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

Hundreds of garbage articles created by blocked user

John Carter (who is currently blocked indef) has created 655 pages. So far, 103 have been deleted and another group are at AfD. They are nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal ad Dayt for an example. I clicked on some of the notices on his talkpage about other creations that were deleted and they are nonsense as well. It would probably be a good idea for someone to review all of these articles, because this is a pretty poor track record. I do not want to go through 500 pages on my own. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Alexandermcnabb is meticulously combing through these. There are several threads on A's talk page regarding these including this one User talk:Alexandermcnabb#A cup of coffee for you!. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a saint. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I accept the beatitude with grateful thanks. Mind, I could use some help. There IS some good in there, the odd nugget, but there's an awful lot of total rubbish and over the past ten years it's spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of WP-derived web pages in/about the UAE. Each of those damn stubs has, in ten years, created a virtual universe of non-existent places offering tours, trips, car hire, shoes - maps citing WP, WP citing maps. He made his whole own UAE on WP. I've been AfDing the articles individually (which has caused some irritation, I know, but a) I didn't know how to bulk AfD and b) I was scared of WP:Traincrash. There were a few of the 'settlement' stubs which had their staunch defenders despite the places totally lacking in notability, for instance this Dahir, Fujairah and this one, which is a residential block in the city of Ras Al Khaimah Al Mataf). I'm now trying to bulk AfD them where relevant but have to admit the task is Augean. I didn't know he'd created 655 pages and do fervently hope they aren't all UAE stubs because it's caused an immense amount of confusion and damage. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I reached the end. He's created thousands and thousands of categories and redirects, but appears to have only (relatively) briefly focused on the UAE's geography. Someone may like to take a look at the rest of the creations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dang... that's a lot of articles. Thank you, Alexandermcnabb, for going through them. Looking at the user's contributions and filtering to show only mainspace edits that are page creations, there's... wow... a ton of redirects that go many years back. If I can be of any assistance, or if any tools like Special:Nuke might make anything go faster, let me know and I'll be happy to help. We just want to make sure that we don't go crazy and delete anything that is legitimate and shouldn't be. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah but I'm done with my bit - I got involved when his edits touched geography in the UAE and I stumbled on the considerable mess that got left behind - and that's what I've been cleaning up, article by article and AfD by (sometimes contested!) AfD. But I'm no good on the Wiki procedural stuff (what's a valid redirect, what's not? Are all those thousands of categories necessary/needed?). I'm a little concerned that if all that other stuff is of the same quality/utility of the stuff I found, and where I have occasionally dipped in while paging through his edits to find if he'd done any more UAE stuff I hadn't so far found (I didn't see that he had) it was of dubious utility as far as I could see. But I am no WP procedural wonk, I have to leave that to you guys! Even making a bulk AfD work had my head bursting... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts, given the scale of the issue here, why don't we simply nuke first and ask questions later ie delete them all, and if any turn out to be notable (unlikely) in the future they can be restored? GiantSnowman 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: it seems like Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987; see Google Books profile) was cited, but without page numbers. I think Wikipedia:RX might be able to supply a copy? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have took a couple more articles of the UAE stubs that are not notable to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Did you find any of the articles to be correct or were they all garbage? Natureium (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: There were a couple of names were right (but they were still nine-word stubs with wacky pins), a couple of the settlements scraped through AfD. 98% cruft, I'd say. Are there any left to nuke? Thought I'd got 'em all. It's the non-UAE stuff I thought might need a bit of scrutiny!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree all of the UAE stubs need to be mass nuked. It's exhausting AfD and exhausting the time and patience and research of many users to have to deal with them. I agree this is a Neelix-level cleanup, but unfortunately unlike the Neelix creations, since these are articles (as opposed to redirects), the hundreds of inaccurate decade-old stubs have created a massive amount of misinformation spread all over the internet. This is, literally, a Wikipedia's worst nightmare scenario. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of slightly changing the title of this thread to emphasize the scale of the problem. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support a mass delete, to make it crystal clear/easy to see for reviewing admin. GiantSnowman 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment even though he cited the Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987), he never cited page numbers, ISBNs, etc. There really is a Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates published by the Defense Mapping Agency so hopefully someone gets a copy of it and actually uses it... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Gazetteer_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates I am checking to see if I can get the table of contents and/or the index from this book. That way I can share it with other Wikipedians and it can be determined which pages are needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• support nuking all the articles. I will go through all the creations after 18 hours from now. If something that exists and is notable, someone would create it again eventually; and these creations can be reviewed as they come in. There is no point in wasting time and energy veryfying everything that this editor has created. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I do think people are scared away of re-creating deleted pages, even if the topics do turn out to be notable. However I am not opposed to a mass-delete as John Carter did a poor job of citing things. By getting the index it can make verification much easier. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Funnily enough, I took another one of these stubs to AFD as John Carter pin-pointed the location directly in the sea. This is absolutely awful and the creator said that it is "a location in Fujairah". I support a careful mass-deletion of these stubs. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • All valid arguments. But I still feel this is the best option. Or maybe we can draftify everything? Upon verification, it can be added back to mainspace. Is there any way to avoid deletion of drafts after the inactivity period? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        • We've already gone through and sent a number of these to AfD. I think we're nearly done. No reason to nuke everything now. A pinpoint into the sea for a coastal area is common where the point is only accurate to degrees and minutes, between 1.1 and 11km... see: Decimal_degrees SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we need to be careful not to delete anything that has survived an AfD. A few of these places really do exist. The errors in the pin positions are largely due to rounding (not using enough decimal places) and are easily corrected. It would appear that an entry in the Gazeteer cannot be taken as proof of existence. That same data is also in online databases like geographic.org which contains all the many entries we now know definitely don't exist thanks to Alexander's work on the ground. SpinningSpark 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: do you think draftifying everything can be an option? (Kindly see my reply above.) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • No. It will just lie dormant for six months and then get G13'd. SpinningSpark 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• WhisperToMe Asked me to share how I think this all happened. In 1959, the Trucial Oman Scouts did a survey of the area by basically wandering around and asking people where they were (imagine a couple of Brits in short trousers bombing around in a Land Rover Defender). So if they stopped (and they often did) at a well with a couple of tents by it, they'd ask 'Where's this?' and the locals would shrug and say 'Well' or 'Wadi Helou' (literally, BTW, 'sweet wadi') or whatever. As far as I can tell, the Brits also used data from John Lorimer's 1915 Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf which is compendious, but contains some very quaint spellings/transliterations from Arabic. So we have a couple of VERY out of date sources (given that in 1959 the interior of the Trucial States was still bandit country and even the oil companies were having a hard time getting access to the interior and then the breakneck development of here since then, it's safe to say 99.9% of things have changed. Some haven't, which is always nice to find!). ANYWAY, that survey was picked up and used as the source of a Gazetteer in 1974 by Abu Dhabi and that source was in turn picked up by the American Defence Mapping Agency in 1987. Hope they don't use that data for targeting otherwise a bunch of wells and seasonal Bedouin encampments are really going to know what's hit 'em. So the info you're looking at is at least 59 years out of date and features mad transliteration. We still have issues with transliterating from Arabic today and place names in the UAE can often be spelled 2-3 ways on different signs. I remember going to the village of HabHab and seeing a sign on the police station 'HebHeb Police Station'. End result? Mr Carter would appear to have happily banged all those place names into WP along with 'is a city in Sharjah' or 'is a location in Ajman' or 'is a mountain' or 'is a tribal area in Dubai'. I'd say the mess is pretty much cleared up now, but the above is how I reckon we got here. What scares me is the information STOOD FOR TEN YEARS mostly unchallenged. I mean, good grief. Best to all Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And I could understand someone saying "well the Defense Mapping Agency has to know what they're doing!" Yet it turns out they had bad data. This is why I'm glad I inquired on the source: that way people can learn from this and take more due diligence on their sourcing. While I could understand Carter believing in the verifiability of the agency's work, I still think there should have been an effort to get page numbers, and also to get some background info on the source before using it. That's also why I have Wikipedia articles written on books being used by Wikipedia as sources: so people know about the sources they're using. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I think he batch-created these articles from a geographic database which already had input the outdated information. I highly doubt he actually had the page number of anything in the gazetteer. SportingFlyer talk 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      • wow. Under these circumstances, I think we should not keep any margin for error. What I mean is, we should not have articles about towns-settlements and similar things if they dont exist. And we have no way to verify these articles; as most of the usual RS are now flawed (and/or based on something which is flawed). As I said in my fist comment, we should delete everything. If it exists, and is notable; someone would eventually create the article for it. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
        • It should be cleaned up now. Someone might want to page through the thousands of JC's redirects and category creations and decide whether they're valid, someone might want to close the UAE AfDs now (the bulk ones, of course - after some complained loudly about the volume of individual ones - have attracted few votes) but the UAE geostubs are gone, baby, gone. We've retained the few valid/semi-valid ones. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Assuming John Carter did just batch create it... it's too bad. Anyway I got scans of the original Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987) and according to that work, these are the "principal sources":

• The United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, GEOProjects (Beirut) in association with Oxford University Press, 1981.
• Joint Operations Graphic, 1:250,000, U.S. Defense Agency or U.K. Director of Military Survey, 1966-1984
• United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, Abu Dhabi, 1974.
• Trucial States, Muscat-Oman, 1:100,000, U.K. Director of Military of Survey, 1959-1971.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• oppose a batch delete of all articles created by John Carter. Some of the articles created by this user have passed AfD: e.g. Lulayyah, [1], [2]. The most recent AfD's can be seen at User_talk:John_Carter. It's true most got deleted, but not all of them.

We need a list of the entire subset of 655 articles in question that are proposed to be deleted. We need an opportunity to consider all of them, and each of them individually, as necessary. Just because 100 have been deleted, doesn't mean that entire oeuvre of the editor who has been here 10 years is equally bad. Perhaps the 100 deleted are the worst ones, and the reason so many of the others have remained is because they are not as bad as those 100? I don't know. Without the list of what is left, I cannot assess.

I do appreciate the work of Alexandermcnabb and Natureium in putting the questionable ones to AfD. It sounds like s/he might need help with that work. I might be interested in that, if the list is given and is easy to work with. Perhaps a work area that lists them all, offers opportunities for feedback on each of the articles proposed to be deleted, before they go to AfD.

Are there other examples of mass deletions? If so, where? I am disinclined to any kind of mass deletion unless it is easy to prove that *every* item in the list should not be in the encyclopedia. I am not convinced every article created by John Carter needs to be deleted.

If a group of articles were all created on one day with a piece of software as a batch file with little or no effort, and no one has touched those articles since then, I might support a batch delete of articles that were batch created. But we need to have some sort of clear standards on differentiating articles that have been around and improved and deserve to stay from articles that should never have been created in the first place.

It would be nice to hear what John Carter would say. Does he even have talk page privilege? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel were mass-deleted (actually, by me) after an extensive community discussion and some salvage attempts.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter Where is that discussed? I don't see it on his talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up, it has further links--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support mass deleting all of the stubs. While it's clear John Carter made a lot of friends on article talkpages discussing things (50% of his edits), especially in his first couple of years on Wikipedia, his mainspace edits were only 13% of his editing and left much to be desired [3]. The distressingly inaccurate and unresearched stubs, relying only on an inaccurate and extremely outdated source, are too problematic to let stand, and too numerous to pore over singly at this point after Alexander McNabb has found 99% of them to be demonstrably false (he has lived in the UAE for 25 years and has even driven to the putative sites to check on the putative locations of these inaccurate article stubs). The good will JC garnered on article talk has seemingly blinded the community to the problems of his mainspace editing. His indef is sort of symptomatic of that, in that we didn't see he was a disruptive or problem editor until well down the line. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: As WhisperToMe shows above, the stubs are based on hopelessly out of date information and archaic transliteration of Arabic that that's been through a sort of government to government Chinese Whispers process and bears almost (like 99%) no resemblance to the modern human geography of the UAE. ALL of the UAE geostubs that SHOULD have been AfDd have been nominated (it would be nice to close them all, BTW!!!!). So as far as this stuff goes, we're good. Whatever ELSE Mr Carter created needs to be scanned by an admin, IMHO, but the UAE stuff has now been cleaned up. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nuke him Better that 100 valid articles be deleted than that one blatant garbage article remain. EEng 02:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

