Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Samwalton9 (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 25 December 2016 (→‎Carlos Danger: Closing. Leaving sub-section open due to discussions about potential of sockpuppetry.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    User:Keri

    User:Keri and I have been involved in various content disputes on the page Generation Snowflake, mostly related to NPOV. My view is that the page is heavily slanted towards the narrative that millennials are coddled, over-sensitive, can't handle contrary opinions etc. Rather than discuss the matter civilly, Keri has persistently attacked me and accused me of bad faith.

    In my very first interaction, I am accused of "POV pushing". Despite the fact that I have engaged in discussion, I am slapped with a template and reported for edit warring. Upon being advised by an admin to assume good faith, he says "As MaxBrowne clearly does not wish to engage in discussion - merely roll up, push POV, edit war to maintain it, then fuck off into the sunset again - that is not particularly helpful." - again a clear personal attack and assumption of bad faith. On being advised that no violation took place, he denies that my attempts at discussion were substantive with another offensive suggestion that my edits were disruptive and "pointy" just because I just because I substituted a NPOV template to cover the whole article, not just the lead. I noted this and reminded him yet again of AGF.

    After more unpleasantness I advise them that I intend to disengage. They respond with further personal attacks. In reporting me for edit warring again, the incivility continues - I am accused of withdrawing "in a huff" and of "gaming the system", an accusation gratuitously repeated here. I made it clear at this point that I was fed up with this user's persistent personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and battleground behaviour. However I was blocked for 3 days (reduced to 24 hours) for a technical 3RR violation while his incivility went unpunished.

    After a post on the talk page in which I severely criticized one of the sources used, without engaging in discussion at all (unlike DynaGirl) they immediately attack me personally, accusing me of "clutching at straws" and "threatening" me with an article ban. This is followed by gloating at my block for 3RR. I then issued a final warning to cease the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. The response was "AGF is not a suicide pact", whatever that means.

    Concerning the disputed source, having made no headway in my discussions with DynaGirl (Keri did not participate) I raised my concerns with the source at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I was advised that the issue was related to NPOV rather than RS, as GQ is "considered a reliable source" (for how to match your shoes with your Armani suit maybe!). Accordingly I raised the issue at the NPOV noticeboard, and advised the users DynaGirl and Keri of it as required. Keri [1] responds with more snark and more bad faith accusations. No I'm not "asking the other parent", in fact the editors at RSN were helpful and for the most part agreed with my position, but advised that RSN was not the correct venue. Keri then makes a copypasta to both noticeboards [2] & ([3], clearly disruptive and hindering actual discussion of the issue involved.

    This user has shown a consistent pattern of personalizing content disputes, personal attacks and assuming bad faith over the past two weeks, and has continued with this behaviour even after a final warning. This must stop. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @MaxBrown:Just out of interest, why have you listed this on 3 different noticeboards in the last 5 hours or so? You've brought this matter up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, at the Neutral POV noticeboard, and now here. And there's the ongoing discussion at the article's Talk page. Couldn't things be solved there? Yintan  14:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is concerned with the behaviour of the person concerned and is separate from the content dispute. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to wait for both sides to state their view on this before I can. I respect that Max feels personally attacked, and don't think it's my right to say whether they are or not. For a start, I think there are two actions to do away with – the use of "Fuck off" (by both users) and the templates. The former just doesn't get you anywhere, period. As for the latter, WP:DTTR, while merely an essay, does have good points, and templating just causes more animosity. Max, if you don't want to be templated, you might wish to put the {{DTM}} template on your talk page. I have it on mine. In fact, to be honest, it might be better to just stop leaving each other messages, for now, at least. As far as the actual dispute on the Generation Snowflake article is concerned, noticeboard threads might be making things worse, so maybe an RfC might be of use? Linguist Moi? Moi. 15:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More snark, and an apparent refusal to respond when called to account for his behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to comment as I responded at the original RSN post (as did Masem who concurred) - GQ is reliable for the opinion of a GQ writer, which was how the content was cited and used in the article. *Should* the material be in the article was an UNDUE/NPOV issue, so asking at the NPOV noticeboard for further guidance should not be held against Max. Max, generally in cases like these its best to try and detach from interacting directly with the other party once you have brought it to the attention of other editors. Duck's back etc etc. Its clearly not forumshopping if people have pointed you to the relevant place. Give it a day or so for some more editors to opine at NPOV and go from there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The RS/NPOV stuff will no doubt sort itself out with more eyes. But the civility/assumption of bad faith stuff....this is what I'm raising on this board. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note:This case was twice archived by bot without being addressed. Adding this note to avoid that again. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Considering MaxBrowne keeps pulling this out of archives, I figured I’d comment as another editor on that page. In my experience, MaxBrowne is actually the disruptive force on the page. I’ve seen Keri express frustration with what comes across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT editing and I’ve seen Keri be blunt on the talk page, but Keri does not edit the article disruptively, while MaxBrowne’s edits to the article often do seem confrontational and aggressive. Max has suggested above that Keri filed a nuisance edit warring report on him, but this isn’t what occurred. MaxBrowne made at least 6 reverts to the Generation Snowflake article in 24hrs [4]. Additionally, I’ve seen Max make reverts with misleading or inaccurate edit summary, such as this one [5] which leads other editors to think he removed an external link when he actually removed an internal see also link. Also, Max seems to have a weird habit of manipulating the talk page comments of other users on various notice board entries regarding Generation Snowflake, via hatting the comments of others, which seems kind of disruptive. [6], [7], [8], [9]--DynaGirl (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't agree with Dynagirl's characterization of my edits but I won't get into specifics right now, I want admin attention to this. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumping thread for 3 days. Linguist Moi? Moi. 12:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Too long, didn't read - Maybe just bumping the thread to keep it from being archived isn't a useful way to get administrative action. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue has not disappeared. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You want administrative action? You're about to get some via boomerang. There is no need to put a 30-day timestamp on this section. If you restore it again, I'll block you myself for disruption. Katietalk 03:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that this is annoying, but so is the lack of action. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A great example of an article we just shouldn't have because, at present, it can only be a bunch of random quotations and incidents. EEng 17:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Earflaps - accusations of being an undisclosed paid editor and a sock puppet

    Nobody has disputed the allegations and Earflaps has been blocked as a sock, so I am hatting this part. A huge clean up is still required though (I am OP) SmartSE (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I have dual concerns about Earflaps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being an undisclosed paid editor and a sockpuppet of MusicLover650 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked in 2012. They have created > 400 articles and expanded an undetermined number, racking up 45k edits in total. They deny both accusations [10] [11] and have countered accusing me of wikihounding and turning the question of paid editing back on User:Alexbrn [12]. Since these are both behavioural issues where there will never be certainty, I'm coming here to to present the evidence and gather wider opinions, both as to where you lie on the accusations and the course of action.

    I came across Earflaps at Daniel Amen which has had a problem with paid/COI editors of various forms trying to whitewash it, for at least 6 years since I first edited it. Most recently, in July 27century made edits after disclosing their COI but they were swiftly reverted. Earflaps arrived at the article and began edit warring to tag it as un-neutral, followed by posting an extensive draft on the talk page, giving considerable weight to a single source and using Amen's website extensively: see this section on the TP. So far nothing especially untoward, but something didn't seem quite right to me, and given the history of COI at the article, I wondered what else they write about.

    Nick Lovegrove really set off alarm bells - there's nothing overtly promotional about it, but I doubt that the subject is notable, they have just published their first book and the article relies extensively on primary sources. James Quincey is notable, but again the article uses primary sources very extensively and as can be seen from the edit I made, contained considerable puff. I asked Brianhe (talk · contribs) for a second opinion, which led to us to collating a (incomplete) list of articles that fit patterns we repeatedly in COI editing, namely creating articles about obscure companies and barely-notable or non-notable business people. Particular highlights include OrthoAccel Technologies and Cardiac Dimensions where new medical devices where given glowing reviews using the companies' press releases as sources. I find the use of primary sources particularly strange, since at the Amen article they were adamant that "liberal tabloid" sources critical of the subject were not reliable: [13] [14]. What could make an editor have such double standards about sourcing? (Note that the first two articles were created in the last month, so it's not that they have changed over time).

    This might not be 100 % convincing yet, but then I examined their very first edits and I think I found very convincing evidence of sockpuppetry:

    Sock puppetry

    MusicLover650 was blocked for sockpuppetry on 7 April 2012, just 2 days before Earflaps registered. Unfortunately there wasn't an SPI and I haven't been able to find any discussions that led to the CU by User:MuZemike, who is now not very active. This version of Sledge Leather was written by MusicLover650 and G5d when they were blocked. In June 2012, Earflaps recreated the article at a different title, using almost exactly the same content. They claim to have found it on the web somewhere, although I cannot find any evidence that this would have been possible. There are other crossovers as well e.g. ML creates redirect, EF creates article. ML updates, EF adds new developments. ML makes large expansion, ML updates. MusicLover560 mainly created music bios, of which Earflaps has also created numerous examples, but others like EZGenerator and FL Studio Mobile fit the paid editing modus operandi as well.

    What I find most convincing of all though, is that from their very first edit they used an unusual referencing format of {{reflist|refs= etc....}} just like MusicLover650 did: [15]. When most newbies struggle to even use ref tags, how come Earflaps was using this overly-complicated method?

    I'm as convinced as I can be that Earflaps is a paid editor and also that they are a sock of MusicLover, but I appreciate that I could be wrong, so please let's hear your comments. If I am right, the contribution surveyor makes for scary viewing. SmartSE (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    If the user is creating articles based on content they found online without attribution than we also have an issue of copyright infringement.
    Have deleted the page The Sledge/Leather Project as it was created without proper attribution of the original authors or the origin of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    These two accounts use very very similar referencing style.
    They take part of the url, typically a short text segment, use "ref name" tags, and collect all the refs at the end of the article. They put quotes around the names.
    Here is MusicLover650 from 2012[16]
    Here is Earflaps[17] from 2012. And this is the first edit they every made[18]. Yes that is correct one edit created this. Fully linksed. Refs formatted in MusicLover650's usual style. External links, infobox, and categories and everything. They were clearly not a new editor.
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And looking at MusicLover650's first edits and they obviously were not a new user either. This was their second still live edit.[19] There first live edit was deleted G11 for being advertising and was 11,751 bytes in one go. Hum Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Found more evidence.

