV4tRCjUfw6L3SBoP0aI&tracking_referrer=johnhawks.net--Lifechariot (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no access to the book source, but none of the other sources comply with WP:MEDRS. I appreciate that OP is new, and making good faith contributions, but really needs to read MEDRS more carefully, and heed the welcome message on his talk page from Doc James. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

For example, the article by Cho, DeVries, Williams, and Carter on Microtus ochrogaster (the link doesn't work for me; this one does) is presumably quite reliable for vole biology and psychology, so if you're making a relevant statement about voles in an article mostly covering human medicine, it might be great (for example, the first sixteen words of A study of oxytocin and vasopressin use in Microtus ochrogaster found such-and-such a result, so biologists tried it in humans and hoped for the same result, but their attempt failed spectacularly), but using it to make statements about human medicine would be inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• This posting is inappropriate. Look at the OP's contribs Special:Contributions/Lifechariot. Other than making drama here (and the associated Talk page notice, which is unlovely), here are their edits to WP:

• diff 15:13, 24 January 2018
• diff 12:28, 26 January 2018
• diff 09:39, 27 January 2018

None of that is useful. After posting here they did make one TP comment, here, which is typical of a newbie, aggressive advocate - defensive and wikilawyering instead of trying to learn.

Like many advocates who come here, this person is so far unable to see WP for what it is, is unwilling to learn, and has instead gone on the attack. So indef them, and if they are able to provide some kind of unblock request that shows they understand that wikipedia is not some blog where we write whatever we like and flame people who disagree, they can be unblocked. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I thought about ways we might turn this around, but looking at the contributions and the anger, long experience suggests that, say, warning of DS/PS would be a waste of time and we'd just be back here in a week or less with more disruption. This is a case of WP:RGW, and the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, so I have blocked. If anyone thinks they can bring the user round to productive editing they are completely free to unblock and try something different. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Above reasoning is a prime example why Wikipedia lacks editors. Nowhere i see a single reason which would justify an indef block/ban of this new editor. The editor basically did three edits, then came here to complain about unexplained reverts (without edit warring), and got denied. prokaryotes (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The user came here to bring WP:TRUTH about a long-standing problem area of quackery and rapidly showed familiarity wit Wikipedia that is incompatible with the edit count. But, as I say, if another admin thinks they can turn this around, I'm not going to stand in their way. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Self-promotional messages

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

---

After this CfD nomination, User:Shvestko Dmitriy keeps harrassing CfD with self-promotional messages at random places (i.e. not in the discussion about that particular nomination), see [221], [222] and [223]. A request to stop at the the user's talk page apparently didn't help. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user per WP:NOTHERE. The self-promotion and the repeated edits made to CfD above show me that this user has a different primary goal or purpose of being here, and it's not to contribute to the project. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Removal of User:Ukpong1's userright by User:Smartse