None of this encyclopedia would be left if we nuked 100 valid articles for every 1 garbage article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I meant blatant made-up garbage articles from an editor known for making up blatant garbage. EEng 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• It'd be more productive if a couple of people could look for the AfD nominations and slip a vote in so we can get the bad articles deleted: there's a danger they'll fail AfD because of lack of consensus and remain by default simply because nobody's voted on 'em. This one Bani 'Udayd, for example. It's noteworthy that the individual AfDs I did created a fuss with some users shaking fists at me for overloading Articles for Deletion and yet the bulk AfDs have generally attracted fewer votes. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Alexandermcnabb, if you want the articles deleted, then !vote support for mass deletion. At this point no one wants to wade through another hundred AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There are a number of articles he created about the UAE which are still up, all over a decade old. Some articles are okay, like Habhab. Most are not. I support bulk deletion, but I think the articles should be carefully identified - either unreferenced stubs or only stubs referenced to the 1987 Gazetteer, which has been shown to be an unreliable source for this sort of work. SportingFlyer talk 12:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's better to err on the side of deletion, because if the article is legitimate, the sources for it will be out there and the article will be eventually reconstructed. It's far more damaging if misinformation is left in place, because as Softlavender has said, this misinformation has already spread all over the internet. This is not only very bad for Wikipedia's reputation, it's also terrible for internet users as a whole, since search engines (for some reason) have decided to use Wikipedia as a primary source of truth. In an era where "fake news" is far too common already, the deletion must be done as soon as possible to avoid further damage. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 01:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Kokborok language / topic ban for editor

Editor Abel Tiprasa has been active since March 2018 on topics relating to the Indian tribal language Kokborok. My first interaction with the editor was during NPP reviewing his article Kokborok script. The article had hallmarks of POV fork soapboxing while at the same time being poorly sourced. The deletion discussion led to the article being redirected to the main topic about Kokborok. By way of background: a) the Kokborok language is a tribal language spoken by various tribes in India; b) the written system of the language has been lost since the 19th century; c) the official writing systems are Bengali or Latin scrip; d) the choice of script is a contentious issue along a political and tribal divide; e) there is a faction within the native speaker group proposing to revitalise a native Kokborok script; f) since the ancient script is lost, the new script is at this point mere proposal, there are many proposals, none of which are adopted. This is supported by these sources: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6). In this diff the user expressed his view that the deleted article about Kokborok script would serve as platform for editors to share ideas about the future of a new script and develop a script. This is clearly not a purpose of Wikipedia. Other disruptive edits include the arbitrary change of native speakers here, addition of a proposed script from a self-created file here, unsourced POV edits such as this. I appreciate the editor's good intentions, however his edits amount to Soapboxing. In line with WP:CASTE I therefore request a topic ban on Kokborok language and script for the editor. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure we're at the point of a topic ban right now. He was warned about the discretionary sanctions on October 23 [4]. Since then, he has conducted just two edits, both of which are non-disruptive [5][6]. It's worth keeping an eye on, but I do not think action against him is warranted at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: the second of the diffs you provided may be considered disruptive: he re-instated the POV-esque content that was previously removed and which he was warned about. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe. I'd get discussion going with him and see where that leads. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been a number of conversations, such as this, where he called an edit "nonsense" assuming the other person does not speak the language and should therefore refrain from edits. This is continued here. Clear in-article soapboxing here. There is this conversation on my talk page in April about the same topic, referring him to key principles of Wikipedia. Yet the edits along this line have continued. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with you, but since the notification about discretionary sanctions was made, there's only been two edits. Other opinions may vary certainly. But, I don't see there's a need to topic ban him under the discretionary sanctions when he's barely edited since being notified of them. If the pattern continues, perhaps. For now, I think it's too early. I'm not the final arbiter here. I'm just suggesting trying to engage him in discussion again, given that he now knows about the discretionary sanctions. It's worth a shot. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, however I'd argue that the discretionary sanctions had been mentioned in the AfD in April (in which he participated), the articles are tagged as in scope and there have been attempts to communicate with the editor in March, April and September about the purpose of Wikipedia, however the edit pattern appears to indicate either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

User forcing their edits through

jmyrtle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is forcing edits through on the Hot Wheels World Race article, despite being told that their additions are excessive; Their additions are a plot section at 3,500 words, when MOS:PLOT mentions that for feature films, 400-700 is enough, and this is a direct-to-video title. Eik Corell (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

To start, I issued a final warning... But the history of this and related articles suggest that's some socking and block evasion going on. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Logged-out editing, yes--but nothing major or (right now) blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Logged out editing is not blockable? --Tarage (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• User officially warned on usertalk against WP:DE and editing logged out. If there is suspected socking via named accounts, please file a report at WP:SPI. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hot Wheels: World Race

Following on from the discussion started yesterday by Eik Corell, Brigskick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding a ridiculously long-winded plot summary to Hot Wheels: World Race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – over three and a half thousand words long, a major violation of MOS:PLOT, which recommends a plot summary of 400-700 words. I suspect the user may be a sock puppet of jmyrtle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who yesterday made similar edits. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Citizen Canine, I moved this thread under the similar one, which I have unclosed for now. The appropriate place to file a sockpuppet investigation is WP:SPI, although it's so obvious it should probably be blocked as a DUCK. Ferret, Drmies, Bueller? Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, he's breached 3RR now. Can someone block and save us the trouble of an ANEW report? Softlavender (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Opening this again because the latest iteration of the sockpuppeteer is making the same massive edit. Pinging @NinjaRobotPirate, Eik Corell, Citizen Canine, Ferret, and Drmies:. This has been going on since August. I have also requested semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Latest duck blocked, article protected. Changed jmyrtle13's block to indef. -- ferret (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Guys, wait. Jmyrtle13 is  Unrelated to Brigskick and Mrends. Those are probably Architect 134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking that, or getting it checked. Clearly they were a returning user who knew the buzzwords. Jmyrtle13 = probably NOTHERE, so s/he can stay indeffed, right? Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't know. Isn't that a little bit harsh, considering the person just got streamrolled at ANI courtesy of a troll? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:EspinosaLuisJr1791

I have been trying to communicate with this editor since November 2017, and have sent about 15 messages during this time. Other editors have sent them multiple messages on the same topic - repeatedly creating unreferenced articles. They have edited their user talk page during this time and at other times, but only to blank their page. They have been editing for two years.

Many of their creations have ended up looking like this: 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season, which has been moved to draftspace three times, but this editor just keeps moving it back to mainspace without addressing the issues. They have been offered help, links to Help:Referencing for beginners, support at the WP:TEAHOUSE, policies on referencing and communication, but they simply refuse to respond and continue to create unreferenced articles. After a year of this editor ignoring m y messages and seeing them ignore so many others, I have run out of other options and feel action needs to be taken.

This was brought to WP:ANI by Barkeep49 here [7] but the discussion doesn't seem to have got underway really and was closed without any decision being made. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree this is a problem editor. Has not responded to a single talkpage notice; instead routinely blanks the page: [8]. Has not posted on a single talkpage, period. What do you suggest? Attention-getting block? Force going through AfC? Ban on new-page creation? Etc.? Pinging Vermont, who posted on the last ANI thread. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I’d support a requirement to go through AfC, and a block if they ignore that or continue to refuse to communicate. Vermont (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a decent solution, unless someone has a better one. I support that. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd support that - hopefully it will be enough to get them to engage. If not, a swift indefinite block would be best. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think their problem is new article creation as there's really only an obligation to communicate when someone raises an issue. This editor appears to be productive outside of that. I would suggest a ban on new article creation given their disruptive recreation of articles and because AfC would mean wasting time of other editors trying to decide what to do with poorly created articles on notable topics. I would support an Afc requirement as a second choice though. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, a ban on new article creation is a stronger option, but one that's possibly necessary if the new creations have been irredeemable and time-wasting as he creates them. I support that as well as the most efficient solution. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually think now a full ban on article creation is necessary - they've continued to create unreferenced, uncategorised articles since this discussion was opened (e.g. 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season) and haven't commented here. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin) From a cursory glance, many of the newly created articles may fail WP:NSEASONS as well. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So what sanction, if any, do you support SportingFlyer? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(non-admin) I'd support either an AfC requirement or ban on new page creation - a full ban is probably cleaner - but was mostly just pointing out there may need to be some cleanup, as not all of these articles will be notable. SportingFlyer talk 20:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note to administrators: There is consensus among five experienced editors that EspinosaLuisJr1791 needs either a requirement to go through AfC or a complete ban on new article creations, with the latter being the most efficient as it would prevent wasting AfC reviewers' time. Softlavender (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Humayun Akhtar Khan

We've had ongoing problems for two weeks now with a SPA Jawswade (talk · contribs) who continually adds original research and promotional material to Humayun Akhtar Khan. When I tried to remove the OR, the user engaged in edit warring which led me to left numerous warnings on their talk page User_talk:Jawswade#October_2018. I tried to communicate with this editor via article's talk page Talk:Humayun Akhtar Khan but xe does not care to respond. --Saqib (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Might need a topic ban if he can't abide by Wikipedia policies. Pinging Diannaa and DMacks, who have also left him talkpage messages. Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup, refuses to abide by WP:V (mostly uncited or not-supported-by-cite) despite saying that the content is cited and supported. I don't know about the reliability of the claimed sources (this topic is not my expertise). And refuses to discuss it? That's not how we build a collaborative encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And now a newbie Maniiminhas (talk · contribs) has restored the OR. --Saqib (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the same user reverted again. I blocked them for 31h as a sock of Jawswade and for edit-warring. This is awkward, because edit-warring by itself would not be sufficient for blocking the user, and I can not prove they are a sock, otherwise the block would have been indef. The user also has a lot of noticed for deleted content, and the deleted edits show content was really inappropriate, which suggests WP:NOTHERE, but I got very recently some strong comments on AN which suggest that my understanding of NOTHERE is different from that of some other users, and I am hesitant to apply it in this case. If another sock emerges, the page must be protected. For the time being, I am afraid, by my revert of the edit of the presumed sock I made myself involved in the situation, and another sdministrator will have to make decisions and close this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

David Tornheim canvassing RFC with misrepresentation of its question

[9][10][11][12]

Questioned about it here and dismissed question here. Also made bizarre attempt to defend these actions by claiming that since women get harassed on Wikipedia, WP:FEMINISM and WP:WOMEN must be particularly interested in the use of the word "fuck".[13][14] I don't know what to say beyond that I can't believe he would think this behaviour appropriate. Could someone please tell him to knock it off?

Also pinging User:Guy Macon who also questioned this on Jimbo's talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) His post on Jimbo's talk page was how I found the RFC (because I have it watchlisted), but yes, it's indeed canvassing.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I commented in the RFC, I figured I'd make that disclosure (since finding the RFC was the result of David's actions), but I didn't think too much of the post on Jimbo's talk page at the time (since I've often seen people ask "Jimbo, what do you think about this?"), but these diffs are troubling. Wouldn't be a bad idea for someone to investigate how some of the participants found the RFC, since that'll definitely influence the discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The title of this thread should have been Is "(Delete unwelcome comments and accusations)" a civil way to address good faith questions asked of you at your talk page? I hadn't noticed this until now, but this is seriously not cool. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I saw it on one of the projects most respected admin's Talk page. Something should be done, as such a long term editor has no excuse for not knowing better. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Urge to tell David to fuck off... rising... --Tarage (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's rare that accusations of canvassing are this cut and dried, but the blatant misrepresentation of the question quite straightforwardly makes this canvassing, specifically, "campaigning". @David Tornheim: make no mistake, this is an incredibly serious offense that fundamentally destroys the system by which the entire project is governed. I'm removing the messages, and you need to immediately provide us with assurances that you understand that you screwed up big time and that it will never happen again, this type of thing reasonably puts you in indef territory IMO.  Swarm  talk  09:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• I refer David Tornheim to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. He did canvass, but I don't see that it had had any real effect. More troubling is the conversation he and I had on Jimbo's talk page[15] where he was a poster boy for WP:IDHT. The question is what to do. Although a short block would be justified, how about letting this one go with a strongly-worded warning? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, when I wrote this I held out some hope that David's recent disruptive editing was just the result of a good-faith misunderstanding (hence my apologizing in advance if it turned out that was the case), but his behaviour since (including not only the above unambiguous canvassing but his responding to me by attempting to ping in five users who he probably thought would disagree with me) has pretty well convinced me that he's trying to be disruptive at this point, and it's somewhat gratifying to see that Swarm, above, agrees with my opinion (unstated, except here, more than a month ago) that he might be en route to an indefinite block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• by claiming that since women get harassed on Wikipedia, WP:FEMINISM and WP:WOMEN must be particularly interested in the use of the word "fuck" Which is correct. Women have been harassed with incivility, especially the 'C word' has been an issue. See the ArbCom case WP:ARBGGTF. It's pretty obvious that abusive language is counterproductive to welcoming a diverse userbase. As for David's comment at Jimbo's talk page: yeah, he could have just used the wording of the RfC instead of the conclusion. It's not a massive strecht to say that if telling people repeatedly to "fuck off" isn't being sanctioned, then de facto we're not applying WP:CIV to that phrase. Also Jimbo's talkpage has so many watchlisters it's hardly the best place to canvass people with a specific POV, and I doubt anyone !voted on the RfC without actually reading what it's about. --Pudeo (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Women have been harassed with incivility, especially the 'C word' has been an issue. Which would be great, if the C word (or the B word or the W word, for that matter, although I've never actually seen the latter used as an insult in Wikipedia project discussions) were under discussion; "fuck off" is only gendered insofar as saying "this sucks" is -- yeah, the logic that fucking is not a bad thing while being fucked is, and that sucking is a bad thing but being sucked is fine is an unfortunate relic of a pre-1970s world where sex was inherently about male dominance, but very few people who use these expressions nowadays are even aware of their sexist origins. Furthermore, David's history of permissiveness when it comes to citing Breitbart.com as a source would appear to indicate that he's not actually a great advocate of diversity and welcoming of women and ethnic minorities on this project; it's just a cover. And it's precisely because of the large number of watchers of Jimbo's talk page that telling them that the question of whether "fuck off" is a civil expression is under discussion is problematic: he's implanting his deliberate misrepresentation of the issue on the largest audience he can. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• This section says someone is canvassing to get people to comment on an RFC. But the poster, User:Hijiri does not tell us which RFC, instead leaving us to follow likes to comments by the person accused of "canvassing". Can someone say how he misrepresents the question? This question, quoting verbatim, is this: "Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not!" The so-called "canvassing" says " hope you all weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Request_for_comment_on_the_specific_term_"fuck_off"_–_sanctionable_or_not! this discussion on whether it is civil to repeatedly say "fuck off" to other editor." How is that a misrepresentation? At WP:Canvass it says "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". His comment just says "I hope you weigh in on" the matter. That is neutral. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?