    1) So not only do we have MusciLover650 failing to finish the "Sledge Leather" job they were also working on the "Blake Morgan" job[20] when they were indeffed as a sockpuppet. They uploaded this picture of Morgan on April 1st 2012[21]

    2) User:Earflaps is than created and recreates the "Sledge Leather" page and keeps it up and makes the money. They on September 28, 2012 also uploads an image called "BlakeMorganPublicity"[22] which has since been deleted due to copyright problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Opened a SPI here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • I have reviewed this editor's article creations as SmartSE stated, and have found a pattern that fits the undisclosed paid contributor profile to a T, especially so in 2015-2016 with a steady stream of creations on corporate entities, CEOs, financial advisors, medical device companies, and the like -- nearly three dozen articles that appear just like those of a paid contributor in those two years. This point of view hasn't been made public until now; however, Earflaps accuses me here in the of being part of a cabal out to get him, related in some way I can't explain to the Daniel Amen kerfluffle. So I'd like to say for the record that I find this accusation inappropriate and wildly non-germane to the AfD in which it occurred, just as if it was intended to deflect attention from the content of his contributions. Otherwise, I agree with SmartSE's analysis and conclusion and find the editor's flat denial to be in no way credible.
    Additionally, if anyone should doubt that American/UK music promoters exist which advertise their Wikipedia article writing prowess, see this and this. - Brianhe (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The circumstantial evidence points convincingly to this being a case of undisclosed paid editing, yet Earflaps says they are not paid. It is theoretically possible the editor takes a keen interest in out-of the-way medical device companies and obscure US businessmen and likes building puffy articles about them scratched-up from the meagrest and/or unreliable sources, but I find it hard to conceive that's really what's happening. If we look at Tommy Hilfiger, before Earflap's involvement[23] this contained some criticism about alleged "sweatshop conditions" and a court settlement, yet this was apparently moved[24] to the Tommy Hilfiger (company) article. In fact, looking at the dated edits this "move" never happened – strangely, the "controversies" were added by anothed editor, Stray.Child[25] before being "respectfully" massaged-in by Earflaps[26]. Stray.Child is almost certainly another WP:SOCK, since in their few edits thay also overlap with Earflaps at Hell & Heaven Metal Fest. After Earflap's subsequent work the company's article now has a "Corporate responsibility" section which is not so much "criticism" as a paean to the superb ethics of the Hillfiger corporation, heavily sourced to the company's own material. In other words, a pretty slick PR whitewashing job has apparently been done.
    While the community can siteban Earflaps on the basis of the volume of WP:QUACKing, the reach of this is so big (e.g. Earflaps has worked on the The Coca-Cola Company article, which suggests this may be a high-profile PR outfit) I would hope it was something WMF legal would pursue to get some real-world traction on. Alexbrn (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment – and what is with creating redirects like this? And with the *vast* number of edits to categories. Some kind of SEO? Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes the editing appears to be that of someone with a COI. Definitely they are promotional and to such a degree that admin interventions are required IMO. A checkuser may be useful but as they are sophisticated might come up empty. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol - if all my edits are obviously paid, how come you are the first people to bring me to ANI ever? I see even more now why most other large posters dont' seem to stick around long - they get hounded off the website. I regularly clean up crap pages and have probably interacted with hundreds upon hundreds of banned puppets by now - going through the list and picking one I seem to have some similarities to is cherry picking evidence to the extreme, as far as I am concerned. And where is your analysis of all my beautiful festival pages, for example? Out of all my edits, you only seem interested in the corporations and biographies I've bothered bringing to (basically) good quality. This whole thing is ridiculous. Posting big pages and touching controversy sections is not some hard proof of COI puppetry, just of nerdy dedication with ocd tendencies. The Tommy Hilfiger page, for example, is incredibly high-profile - and yet not a single editor disagreed with me on a single point on that whole page, because my edits were awesome and sensible.

    I would like to point out that BrianSE has been hounding me for the last day, first with a trivial and easily removed speedy deletion tag on a stub from years ago, and then a deletion discussion on one of my page creations where he smears my neutrality with no diffs or evidence, excluding the vague arguments that "its big" and "low-level executive" (evidently not bothering to look at my editing history prior to that posting, or he would have seen exactly how I happened upon the topic in the first place). Also, Alexbrn was just a week or so ago involved in an edit war with me, which ended in me bringing him to the noticeboard and getting the page where he encountered me (Daniel Amen) frozen for a week - over a simple balance tag! And Doc contacted me in private to ask if I was a paid editor within hours of BearSE's first accusations - I assume he noticed the issue on BearSE's talk page and jumped on the bandwagon. Or, maybe a sockuppet of BearSE himself, lol, if we're just going to town with speculation. Nah, I don't actually think that about BearSE. See, I respect the contributions of my peers in the spirit of AFG, and don't like to drag their reputations through the mud, without absolutely no conclusive evidence of anything, just to protect a pet page. Earflaps (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "How come you are the first people to bring me to ANI ever?" Nobody has said that all of your edits are paid. I guess I'm the first to connect all of the dots, but back in 2012 User:Bilby added a COI tag to one of your first creations, User:Voceditenore raised concerns that Korliss Uecker contained unsourced personal info (presumably obtained direct from the subject). More recently, your rewrite of Hampton Creek was branded "a terrible, terrible article written by the company's pr department" by User:Exeunt. I imagine there are other examples. SmartSE (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I have criticism. Have you seen how many pages I've written? Here's a question - don't you find it odd, that in all of my edits, this is all you have to criticize me with? Korliss Uecker was tagged undoutably because I was a new account, which all experienced editors tend to treat with suspicion. I assume the "unsourced personal information" was something harmless found on a blog or other website that I didn't source correctly - unless you have any evidence to the contrary? Maybe there are other "mishaps" from 2012 you'd like to try and dredge up? Earflaps (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's moot now that Earflaps has been indeffed by User:Someguy1221 for socking, but... His assertion that this material about the subject's family in Korliss Uecker was widely available on the internet and he had just used the wrong source for the citation beggars belief. I searched for it myself before deleting it from the article. And it wasn't tagged because he was a new editor, it came to my attention because I monitor all new opera-related articles. The MO is also classic paid editing, and not just this article. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    There is sufficient on evidence on Wikipedia of promotional editing and a long history of the same. I would like to proposal a community ban. Cleanup will of course time and likely all this editor's edits need to be reviewed. Post any dealing with medicine to WT:MED for our review. Reviewing their edits pertaining to medicine was what raised my concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. This is the twilight zone, I swear to god. I understand duck hunting is a noble sport, but shooting every goose, grebe, and swan in sight is egregious overkill. I don't even know what to say - the allegations and suppositions are so outlandish at this point I'm flabbergasted. Paid to work for billionaires and multi-billion conglomerates? If I'm paid to work for billionaires, why the world do I live in a basement? There is no consensus in this ANI that I am some sort of shill, excluding editors who have an obvious bone to grind because of that singular tag I dared add to Amen's page - so why on earth are people taking the initiative to tag every single major semi-large or large project I've done (hundreds I might add), with no actual evidence of COI except conjecture? Does WP:Wikihounding literally mean nothing here? The Amen posse needs to start acting civilized, and do their due diligence before brutally attacking editors for the simple "crime" of posting big pages. I note that none of them are bringing up the many cases where I added controversies and negative information, which, I might add, I do regularly. I'll be requesting assistance at the harrassment noticeboard, to ensure Brianhe, Smartse, and Alexbrn don't destroy years of volunteer hours for no good reason. Earflaps (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns have nothing to do with the Amen page. It is the medical articles you have written the cause my concerns.
    Also that your editing style is basically the same as that of sock puppet User:MusicLover650 and you recreated work of that account without attribution. And this was your first edit[27] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Provisional support for community ban. Smoke from the gun obscures the sun. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    2. Comment user was indeffed at SPI here[28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Ban the user for violation fo the terms of use. Delete all articles created by the user and plausible socks. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Support community ban. This degree of sockpuppetry, promotional editing and disruption by this user far outweighs any valuable contributions he has made for this project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Support I spend quite a bit of time at New Editor Contributions and the paid/promotional edits are easy to spot. I would have been 50/50 in favour of a temporary restriction if the editor hadn't brazenly denied everything despite the obvious nature of his edits. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Strike this - the editor has been Indef Blocked as a sock so it's moot. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Ban - a community ban goes beyond a block in expressing the outrage of the community. Ban him. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Support obviously. SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Support. MER-C 06:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CesareAngelotti

    CesareAngelotti is likely also a sock: see for example their efforts at Gigi Levy-Weiss, which are stylistically the same as Earflaps' (Levy-Weiss is an executive at a company whose articles Earflaps edited). As doc said the editor is (semi-) sophisticated so a checkuser might not tally. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Zanglazor is the one who created the underlying ref style but is no longer active. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Related

    I have initiated discussion at WT:CSD on the addition of a new General criterion for material created in violation of the terms of use. I have also forked COI to {{Undisclosed paid}}, as there is a substantial and important difference between the (often naive) involvement of, say, an employee of a company, and systematic, cynical abuse of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for these Guy. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking into the possibility of developing an AI system to help detect returning users for CU follow up. This would not only help with serial undisclosed paid sock puppets but disruptive user who harass other Wikipedians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Huge clean up still required

    Guy has taken care of some of the page creations per G5, but there are still many article expansions that require attention, to either revert per WP:EVASION or clean up if other edits have taken place after Earflaps' edits. I have only gotten through the first 5 pages of so of the contrib survey and only listed non-musical articles in User:Brianhe/COIbox43, most of which have not been edited. There are huge amounts of content remaining. Should we move Brianhe's subpage to WP:LTA? How have we gotten more people involved in previous cases like OrangeMoody? SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Over 9000 articles edited? It's going to be a big job. How do we coordinate this? John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    sock puppet allegations