User:Ukpong1 was stripped of his new page patroller and autopatrolled rights by User:Smartse because he feared they were using them for undisclosed paid editing. He first templated them about his suspicion and without giving them a chance to explain, he stripped them of their userright. I've gone over the articles and I don't think it is abundantly clear they were involved in paid editing. Ukpong1 has created over 240 articles and a couple of them are expected to be about business individuals and coorporation. I fear if we continue this fight again paid editing without getting enough evidence at first, we might be getting at the wrong people. I'd love an independent review of Smartse's action and for the community to see if it was actually appropriate. I understand the community view on paid editing but with over 240 articles, we cannot just handpick 6 articles -of which none have been deleted and accuse an editor of paid editing. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing dscussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ukpong1. If such a prolific (quote: "over 240 articles") is under suspicion, and currently being discussed, then revoking the rights is a good call. At the end of the scrutiny/discussion, if the editor is found "not paid", then the rights can be reinstated. If they are found to be paid, then the removal is necessary. In all, I believe currently everything is okay. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. Let's wait until the other discussion reaches consensus or is deemed not to have consensus before deciding anything here. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I welcome the scrutiny but I stand by my decision. There are some very specific hallmarks of paid editing that I identified in ukpong1's articles. Some are clearly not UPE but the ones I've listed at coin fairly obviously are. I'm hesitant of saying what they are in public as that limits our ability to detect them in the future but there's almost no other way of explaining it. AP and NPP are rights and if there is a any chance that those rights are being abused then it makes sense for them to be removed. SmartSE (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• ANI is not the correct forum for this review (that would be AN), but for what it is worth, I endorse Smartse's decisions. I just went through 3 of the articles listed at COIN, and agree that they were likely commissioned. Stripping autopatrolled is definitely justified. This isn't technically a reason for revocation of the NPR flag, but I think it makes sense given the concerns raised, and is justified under IAR. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Smartse's action. On a point of nomenclature, perhaps, but we shouldn't really refer to them as "Rights": they are granted to benefit the encyclopaedia, and can be removed for the same reason—but there is no inate "right" to them. IMHO of course. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: I mostly use the term "flags". I will blame this instance on my keyboard for being slippery. "Slip of keyboard, not tongue." —usernamekiran(talk) 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, usernamekiran, flags is a pukka description. After all, they can be raised and lowered too :) -and burnt, of course, but hopefully it doesn't come to that  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I also endorse the removal of advanced permissions while COIN assesses this editor. Abundantly the right thing to do given evidence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Wilde (author) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HolidayMe (2nd nomination) for starters. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal as well. Obviously a user who is under scrutiny for UPE should have their New Page-related permissions revoked, pending their exoneration. If you disagree with a legitimate exercise of administrative discretion, perhaps raise your concern with the admin first, or ask for further information, before running to the drama boards calling for community oversight. AN/I shouldn't be a first step. You shouldn't arbitrarily request community reviews of admins if you haven't even attempted to discuss the issue with them. Swarm ♠ 22:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Slow-burn bot wars

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

---

Moved to WP:BOTN#Slow-burn bot wars

Primefac (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Sanathndk and Sri Lanka Signals Corps

I edited the Sri Lanka Signals Corps article a couple times a few months ago in an attempt to clear up some of the problems with grammar and referencing, and User:Sanathndk began making edits with no support in the citations I'd used, which was the Corps' official website. He also started making edits to the formatting of officers' names and their initials, making, for instance B.H.M.A (which I'd put in, following what I'd observed as general Wikipedia style on initials) with B H M A, and then began loading the article with strings of postnominals after nearly every officer's name. When I tried reverting these to prevent the article from becoming one long mess of abbreviations, he reverted the edits giving no explanation of why he was doing so. I then gave up making any edits to the article when this email was sent to me, but went ahead and wrote him a message on his talk page, to which I've had no reply.

This guy clearly believes the page is his property, and while the issues here are minor, the problem lies in the fact that he's made no effort to engage in a discussion, and is loading the article with fluff and unverified information. I noticed just a while ago that he's gone ahead and put in another inline citation which is just a link to the frontpage of the Sri Lanka Army website, which doesn't back up the statement he's used it as a citation for. I'd undo this, but at this point, I don't want to get called out for creating an edit war. Could someone have a look through this all? - ක - (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV push and general obstruction on Immigration to Sweden

For over a month we have been trying to fix Immigration to Sweden which has one of the worst subsection written on all of English Wikipedia. Every attempt to improve it regarding the NPOV and staying on topic has been blocked by user Snooganssnoogans who is lying about the edits he makes in the summary and gives false information here on WP:ANI,WP:NPOV Noticeboard and on the talk page. This is not allowed according to Wikipedia:Don't lie. He also engage in edit wars to obstruct improvements. Last time here he managed to steer away attention from the topic to some meta discussion about sociology, but let's focus on his false edit summaries as of today [224]. He knows very well that this is not repeated information. What he is trying to censor is the 1996 report which goes against the finding of his favorite professor Sarnecki. This is the edit he tries to censor.