The RfC question is...

"Should the repetitive usage of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable""

...which David Tornheim changed to...

"Is it perfectly civil to say "fuck off" to other editors?"

and you can't see any difference between those two questions?

Note that this was` in the context of a strong consensus that the phrase is uncivil and the user should stop saying it, combined with a strong consensus that in many cases it is not a blockable offense -- exactly what David Tornheim purposely misrepresented. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, MH is hardly a neutral observer here. DT was one of a few editors who defended MH's own grossly uncivil behaviour (and attacks on MPants) during a recent arbitration case, and shortly before I opened this discussion (when DT could probably see it coming), DT directly requested MH contribute more to ANI discussions as a "neutral editor" and "voice against harassment".[16][17][18] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not canvassing - per WP:Canvassing:In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. It is also acceptable to notify Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) . It does not prohibit paraphrasing what the discussion is about. Some editors seem to think it is only acceptable to notify others in the manner delsort does at AfD. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• The notifications are required to be neutral and to be focused. Are you claiming that was the case here? I can't see that those requirements were met, so I'd would say that it was definitely CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• BMK - the opening statement of the RfC states: There are a few terms that may be derogatory to some but are generally acceptable in talk page/edit summary usage; amongst these, one such term is "fuck off". What statement in DT’s notice are you claiming is definitely canvassing? I’m doing my best to see all sides of this case but quite frankly, it is quite difficult to stay focused after reading the unwarranted accusations made by the OP in what appears to be an attempt to totally destroy the credibility of another editor. I find that very disconcerting, particularly this diff wherein he implies DT has something against women and minorities simply because he cited an unreliable source. WTF? And then he proceeds to attack Hardy for no apparent reason other than he simply doesn’t agree with the OP. Is the goal to polarize, intimidate and denigrate those who are opposed to the f-bomb being used in certain contexts? I consider that kind of behavior far more disruptive than using Jimbo’s highly trafficked TP to notify others about the RfC. And for what it’s worth, my grandchildren read WP, the youngest now 8 yo, and I certainly don’t want them to think it’s ok to tell people to fuck-off because they read it in WP. I think it’s time for us to start paying closer attention to how things we say effect our readers, and less about ourselves and our need to vent or let off steam. We have user TP to do that. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Atsme asks: "What statement in DT’s notice are you claiming is definitely canvassing?"

The RfC question is...

"Should the repetitive usage of the term 'fuck off' by an editor targeted at other editors be considered 'sanctionable'?"

to which the consensus is clear: often yes (out of the blue on an article talk page, for example), sometimes no (on your own talk page, responding to someone who has been hounding you across Wikipedia and who has repeatedly called you a shithead, asshole, retard and nigger, for example).

But David Tornheim didn't ask that question in his notice -- knowing that a lot of people would come to the same "context matters" conclusion. No. That wasn't acceptable to David. He had to misrepresent the RfC to make it sound like something that pretty much everyone would answer "no" to. So David Tornheim, in his notice, claimed that the RfC question was...

"Is it perfectly civil to say "fuck off" to other editors?".

Not "sanctionable".

Not even "civil".

No. he had to transmogrify the question to "perfectly civil", just to get a few extra no votes.

He knew from reading the many comments on the RfC that most of the people who responded "depends on the context" to the "is it sanctionable" question also would say "no" if asked "is it civil" and "yes" if asked "should the editor who keeps dropping the F bombs stop".

So he misrepresented the nature of the RfC in order to attract !voters who would agree with his position.

And THAT is clear and unambiguous canvassing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Guy, I disagree, even though we've pretty much been on the same page in the past, give or take a few times. The arguments I've seen so far appear more like inadvertent preconceived notions as to what DT might have been thinking. We all know the RfC is about civility that may or may not require sanctioning - it's taking place on Talk: Civility - so there's no reason for the RfC to say the word "civil". DT's use of "perfectly civil" is nothing more than bad grammar - an editor's behavior is either civil or it's not - it's either sanctionable or it's not - nothing is "perfectly" anything, so go ahead and chastise him for crappy grammar but he wasn't canvassing. More importantly, I think the attention here needs to be focused on how DT was notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#How to respond to canvassing (a behavioral guideline, not a policy). Nothing DT has posted in his notices or here was "disruptive". A few of the objections to DT's notices have been more disruptive than anything he's done. We can start with the procedure we're supposed to follow for suspected canvassing which requires a polite notice on the TP of the alleged offender. That isn't what I saw on DT's TP - the OP demanded and made allegations in his first notice to DT on Oct 27th. Look at the date/time stamp - DT did not post any notices after the OP's demand to stop. Yet, the very next day , the OP notified DT of this ANI. I just hope the behavior that needs to be noticed here is not going unnoticed. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Observation: The only way a notification of a contentious RfC is not canvassing is when it is neutral and brief, and placed on an appropriate (non-biased, non-partisan) noticeboard or non-user talk. User talk:Jimbo Wales could conceivably meet the latter requirement (although that's debatable since it is generally a space for ranting). But the first two conditions were not met, so this is indeed WP:CANVASSING, particularly since, after the initial (in this case non-neutral) post, the thread was certain to devolve into rants as noted in my previous sentence. The place to centrally advertise a contentious RfC is WP:Centralized discussion, which the RfC creator attempted to do but was over-ruled. David Tornheim's posting at Jimbo's talk seems to be a POV and non-neutral run-around. Had the user posted merely a pointer to the RfC, without commentary, and insisted that all commentary be held at the RfC and not on Jimbo's talk, that might have been acceptable, but still highly problematical since it's hard to keep rants off of Jimbo's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  I am the very model of a highly problematical. EEng 23:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fuck off. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's it. I'm reporting you at ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Softlavender gave me advice about sex and travel". 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not canvassing - per Atsme, whose reasoning and follow up comment make a lot of sense to me. Jusdafax (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Canvassing per WP:TRANSMOGRIFYTHEQUESTION and WP:PICKANDCHOOSEYOURCANVASSEES. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• This isn't a straw poll to determine whether or not it was canvassing, certainly not by involved users who agree with David in the RfC. WP:CAN specifically explains what forms of notification are considered to be "inappropriate", and manipulating the wording to get a desired reaction is quite objectively a prohibited notification practice. The RfC question was "is saying 'fuck off' sanctionable", and David, in all four notifications, falsely presented the RfC question as "is saying 'fuck off' civil". Obviously, if it were actually the latter question that was being asked, there would be an overwhelming 'yes' response, because no reasonable person would classify saying 'fuck off' as a 'civil' phrase. However, the actual question is substantially more nuanced and deals with the controversial practice of civility enforcement. David expressed a strong opinion in the RfC, and misrepresented the RfC question in his notifications in a way that would blatantly provoke a strong emotional response.  Swarm  talk  09:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Swarm, just an observation - DT asked Jimbo a question: Jimbo, I'm curious whether you think it is perfectly civil to say "fuck off" to other editors? He did not select Jimbo on the basis of his opinion; rather, he was asking for his opinion. His comment on the TP of Snow Rise was simply "I hope you all weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Request_for_comment_on_the_specific_term_"fuck_off"_–_sanctionable_or_not! this discussion on whether it is civil to repeatedly say "fuck off" to other editor." The heart of the RfC is civility, so what difference would it have made if, instead of using "civility", DT had said "....on whether it is "sanctionable" to repeatedly say "fuck off" to other editors."? At the RfC, the OP had to qualify their use of sanctionable by adding "Sanctionable" refers to the broad universe of escalating warnings, which may lead to blocks, bans, restrictions etcetera if the editor ignores these warnings. Civil was a much easier choice for a summary without having to add the details. Now on the flip side, if he had said, "Spewing profanities like "fuck-off" are unprofessional and rude so is it civil to repeatedly say fuck off to other editors? Weigh-in at this RfC." <--- now that would be Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not canvassing WP:CANVASSING states plainly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". The postings in question seemed reasonably open, limited and neutral and so were compliant with that guideline. Meanwhile others are trying to suppress listing of this RfC at centralized_discussion and that seems more remarkable. We should encourage a wide participation in this matter so that a good consensus is obtained. Of course, listing the matter at ANI will tend to have a similar effect – see the Streisand effect. Andrew D. (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The above blatant hounding of me is unacceptable and will have to be dealt with in due time, but needless to say the opinion stated therein is nonsense, particularly the jab at me in the last sentence: I'm not trying to hide the RFC, so the Streisand effect has nothing to do with it; my problem is with the blatant misrepresentation going on in DT's "notifications". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Why, after it was already pointed out that this was not a straw-poll, does it still seem like it's just editors who like DT (or don't like me, of MPants, or whoever) showing up to say it's not canvassing against everyone else? DT has gone silent since this thread was opened (his longest time not editing in two weeks), apparently in the hopes that Swarm's ultimatum will get archived before he "gets a chance to respond". @Swarm: I'd suggest you place your warning and request for an explanation/apology/promise-not-to-do-it-again on DT's talk page so that doesn't happen. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That observation about not-a-straw-poll strikes a chord with me. There are a couple of battle-lines that go back to the ArbCom GMO case (and an unrelated one that is specifically about Hijiri88), that seem to be replayed here. Whoever the admin is who decides about this should approach it with that in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, my past "beef" with David is limited to this ANI thread and its fallout (my memory of it is that David undermined a legitimate discussion I opened about a problem user with the claim that all they needed was mentoring, volunteered to be their mentor, then aggressively refused to do anything, but if I'm wrong I'd be happy to retract this if presented with evidence), and these two ANI threads and another incident related to GMO (I wasn't involved in the original case, and just commented to the effect that I thought David's block had been too short). Ironically enough, MPants actually was, basically, on David's side in the former (ANIArchive949) and that was one of the incidents I was referring to when I described MPants as having a frustratingly high tolerance and being too civil when interacting with disruptive editors in the discussion that brought on this RFC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I see what was being referred to. Yes, I suspect at least one editor showed up here specifically to undermine me without even looking at this context enough to know that the Streisand effect doesn't apply. Yes, I too hope whichever admin closes this takes factor into account before they start counting "votes". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Political soapboxing at multiple articles

• 98.113.64.235 (talk · contribs)
• Deconstructive Editor (talk · contribs)

For the IP, an often disruptive and editorializing history: [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; edit warring at Electoral College: [26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31], to the extent of arguing that the only content in the lede should regard its controversy [32]. Seems to be working toward a compromise at the college article, but the pov in all edits is evident.