    User:36hourblock has today posted false allegations in two places that I am a puppet master saying "about your continued operation of the sock puppets User:Display name 99 and User:PeacePeace." see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bank_War&diff=746655180&oldid=746361679 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=755920454&oldid=755780022 Rjensen (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Display name 99 explains to User talk:36hourblock why he's not Rjensen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:36hourblock&diff=755930724&oldid=755925277 Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at your second dif, 36hourblock needs to read WP:OWN. No user owns an article. --Darth Mike(talk) 15:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Darth Mike enters the sockpuppet dispute with a Troll-like comment on article "ownership" - nothing but a distraction - and totally consistent with the activities of Rjensen and Display name 99 when these usernames fool with the articles I edit. But thank you for you input. 36hourblock (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    36hourblock if you think you have enough evidence that Rjensen is a sock master the correct forum for presenting that evidence is WP:SPI. If you continue to make allegations of sockpuppetry any where else you will be blocked for personal attacks. - GB fan 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear GB - Would you agree that the level of suspicion was sufficient in 2007 to warn Rjensen about his activities? 36hourblock (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know nor care what happened 10 years ago. If the evidence was there, then it should have been taken care of then. If you suspect there is sockpuppetry going on now, take it to the proper forum with evidence. - GB fan 21:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from explaining why Rjensen and I are not the same, I would like to refute the connection that 36hourblock alleges exists between Rjensen and PeacePeace, an allegation which was made in the second link that Rjensen provided. They link to Talk:John C. Calhoun#Advocate of "Minority Rights"?. From the looks of it, PeacePeace asked a question, Rjensen responded, and the matter was resolved. How in the world is that supposed to indicate sockpuppetry? Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem 36hourblock is trying to win a content dispute by intimidating/provoking anyone that disagrees. This conduct is unbecoming. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Check out his reverts of my edits to Missouri Compromise. Display name 99 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the OP for 48 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks add they have not retracted their sock puppet allegations nor started an investigation. - GB fan 21:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Musashi miyamoto

    Informed on talk page here.

    Disruptive editing and incivility by ♥, a WP:SPA (technically, he posted some non-SPA in 2011, but his 2016 contributions have been SPA), mainly on the article RF resonant cavity thruster (aka the emdrive), a controversial invention. As background, the emdrive article is currently dominated by three emdrive proponents, two of whom (including Musashi) are WP:SPA.

    Musashi tried to introduce weakly-sourced and IMHO pseudoscientific content (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RF_resonant_cavity_thruster&diff=prev&oldid=752493757), and has been edit-warring for months on and off (with sporadic support from the other two dominant page editors) to attempt to steamroller in the content without WP:CONSENSUS, for example: [29][30][31]). Continued despite a warning on the article talk page [32] and two warnings on his talk page. Claims there is WP:CONSENSUS for change, despite active discussion and multiple skeptical editors objecting to it on reasoned grounds. (To be fair, I'm the only page editor currently actively trying to revert that particular weakly-sourced addition, but other editors have raised objections on Talk about the addition!) Again to be fair, the three most active editors are pro-emdrive and in favor of inclusion, but my understanding is that WP:CONSENSUS doesn't work that way, especially on WP:FRINGE pages. If my understanding is incorrect, please correct me! To be clear, my complaint filed here is about Musashi's behavior, not the other two main pro-emdrive editors.

    In addition, Musashi consistently exhibits non-civil behavior, for example:

    • According to Guy/Jzg, an admin, Musashi wrongly accused Guy of vandalism; Guy's warning is here: [33]. I don't have a diff for whatever actual incident Guy alludes to. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • [34] Apparently not taking Guy's warning to heart, called my edits "vandalism".
    • [35] Possibly in retaliation for my placing edit-warring warnings on his Talk page, opened a section on my Talk page titled "Belligerent Editing".
    • [36] Accused me of "slandering" the IBTimes and the authors of the paper he's trying to include.

    Also, Musashi is IMHO tendentiously helping block inclusion of well-sourced material:

    • [37] The Washington Post publishes the uncontroversial statement that "Most scientists are skeptical" of the emdrive. Musashi (along with the two other main pro-emdrive editors) argues against the change to the WP:LEDE, insisting on watering it down to something like "Many scientists are skeptical". This seems to me tendentious. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I echo Rolf's comments. I would suggest that in the first instance the user is restricted from making edits directly to that article, and potentially is topic banned altogether. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This user opinions on this subject cannot be considered as being objective, because this user has personal grudge against me since the time when I have shown that he abused his power and was unfair (more on this in my reply to Rolf H Nelson below)Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear admins, I can't help but guess I am the other account accused by Rolf of being a "WP:SPA" (I am a indeed a relatively new account but that has contributed a fair amount to other articles here, here , here, and am drafting a new article here). I appreciate Rolf has highlighted that he is not raising the complaint about myself or InsertCleverPhrase, but I would like to raise some points: It seems reasonably clear that Rolf has his own POV on the emdrive issue (""the emdrive doesn't work" is an objective fact") and that the reported incident here appears to be motivated to advance that POV on the page rather then tackle underlying breaches of policy. There is extensive coverage of the topics being debated on the talk page: notably the "most/many scientists" controversy in the lede, and the underlying science (a purported "Casimir-like effect') behind the drive. From what I see there is a healthy debate on the talk page, and the editing on the main page merely reflects that debate. There are die-hard opponents and proponents on both sides, both of which seem incapable of compromise.--Sparkyscience (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sparkyscience Correct, you're the other SPA editor I was referring to. The three articles you list as having contributed to, zero-point energy, De Broglie–Bohm theory, and electrodynamics all relate to the emdrive or fringe theories advanced to justify the emdrive; thus SPA. Many accounts, despite being SPA or initially SPA, are nevertheless still WP:Here to build an encyclopedia, in which case we're happy to have you here. As for being new, welcome aboard; we were all new editors once, and I'm sorry your initial experience editing Wikipedia is encountering difficulty. Yes, there is debate on the talk page[38] that blocked the change to "most scientists are skeptical", sourced to the Washington Post[39]; I consider the blocking of the edit tendentious, and understand that the people blocking the change obviously do not consider their arguments tendentious. I'm sorry you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the motivation behind this ANI post, hopefully that won't prevent us from working together to improve the RF resonant cavity thruster article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Admins, apparently user Rolf H Nelson considers that attack is the best form of defense, that is why he created this entry in which he twists everything round and distorts the facts. He falsely accuses of alleged wrongdoings not only me but also other editors of that article like Sparkyscience[[40]], to which Sparkyscience replied: "The irony is not lost on me that it appears to be you who is deleting other peoples contributions and that most other editors do not agree with your preferred version of the page. Any particular reason why you copy and pasted this warning on my and Musashi miyamoto but not InsertCleverPhrase talk page seeing as we have all done the same thing? I agree this needs to go to DR.--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"[reply]
      I and several (at least 3 others) other editors merely have been reverting his obvious vandalism. In particular, there has been already reached the consensus twice regarding [[41]], yet he repeatedly ignores that and is pushing his own POV by removing indiscriminately multiple times (about a dozen times) without any good reason the whole sections of the article against the consensus previously reached - this is a seriously disruptive editing, it is in fact vandalism, because it became evident that his motivations have been other than to improve Wikipedia, his removal of the whole sections of the article were not good-faith editions. In order for a disruptive editing to be considered non-vandalism, there must be seen any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to core content policies of neutral point of view is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia and therefore constitutes to be vandalism. I suppose that we all assumed good-faith editions by Rolf H Nelson at the beginning, but evidently repetitive removal without a good reason of the whole sections without waiting to reach a new consensus and ignoring the previous consensus, and ignoring most of the valid points, which successfully rebut his unfounded opinions, show that his intentions are not to improve Wikipedia. His overall behavior in fact shows that he is trolling, because despite being the culprit he dares to falsely accuse victims of his trolling and takes unfounded actions against them unscrupulously lying and distorting the facts. It is quite apparent that he gains satisfaction from such disruptive and cunning behavior like all trolls do.
    Sparkyscience said to Rolf H Nelson in the talk page of the article: "It should be self evident looking at the talk page that not everybody agrees with your POV, but nonetheless your view has already been taken into consideration with the correct moderation, by clearly stating that many scientists believe it to be impossible and classify it as pseudoscience. Attributed quotes stating that the majority of the scientific community believe such devices as impossible belong in the body not the lede. The lede should be objective and not portray opinions as facts. The other editors are under no obligation to accept your demands for a false compromise that you offer on your own terms to remove the NPOV tag. Continuing to hold the page hostage until you "win" just betrays the fact you are wedded to own ideas. Accusing the other editors of being disruptive while deleting whole sections indiscriminately is clearly hypocritical and unhelpful. You also consistently seem uninterested in addressing or giving specific criticism to the proposed underlying scientific theory by which the device works: Let me ask again - where does the energy of the Casimir effect come from? and is it possible in principle to transfer momentum from the electromagnetic field to matter and under what constraints?--Sparkyscience (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)"
    Also confirmed by Insertcleverphrasehere who said to Rolf H Nelson the follwing: "Know when to give up, the majority won't always agree with you, even if you argue ad nauseam. You clearly have a POV to push here, try to exercise some self control. I realise that you don't like that the mainstream media keeps being overly positive about these tests, but thats what the sources are, for better or worse.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"
    Now, let's move to the other points in his false accusations:
    • WP:SPA - this accusation is so ridiculous, I do edit also other languages wikipedias, and I do not always login when edit, because the only thing I care is improving Wikipedia, while it seems that some other editors also like to brag how many edits they did. I do not know how many edits altogether I did in en Wikipedia and other Wikipedias, because it never mattered to me, but certainly more than my logged editions here show. Probably I do not edit as often as some other editors for various reasons, including time constraints, however, there is noting wrong with that. I only edited Emdrive while being logged only because my web browser or wikipedia site remembered me all the time when I was returning to see again the article, and because of that I have been doing all Emdrive editions while being logged. I note that this is also the first time ever, since I began editing Wikipedia many years ago, that I met so much belligerent and unfair editor as Rolf H Nelson.
    • Musashi tried to introduce weakly-sourced and IMHO pseudoscientific content - not true, the consensus on the talk page was that it is a well sourced input[[42]], not different in any way from other inputs. All papers which are in included in the article, just like this one, were published in peer reviewed journals and had multiple secondary sources. If this one is to be removed then all other hypotheses would have to be removed as well, because there is no difference between them regarding weight and sources (all peer-reviewed and all with the same or similar multiple secondary sources).
      Also I replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows and he did not comment it in any way:

    It can be said about all or most of the hypotheses presented here (except perhaps measurements errors). So why would you challenge this one and not the other ones? I have to repeat myself again: "There is no difference between the position of this hypothesis and all the others. All of them have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and subsequently debated in popular press. This is not up to Wikipedia users to decide which one is correct one and which one is not. You have no qualification for that, unless you published a rebuttal in a scientific peer-reviewed paper - but even then the hypothesis should not be deleted, but merely an information about rebuttal paper added. However, no such rebuttal paper has been published in this case." So there are no reasons to remove this hypothesis - if you remove this hypothesis then all the others would have to be removed as well. They are all equal in a sense that they all have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals with decent IFs, and all have been published in secondary sources.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

    All of my edits were to improve Wikipedia, and all of them were done in accordance with Wikipedia polices, and all other active editors of that article confirmed that. When someone attempted to add not well enough sourced new hypothesis (it was not published in a per review paper, but only in an article in a magazine) I and only I requested that it should be removed due to breaking WP:RS policy. Those users who are war editing now (in particular Rolf H Nelson), have not requested this, even though there was a good reason for that, which shows that they are not objective regarding using WP policies. In fact I pointed out their hypocrisy to them then: "Where are those editors eagerly reversing inputs now? What did happen that they allow a hypothesis without a scientific paper to be included in a Wikipedia article?"[[43]] I reached a consensus with the author of that not well sourced input and he agreed with me that it should be deleted and he deleted it.[[44]] So all this shows that I am objective and constructive, I can and do achieve consensus with reasonably behaving editors, and that I do follow all those Wikipedia polices, which I am aware of, in order to improve Wikipedia, but unfortunately that cannot be said about the belligerent users such as Rolf H Nelson and to a lesser extent also JzG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musashi miyamoto (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • and has been edit-warring for months on and off Not true. I started editing Emdrive article on 6th of December 2016[[45]]. I have always been logged when editing this article and never edited this article before. It is Rolf H Nelson who is edit warring and other editors agree with me.
    • (with sporadic support from the other two dominant page editors) Not true. It was the other way around.[[46]] First Tokamac, Sparkyscience and Insertcleverphrasehere have been reverting disruptive blanking of the whole sections by Rolf H Nelson. So there have been three editors before me reverting Rolf H Nelson disruptive edits and I began supporting them, as the fourth editor, only when it became apparent that what Rolf H Nelson is doing is vandalism (that these were not good-faith edits), and when it became apparent that those three other editors had hard time coping with the malicious, indriscriminate, repetitious removal of the whole sections of the article by Rolf H Nelson against the consensus reached twice amongst active editors on the article talk page.
    • Continued despite a warning on the article talk page [165] and two warnings on his talk page Not true, there was only one false warning (which by the way I did not see for some time). As already other editors pointed out this is all part of pushing his POV against the consensus. When his vandalism did not work, because the 4 editors were firmly against him and none from the active editors supported him, he eventually stopped vandalising and instead started this phoney war accusing falsely other editors, while the evidence shows that he is the culprit. Also he ignored multiple requests from other editors of taking the matter to DR or RS, as other editors multiple time suggested to him, which he has not done yet, and which additionally shows that he is not interested in any compromise, he is not interested in improving this Wikipedia article, he is only interested in personal attacks against editors. Also I note that I did not notice his phoney warning on the article talk page (which was not directed personally to me), because he inserted it after the references.
    • Claims there is WP:CONSENSUS for change, despite active discussion and multiple skeptical editors objecting to it on reasoned grounds. Not true, there was achieved twice the consensus among active editors. Editor InsertCleverPhraseHere replied to Rolf H Nelson on the article talk page as follows: "Still, none of this explains why you unilaterally removed the section under discussion here, citing the need to get consensus before inclusion. A huge discussion has been undertaken here regarding that section, and consensus seems to have formed that the material merits inclusion. I really don't understand why you decided that removal and more talk was the right option here. If you believe the material does not merit inclusion, perhaps you should say so here, as the points you have raised above don't really apply as we DO have reliable secondary sources reporting on this.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)"
      The views of those two who became inactive had been rebutted and they did not object, so it had to be assumed that they agreed with rebuttals. Rolf H Nelson at that time did not participate in the discussion on the talk page, but instead started his disruptive war editing, even though he had been told multiple times by at least 4 different editors that what he is doing is wrong and disruptive. For some unknown reason (probably to show that there is allegedly less editors against his views than there really are) Rolf H Nelson has not included here Tokamac who also reverted his disruptive blanking of the whole sections of the article; it is also not clear why Rolf H Nelson chose me as his main victim of his trolling attempts, although it seem likely that he did this in retaliation for leaving the warning on his talk page in an attempt to stop his disruptive editing.
    • According to Guy/Jzg, an admin, Musashi wrongly accused Guy of vandalism; Guy's warning is here: [166].) I did not know at that time that vandalism on Wikipedia has more narrow meaning than dictionary meaning. However, what Guy/Jzg did would not be vandalism only if we assume good-faith editing, and I am not so sure that it was such editing when considering his further disruptive edits, because he did not explain the reasons neither of that first edit and later ones (he later removed twice china.com link as the source and he did not explain why he did it). Also Guy/Jzg is using two different usernames, apparently he is using Jzg for disruptive editing and Guy when talking to editors. He knows very well that editors cannot know that he is an admin when he edits as Jzg, because there is not information on his page about that, and yet he told me "don't accuse administrators of vandalism", even though I had not chance of knowing that he is an admin. Then he threatened me in such a way that it looked as abuse of his power and was simply unfair. No matter who he is he should follow Wikipedia policies (he was not) and as an admin be particularly friendly to other editors (he was not to me), being an admin he should shine to others as an example and not behave like he did.
    • Apparently not taking Guy's warning to heart, called my edits "vandalism". Because they are vandalism as already explained in details above. I made only two major additions to the article, and I did not expect when I added them that there will be any problems, because these were good edits with good sources added in agreement with all Wikipedia policies. Other editors later changed the text of my editions to other equivalent texts and I did not complain. But what Rolf H Nelson was doing by repeatedly (about a dozen times) removing indiscriminately whole sections without a good reason and against the consensus reached in the talk page was simply wrong. I improve Wikipedia by adding good, reliable, sourced content, so I create the content, while all Rolf H Nelson did was indiscriminate destruction - he was not improving Wikipedia, but destroying it for his own purposes, which seems to be a satisfaction from trolling other editors as well as administration by creating this entry instead of taking it to DR or RS, as other editors multiple time suggested to him, which he has not done yet, and which additionally shows that he is not interested in any compromise, he is not interested in improving this Wikipedia article, he is only interested in trolling here, because he just does not like the article and apparently the editors who disagree with him.
    • Possibly in retaliation for my placing edit-warring warnings on his Talk page, opened a section on my Talk page titled "Belligerent Editing". Considering his notoriously belligerent behaviour I believe that we all here can only regret that such a warning has not being issued earlier. We can see on this example how he is trolling, when he put, for a false reason, a warning on my talk page it is not according to him non-civil behavior, but when I duly put a warning on his talk page to attempt to stop his war editing against the consensus, then suddenly it is allegedly non-civil behavior according to him - such hypocrisy and perfidy is not helpful to anyone.
    • Accused me of "slandering" the IBTimes and the authors of the paper he's trying to include. Because that is what he did, he said without a good reason on the article talk page about many times awarded International Business Times that "ibtimes historically has a reputation for clickbait" and regarding the authors of the paper "I think the physicist would've said "reading this paper was a waste of my precious time on Earth"."
      Again he was proved to be wrong by other editors, and ignored it:

    "The peer-reviewers (presumably physicists) who reviewed the article obviously didn't think it was 'utter nonsense', or else they would not have approved it. Your personal opinion of the validity of the paper's theoretical musings is very unimportant to establishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Rather this seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason for the deletion of the section. Specifically why, what policies, is the section in clear violation of?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)"

    • Also, Musashi is IMHO tendentiously helping block inclusion of well-sourced material:) All I said in that section was this: "Arguments of Insertcleverphrasehere are convincing here. 'Many' is a better choice than 'most'" There is nothing wrong with that. That is in fact a correct way of discussing the issues.

    As you can see from the whole evidence Rolf H Nelson is a belligerent, not objective editor uninterested in compromise and pushing his own POV, he is doing it probably to satisfy his trolling needs, he is uninterested in improving this wikipedia article; during the whole December 2016 he was only removing the whole sections from the article without a good reason and against the consensus, he was destructive, he did not add any new content on merit, while I was constructive and improved Wikipedia by adding new, good, well sourced content, and other active users agreed with me.