Immigrants have been overrepresented in crime in over 25 different studies since 1974, with the latest being the 2005 from Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. In 2017 demands of an updated report was denied by Minister of Justice Morgan Johansson.

In the 1996 Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention immigrants where showed that children of immigrants where 40 % more likely to commit crime regardless of socioeconomic status in Sweden.

He know perfectly well that this is new relevant information for the article that balance the current NPOV issues. He has never made any attempts to fix the various repetitions in the section and even blocked attempts to remove them[225]. The section clearly needs improvement of flow and include missing perspectives. He also lied in his first comment here on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Can you block him from editing anything related to Sweden so that we can improve the articles? He has been breaking Wikipedia:Don't lie so many times that you should even consider removing the policy if he don't gets banned this time. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find it in the archive? But the last API session also received a lot of comments between different administrators saying "it would be good if someone [admin] reviewed the edits, but I don't feel like doing it myself". Maybe we could avoid this here on the third attempt.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

References

This seems to be the last ANI incident on this topic. Is that what you are referring to? Paul August ☎ 18:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I did try to search the archive, but good thing you found it. As you see he lies about the edits I made there as well. Claiming they were about Sanandaji to distract the administrators from accusation. He also tried to associate me with an edit that used Sweden Democrats as a source, which is obvious less than ideal since they are a poltical party with an agenda of their own. Notice how they refuse to discuss Sno and instead ask each other if they can review my edits. There is also the NPOV Noticeboard discussion that I started after last ANI section, but it hasn't been gaining any attention. What to do now?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - This editor -- User:Immunmotbluescreen -- has been involved in reports here at least three times recently. I think it's time to take a good hard look at them in terms of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:NPOV and other policies to see if a sanction of some sort is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I think that is rather overdue. This year is a general election in Sweden, and so there is of course a risk that WP is used as a platform for alternative interpretation of fact, such as in the edit quoted above. (But Swedish politics is one area I try to stay away from on Wikipedia, so I am not going to wade through that quagmire myself. I am too fond of my shreds of sanity.) --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure! You will not find any flaw. But that is another discussion. Start your own ANI. I started all three reports you mentioned (and they were only about Sno), but no one is willing to discuss the abuse of Sno.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to start another thread. Like all editors who bring complaints to ANI, you are subject to scrutiny for your own behavior. First, don't call other editors liars. Second, don't accuse other editors of bias. Third, the main reason you're here is because you were blocked for a year at se.wiki last month (with multiple blocks preceding the latest block), and it appears that your behavior there is similar to what it is here. You're walking on very thin ice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: You also failed to notify Snooganssnoogans of this thread. You'd think after so many ANIs, you'd know that such notification is required. You and Snooganssnoogans have already breached 3RR at Immigration to Sweden, and I'll block either of you if you revert again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

First and second, Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith suggests that you should in fact notify administrators of lies and bias. Third, it is no secret that I don't get along with the administrators at se.wiki or anyone else who is against NPOV (it is stead on my profile page here). If I wanted to hide this I could have used a different account and IP, but I am not hiding this. You can review that story as welland see that I am without fault there as well.

Answer me this. Do you agree the article should follow NPOV? If yes, how can perspectives other than Sarnecki's be included if Sno can lock the page whenever he want it?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Immunmotbluescreen: That is the most wrongheaded interpretation of AGF I've seen. The proper application of AGF in this instance is to assume that Snooganssnoogans is not lying and is not biased, but rather that they simply disagree with you. And this is the last time I'll say this: stop calling editors liars.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That would in turn be the most simplistic, unproductive and outright harmful interpretation of AGF I have seen. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Dealing_with_bad_faith "Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence." I have shown you the evidence and I am now wait for administrators to be "be glad to help"--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the other comment, this is an issue that Immunmotbluescreen is creating by their editing. They were also warned about WP:BOOMERANG as well last time they created a ANI on this topic. ContentEditman (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Request review of closure at Disk storage