The registered account appears to be associated: [33]; [34]; [35]; [36]; [37]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of this thread? I suggest OP should be blocked for creating this utterly purposeless ANI. I've contributed more useful content, more much-welcomed links to references, and more cool, crisp prose in the last 3 days than OP has in a lifetime. Yes I created that account. And? OP is a plague on the project; this, I submit, is the real issue here. 98.113.64.235 (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

More kindling: [38]; [39]. The fact that I agree is beside the point. This isn't the website for this. 2601:188:180:1481:1034:5A75:D26C:7084 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

And [40]. 2601:188:180:1481:1034:5A75:D26C:7084 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

frankly, who cares whether or not you “agree”? Nor do I care for your rude innuendo that my statements were “more kindling” when you utterly fail to indicate what precisely was wrong with any of my edits in the first place. Again, I have had enough of your harassment. Read the 3 links I posted from USAToday, Washington Post, and Haaretz regarding the question of whether Trump has contributed to or inspired mass violence with his rhetoric. My prose was nearly verbatim taken from the USAtoday article. The administration took this seriously enough for Pence himself to issue statements in response. Some “kindling”. Please stop following me around desperately looking for anything to report me on.it is harassment, and you are wasting the time of the community, and is ultimately just pathetic and sad. When you have any individual comments on deficiencies in individual edits, I’ll be happy to hear them. Otherwise, I’d ask that you quit wastinf everyone’s time with this obnoxious mass posting of all my edits without any effort to explain your objection to them, let alone to substantiate your baseless bloodlust for sanctions to be levelled against me for unspecified reasons. Enough with this nonsense. The fact that you just posted edits in which I clearly give references for claims that I state nearly verbatim from the sources should show all with eyes to see what a farce this is. Deconstructive Editor (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This IP editor has now suggested creating "Donald-Trump Inspired Mass-Violence" (diff) as a WP:COATRACK for anything vaguely related, which I feel would inherently be a WP:NPOV violation (and possibly a WP:BLP violation as well). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

why not voice your disagreement with my proposal in the relevant talk page? I have sourced a number of articles discussing this pheomenon, including the administration’s denial. Surely the voicing of a suggestion (backed by references) on a talk page is not a reasonable basis for seeking sanctions. Deconstructive Editor (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

First, I did disagree on the talk page. Second, I didn't specifically seek sanctions. Third, you seem to be admitting you are the IP editor, is this correct? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have boldly blocked both of them, as almost certainly sockpuppets of LTA User:Kingshowman. And yes, the IP did say that they were the creator of the user account. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There may be some competence issues here

• BrandonXLF (talk · contribs)

There appears to be a history of disruptive edits with templates, none of which I'd have seen but for this exchange: [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]. Inability to acknowledge the initial errors, restoring the warning to my talk page, then saying they didn't know about the policy are all unusual competence concerns for a four-year-old account. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to say I only really started editing a year ago. I legitimately didn't know about the policy. I did acknowledge the initial errors, but you told me rather then saying sorry I should just think about my editing this morning, so i stopped using huggle and did just that. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I wrote: [45]. Which sort of underscores the point about competence. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well not word for word but you said Rather than apologize for restoring unencyclopedic content and giving me a spurious warning and take a moment to rethink your editing this morning. Which is basically what I said above (and did). – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, you have twisted the context by omitting part of the sentence: Rather than apologize for restoring unencyclopedic content and giving me a spurious warning, you doubled down here... And no, you never acknowledged mistakes in the restoration of content to the article, nor the warning to me. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledged it mentally. Sure I didn't say, but when you said take a moment to rethink your editing this morning, it didn't imply I should add my acknowledgement to a talkpage. If you still need it: I acknowledge my mistakes this morning and am taking the time to think them over and learn from them I will not be using huggle for the rest of the day as a result. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment There have been quite a few problems here. While we don't do WP:COOLDOWN blocks, I think something to force BrandonXLF to change their behavior is necessary. Perhaps 0RR (appealable after a month), and possibly a ban from Template space for the same period of time? power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This wasn't done in the template space, but 0RR for a month or two seems like a reasonable approach, I do realize I need to change my editing, doing that would as you say force me too, which I'm all in for. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The thing I find most troubling is BrandonXLF's edit summary ("unexplained content removal" and warning) even though the IP provided a clear (even valid) reason for removing the content ("rv unsourced, trivial and promotional"). BrandonXLF, if there's any suggestions I can offer, please make it your business to know what you're reverting before you revert it. Falsely labeling the IP's edits as "unexplained content removal" and issuing warnings like this and this is sure to WP:BITE the newbies. I suggest you familiarize yourself more with our processes before invoking them, like for example, users are free to remove warnings from their own talk pages, that and you shouldn't restore promotional content.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon: Ok, for some reason I didn't see the edit summary (I'll be more careful next time), therefore I didn't realize it was promotional content. I will be reading WP:OWNTALK, thanks for these suggestions. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 16:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Also a complete list of our "processes" whenever you got some free time (Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggest range block for harassment: Special:Contributions/2001:D08:1808:8341::/64

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

---

2001:D08:1808:8341::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) (i.e. a single user) is repeatedly harassing Bonadea on Uppsala University ([46], [47], [48]), so I suggest a range block of whatever duration is deemed appropriate. It could be her long-time foe Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, but might also be someone else (Nsmutte geolocates AFAIK to India while these IPs geolocate to Malaysia...). I haven't notified the IP, in case someone wonders, since they have, in theory at least, millions of IPs to use, and might pop up here as any one of them... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. I don't think it's Nsmutte. GAB^gab 17:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, both. I also don't think it's Nsmutte - there are trolls in many places, it seems. Anyway, as I am a (former) librarian, there are worse slurs than ape. --bonadea contributions talk 19:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Unreasonable block. Unreasonable editor

I made six edits today, adding delete tags to articles that are clearly non-notable musician or album pages. The first two articles were indeed deleted. The other four edits were reverted and my IP address was blocked by User:Bbb23. This is really uncalled for. Every one of my deletion tags was placed with a comment explaining why the tag was valid. These articles are Jeff Oster, Alexi Musnitsky, Richard Carr (pianist), and The Fire Within (album). None of these are notable enough to include on wikipedia. As I have said, my first two delete tags were honored without question.

The editor who blocked me said these edits were disruptive. How? How about some good faith? Did you read the articles? Did you see my edit comments? Does it look like I'm a vandal? Have you heard of WP:BITE? I added the "unblock" tag on the IP address page, and also added a note for User:Bbb23. He reverted my edit on his page, too, saying that I'm avoiding a block or something, and didn't even bother to offer a response.

Wikipedia, what is going on here? I have done nothing to deserve a block. Did my IP address change between edits? I have no idea. I use a cell phone. This looks like another power-grab by a wikipedia editor. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. In no way is that editor acting in good faith. Please review the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.100.105 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2018‎ (UTC)

(non-admin) Looking through its contributions, I recommend this IP be blocked as well. SportingFlyer talk 00:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion; see 99.203.17.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.203.17.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). General Ization ^Talk 00:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not block evasion. I'm using a cell phone. I'm not in control of my IP. Please look at the four edits from today. I did not make the previous edits. I made six edits today. Two of the delete tags were honored. I was blocked after putting delete tags on these four articles. Does that honestly look like a vandal to you? Look at the proper deletion tags. Look at the comments on those edits. You're not acting in good faith. Do the edits from today resemble previous edits from the IP address?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.235.72 (talk • contribs)

By "four edits from today", you mean the ones from this IP address, right? The IP address that was BLOCKED, after which you used another IP address to make any edits outside of your user talk page, and are now using a third. If you don't see how that's not block evasion, you must not understand what the word "evade" means. Maybe you mean that it's accidental, but you should have gotten the point to stop by now. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Like, seriously, he says he tagged those for deletion in his first post, then says that wasn't him tagging them, we can close this and move on. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Where did the IP deny being the one speedy tagging? The changing IPs makes it difficult to follow their edits, but the only ones I noted them denying are the older ones. I assume they mean the racist and 'played too much' ones, and the Hitler one, and I guess also this one [49]. I'm pretty sure older ones doesn't mean the speedy deletion tags since they talked about them in the very same post. Their numbering is a little confusing, but I think they aren't counting their edits here and to Bbb's page which is dumb and confusing, but I wouldn't say is intended to mislead since they are clearly acknowledging all over the place they did it. In other words, 6 edits seems to refer to the 6 speedy deletion tags they place. They've also made about 5 edits now outside articles or article talk pages. 3 here. 1 to the IP which was initially blocked talk page requesting an unblock. 1 to Bbb's talk page saying they were wrong blocked. They aren't denying any of these edits anywhere, simply not counting the ones outside article space when they say 5 edits. And claiming they weren't block evading because their IP changes without them doing anything. (As I said below, I think we all know that's clearly wrong and they need to stop doing anything other than requesting an unblock on their talk page.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor clearly doesn't understand what WP:Speedy deletion is supposed to be. This will likely be a boomerang. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I do understand speedy deletion. The articles I tagged today -- two that were already deleted and the four remaining -- are db-band or db-album articles. IF I don't understand speedy deletion, why were my first two tags, you know, deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.34.160 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) On The Fire Within (album), WP:A9 doesn't apply because the artist has an article. Others, such as Jeff Oster, have enough (crappy) references that AfD is necessary to sort it out. I'm not sure I agree that these were so disruptive as to justify a block on their own, but there seems to be clear evasion as well. If you want to regularly do speedy deletion nominations, you're probably going to have to sign up for an account. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

After re-reading this, I'm not convinced the evasion was intentional. Regardless, I advise this person to take a week away from Wikipedia and to sign up for an account when they return if they are interested in deletion processes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with power~enwiki that it's probably best for the IP to simply stay away for a week. As I said below, I'm not sure whether the block was justified. Unfortunately your evasion seriously damages your case. You need to understand that as long as you the editor behind the edits are blocked, you can't edit with any IP to do anything else but request an unblock on your talk page. Do not edit ANI or the blocking admin's page. It doesn't matter if your IP changes outside of your control you should behave as if it didn't. And you need to be willing to listen to what others say. Even if 2 of your speedies were justified, it's looking like 4 weren't. As others have said, speedies are intended for certain clear cut cases. Anything else needs to either be WP:prodded (if it's still allowed) or AFDed. And while you're not required to sign up for an account, it makes it a lot easier particularly when you are dealing with policy related issues (including deletion in any form). It also means that provided you always edit with the account, you can't block evade. Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the range. They clearly understood that they were blocked and at multiple points decided against abiding by the block, so either they don't understand what "evade" means or they don't care about operating in good-faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (non-admin) Given the poor quality of the deletion tagging in this case, can someone review the two that were deleted? It seems likely that they were similarly of questionable qualification for speedy deletion, and deleted by someone a bit trigger-happy. (One of the albums they listed is on not one but two Billboard charts right now, and the artist does have an article. If they do understand speedy deletion, they are not following it.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I've looked but see no evidence that any of the IPs mentioned here have edited any pages that were deleted in the past year. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have to admit, I don't understand the reason for the original block. The 5 edits in May were atrocious and well worth of a block. The edit in September wasn't much better. The most recent speedy deletion nominations, even if they weren't justified, don't really seem worth of a block especially since they don't seem to have been told to stop before being blocked. 6 in fairly rapid succession (I assume, I don't know when the other 2 were nominated) is quite a lot but again it seems a simple request to stop first would have been a better solution. Even more so since 2 of those tags were honoured and even if this happened after the other 4 tags, and if the 2 that were honoured shouldn't have been, all this suggest it's not super clear cut.

  If the earlier edits were by the same editor, I may agree with the block but barring CU evidence which wasn't mentioned so I assume isn't the case or some similar editing in the deleted articles which I can't see, I doesn't seem that compelling to me. Yes the subjects all being music related is suspicious, OTOH it does look like this is a mobile device and range. The evasion ironically partially supports the idea the assignment pattern for this range makes it fairly unlikely someone had really kept the same IP for several months unless this is some sort of fixed mobile broadband shared by wifi or whatever, or perhaps if they really kept their mobile device on and without ever going out of range etc in all this time.

  Of course the post blocking evasion makes it difficult to have that much sympathy for them now. Even if they didn't intentionally change IP, if they really understood evasion they should have understood they needed to wait for their block to be lifted, either by time or by an admin rather than posting to Bbb's talk page and to here. And even if they didn't initially understand it, the fact they kept at it when people told them they need to stop sort of destroys any case.

  Still, none of the evasion I've seen more has been any more than silly 'unblock me'/'I was wrongly blocked' rather than actually editing articles or talk pages. And I'm not entirely comfortable on 'it was okay to block them since they were going to evade their block once blocked to say they were wrongly blocked' rationales.

  Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the response here is a little bizarre. I mean, the IP nominated articles some for deletion using CSD tags, rather than nominating for XfD, and I don't see what the big deal is. Yes, that would be disruptive if attempts are made to communicate and they don't stop, but an outright week-long block with no warning? That's draconian by anyone's standards, and I really don't understand it. We don't treat vandals that harshly. And then, when the IP goes to the blocking admin for information on why they were blocked, they're simply reverted without explanation, and when they come here, they're met with absolutely no consideration or good faith as to the point they're trying to make, just a bunch of robotic regurgitation of blocking policy and a range block so that they may not ask any questions. This would be a warranted response if the block was assessed to be necessary and/or reasonable upon review, but it's asinine to mindlessly enforce a block upon somebody who's only pointing out that they were unfairly blocked, and at first glance appear to be correct, and the blocking admin is not actually making any effort to justify the need for the block.  Swarm  talk  20:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Eyes requested on Talk:Jair Bolsonaro...