    What Rolf H Nelson is doing is greatly discouraging users like me to improve Wikipedia, because not every user has time, stamina and will to struggle here with trolls and other belligerent users. Many will give up and Wikipedia content will suffer as the result.
    For those and other reasons such belligerent behavior as Rolf H Nelson presented when disruptively editing that article and when interacting with other editors, and falsely accusing them of wrongdoings, should not be tolerated, therefore I kindly request to ban Rolf H Nelson for considerable amount of time or at least restrict his access to that article, so that he could not disruptively edit that article again. Kind Regards Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't have a problem discouraging you from "improving" Wikipedia... Guy (Help!) 02:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    With such attitude you should not be an admin, really. Shame on you.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you aren't aware that in colloquial English usage, putting a word in so-called "scare quotes" is to intimate that one is being sarcastic, and most probably means exactly the opposite of what seems to be saying. Thus, when Guy says "I don't have a problem discouraging you from 'improving' Wikipedia," what he really means is that your edits have not been improvements, and that being the case he has no problem discouraging you from editing, as doing so will help the encyclopedia from being debased in quality. This is an attitude which is not antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia in any way, shape or form: we should all -- admins and rank-and-file editors alike -- work towards improving the project, which means removing edits which do not improve it. We are here to build an encyclopedia, you seem to be here to push a particular point of view about a project which contravenes the laws of physics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think that this is the case only in colloquial English usage, but also regular language usage, and not only English. However, admins should not be sarcasting against ordinary users - this is not polite. Particularly when such sarcasm is unsubstantiated (i.e. when it is false and groundless), like in this case. This particular admin does not behave like an admin would, and not even as a decent ordinary user would, as already described in more details above (so I am not going to repeat myself here). All of my edits were to improve Wikipedia, and all of them were done in accordance with Wikipedia polices, and all other active editors of that article confirm that. It is not true that "you seem to be here to push a particular point of view about a project which contravenes the laws of physics". I have not been doing such a thing. If you still think otherwise please prove it.
    Also when someone attempted to add not well enough sourced new hypothesis (it was not published in a per review paper, but only in an article in a magazine) I and only I requested that it should be removed due to breaking WP:RS policy. Those users who are war editing now, have not requested this, even though there was a good reason for that, which shows that they are not objective regarding using WP policies. In fact I pointed out their hypocrisy to them then: "Where are those editors eagerly reversing inputs now? What did happen that they allow a hypothesis without a scientific paper to be included in a Wikipedia article?"[[47]] I reached a consensus with the author of that not well sourced input and he agreed with me that it should be deleted and he deleted it.[[48]] So all this shows that I am objective and constructive, I can and do achieve consensus with reasonably behaving editors, and that I do follow all those Wikipedia polices, which I am aware of, in order to improve Wikipedia, but unfortunately that cannot be said about the belligerent users such as Rolf H Nelson and to a lesser extent also JzG. Merry Christmas. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins (or non-involved observers), please feel free to ping me in the event there's something in the wall of text above you believe I should address or respond to, or more broadly if you have advice on how I could have handled this in a way that might not have ended up having to bring someone to the ANI board. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must categorically disagree with the assertions of Rolf. He has personally attempted to remove the section in dispute 7 times! Been reverted by multiple other editors, including myself. He just doesn't like it and is belligerently hounding other editors simply following the sources (peer reviewed primary source with multiple editorially controlled secondary sources). The only thing I can agree with is that Musashi miyamoto should not have accused Rolf of vandalism, rather his behaviour is representative of edit warring and tendentious editing instead (so much so that I've considered taking it to the edit warring noticeboard). I recently informed MM of the precise meaning of the WP policy of this issue on their talk page, and to my knowledge the user in question has not used the wording since. As for the recent battleground that has developed on the article in question's talk page, this is entirely due to Rolf, and I have suggested multiple times that Rolf take it to dispute resolution, but he has declined, and rather has chosen to continue edit warring with the section in question. I also do not appreciate his timing on taking this to AN/I, as having to come on here and defend another user on Christmas day is not my idea of a good holiday. I also am a bit miffed that I was not even informed of this post until I was mentioned above. InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I think that MM could adopt less of a battleground approach to their editing, it certainly is not so bad as to deserve disciplinary action, and Rolf's behavior has been as bad or worse. The correct decision here would have been to take this to dispute resolution, not to attempt a witch hunt at AN/I against a new user. I suspect that Rolf thinks the later would have more success than the former, due to the vulnerability of new editors here at AN/I, and why he chose the course of action that he did. MM is making constructive edits, and Sparkyscience seems to be the most knowledgeable editor on the subject that we have, even if his additions are a bit voluminous at times (I don't mind paring down good edits). Neither of these editors has done anything to deserve disciplinary action.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TroySchulz showing repeated disregard for warnings/policies guidelines

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

    As evidenced from their Talk page, TroySchulz (talk · contribs) has shown repeated difficulties either understanding or following Wikipedia guidelines despite multiple warnings, nor have they shown a willingness to discuss the concerns editors have expressed.

    Warnings for adding unsourced information/original research (2016): [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55].

    Beyond their issues with adding unsourced material, the editor has shown a tendency to rely on IMDb as a reference despite being referred to WP:RS/IMDb, and bloats ploat summaries in violation of WP:FILMPLOT despite similar advisories. I'm happy to provide additional links as desired.

    Given their evident lack of interest in changing their editing habits, I feel a block is warranted until such time as they recognize that they need to change their behavior. DonIago (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I was alerted to this discussion, so take my comments with a grain of salt, I guess. Anyway, TroySchulz had a bit of a rough start; I and several other editors warned him for apparent vandalism because it looked like he was intentionally adding incorrect information to articles. It could be that he was using copying information from the IMDb, which is infamously subject to incorrect rumors and hoaxes (much like Wikipedia itself). For an explanation of why the IMDb is not a reliable source, see this source and this hoax cleanup (much of the sourcing depended on the IMDb). After this behavior stopped, TroySchulz mostly started adding unsourced puffery and citations to the IMDb. It would be nice if he stopped. There are a number of diffs on his talk page where I addressed individual problematic edits. I eventually stopped giving him warnings because it didn't seem to be accomplishing anything. As far as I can tell from the x tools, he's only made two edits to talk pages ever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a little surprised that no admins have chimed in thus far, even to say that they don't feel any action should be taken. I think it's fair to say that both NRP and I have expressed valid concerns, and while Troy hasn't edited for the past couple of days, their pattern of poor editing despite multiple warnings, and failure to engage with their fellow editors suggests to me that no amount of Talk page messaging (at least by non-admins) will be effective at curbing their disruptive behavior. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I was asked by DonIago to comment on this thread, because I too had warned TroySchulz in the past for problematic behavior. The reference is to this edit of mine to his talkpage. In view of the large number of warnings that many experienced editor have had to send this editor, and the complete lack of a reaction from his side, coupled with the fact that his editing pattern does not seem to have improved much, I am of the opinion that only a block can either force this editor to rethink his edits or stop the disruption caused by his edits. I'd recommend a week-long block not including his talkpage, or even a block till such time as talkpage discussion will show that he understands the issues which have been brought to his attention. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On the off-chance that I haven't made my feelings clear already, I'd be fine with either of those options. Troy's lack of communication is at least as much, if not more, of an issue as their problematic editing behaviors in general. DonIago (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel

    As part of his close at the top of this page, @Avraham: stipulated that all of @Sander.v.Ginkel:'s BLP articles were to be listed, and any not endorsed as acceptable within a week would then be deleted. I was concerned that this process would delete a large number of acceptable articles? I therefore asked Avraham on his talk page if he would be willing to allow the articles to be moved to draftspace instead so that myself and other interested editors could check them, or else undeleted into draft space in chunks, checked for BLP violations, and then checked for mainspace worthiness the same way. Avraham suggested that I bring the discussion to ANI. Does the community feel that moving the articles to draft space (either en masse or in chunks) so that they can be checked should be permitted? Tazerdadog (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose. I am discussing the supervote close by Avi at WP:AN. The discussion above has been going on for more than two weeks, and not a single article has been checked by these concerned citizens or projects. But when a proposal to delete them all gets overwhelming consensus, we first have a closer ignoring that consensus, and then a proposal to weaken the unsupported proposal even further. The articles in general have so little added value that checking them will take about as much time as actually recreating them. This supervote and subsequent proposal to simply ignore the long discussion and consensus reached there is a rather sad state of affairs. There is no deadline, we survived without these articles for 15 years, we then had them for a few months (for the vast majority of them), it does no harm at all if we again not have them for some time, until someone comes along who wants to create decent articles about them. Fram (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Oppose I don't know why you felt the need to re-open this issue. The issue is already closed. Please stop. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It would be good to at least see a complete list of these articles. I'd be happy to check any cyclists who've been at the Olympics, for example. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 13:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing this [56] (Draft space) and this [57] (Article space) will help, though I'm not sure it's everything. EEng 08:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlos Danger

    Carlos Danger is indefinitely topic banned by the community from editing articles on fossil fuels, climate, and climate change, broadly construed. Sam Walton (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a user who makes a fair number of edits to climate change related topics, which edits consistently favour the fossil fuel agenda and downplay the problem of denialism. He also appears to stalk William M Connolley ([58], [59], [60], [61]). Example problem edits:

    As far as I can tell, most if not all his edits on topics related to fossil fuels, climate, and climate change, are tendentious and reverted by others. This is a time sink and I think the user should be topic banned form climate related articles. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support "Discuss" is not in this user's playbook. Except for a single quote from a third party he has not posted any talk page comments, A number of us have attempted to point out how this place works at his user talk. No response, nadda, zip.... but more edits of this sort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - earlier today (Dec 23) Carlos made his second all-time talk page edit, by blanking his own talkpage, including tips from others, the DS WP:ARBCC warning, and notice of this ANI filing. His edit summary dismisses all of these prevention efforts with the edit summary "clean up". Of course, this is Carlos' prerogative under WP:OWNTALK, but the closing admin should be aware of his cavalier response.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As much as I think topic bans don't work, the last thing Wikipedia needs is a climate change denier trying to edit articles on climate change. Any way we can stop such accounts from wasting good faith editors' time is something we should try. jps (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for the greater good.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; the lack of D in his implementation of WP:BRD is very concerning. His rare edits outside that topic are somewhat pertinent, however. Let's start with a topic ban and see if he's WP:NOTHERE, or if his energies can be employed more productively. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support although I fear the problem may spread to other topic areas (I am a pessimist). The TB should include related topics, like fossil fuels, imho. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Discretionary-Sanctions tban. Editor was already warned about WP:ARBCC and continued to make the same/similar problematic edits. I and others have undone several of this editor's edits where sentences were removed with WP:ES "uncited" or "not supported" or such, but they indeed were. In every case, the removed content was contrary to this editor's apparent bias, so this is more evidence of bad-faith edits against neutrality. DMacks (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm fairly certain that CD is an old friend who has returned after something of a break. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock of whom? Guy (Help!) 20:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know but I think Boris is right William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking for another ANI thread when this one caught my eye. I want to point out a possible (???) username issue. Please see here for an explanation. I honestly cannot make up my mind whether this is, or is not, a violation of the username policy, so I'm just pointing it out and leaving it to others. I apologize in advance if I have raised a non-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban, user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Close please