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

---

Moved to WP:AN § Request review of closure at Disk storage

 – per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Swarm ♠ 23:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Could someone have a talk with User:Rhapsowflake

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

I think this person means well, but they really don’t seem to be getting what Wikipedia is and how it works. Their writing style is very strange, for example: Among picnics, moon hikes, and more gatherings, the staff has been prudential in safely keeping the earthen world's festschrift in its news publishing. Kathleen Doane wrote "Good Times," an article in the NewsLeaf, a charming piece journaling the nonprofit hub's years of Milfordic turns, environmental twists, and bedazzling to be the well-kept haven. And at Talk:Cincinnati#Food section, where I criticized some other weird writing that is not from this user, they first said Only a fat slob would edit that out. I pointed out that that was unhelpful, and they have now accused me of being a “neurotic freak” along with some other bizzare nonsense [226].

Since I am editorially involved here I cannot get involved as an administrator, and for whatever reason nobody else seems to be watching these pages even though one is about a major city. Asking for an uninvolved admin to step in and take whatever action they deem necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhapsowflake has finally used an article talk page, and what they wrote is not promising:

• Writing? What should be read if your sloppy takeoffs are from Ohio., and
• There is no sense to believe it doesn't read well compared with other takeoffs. In like, mild, weather where water we knew freezes, life dealt with less neurosis than other species in warmer weather. You've never been accountable for wrong, or deserve to live somewhere faraway from Cincinnati where people think United States have no fare; neurotic freak, you!

I don't know if this is someone who cannot or will write standard English but none of this is standard English. Between that and their combative and attacking attitude, it is not clear where this can possibly go that ends with the person remaining a member of this community.

User:Rhapsowflake two questions --

1. are you capable of writing standard English and if so would you please reply here and demonstrate that?
2. are you aware that it is unacceptable to attack another editor when dealing with a content dispute? (Please see WP:FOC and WP:NPA)?

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is also worth noting that they tend to make only one or two edits each session, and are not on every day, so it may take some time to get anywhere, and may need to continue on their talk page if it sits here too long without a reply from them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, this is some of the most bizarre writing I've ever seen; it's like we're talking with a machine translation. (Beeblebrox, given your comment at WP:ITN/C about the earthquake, you do live somewhere faraway from Cincinnati :-) I've removed one bizarre bit, adding {{details|Stewardship}} to the wooded-areas section of Cincinnati Nature Center (the Stewardship article doesn't provide extra details on the CNC's woodlands), and now chiming in at Talk:Cincinnati. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I grew up and spent the first part of my adult life in the Cinncinatti area, but I’ve been in Alaska for nearly 20 years now. I was pleasantly surprised to discover there was an article on the CNC, we were long time members and my dad used to take us there a lot, but then I found all this weird prose and started trimming it, and here we are... All Rhap seems to have added to the food section at the main Cincinnati article is the words “kale salad” so I’m not clear on why they are so defensive about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a good chance that User:513CincinnatiGroove, the user who added the weird prose to the food section, is the same person. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please block spammer

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

---

• modern.place: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Vinogradov8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have nominated the page for spam blacklist. User removed the notice and re-added the spam today, "replacing a broken link". Not. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done I was already in process of blocking use when I saw the ANI notice on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Mopped indeed, or possibly flaming sworded... (I know I know, the spelling's off, but come on. It's the same name.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

They think they're slick

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

---

When in reality, they're not. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 21:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello

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

---

I want Create Iranian Singer Babak Rahnama's Article But This Article Is Blocked Please Unblock This Article, I Have Account In Wikipedia Thanks 2.191.37.48 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You may file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level although it would probably be better to work on the article as a WP:DRAFT. MarnetteD|Talk 21:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Or we could block the IP as yet another sock. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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