...For obvious reasons. I'm signing off for the night, but your help is much appreciated. GAB^gab 01:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an anti-semitic comment on the talk page of Jair Bolsonaro

"Well, he's been elected. So, Wikipedia 0, Brazil 1. (Not that an article on English wikipedia would've made a big difference, but I'm sure [REDACTED - Oshwah].)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro#Biased_article_failed_to_prevent_Bolsonaros_victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4100:9800:4864:94AA:944A:2EAA (talk • contribs)

Comment in question was left by this German IP address. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad - Sure, I'll keep it open on one of my browser tabs and keep eyes on it. Have a good night! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Paint Chat, a collection of non notable applications

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

---

• Paint chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm tired of engaging in a slow edit war on this. With the exception of two apps that already have articles here, the remainder are sourced to their websites. It's a spam repository that someone wants to keep intact. Thanks for any help. Etc. 2601:188:180:1481:1034:5A75:D26C:7084 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is not for resolving content issues. If you wish to nominate articles for deletion, there are processes to do that. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. please feel free to remove this. Thank you. 2601:188:180:1481:7DB5:CF1F:4444:67C9 (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for Speedy delete (WP:A7) and deleted. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Cosying up to trolls

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

---

Soft skin wants the Reference desk to be permanently protected and administrators appear to think it's a good idea. Since when have administrators been in the business of giving trolls what they ask for? The only way to discourage them is not to give them what they want. Soft skin has succeeded in getting all seven reference desks protected for the whole of October with no end in sight, and he's got the talk page (which is supposed to be the backstop) protected indefinitely. The latest casualty is Entertainment, which is "extended confirmed protected". RD2 was the excuse to hide the latest bout of vandalism. This is what he posted:

Edited by robot protection hidden Mobile page visibility?

Edited by robot Undo Possible Thanks RD3 changed?

THEY are trying to destory white people date to vandalism request to?

THEY are trying to destory white people date Wikipedia administrator the hidden?

The Foundation is very clear that revision deleting this stuff is tool abuse which will lead to de-sysop. There is no shortage of eyes on the desks - just revert and carry on. Administrators appear to be protecting just because they are too lazy to wield the mop - that's what they signed up for when they were given the keys to the cleaning cupboard. If they don't want to do the work I will do it for them - I have the Reference desks on watch. 2A00:23C0:7F00:C401:BC37:B191:4FBD:7984 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No, this is an incorrect assessment. We protected the reddesks not because we are lazy but because the asshole was posting purely disruptive maaterial (which had to be revision deleted) at a frequence which required full- time employment of several users to roll all this shit back.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Then just block him. Problem solved. 2A00:23C0:7F00:C401:BC37:B191:4FBD:7984 (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

They did. Problem not solved because he just creates another account and carries on. TheVicarsCat (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No, the quote you posted has nothing to do with why the refdesk has had to be protected, which involves very specific and prolific defamatory crap that absolutely has to be revdel'd/oversighted, arriving from multiple proxies. Feel free to consider yourself fortunate that administrators, checkusers and oversighters have managed to keep those edits from becoming visible to most users. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

There was one account and one IP. The account was blocked at 08:18. There was no further disruption (the IP also having been blocked at 08:18) yet protection was applied three minutes later. 2A00:23C0:7F00:C401:BC37:B191:4FBD:7984 (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this has been going on for weeks, and if protection isn't applied, it just keeps on going at a high rate from multiple IPs and autoconfirmed accounts from a variety of continents. Blocking doesn't work. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Now that had a certain inevitability about it. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

IP ranges calling each other the same sock puppet and disrupting articles

Hi everyone! I'm starting a discussion related to the IP ranges that are editing my user talk page in this discussion, as well as this discussion and this one. One IP (58.126.14.221) is saying that "212.95.8.148 is a sock puppet of blocked users WorldCreaterFighter / AmurTiger18 / Satoshi Kondo", while the other (212.95.8.148) responds by saying "I am not this person, you are the sock of user:bookworm8899 and user:gustmeister and vandalize this pages with tai-nationalism. Maybe you are also the sock of WorldCreaterFighter as you always claim that other users are him".

Basically, they're saying "You're the sock puppet", "No, YOU'RE the sock puppet", and on and on (both on my user talk page and in edit summaries when one reverts the other). The disruption has spilled over into the Yayoi people, Nanyue, and Baiyue articles (all in which I protected pending an in-depth look at what's going on and who is who). Other articles include Xianbei, Xiongnu, Japonic languages, and others (which you'll see spill into more ranges, and more articles, more ranges, over and over). Is there anyone here whose familiar with this ongoing disruption, block evasion, and socking that can take a look and sort this mess out? I don't want to duplicate work and look into what's already been investigated in the past if someone else is familiar with this already and can shed light. I'd be very grateful for any input, and it would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, i am one of the accused “socks”. I am not the sock of any mentioned user, nor am i here to vandalize articles. I saw the edits of user:gustmeister and his tai POV. I started to search about the topics and found out that most of his edits are pure POV. He is blocked and confirmed to be a sock of user:bookworm8899. He now uses many different vpn IPs (what is already against wiki policy) to stop my reverts of his actions. I suggest that other user as well reverted his edits as he accuses several different editors and IP adresses including me. Most of his edist got reverted by me or other users, including the admin user:zzuuzz which he also accuse to be a sock. And if we all look at the given sources and conpare it with his edits it is clear that he push a Tai-only-agenda on this topics. It is well known that baiyue spoke more than one language but he keeps his tai only POV and ignore all discussions (or delete them). His account gustmeister is well known for that if you look at the edit history. He also seems to have a personal problem with japanese or vietnamese people. 212.95.8.148 (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

and to his claim that i am vietnamese, i am not. I am half-malay which i stated already in 2016 where i reverted edits of satoshin kondos sock “GoguryeoHistoryan”. Strangely these topics have much international interest since 2015. I reverted some of his edits in 2016 about Altaic theories where he pushed a austronesian and kra-dai agenda. This is also why i suggest that bookworm8899/gustmeister is somehow related to satoshin kondo because he as well push tai related topics. Maybe someone can check the used IP?. And to my IP, this is from my mobile device and change every time i turn on/off my internet. So these ranges are used by all that have the same provider i quess, i is not in my interest to change it everytime, this happens automatically. 212.95.8.148 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned above and elsewhere, my only entry into this arena was randomly blocking a couple of VPN proxies several days ago. I assume it's the same user saying all this and more. I don't actually know what's going on, but the VPN user doesn't look like they're up to some good. And I have no idea who 212.95 is either, though I notice they've now been checkuserblocked along with some other socks. Sockfest all round perhaps? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Zzuuzz - *Shrugs* ... I guess. I just protected an article due to disruption by two IPs earlier and suddenly I find myself in the middle of this "sock calling" between IP ranges... Oh well; not the strangest or craziest thing I've seen or had happen... not even close... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Not sure if you saw this ANI discussion before applying the CU block on the IP or not, but I thank you nonetheless. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've extended Bbb23's block to the /24 range. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Gracias! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

IP attacking a user on their talk page

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

---

Could somebody please have a look at this diff, [50], and decide whether talk page access is still needed. English is not my mothertongue, and it is difficult for me to see how offensive this is. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This edit should also be looked at. THis is the first one. The one above is the IPs response to my warning about attacking editors. ~ GB fan 15:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, GB fan - Checking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ymblanter, GB fan - Meh, I'd say leave it enabled for now unless the user decides to become openly disruptive or abusive with repeated edits, or otherwise blatantly abuses access to their user talk page. Their unblock request isn't convincing; I'd say respond to it (which will most likely be a decline) and let the user throw rocks (within reason) and blow steam - it's the core of what WP:DENY is about and it shows that what they're doing isn't drawing attention. They'll get bored of it and stop (should it get that heated)... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And now there is this edit. ~ GB fan 15:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

And now we have a brand new editor, Squanchinho that shows up. Their first edit is to Talk:Newt Gingrich to discuss NPOV. The same as the IP discussed here. ~ GB fan 15:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

IP's TPA revoked. Sorry, Oshwah, I don't know what you're checking. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Based off the new information provided here, fine by me. I was just responding here to state that I was looking into the edits and would respond; nothing more. Thanks for handling the matter. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll also note that based off the last response made by the IP, I'm tempted to extend the block to include violations of civility but I know that it will only have the opposite effect when the block expires... hence, as tempting as it is... it's not a good idea and I'm not going to do so. I did decline the unblock request though. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding after close: I did extend their block for the incivility. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

(classic) case of WP:NOTHERE?

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

---

• Dorapid (talk · contribs)

"New" user who creates this AfD, and then closes it. Other contributions aren't of any merit. I know I should notify them of this discussion, but I'll skip that part in this case. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably the same person who made two accounts impersonating Abelmoschus Esculentus earlier today. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - and this one has been blocked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

An edit war in the Eastern Front (World War II) article.

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

---

Some IP is making the same edit:

[51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], despite the fact that this change is being reverted by several users.

I think, taking into account that it is a class 4 vital history article, semiprotection would be decirable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

That IP is a sockpuppet of a banned user. They've been blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. However, an IP can be changed easily.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Uncivil comments from User:Fortnite Battle Royale Season 6

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

---

This [57] [58] behaviour is unacceptable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The username alone should be grounds for a block. But I agree, not here to build Wikipedia. --Tarage (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• With a name and edits like that, this is clearly just some kid, indeff them and get it over with.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 18:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Excuse me I am an adult not a kid.Not all kids play Fortnite adults play the game too. Plus how is that vandalism im just saying good luck for having a child and you have to go through sex to have a child. I have done a lot of constructive edits to Orienteering and Air Madagascar. Fortnite Battle Royale Season 6 (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Block Per WP:NOTHERE it takes a certain special kind of person to come onto an AN/I thread and toss around sophomoric insults like this as your defense against complaints that you're tossing around sophomoric insults. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Fortnite Battle Royale Season 6: If you are not a kid, you really seem to be acting like one. I would also support a block per WP:NOTHERE. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) As an explanation,"Good luck having Sex and having a baby :)" was in response to them stating on their talk page that they are a gay man recently married to another man. Natureium (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In light of the fact that they jumped onto another editor's "congratulations on your marriage" thread at user talk to toss said childish insults I'd suggest indef and require community consultation prior to unblock. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I never mean't that at all. I am here to build an encyclopedia because i added useful infomation to Air Madagascar and Orienteering. Fortnite Battle Royale Season 6 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Warring as well [59].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef obviously WP:NOTHERE zchrykng (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The user in question doesn't seem to understand. Can someone please go and explain the situation further with them? Considering that this is likely a child it's beneficial to take a little time to explain all of this. --Tarage (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

SheriffIsInTown

SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) started with removing a lot of information on the 613 commandments article. His removals were major and of paragraph that were previously not tagged as in need of sourcing. When several editors reverted him, or tried to reason with him on his talkpage, like me, he finally consented to tagging them instead. His next step was to remove major unsourced portions of text from 79 other articles. All 79 were article that I had edited recently. This seems like a clear example of stalking and taking revenge resulting in disruptive behavior, so I have reverted those edits per WP:REICHSTAG. I would like this forum to assess both SheriffIsInTown's behavior in this case, as well as mine. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This seems like an accurate summary, and is certainly concerning behavior. I'm curious what SheriffIsInTown has to say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• It does look like they went on a bit of a reversion bender after the dispute at 613 commandments, mass-removing any unsourced content they could find in articles related to Judaism exclusively. That's ... not a good look. I would like to hear what SheriffIsInTown has to say about it as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I happened to notice his comment on one of the talkpages. In this comment he shows that he has no clue regarding our WP:RSPRIMARY/WP:PRIMARY policy. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• He is also reverting on Posek where I informed him that it might be better to tag/notify a project than mass delete of content. I also echo Ivanvector's concern. It is clear that we can always improve our articles and references but not this way. I suggest at the least he stop from deleting content from articles. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• I note that SIIT is currently indefinitely topic banned from India Pakistan conflicts.[60] Though his recent participation on a closely related subject (Talk:Regional power) was beyond disruptive as he was misrepresenting both the sources and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Seeing him export the similar tendencies and disruption to an unrelated topic is probably not surprising. Rzvas (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The accusations made by Debresser are totally wrong and kind of an one-up action as I just told Sir Jospeh here that I might be forced to report them if they keep restoring unsourced information without adding the sources. If they add the sources to the unsourced content at the same time when they restore them, I definitely have no problem with that. I am just trying to enforce the policies such as WP:RS, WP:BURDEN, and WP:ONUS. I removed unsourced information from Royal Photographic Society which has nothing to do with Judaism. I recently got interested in Judaism and was researching information about it and countered unsourced information on articles regarding which I am not sure whether it is authentic or not. In-line with the Wikipedia policies, I removed unsourced information hoping that it will stay removed unless someone is willing to source it but to my surprise editors in that topic area are hell-bent to keep it unsourced and on top of that they are accusing me who is only trying to do the right thing here. What is wrong in asking them to add the sources if they want to keep the content? Why keep it unsourced? Furthermore, Debresser has over 98,000 edits and their main topic area is Judaism, they must have edited all articles related to Judaism out there so does that mean that me or anyone else who is trying to expand their reach into that topic area cannot edit any new articles just because Debresser have edited them before. Looking at the article history of few of those articles, I can say that I did not touch any of the content that they have edited recently so I am not sure how they can claim stalking or taking revenge. I just removed the unsourced content from those articles according to Wikipedia policies and being a long term editor for 11 years, Debresser should be endearing those policies more than me instead of being stubborn and keeping unsourced content. My role model in this is Yamaguchi-san, I have seen them remove unsourced content all the time and I support them in this that we should be keeping just the authentic information on Wikipedia and the only way to ensure that is to remove any unsourced content. Let me know how I was wrong doing the same as everyone else is able to do. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef The Interaction Tool makes clear that SheriffIsInTown is lying; he very clearly picked out articles Debresser had recently made edits on. There also is no rule that unsourced content must be removed (other than for BLPs); doing so en masse without attempting to look for references is disruptive. After already being troublesome in India-Pakistan, I don't see any reason they should stick around here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: the interaction tool results are more easily explained by the fact that Debresser went around reverting SheriffIsInTown's reversions afterwards. If you compare Debresser's contribs from before SIIT started their mass removals, there's little indication of deliberate article selection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

They seem to have realized their mistake; hopefully we can get out of this without an indef being necessary. I'll let other editors figure out what should be done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment My reach into Judaism topic already started before my interaction with Debresser as I have edited 613 commandments, Ger toshav, Talmud, Tetragrammaton, Seven Laws of Noah, and Noahidism before interacting with them. The articles that edited after interaction with Debresser was continuation of my research and reach into that topic area. Nothing more than that! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll spell it out:
    • Posek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits on the 27th.
    • Agunah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 29, after Debresser edits on the 23rd.
    • Tzniut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits earlier on the 28th.
    • Lifta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits on the 25th.
    • West Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 29, after Debresser edits on the 22rd.
    • Rosh Hashanah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits on the 25th.
    • Holy Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SIIT removes content on Oct 28, after Debresser edits on the 20th.