    The behaviour continues, a review of edits (especially the focus on William Connolley) strongly suggests a Scibaby sock, and this is now boring. Can someone action this please? Guy (Help!) 09:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumping thread. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC) . Carlos continues to revert, continues to make false assertions of WP:TRUTH, and to date has only made one talk page post ever. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd put the likelihood of Scibaby as 80-90% in this case. It could be another of our dear friends whose username slips my mind. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pearson Wright

    This is a user who came here solely for the purpose of promoting his own recreation of the Pirates of the Caribbean Online game called Pirates Online Retribution. Unfortunately, it looks like he thinks he owns the page and no one is allowed to edit it except himself. At first, any mention of another recreation of the game, the one called The Legend of Pirates Online, was unacceptable to him which is why he began replacing all traces of TLOPO with his own project ([68], [69]), making his project look like the only one, which is not true. That led to an edit war between him and Mike48374, who I believe is a member of that other project, TLOPO. For those who don't know there's an ongoing feud between the leaders of those two projects and now they're spreading the war here. Of course, when anyone undid his edits, Pearson Wright would call that "vandalism" ([70]) and even go so far that he claimed that his project is the only accessible Pirates of the Caribbean Online recreation, which is again, not true. People are playing both games whenever they want. Finally, AryaTargaryen edited the page so it would include the mention of both projects. [71] Arya also notified the admin AlexiusHoratius about Pearson Wright's disruptive edits but there was no reply. [72] Mike48374 removed the unnecessary bold text in links [73] and I put TLOPO in the first place because that project is older than POR. [74] It didn't take long for Wright to start another edit war, undoing my and Mike's edits, claiming that "an admin has intervened and has taken appropriate action", even though there were no admins involved in the dispute. I explained to Wright why his edits were wrong [75] to which he replied with accusing me of being a member of the TLOPO project [76] which I'm not, and continuing his rants about my "vandalisms". After another day of edit warring Wright broke the three-revert rule despite my warning not do that [77]. Something needs to be done about him.--Max Tomos (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    This user has been consistently attempting to change the placement of our two emulators on the Pirates of the Caribbean Online article, placing his own emulator (TLOPO) in front of ours (POR) for the sake of making his more visible. I am fine with TLOPO's project being left on the page. At first, I was not given the fact that their Staff are criminals, some indicted felons who have previously been charged with SWATTing, RATTing, and DDOSing numerous people. See here if interested: https://www.piratesforums.com/threads/evidence-against-tlopo-and-their-crimes-against-the-community.965/ Naturally, I was not in favor of such a criminal organization even being allowed to be mentioned on the POTCO article. A while ago, I replaced TLOPO with POR, and then the user Mike48374 replaced POR with TLOPO. A compromise was eventually reached when Arya Targaryen intervened and both project's names were left on the page. For a while, things cooled down, and then Max Tomos decided to begin another edit-war by changing font styles, and positions of the project names on the page for the sake of advancing his own project, and shoving ours under the rug.

    TL;DR, we'd like things to remain as they were when Arya Targaryen intervened. This is only fair. Our project is far more popular, is in a fully public state, and is actually in good standing with Disney Interactive; unlike TLOPO whose Staff are notorious for engaging in criminal activities. Therefore, we (POR) should be mentioned on the article before TLOPO. The fact that Mox Tomos is putting me on blast for essentially doing the same thing that he's been doing is hypocritical, narcissistic, and short-sighted. I was editing this article long before he was. Another user (Arya Targayen) also edited it, and I was fine with his/her edits. Mox Tomos has single-handedly attempted to overturn all of our edits for the sake of advancing his own ends. Furthermore, his argument that I've broken a "three revert rule" is also hypocritical since all of his edits are essentially nothing but reverts of mine. We can agree on one thing though, something does need to be done.

    Regards,

    Pearson Wright

    I suggest you strike the uncited accusations of criminal activities against living persons, and possibly against fellow Wikipedia editors. They are unhelpful personal attacks and do nothing to improve the encyclopedia or to solve this content dispute.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the last time, TLOPO is not my project. I'm not involved in any of those projects. I don't care whose project is "more popular" and whose "Staff are criminals". Keep your feuds out of Wikipedia. I'm simply putting TLOPO first because it's older than your project. That's all. If you can't understand that, that's your problem.--Max Tomos (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Who's project is "Older" is irrelevant. As i said before and i will say it again, i don't care who is right and who is wrong. Nothing good ever comes from an edit war or personal attacks for that matter as is precisely the case here.

    I will not engage in this dispute any further unless i absolutely have something further to add.

    AryaTargaryen (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)AryaTargaryen[reply]

    • I have no opinion on the merits of the editors concerned, but the vast majority fo that article was either sourced to blogs and fansites, or not sourced at all. I removed most of this material. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychopathy in the workplace

    Some pesky trolling going on at Psychopathy in the workplace--Penbat (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted, blocked, ignored. Why the hell do people feel the need to start ANI threads on every single thing? ‑ Iridescent 14:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe because it says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" right at the top of this page. Is there somewhere else this should be posted at? Please let the community know (in no-more than 1,500 words). Go! Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AIV, as it says in those same instructions. ‑ Iridescent 14:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to reassert my longstanding proposal that every new ANI thread should require a "second". EEng 21:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant Robert's. While your other suggestion certainly would be more interesting, I still say some facility for transmitting painful electric shocks over the network would be more nuanced and less messy. EEng 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    [FBDB]I thought of that, smartypants, and that's why "second" is in quotes. EEng 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "perennial disruption problem from this ISP"

    There's a user making abusive unblock requests. See for example, [78] and [79] and [80] and [81] and [82], which are basically all the same. This is a /13 block so I'm not sure if there's a better way of responding other than blanking the page and protecting it. If I don't protect the page, the vandal just reinserts the request. I expect this is a long-term vandal, though I'm not generally familiar with most of them. Any suggestions to more efficiently respond other than WP:RBI? --Yamla (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikinger, most likely. I don't know if talk access can be removed with a rangeblock but if so it would be appropriate, they won't stop. Suggest semiprotecting any page they touch for at least as long as the rangeblock. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Yeah, looks like it. The suggestion there is to semiprotect any page he touches. --Yamla (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry that you might be busy for a while :( Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing issues in railway articles

    The users above have been engaging in a slow-motion edit war it seems since August across many articles, which is boiling over at present on this one. I encountered Sundayclose repeatedly templating the IP with level-4im vandalism warnings a week or so ago (see this version of the IP's talk page, much of which I reverted). I replaced all of Sundayclose's warnings with what I figured was an appropriate level-2 unreliable sources warning, as it appeared to me that was all that was warranted, and I also advised Sundayclose that if they wanted to persist in warning the user that they should use the right templates (since the edits were not vandalism, just poor sourcing). They insisted that the IP must be given a stronger warning so they adjusted my warning to a level-4, and then after a bit of discussion in which I also suggested that they should report at AIV rather than fill the page with "final" and "only" warnings and that assistance could be requested from SPI if the anon jumps to another IP, I figured it was best to leave it at that.

    Yesterday and today I saw the IP's talk page come up in my watchlist again with more level-4im vandalism warnings added by Sundayclose. The edits in question are, again, not vandalism, just poor sourcing, and Sundayclose has still not reported the user to AIV, and so it appears to me that Sundayclose is more interested in WP:HOUNDING the user than actually resolving the situation. I would appreciate if an administrator would review the situation, both with regard to the IP's poor sourcing, the present 3RR violations ([83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]), and Sundayclose's repetitive templating of the anonymous user. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Given this report, I'm backing away from any more reverts of or warnings for 24.88.92.254. It's not worth my time to try to prevent numerous railroad/train articles (which I really have very little interest in) from being overbloated with unsourced and poorly sourced information. 24.88.92.254 and his/her many other IPs will never be blocked because of IP hopping and stale warnings, so it is what it is. I apologize if I have offended anyone, and I have no animosity toward Ivanvector who made this report in good faith. I have taken all of the related articles off of my watchlist. Sundayclose (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sundayclose: Ivan seems to be a pretty nice guy. I think you two can resolve your differences by talking about them. Please try (again). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: See above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Quixotic Potato: Thanks for your comment. I agree completely that Ivan is a nice guy. As I said, I'm not making any more edits related to the IP's edits, so at this point I don't feel that Ivan and I have any differences. I'm always willing to discuss anything with Ivan or any other well-intentioned editor. Sundayclose (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are both well-intentioned, and I think you are both partially correct. Ivan can perhaps reword his message, it seems it was worded too strongly, and I think your differences can be resolved. We need more people who are willing to keep our railway articles in good condition, not fewer. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Happily retracted (see above). I would still like someone to review the IP's behaviour and block if necessary. Contrary to Sundayclose's worry, there are things that we can do about IP disruption of this sort, and competence does certainly appear to be lacking on the IP's part. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ivanvector. Regarding the competence issue, I have not been able to figure out how much is incompetence and how much is willful disregard for sourcing requirements. After another editor and I gave the IP many warnings, both templated and personalized, he/she finally started adding some sources. But the sourced edits are sometimes interspersed with unsourced information; that doesn't seem like a competence issue. Then again, IP has linked to sources that are only photos as if a photo confirms details that a photo can't confirm; that my be a competence problem. I do feel strongly that there is an immaturity problem. In one of the very few instances of IPs willingness to comment on a talk page or edit summary, the comment is much like a child's tantrum. Anyway, since all of this is off of my watchlist, I'll leave it to others to figure it out. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way for anyone who is interested, thanks to the efforts of Jackdude101, there is a list of other IP addresses, many of which are very likely used by the same person. This also highlights the difficulty of getting a block because of IP hopping and stale warnings: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/174.107.173.231/Archive. Sundayclose (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yeah, that's what I mean by competence. It's one thing to want to add content and only have some poor sources and want to learn from the advice that other editors are giving you and build your referencing skills and such. It's quite another to keep making the same mistakes disregarding that advice and throw your toys out of the pram when editors keep having to revert you. And in the second case, when the editor is obviously wilfully ignoring that advice, then continuing trying to advise them is just a time-sink for editors like yourself; it becomes better for the project to block them so we can go back to doing productive things. Or at least with an IP that we can't block indefinitely, you can deflect some of that burden onto administrative processes (like AIV and SPI) designed to handle them more efficiently so that you don't have to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (after ec) I'll take a look. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh hey, I already closed that case! Very well then, I'll take a better look. I don't have time to investigate deeply today but if I haven't commented by this time on Saturday then please ping me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of the edits made by 24.88.92.254, to put it the most polite way possible, let's just say that his strengths lie elsewhere. His edits are not just poorly sourced; they are also poorly written with incorrect spelling and grammar throughout. This guy reminds me a lot of my four-year-old son whenever he insists on "helping" me with something. His heart's in the right place, but in the end it's better that you decline his help, because he's just going to make a mess that you have to clean up later. Most US rail transport articles that are not related to currently-used urban mass transit systems are sub-par in terms of quality, and immature and unprofessional unregistered users like 24.88.92.254 are largely responsible for this. Jackdude101 (Talk) 03:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-admin declining requests at WP:UAA