  And there are more. The last three I've listed could be coincidences, but the first four certainly aren't. You've done this on substantially all the articles Debresser edited in the past 10 days. This is WP:HOUNDING and disruptive editing, and you're repeatedly lying about it here. Good riddance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x2 Comment I checked three of the pages where he removed information: Ger toshav, Seven Laws of Noah, and Posek. For Posek, the information is contained in a source just not in-line referenced, and Sheriff should have shown judgement when reverted rather than stopping only when he abutted 3RR, I suspect that the information removed from Ger toshav could be cited to either Lichtenstein or Novak but don't have current ready access to either of those sources, and while I suspect the information in Seven Laws of Noah to be true I think the removal was fair. I would suggest an editor diving into a topic that is not one of expertise exercise more caution and restraint in the removal of material, including by doing things like starting talk page discussions. These topics are neither promotional nor BLP (nor particularly high trafficked articles) so there should not have been any urgency behind removal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict × a few) - our policy on the matter (WP:BURDEN) says that it's the responsibility of the editor restoring content to provide verification in the form of an inline citation, but a parallel policy (WP:PRESERVE) says that content shouldn't be removed without good reason. This is effectively a dispute between the two policies. Is the single fact that content is without a source a good enough reason to remove it, or is going around removing large sections of content from articles only because it's unsourced and for no other reason inherently disruptive? I think the latter, personally, but the policies are not unambiguous on this matter. I think SheriffIsInTown ought to tone it down, and maybe that ought to be in the form of a sanction saying they may use {{cn}} tags in articles but may not remove content just because it's unsourced. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's not what WP:PRESERVE says. It says: Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material, and that policy explicitly states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. So yes, lack of sourcing is considered a good enough reason to remove, our policies are unambiguous on this matter, and since it is our policy, cannot be considered disruptive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is, if it is done to spite another editor. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I accept that I have made a blunder here. I did not review WP:HOUNDING recently. My understanding was that it only involved when an editor made direct reverts of another editor's edits on multiple articles. After having a conflict with Debresser, I should have been careful editing further articles in that topic area which I will try to avoid going forward. I also thought that I was serving the encyclopedia by removing original research from articles and it did not matter what topic area they belonged to unless I was not restricted from that area. I promise to be more careful in the future. This can be considered a one-off blunder from me which I do not intend to repeat! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I randomly looked on three articles and the tendency for edit warring in these articles is quite evident here in the pattern of reverts.
• Posek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hillel the Elder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 613 commandments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On Posek The user only started a discussion thread on the talk page when he ran out of 3 reverts. "Lack of refs", unless its a BLP violation isn't enough reason for repeatedly Edit warring. And a clear disregard for the WP:BRD policy is seen here. The reverts on a totally sperate Royal Photographic Society was also made just for good measure.

On top of that, the confrontative and aggressive tone of the discussion at Talk:613_commandments#Sourcing is also does not inspire confidence.

On seeing the possibility of an Indef block this user has accepted his mistake and is repentant.So I believe an indef is not needed here. I do believe a 1RR is in order though --DBigXrayᗙ 21:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I find it very difficult to believe if SIIT was only committing innocent mistake like they claim above, while they don't entirely accept they were at fault. I also find it difficult if we should continue sanctioning them indefinite times in place of giving them a more stringent sanction which would be an indefinite block. SIIT is topic banned from India Pakistan conflicts and has already violated the topic ban two times,[61][62] and have been already blocked once for violating topic ban. None of that has helped him. Given that their content removal seemed more of POV pushing and they continued to edit war and wikihound until they were brought here, I believe that a topic ban from WP:ARBPIA would be better. But then again, why we should use these smaller sanctions anymore when indefinite block is completely justified? Rzvas (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Block

SheriffIsInTown has admitted they picked all of these articles just to take revenge on me for pointing out that their behavior was less than ideal. That is being disruptive, and a bad community editor. I think a limited block might be in order. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Indef block or topic ban from WP:ARBPIA would be better per my comments in above section. Rzvas (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

These don't seem to be ARBPIA articles though, although there are a lot of them and I haven't looked at them all in great detail. If there's a topic ban it ought to be from the area actually being disrupted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't checked all either but Lifta, Hillel the Elder are clearly WP:ARBPIA. Rzvas (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Lifta probably yes, but I don't see how Hillel the Elder is. It's under WP:ARBLONG though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The attack was made on Judaism-related articles. ARBPIA is not related. Debresser (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• The removals were all from articles on Judaism. I suggest a topic ban on Judaism. Softlavender (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Support topic ban from Judaism. --Tarage (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for a sitewide 1RR restriction

The user admittedly WP:WIKIHOUNDED Debresser and carried on Edit warring on multiple articles some of them just shy of the 3RR. The user is already on an India-Pakistan conflicts Topic Ban[63] and to avoid future disruption spilling over to other areas and to encourage this user to engage in collaborative and cordial discussion, I think putting a mandatory 1RR restriction across the site will be helpful here. The user should jump to the talk page after first revert and not after exhausting 3 reverts.

• Support as a nominator. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Hothead editors like this need to be restricted. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Although this does not address numerous other problems noted above , still supporting this as final straw. Rzvas (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Honest question here: if the issue is that SheriffIsInTown responded to a content dispute by following an opponent to other articles, how does a revert restriction help? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I have no disregard for WP:BRD or for any Wikipedia policy whatsoever, actually in my mind I was trying to only enforce the relevant policies regarding sourcing. It's just that sometimes you cannot bring yourself to talk when there is clearly a policy matter and not a content dispute itself. Some times you just think that it is better to convey the message through edit summaries when there is a clear black and white matter such as in the case of content lacking sources. Furthermore, there are always two sides in an edit-war. In all those instances, there was another editor who made two if not three reverts. That does not exonerate me though and I think I should have engaged in discussion sooner than later but it is also evident that I did not violate WP:3RR in any of those instances. I was just at a loss regarding what else I can say in a discussion in addition to what I have already said in the edit summary that the content is unsourced. On the contrary, if you examine carefully, the editors on the other side of spectrum does not have any regard for any policy more specifically about sourcing. They edit-warred to restore unsourced content, a clear violation of Wikipedia's sourcing policies and their edits are still standing. They found one reason or another to restore unsourced content and keep it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  The removal of article text that doesn't feature blue superscript numbers isn't an enforcement of policy. Yes, the text might be dubious or misleading, in which case by all means remove it, but it might also have been the case that no inline citation was given because the content was common knowledge supported by most of the sources and no-one imagined that it would be challenged. Apart from the obviously bad cases, distingiushing between the two is a judgement call that relies on content expertise. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:When to cite and choosing a different role model. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Uanfala: Please have a read of WP:OR and let me know how it was not a violation to keep original research in the articles and what policy did I violate to remove that content and I was not hell-bent to keep it removed. When they added sources I accepted the content but when they restored without adding sources then I was right to not accept it. Yes, it might be sourced somewhere else in the article but as I stated that I am not some super being who would just find invisible things! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  OR is not a synonym for "unsourced". Recognising OR is even more dependent on content knowledge. – Uanfala (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment My statement is being misrepresented by Debresser and DBigXray, I did not accept that I picked out these articles to take revenge on them. I was already expanding my reach into that topic area before interacting with them, I could have continued editing that topic area even if I would not have interacted with them and the articles would have been those which they already have edited as with 98,000 edits I expect them to have edited all Judaism related articles. I accepted that if I had a better understanding of WP:HOUNDING, I would have been more careful in selection of the articles. My understanding was that it is only bad if you directly revert the other editor on multiple articles. I wanted to check articles for unsourced content that afternoon and the articles which came in my browsing happened to be related to Judaism. I would have chosen some other topic to avoid the impression of hounding but my intentions were not to hound so I went on with editing that topic. Yes, I edit is sprees, I reFill sources at times and continuously do that. I edit Pakistani election related articles and continously do that. Yesterday, I was in a mood to check articles for original research and I continuously did that. It was not to target anyone, the intention was to improve encyclopedia but I unknowingly have given an impression of hounding with my editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. This incident falls within the pattern that I've seen in Sherif's editing across various topics and areas of wikipedia. He would take up some task that's not completely within his expertise, he wouldn't quite do his homework, and then when the inevitable negative feedback comes he wouldn't take it on board but would instead carry on until several people have become involved and there's some big drama like the one we're seeing here. Something probably needs to be done, but I'm not sure I know what. – Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I had another read of WP:HOUNDING and it reads Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. and there were violations of WP:OR on those articles as it contained unsourced content. Although, I accept that I should not have removed unsourced content from other articles in that topic area when I clearly had a conflict with an editor in same topic regarding a similar issue on another article but in face of the quoted excerpt above, would not this be a correct use of following someone's edits as resultantly the content violating the Wikipedia policies was removed. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. Content that isn't supported by an inline citation is not the same thing as content that's an editor's original research, and neither one is a "revert immediately" situation anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is nonsense. If an editor is WP:HOUNDing someone else, how on earth is a 1RR restriction supposed to combat that? I could still hound someone if I could only revert them once - I'd just follow them round and revert all their edits. This is nonsense - either you block someone for this, or you impose an interaction ban. A 1RR is a ridiculous sanction, although it doesn't surprise me given that it's come from an editor who regularly opposes SIIT on many articles and has an interest in them being 1RR'd, and I suspect that's exactly what Ivanvector was getting at above. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I have had that in mind, yes, but in this case I do think the request is in good faith and something should be done. I don't think a 1RR restriction is that something, though, but I don't have a good idea what else to suggest. I don't think an interaction ban is it either, SIIT doesn't have a prolonged history of following Debresser around, nor a pattern of hounding editors generally. The problem really is with indiscriminate removal of unsourced content, and responding poorly when confronted about it (with revert warring and hounding). Furthermore SIIT seems to be digging in his heels on that issue. I'm still not sure it's the best solution, but I suggested earlier a restriction on removing content for being unsourced (he should tag {{cn}} instead, or {{or}} if he believes that's the issue although I also think he's confused about what constitutes WP:OR). I'm not sure how enforceable such a restriction would be, and regrettably enforcement would be based on editors following him around. But at any rate he should be warned that if he's seen to be doing things as purposeful retaliation again, he'll be blocked for a good long time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, the OP (Debresser's) request is definitely in good faith. I just don't think DBigXray's is. I see below that he's got annoyed by that, but I can't see any other reason why he'd suggest a 1RR. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I am all for following the policies, if an admin points out the things I did wrong or violated a policy, I will try everything in my human power to avoid those in future. That is what I can promise, what is done is already done, it's not in my power to change the past. As for the regular visitors of the complaints against me, I will not accuse them of anything, although if I want I can bring and highlight diffs from those past disputes. I had forgotten them and never quoted them and I request you to please let them ago now! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Moral support No idea what this dispute is about or who the editor is, so no !vote, but 1RR is a good idea for everyone. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Ivanvector: Here is the problem with citation needed tags, these tags were added in 2007, that is eleven years ago and they were only removed and replaced now because of my efforts for which I am here. This was the result of this discussion. The editor Sir Joseph fought back hard and did not want to source the content and asked me to add citation needed tags but I insisted on sources and pointed out how citation needed tags can remain for years on possibly wrong information (without me knowing at the time that there are tags which were added on this article in 2007) and then he took the required action and honestly I did not even check the source he added to see whether it supports the content or not. I just assumed good faith towards him and accepted the source. So, this is one example to show that my intent is not to disrupt but to build and improve! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Read WP:BLUDGEONING. Why you are replying at the bottom every time and repeating same thing you have already said more than 4 times? You can use indents to reply the comment you particularly want to discuss. Rzvas (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• I agree; SheriffIsInTown, this is a poll – stop "Commenting" here. If you have a response to someone, post it under their post, not as a bolded "Comment". If you have a comment unrelated to anything in this poll, post it in the thread above the proposal. Softlavender (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1RR, which will encourage SheriffIsInTown to focus more on discussing and listening to others in place of edit warring.. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as not addressing the central issues at hand, plus 1RR doesn't prevent edit-warring, it just slows it down a tad, and anyway, there was edit-warring only on a couple of articles. There was rampant unwarranted deletion particularly on many articles relating to Judaism. Perhaps a topic ban on Judaism is necessary. Perhaps also a requirement to tag with {{cn}} or {{refimprove}} instead of deleting. Then there are also the WP:CIR issues that Uanfala mentioned above: [64] (see two posts top and bottom); and [65]. If Sheriff keeps getting in trouble like this and going on incompetent sprees, we have to assess whether he has the competence to edit Wikipedia without severe restrictions, and thus whether an indef block is in order. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• There's more than what they have pointed out. Read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive300#Vandalism, which is another recent example of his aggressive POV pushing and it ended with warning from Nyttend These examples comes after he has been already topic banned from India-Pakistan conflicts and was warned that any further disruption would get him indeffed.[66] We can easily assume that SIIT has reached well beyond that requirement. This is why I stated above that why we are still resorting to smaller sanctions? He has violated his topic ban two times as well (see my comment in above section). 1RR doesn't address POV pushing, source misrepresentation and battleground mentality. Indef block is completely justified at this situation. Rzvas (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree; this new behavior -- rampant mass deleting, targeting articles on Judaism, etc. -- speaks to a wider problem of deliberate disruption, POV-pushing (in the form of targeting Judaism articles), and incompetence. Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite and his aspersions