    User:Linguist111 has been declining reports at WP:UAA, and subsequently removing reports that he declined. This has apparently been going on for a while, but I just noticed. I tried to have a friendly discussion with the user on his talk page, but Linguist111 simply removed my note without comment. I also just noticed that the user was previously asked at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Users_who_have_only_edited_drafts_or_whatever to stop commenting and filling up the holding pen by User:Beeblebrox, but Linguist111 instead said he would do whatever he wanted, and stepped it up to outright declining reports. This behavior seems problematic to me. What should be done? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry for not responding to you; I just wasn't sure how I should respond. I don't decline anything as much as I used to, only removing clear bot-reported false positives, removing declined reports and moving waiting ones to the holding pen, and only rarely declining ones that definitely needed waiting or discussion. But from now on, I'm not visiting UAA at all except to report users. Thank you. Linguist Moi? Moi. 21:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not have noticed if that was all you were doing. As linked above, a history of your edits to WP:UAA show repeated, recent use of responseHelper to decline requests. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but only the ones that I thought definitely were not vios at all, needed to edit, needed discussion etc., as opposed to when I was doing a lot before the first ANI discussion. But I'm not doing anything any more. Feel free to undo any of my edits there you think need undoing. Linguist Moi? Moi. 22:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Linguist111: Unless we've started using AIV clerks, why are you removing reports at WP:AIV? This is similar to our discussion about your tagging users with sock templates. You appear to think you can do administrator tasks even though you are not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was only removing the ones that were declined by an admin. The rest I did not touch. Beeblebrox told me on the UAA talk page that I could help by removing declined reports and moving waiting ones to holding pen. I thought the same would apply to AIV too. But I'll stop removing those too, if that's a problem. Linguist Moi? Moi. 22:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't even know there was a previous Ani discussion. I see at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive939#User:Linguist111_at_WP:UAA you promised to stop declining reports, yet you continued to do so. This is problematic. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Linguist111 has a habit of putting on a plastic sheriff's badge. Keri (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Ramaksoud2000: I know. I'm sorry. I'm not going to do any UAA stuff anymore, except reporting. I've disabled ResponseHelper.
    @Keri: Another user said they wanted admin attention. The thread had gone two days without any replies, and it would have then be archived, so I added the bump template to postpone this. Linguist Moi? Moi. 22:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The thread had gone 11 days with no interest. It had already been pulled out of the archive twice. It has now been prohibited from archiving for a further month. Will it still be there next Christmas? Keri (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    But not because of me. I set the template I added to 3 days. I don't need to do anything with that thread anymore, so I won't. Linguist Moi? Moi. 22:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict × 3) We all need to remember that unfortunately, RfA voters expect you to have demonstrated competence in administrator areas, and sometimes this is very hard to do without doing some of the things that administrators do in a non-administrator capacity. This is why we have the templates {{nac}} and {{non-admin comment}}. It's not necessarily a bad practice unless you're doing it so poorly that it's causing problems. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A non-administrative disclosure of an AfD or even a report at ANI is not the same as clerking on administrative boards that have no clerks. You can get experience as a non-admin by reporting problems to various administrative boards, not by doing tasks that have been reserved for administrators even if they don't require the tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like telling users that the only way to get involved at those boards is to report issues to them. To make reports at UAA you first have to come across a problematic username and hope that no one else has seen it and blocked or reported it yet. Similarly, to make reports to AIV, you have to have the luck of being the user who first reverts them following a final warning. For this reason, I welcome non-administrators leaving their input on reports at those two or other admin boards, so long as they don't try to pass off their assessment as a final decision on the matter. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not "leaving [his] input" - he's removing stuff from AIV and declining reports at UAA. If you feel that these boards would benefit from non-admins doing that sort of thing, then propose clerks for the boards. Until that happens, I'm dead set against it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had previously seen one or two other non-administrators decline reports (by decline I mean add any template e.g. {{UAA|no}}, {{UAA|w}}, {{UAA|d}}, {{UAA|m}}), so I thought it would be acceptable and helpful to the administrators for me to join in. If you look through my decline history, you'll see I did use the {{nao}} template for a long time, but I eventually stopped using it as I didn't think it was necessary anymore. Given that I was doing it so often, I reckoned everyone already knew that I was a non-admin. I didn't think it would make much difference anyway, and was fine with any admin overriding it if they objected. As far as removing reports was concerned, I removed reports declined by admins on sight, moving ones with {{UAA|w}}, {{UAA|d}} etc. to the holding pen, as Beeblebrox had told me I could do. I think most of the ones I declined I left on the board until they were moved to HP by someone else or the bot; as for the ones that I removed after declining, I removed them because there was no apparent objection to my declining after a few hours and didn't see a point in just leaving them there; any I did remove that I put a {{UAA|w}}, {UAA|d}} etc. I moved to HP. However, I'm not doing any of this anymore. No declines, no moves to HP, no removing of bot FPs, nothing. I understand and respect what everyone has had to say. This will be my last reply to this discussion, as I will be taking a WikiBreak. Thank you, and Merry Christmas! Linguist Moi? Moi. 23:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. Does the task require administrative tools to complete? 2. Is the task being completed incorrectly? Rejecting a report which is incorrect does not require the administrative toolset so unless someone protects the pages so its administrator only, or there is a policy somewhere prohibiting non-admins there, or the editor is formally restricted... tough. As for 2. Are the reports they are declining incorrect? Has someone got any examples? Those would be a much more persuasive reason for preventing an editor from doing it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor note, but we do have clerks for UAA...there's just only one of them...and it's a bot. if Linguist is doing a good job, then wave a magic wand and make him a clerk. If he's not, then he shouldn't be there to begin with. We shouldn't be preventing someone from contributing to the project because they didn't tick the right boxes and submit their requisition form to ArbCom in triplicate. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Beetstra and Twitter/ Facebook

    User:Beetstra is using semi-automated (AWB) edits to mass remove instances of {{Twitter}}, {{Facebook}} and several other external link templates, at a rate that shows he cannot possibly have manually checked the articles and external sites involved. The articles for which he has removed Twitter links include those where the official website link is dead or no longer maintained; or where the subject's official website home page does not link to their Twitter account.

    I and at least four other editors have asked him to desist; it is clear from his replies that he intends to continue, claiming that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL "prohibits" them. It does not.

    Please can someone revert the recent removals (well into four figures in the last 36 hours), and prevent further such removals? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fyunck(click), Theanonymousentry, Montanabw, and Moscow Connection: - all of whom have been discussing this on Beetstra's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if Beetstra is removing that crap then we should thank Beetstra. Consider giving him a barnstar. The burden is usually on those who include stuff to prove that it is actually an improvement. If you have specific examples where you think that his edits should be reverted then you can discuss those on Beetstra's talkpage. See also WP:ELNO #10. This page is for stuff that requires admin attention. Giving someone a barnstar or talking about a situation where you would like to include a link to a social media site because you believe the link is among the tiny minority of those links that are actually useful does not require a mop. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that ELNO says: Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. If you click that link you see this:

    An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

    1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
    2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

    Basically none of the Twitter links primarily cover the area for which the subject of the article is notable. There may be a handful of useful links to Twitter (out of thousands), you can discuss those cases individually on Beetstra's talkpage. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL clearly states: "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances."