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

---

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

I have never had any disputes with Black Kite and I am not sure what beef Black Kite has with me, but it seems he has some real issues with WP:Casting aspersions.

He is an administrator and yet he believes it is ok to blatantly accuse another editor of imaginary stuffs that he makes up in his own mind. (and without giving any diff or evidence) In his ANI comment[67] today Black Kite has accused me of trying to settle scores with another editor. To quote Black Kite "although it doesn't surprise me given that it's come from an editor who regularly opposes SIIT (User:SheriffIsInTown ) on many articles and has an interest in them being 1RR'd"

Now as far as I can remember I have never had any kind of content dispute with User:SheriffIsInTown in "any" article on Wikipedia but Black Kite thinks opposite and has openly accused me of "regularly opposing User:SheriffIsInTown on "Many articles"."

Even the Editor interaction tool failed to bring up any such article between me and User:SheriffIsInTown

I had to bring it up because such blatant lying and false accusations on another fellow editor is not the kind of behavior expected from an editor, much less from an Admin and that too on ANI. I am not sure if this issue has been going on in past as well with BlackKite but I am sure other editors would know more. Black Kite has been admonished in past by Arbcom before, and I guess things have deteriorated again. And should be addressed properly --DBigXrayᗙ 01:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ah hello. Can you explain then, why you inserted yourself into a dispute between Sheriff and Debresser (i.e. nothing to do with you at all) and asked for a 1RR restriction on Sheriff, which is a sanction that would never be a sensible one for someone accused of WP:HOUNDing? As I explained above, a sanction for such an issue would be a block or (more likely) an interaction ban. Why didn't you ask for one of those? Obviously, if you've got a good answer for both of those two questions, I'd be happy to strike my comment. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

1. why you inserted yourself into a dispute between Sheriff and Debresser (i.e. nothing to do with you at all) -- Black Kite

I am not involved with either of these 2 editors and there is no reason. Tell me do I really need to be involved to be able to propose something on ANI ? Also tell me "why did you (Black Kite) inserted yourself into a dispute between Sheriff and Debresser" ? I am very curious now after your Casting of aspersions on me --DBigXrayᗙ 01:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

2.(WHY) asked for a 1RR restriction on Sheriff, which is a sanction that would never be a sensible one for someone accused of WP:HOUNDing? Black Kite (talk) -- Black Kite

If you would have read my reply here I have clearly explained the reason for my proposal of a problem of edit war that I had noticed in this thread. If you believe my proposal is bad, you are welcome to ignore or even oppose my proposal, just because you hate my proposal is it a reason enough to start blatantly lying and WP:Casting aspersions ? --DBigXrayᗙ 01:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, incidentally User_talk:SheriffIsInTown#Your_recent_edits_on_Siachen_Glacier_despite_topic_ban. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiger_Squad. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zahid_Ali_(politician). These are all recent. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• User_talk:SheriffIsInTown#Your_recent_edits_on_Siachen_Glacier_despite_topic_ban This was a heads up for self-revert, and not dispute.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tiger_Squad This is an AfD and we had SAME opinion, as is usual in any AfD . Is it a dispute ?
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zahid_Ali_(politician). This is an AfD and we had different opinions, as is usual in any AfD . not a dispute --DBigXrayᗙ 01:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It would be good if instead of asking silly questions like above you address the actual topic of this thread. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 01:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I am going to do you a big favor by closing this, before you stick your foot in your mouth even further. Don't go around accusing editors of lying. And next time you're on this forum, trying to convince other editors, please write stuff up more clearly and more cleanly--and provide evidence. After discussing it with the editor. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)}}

The 1RR restriction seemed to me to be of the form "we must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this". I'm not sure if DBigXray is familiar with the excessive noticeboard sniping that several of the India-Pakistan regulars have been prone to; it's possible this can be called an honest mistake. (I'm ignoring the Black Kite remarks and just considering possible boomerangs). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I had already said in my proposal that edit warring was an issue I saw in SIIT's edits and hence I felt 1RR can help alleviate that. If one disagrees he can oppose my proposal. but What Black Kite did was completely unexpected and shocking --DBigXrayᗙ 01:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The thread was about HOUNDing of Debresser. The only person that brought up edit-warring was you, and none of the articles you brought up were anything whatsoever to do with Debresser and the original complaint. You've simply derailed the conversation. And that's my last comment here, since apparently my questions are "silly". Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• 613 commandments, Posek, Help Hillel the Elder All these 3 articles that I linked were edited by Debresser after which SIIT hounded him. Also I can see SIIT Edit Warring in all these 3 articles. So clearly you are not able to see things that I am seeing here. As I said, I honestly felt my proposal was trying to address a problem and not really derail it in any way, 3 other editors also supported my proposal. If you believe my proposal derailed the thread why didn't you propose a better solution of that problem ? But instead of finding a solution to the problem that Debreser had brought here, you decided to attack me. Is your comment attacking me, "not a derailing" of the discussion on SIIT and Debresser. Clearly you are accusing me of crimes that you were doing there. --DBigXrayᗙ 02:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, for goodness sake - you still don't get it. Yes, he edited them after Debresser, we know that - that was what the original complaint was about. However, he didn't edit war with Debresser on them - that was with someone else (in fact, the same person in two cases). If you wanted to report him for edit-warring there's a place for that. But as a response to the original complaint it's simply a derailment. A 1RR restriction isn't going to fix the original complaint - if you'd angled for a block or a topic ban you'd have been on solid ground. Now, it's 2.20am here, and I really must go. Black Kite (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• SIIT was edit warring with multiple editors and yes I see that as a problem and I proposed a fix. If you believe that my fix doesn't address the problem does it mean you will start attacking the proposer with frivolous allegations? You said I am here because I opposed him on many articles and yet you are unable to bring up even 1 such article. Your aspersions are the problem here which is why I have raised here so that it can be addressed.--DBigXrayᗙ 02:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• DBigXray, why have you opened this thread on ANI? See up top: This page [ANI] is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Black Kite's single comment was made one hour prior to your opening this thread. If you took issue with it, you could have responded to him on the thread where it was posted, or you could have queried him on his talk page. Instead, you immediately opened up an ANI thread about a single comment made an hour previously. I recommend a BOOMERANG for disruptive and retaliatory behavior. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support a boomerang, really should have listened to Drmies and Ivanvector while you had the chance. If this is the hill you want to die on, so be it. zchrykng (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, when Black Kite says that DBigXray had a conflict with me on several articles, it should not be taken word to word as it is taken in a bureaucracy. It is true that DBigXray had previous conflicts with me if not necessarily on articles then other venues. I always feel like I am being hounded by them and they are one of those regular visitors I mentioned above who somehow always show up to oppose me. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please remind me where exactly did that "conflict" between me and you happened? Because I really dont think any conflict between us happened.And even the Editor interaction tool between us cannot find any such conflict. -DBigXrayᗙ 03:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support closing - Nothing good will come out of this. –Davey2010^Talk 02:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Striking per my comment directly below. –Davey2010^Talk 04:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly support closing. No boomerangs, no blood sacrifices, just close FFS. Many are forgetting that their are human hands typing these words in this thread. BigX is angry. He misunderstood a point, or something got to him. He is an experienced editor in good standing. Everyone should chill and reflect, and for fuck sake someone close this down. No damage has been done to the project, no need for punitive sanctions. FWIW I think sherif should be compelled to add cit needed tags instead of removing material. Simon Adler (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  Simon Adler, normally I would agree, but they reopened this thread twice after others closed it. If nothing else they need to cool off for a bit. zchrykng (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

DBigXrayᗙ You were the first editor that helped me when I was a newbie back in the day, near 7 years ago. I love you. Chill for 24 hrs I beg you, and I don't beg. There crowd, that's the 'boomerang', let Big X take a break for 24 hrs to chill. Do it bro, and then we can close. And for the sake of sanity (mine) Don't reopen anything! Do it bro. Simon Adler (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Simon Adler I am chill. I was annoyed by the ridiculous aspersion, and was really wondering why would Black kite do such a thing considering no prior dispute with any of them. Clearly it was a case of assuming bad faith against me and without even any valid grounds. If some folks have this bad habit of aspersions, then they need to fix those issues. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray It has got to you. Let it go. Please. I'm saying no more my friend. Follow your heart, not your anger. Si. Simon Adler (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe my points deserved discussion and hence the thread, anyway I closed the thread and was reverted. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You were reverted because you can't close your own thread, particularly not when your behavior is being discussed. You may state at the bottom of the thread that you wish to withdraw it. Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Davey2010 and Simon Adler: It was already closed by Drmies [68] and Ivanvector affirmed the close [69]. DBigXray reopened it via edit-warring with Ivanvector [70]. It's now time for a boomerang as the thread was entirely out of process in the first place -- the issue was never discussed with the editor in question. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah right thanks I wasn't aware another admin got involved, In that case I too would support a BOOMERANG blocking, If an admis closes this and a completely different admin reverts you then common sense tells you to walk away and do something else...... 04:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Now withdraw the thread User:DBigXray. The very fact that you reopened the thread twice should indicate to any mindful colleague that you were temporarily severely stressed out. This is a respected colleague of long standing who has done good work for years. Any 'boomerang' should take account of that. I hope an admin warning should be the extent of any retribution. Simon Adler (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Simon Adler I was edit conflicted while posting my reply to Black Kite and then my reply was reverted. I had opened the thread only once to post my comment. I have replied and noted my concerns, So I am ok if someone decides to close this now. --DBigXrayᗙ 04:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Open proxies

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

---

Will someone block all WP:PROXY listed at [71]? E.g. those "suspected proxies" resolve to proxy.ec.europa.eu for a reason. (It's not about the editor, it's about the proxies.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

They already are blocked: one directly, and one as part of a larger rangeblock of 158.169.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

New editor disrupting multiple pages

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

---

LewisChampion97 is a new SPA editor, whose only edits have been to change all instances of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to the incorrect United Arab Emirates Grand Prix. They aren't acknowledging their talkpage, and continue to disrupt and vandalise 12 different pages:

1. Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
2. Yas Marina Circuit
3. 2018 Formula One World Championship
4. 2017 Formula One World Championship
5. 2016 Formula One World Championship
6. 2015 Formula One World Championship
7. 2014 Formula One World Championship
8. 2013 Formula One World Championship
9. 2012 Formula One World Championship
10. 2011 Formula One World Championship
11. 2010 Formula One World Championship
12. 2009 Formula One World Championship

Their only edits have been to make this one disruptive change, and so a block or stern final warning from admins is needed. Because right now they are not contributing positively to the encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Панн: Competence issues

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

---

Панн (talk · contribs) has been the subject of two recent reports here, on 17 October starting from the concern that he (his user page gives his name as Pavel) creates articles with serious formatting issues and has never responded to concerns expressed on his talk page, and on 20 October concerning an article he created that focused on his use of machine translation and culminated in two messages on his talk page left at my request by Ymblanter, who speaks Russian, which appears to be Панн's native language. Панн is also indeffed on both ru.wikipedia and Commons for copyright violations, and his talk page shows that he has been uploading film posters and screenshots at too great a resolution to meet fair use guidelines, and also sometimes "fair use" images of living people. Ymblanter's second message, left on October 23, informed Панн that his understanding of the fair use image policy was poor and also that machine translated text is unacceptable in main space; Панн thanked them for the advice on the 24th. Some of Панн's work appears to be an attempt to use better English by copying other Wikipedia articles, unfortunately producing simply untrue material. For example, in this version of Alexander Ananchenko the first/lead paragraph is taken from Denis Pushilin, and the entirety of Sergey Morozov (politican) (since deleted) was copied from Alexander Zhilkin. He's now resumed creating articles by, apparently, simply machine translating from Russian Wikipedia: Lyudmila Porgina on October 27 (compare the then version of the Russian article in edit mode; I think I'm going to stub the English article rather than tag it as a rough translation) and Fartsa (TV series) today, which has the same machine-translator-produced scrambled formatting and has already been tagged by another editor.

In addition to Ymblanter, a number of editors have tried to fix Панн's work and to advise him. To name just two, Jessicapierce made the first report here and has tried to work with him on formatting references, and Runawayangel poked me on my talk page about other articles by him. Pages needing translation into English, where bad translations get reported, is horribly backlogged and the editors there do backbreaking work; and this editor's articles illustrate why we say machine translated articles are worse than no articles. His entire output needs to be checked to make sure all the statements are about the right person, quite apart from the work to make them readable. I'm afraid I've become convinced that Панн, despite laudable intentions, just doesn't have the competence in the English language to contribute here. And the violations of fair use image policy are not negligible either. Ymblanter requested I start a new AN/I report. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Support indef block - I'm sorry but if you can't edit in English you shouldn't be editing here. Using talk pages maybe, but not editing articles. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Yngvadottir:, I am back on ipad, and it was difficult for me to file the report today. I fully agree with your assessment of the situation. I am afraid we are dealing here with serious competence issues. The user has good intentions and acts in good faith but I am afraid they are not unable to edit Wikipedia without serious problems at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indef for now, at the very least he needs to learn to engage on his talk page. He thanked Ymblanter for the advice last week, but has kept right on doing the exact same things. Courcelles (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Doncram

Over the past few months Doncram (talk · contribs) has developed a one-sided vendetta against me, stemming from a dispute over the proper title of Little Falls and Dakota Depot. The discussion is mostly at Talk:Little Falls and Dakota Depot; there were precursor discussions at User talk:Mackensen#Stop with moves of railway stations.

During this discussion, Doncram challenged the maintenance deletion of Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state). This was a simple maintenance task, but he forced an unnecessary CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 4#Category:Northern Pacific Railway stations in Washington (state), apparently out of personal spite. At the same time, he challenged the notability of an article I'd just created (Depew station (Lehigh Valley Railroad)), and left a strangely-worded message on the talk page. I left several comments; he never responded.

Anyway, that was months ago and I'd put it out of mind. He randomly turned up on my talk page earlier this month complaining about another move I'd made at the same time as all the others. Today, Doncram created Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad and linked it from Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad (which is why I noticed, I've had it watch-listed for years and headed up the discussion that led to its current location). I determined from reliable sources that the correct name for the new article is actually Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway ("way" vs "road", it's a common issue), documented such on the talk page, and moved the article. I believe Doncram derived the name from the Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, which he also created. I made a few other changes:

• Recategorized the new article from Category:Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad to Category:Predecessors of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, as the company merged into the parent in 1948. This is a common practice and how this category scheme works.
• Corrected the name of the company in Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, and left an explanatory note that the names didn't match.
• Removed the NRHP banner from Talk:Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway. I didn't see how it was relevant, and assumed Doncram copied it from Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad and neglected to remove it. I've done that before.

I was surprised when Doncram reacted negatively to all these changes:

• He reverted the recategorization twice, first calling it "wrong" and then saying he was "removing stupidity". This last edit removed the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad categorization tree altogether.
• He reverted the explanatory note and the name change on Route 66 Bridge over the Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railroad, calling it "derogatory".
• He reinstated the NRHP banner on Talk:Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway, while removing the WikiProject Trains banner. His last edit summary explaining this action was simply "disrespect". I do not know what he means by this.

In addition, after all this, he removed the WikiProject Trains project banner from Talk:Crescent Warehouse Historic District. I have never edited this article. Inasmuch as the article is about a property which includes former Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad buildings, the banner seems appropriate. I cannot conceive of a neutral justification for this edit; it feels like retaliation, though for what I don't know.

I reached out to Doncram on his talk page, but his response (which weirdly refers to "the other editor", as though I'm not the same person), showed no indication that he was willing to back down: User talk:Doncram#Chicago, Rock Island and Gulf Railway. This is clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, it's harming the encyclopedia, and I'd like for it to stop. Mackensen (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm, I created an article on a highway bridge over a railway right-of-way, and another about the railway that was missing from Wikipedia. I put in WikiProject Trains on one or both, because I thought they'd probably be thrilled or whatever, which perhaps caught Mackenson's attention and then they started. I reverted Mackenson where I perceived they were being derogatory in mainspace (my interpretation, but informed by interactions with this editor). I don't think Mackenson should be deleting WikiProject NRHP from Talk pages. If they don't change NRHP banners I won't change Trains banners, if they agree. I don't think there is anything for ANI here, unless to warn Mackenson not to follow closely and contend on new articles. --Doncram (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If they have a content disagreement, like they want to continue to assert that a 1902 new subsidiary of an 1866 railway is in fact a predecessor of the parent, they should discuss at Talk page of the article. --Doncram (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This illustrates perfectly the mentality I'm describing: I don't think Mackenson should be deleting WikiProject NRHP from Talk pages. If they don't change NRHP banners I won't change Trains banners, if they agree. I've added NRHP banners in the past, where appropriate. Did a good deal of NRHP categorization on Commons as well. Note that Doncram ignored almost everything I wrote (including why I noticed the new article). Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, Doncram retitled this thread to "Historic sites intersection with trains-related stuff". I changed it back, because this is a dispute centered entirely around his battleground behavior. As far as I know there is no broader problem with the intersection between these two subjects, which obviously have a good deal in common. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding this to the discussion since it's relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram

Frankly the fact that there is another issue with Doncram in this area makes me wonder if the topic ban should have stayed in place. --Tarage (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Carrie 94 not understanding OVERLINK

Would someone mind discussing WP:OVERLINK with Carrie? It seems that because other infoboxes link to Canada, CBC Kids should have it despite the guideline, which the editor does not seem to want to read. Not really a 3RR issue, more like an opportunity educate a new editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand the "rule" but then that means that other articles (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YTV_(TV_channel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_TV - by the way, I have never edited the YTV article nor did I put the "Canada" link on either article I am referencing)should have the links removed as well. Carrie 94 (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for finally engaging in a discussion. This should be happening on your talk page, but you blank it without engaging in one.

The articles you pointed to have been fixed. As I was about to discus on your talk page, I was looking for infoboxes with WP:OVERLINKs. Not at CBC Radio One, Murdoch Mysteries, The Nature of Things or Schitt's Creek. Do you have other specific examples of where you have found some that violate OVERLINK? They should not and it's a very easy fix. Unless there is a contextually important reason to link the nation, it should not be linked. That's what OVERLINK states. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I only blanked because you did the same to me; also thank you for fixing the other articles - however, there is no other part in the article (CBC Kids) linking to Canada so why should it not be linked? The closest link to it is Canadian Television. I do understand that linking to major geographic locations is generally not advisable but from past experience, when I was an editor years ago (just using IP Addresses), I had the same sort of argument with another user who said countries should be linked in infoboxes even if the article isn't about the country. I hope you understand what I mean and why I linked to the country. I was not trying to be disruptive; I just went by past experiences. Carrie 94 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Carrie 94. :) You are welcome to edit any other infoboxes to conform to policies and guidelines, if you choose, although it seems that those have been done. However, if you run into opposition, you should raise discussion on the talk page of the article. If you're unhappy with the guideline which explains that we do not link common location terms such as Canada, you are always welcome to bring that up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. These rules were created by agreement, and people may agree to change them. They do not generally agree to major changes without a very good reason, however. We do not link to "Canada" because it is commonly known to people who understand English well enough to read Wikipedia articles. This is an agreement that we made years ago so that we could draw attention to things people generally do need help understanding more about. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Moonriddengirl; I explained why I did what I did (past experiences). I know not every editor is "right" and unfortunately some like to think they own the article (which they don't). If I came across that way, I am sorry. I hope we can now say that this issue is resolved. Carrie 94 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not quite the case. I applied a script to remove the link. You reverted and then kept pointing to infoboxes that ignored the guideline instead. If you mean that I blanked my talk page, yes, because I have an edit notice on my talk page to discuss all in one place. I placed a warning and started a discussion on your talk page. And based on your talk page history, you don't engage in discussion there anyhow.

Glad this has come to an amicable conclusion. I have removed the OVERLINKs on the sister articles (not all of which had OVERLINKs) and applied a standard time format. Are there other articles that need to have their infoboxes reviewed?

If the OWNership comment was directed at me, you might want to review the previous comments on your talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it was simply reflecting knowledge of the issue and wanting to be clear that wasn't the intent, after this notice. Maybe further discussion about this can move to one of your talk pages, if there is any, although I realize this is likely resolved. :) Carrie 94, if you run into a disagreement again in the future, I strongly recommend that you stop and talk it through. We don't have our disagreements in articles because that isn't helpful in building an encyclopedia. Doing more than three reverts in 24 hours is breaking a "bright line" rule, but problems can happen if you do more than one. I usually won't unless there's a very good reason. You can read the page on "edit warring" for more information on why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, the ownership of the article wasn't directed at you - I should have been more specific and given an example. In 2014 I was editing an actor's page and someone came on, saying they were the actor's representative and added several pieces of information without references, removed information that had references, and was also vulgar in their edit summaries. I'm not following or editing that actor's page anymore, but the representative received a warning for their behavior. I may be editing other articles related to actors now, but have not run into any representatives so far (regarding articles concerning actors). Also, as of right now, there are no other articles I can think of that need their infoboxes reviewed - I am from Canada and the articles you edited (regarding the infoboxes) are all TV stations that I have looked at during some point of when I was on Wikipedia, years ago and recently (CBC Kids, Treehouse TV, and YTV - the others Teletoon and Family Channel were looked at back when I was an editor for several years, until I took a break in December 2015 - I wasn't planning on returning but recently decided to; I'm not sure why though. Carrie 94 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry you've had a bad experience in the past. You seem to be a diligent editor and I look forward to more good work. Could you be a bit more careful to 1) use edit summaries and 2) discuss rather than use edit summaries to communicate? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, did you shoot yourself? I informed you that using a bugged script that made by others in User talk:Walter Görlitz and your subsequent "edit summary" in association football. Matthew hk (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparing counterparts to supporters of Holocaust denial

There is an RfC weather Hitler is a clear case of vegetarian or a disputed one. While most debaters are being civil, user: guy macon is comparing 3-4 supporters of Hitler not a clear case of a vegetarian to supporters of Holocaust denial. This is not only insulting to me personally. It's also an explicit attempt to lower the standard of debate. Also important to note the indirect smear on whole Wikipedia, where the argument this user is compering to Holocaust denial held status quo for years.

I ask administrators to request this user will apologize this comparison and retain civility.

Thank you,

Mateo (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang - He never ONCE said Holocost Denial. He said WP:FRINGE, which it is. Those two are VERY different things and it is disingenuous for you to claim such a thing when it's an outright lie. I suggest you retract this statement or you might end up blocked for such an egregious personal attack. --Tarage (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You also failed to notify Guy about this, something that is REQUIRED. I have done it in your stead. Again, I STRONGLY encourage you to retract this personal attack. --Tarage (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, he did say "Vegetarian: Hitler's vegetarianism is "disputed" in the same way that whether the Holocaust happened or whether vaccines cause autism is "disputed"."[72]. Fram (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I still think there's a big difference between saying "You believe in a fringe theory like X and Y" and saying "You are a holocaust denier". The latter is a very serious claim and must be backed with actual evidence. --Tarage (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Fram. He actually said this twice and when i politely requested he stop he pushed further. talk, you should be more careful before using the inflammatory language you used against me. I also tagged him, which i assumed has the effect of a notification. Mateo (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

IP user deleting content on UAE

Hiya. Got an IP user deleting images, blanking pages of UAE notable figures such as Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan. IP is ‎86.98.79.26. Ta. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Alexandermcnabb: I believe you want Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. SportingFlyer talk 09:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)