    It seems you disagree with the guidelines; you should consider trying to change the guidelines instead of reporting someone on WP:ANI who didn't do anything wrong. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I for one did not report anyone. No reason for me to, yet. However, I'm not going to discuss it on his talk page if I have to revert one of his plethora of removals. If it's wrong I'm just going to revert it. If it continues I'd mark it as disruptive and then revert it. Since I started discussing it on his talk page I haven't noticed zillions of other removal errors, and he certainly kept talking... at least to me. We have a disagreement on due-diligence before removing links, so that's my beef. About half the articles I bothered to check yesterday had issues with his edits. As long as he's more careful in the future I'm good with things. We want a good official website in the external links. If no official website is around or it sucks, then a twitter or facebook link is fine. But we usually only need one. My original complaint was that he didn't bother to check if the bio had an official website listed in the external links, and if it did he didn't check that it was viable or had prominent twitter and facebook links. As long as that is checked out, I'm ok with things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting when you feel a specific edit is not an improvement is completely reasonable, as long as you've checked if that link is an exception to the guideline. If no official website is around or it sucks, then he is still allowed to remove those spammy twitter or facebook links. He is not required to check if there is an official website, and if it contains links to social media profiles, prominent or not (that seems to be a misunderstanding). Cleaning up crap is usually not considered disruptive. Maybe you'll end up reverting him a couple of times for every thousand or so links he removes. You wrote: "No official website yet you removed his official twitter page. That is wrong.". That is incorrect. The existence of an official website has no influence on the appropriateness of social media links (that seems to be another misunderstanding). He seems to be restricting himself to pages where there is a {{Official webpage}} template transcluded, something which he is not required to do. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it absolutely does matter. You are incorrect. It is not like twitter sites and facebook sites are against policy or even guidelines for that matter. What we want is one good link to. If he just removes all twitter links that is quite disruptive. And I had found bios that had no official website listed in the external link where he removed twitter. That is really disruptive. I'm all for the best site to link to whether it's twitter, facebook or a personal website, but he needs to check before removing. I tend to mull about a lot of tennis articles and his percentage was very low on getting things wrong... at least at first. I haven't seen another tennis article removal marathon since i discussed it with him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, you are incorrect. You seem to disagree with the guideline, why don't you try to get consensus to change it? Please read the guideline again, you misinterpret it. The existence of an official website has no influence on the appropriateness of social media links. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We are at an impasse because nope, you are incorrect yet again on the guidelines. Quite often social media links ARE a person's personal website. Musicians ditch their original websites all the time and let them rot, letting facebook serve as their website. We have to take that into account and not just throw out every link. The best one can certainly stay but that can only be determined by taking a look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I am a potato, and you are incorrect. Please re-read the guideline. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to re-read the guidelines once again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Barring a few initial mistakes, user:Fyunck(click), I only removed social networking sites that were in ADDITION to the listed official site (in most of the cases referenced by you the official site was defunct, or plainly wrong, but still there). Your assertion that I throw out every link is wrong. In the cases where there is (really) no official (working) link, selected re-inclusion of one (the major) social networking site is warranted. Note however that I am not required to take into account that there is an official website in the first place: "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." - maybe the subject does not have a proper web presence, they just happen to have a never used Twitter account. Question is, what use is thát to the reader. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There are very few actual "requirements" at wikipedia... it's mostly guidelines. However there are plenty of things that are disruptive when multiple people complain about it. I have said I'm on your side as far as cleaning these multi-links out. I am not on your side if it's going to be done with a chainsaw, without checking the context or without checking if it had been discussed on the article talk page.
    I sort of agree with the Potato here. I dont disagree with rationale for the base removal, or even the method, however I do feel that any sort of mass-removal by automation needs some form of discussion first, even if the editor feels there is a valid policy based reason for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking above. After reading the relevant guidelines in more detail its clear the consensus already exists that those links should only be *rarely* used, and that the burden is on those who want to include them to justify it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For what's it worth, I support Beetstra's removals, which are beneficial and in line with our guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not about whether or not the guidelines are correct. It is about the fact that the guidelines do not support mass removals, with no human intervention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The guidelines support 'removal'. It makes no mention of the means of doing so. They do not prohibit mass removal any more than they endorse it. If the removals are correct and supported by policy/guidelines (which all the relevant documentation strongly endorses) then you need a much better argument to prevent them than 'they shouldnt be mass-removed'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The removals are not supported by policy in the least. And guidelines tell us to use the best source. For some that will be twitter, some facebook, and some a personal website. When you remove one or two it behooves one to make sure which is the best. That isn't done with a bot. Also, if it was discussed on why a particular site was kept, a bot will miss that too. It needs a personal touch. I'll tell you this right now...he has been told by me what the original problems were. If it keeps happening to tennis articles that pop up on our watchlists, it will likely be taken as vandalism by tennis project members. I assume his removal process is fixed now so that all will be good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The removals are supported by a guideline. Sourcing facts is something completely different. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then tennis project members will get a very swift lesson in WP:NOTVAND and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, you seem to disagree with the guideline, why don't you try to get consensus to change it? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are replying to comment in which I said "This is not about whether or not the guidelines are correct. It is about the fact that the guidelines do not support mass removals, with no human intervention.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what you claim, but you are incorrect. Please re-read the guideline, you misinterpret it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very familiar with the relevant guideline; they allow for the use of such links in certain cases. The algorithm used by Beestra takes no account whatsoever of that and removes them regardless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you are very familiar with the relevant guideline then you may have to ask someone to explain it to you because you misinterpret it. Being very vocal doesn't hide the fact that you are in the minority. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly spoken, the pillars, policies ànd guidelines support keeping them out, yet they creep in, and it is not only newbies that are not aware that they should stay out.. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And again you misquote the guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't even a quote, how can it be a misquote? Please re-read the guideline, you misinterpret it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, the guideline says to avoid linking to social networking sites. How is that not discouraging them, how is that not suggesting to keep them out, how is that not trying to keep official websites to a minimum? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And again you misquote the guidelines. Please stop. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, the horse has died, please stop beating it. The header says: "Links normally to be avoided" and #10 is "Social networking sites". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is more to the guideline than a heading, even if it does include the word "normally", which disproves your point and precludes mass, automated, removal. We're going round in circles, so I'm going to respond less to such misrepresentations, A neutral admin needs to review this case, and the guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The horse isn't moving though. If you look closely you can see it isn't even breathing. The community creates guidelines. Admins aren't here to overrule guidelines when you disagree with the guideline. Fram is an admin. Fram wrote: "For what's it worth, I support Beetstra's removals, which are beneficial and in line with our guidelines.". (emphasis mine) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to: ...... Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists." .. yet you insist that the guideline does not say to avoid such sites? Stop beating the dead horse, it was already dead on your first revert of my removals. And the same for many other reversions which are NOT backed up by policy, guideline, the template instructions. It doesn't say anything about removals (which, if I did them slow would result in the same - complete removal), it does however say that they should not be there in the first place. ---~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs)
    And now you're quoting the guideline selectively (albeit including the word "generally", again disproving your own point), and misquoting me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply from Beetstra

    Twitters, Facebooks, youtube channels, flickr profiles, google+, Myspace profiles, Instagrams, etc. etc are discouraged since ages, especially if there is already an official webite listed. Everything, including our pillars, guidelines ánd the templates for these say the same: Do NOT add them if there is an official website, and even more if the official website is also linking to them. The consensus established in discussions that resulted in our pillars, policies, and guidelines gives us reason to uphold those pillars, policies and guidelines. It allows us to bring articles in line with them. Having to rediscus that because s.o. is mass cleaning up is unnecessary, editors claiming that should read the pillar, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.

    Yet, we have this crap everywhere!

    I have restricted myself to pages where there is an official website, something that I am not even required to (we discourage social networking sites .. FULL STOP). We only list them if they are the main web presence of a person, or if they are of an extreme high importance for the subject (a subject that has an official website, but is exclusively known for their youtube presence or twitter feeds, for example). Those insertions are often reverted on sight (but it is hard to keep up with, and as is clear from this thread, even long term editors have no friggin' clue that we actively discourage linking to these websites, they happily (re-)instert them). We are NOT writing a linkfarm, we only add external links to expand on the information on the article (read the intro of WP:EL). I removed Elon Musk's Twitter feed from SpaceX, first of all it is indirect (as you will find for many of these indirect links on many of the pages where iI removed them), second of all, Elon's Twitter feed does not tell us anything encylopedic about SpaceX (even worse, he hasn't said anything about SpaceX for over a month!). So if you are interested in that Britney Spears is tweeting that she is going to have cake with her father, then please, go to a tabloid wiki and have all the social networking sites there, here they are inappropriate, it does not say anything encyclopedic about Britney, except the WP:OR synthesis that she is a family person. A twitter feed does not tell anything encyclopedic about a subject beyond what our Wikipedia article on the subject (should) include and beyond what is on their personal websites (barring very, very few exceptions). And that goes for all of subject's social networking sites.

    And that is exactly what is codified in our guidelines, and that is exactly what I did to those thousands of articles (and will continue doing, time allowing). Go write reliable content or go cleaning up the crap (there are still hundreds of defunct MySpace links to repair/wipe, e.g.), but stop including (encyclopedically speaking) utterly useless social networking sites (better, wipe them as much as possible). Maybe something for a lost hour during the festive days to come.

    Merry Christmas, and I wish you all a prosperous and happy 2017 with a lot of happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, and keep up the good work! Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are again misquoting the guideline (which is a "guideline", not a "policy"; and which also cautions that it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply"). Your claim that we "discourage social networking sites .. FULL STOP" is false. Your thousands of edits, made blindly by an automated process, failed to carry out any analysis whatsoever of the individual cases to see whether or not they complied with the guidelines you rely on. Such automated editing is disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, please go read the guideline, you misinterpret it. You can keep repeating yourself but that doesn't change the fact that you are incorrect. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just replied to your near-identical bugs accusation, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, if you want to change a guideline you disagree with then WP:ANI is not the correct place. This page is for stuff that requires administrator intervention. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For the third time: ""This is not about whether or not the guidelines are correct. It is about the fact that the guidelines do not support mass removals, with no human intervention."". Please stop misrepresenting me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You can keep repeating yourself, but I don't think it is a very productive use of your time. You are wrong, people have explained why you are wrong, and if you do not understand the guideline then you can ask someone to explain it to you in more detail. If you disagree with the guideline then you can try to change it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidelines support removal, and in fact heavily (and explicitly) state that the burden is on inclusion. It makes no reference at all to mass removal or otherwise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They do not support removal in every case. Please stop mis-representing them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you tell if someone is misrepresenting a guideline you interpret incorrectly? Please ask someone (not me) to explain the guideline to you if it isn't clear to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well make the case on the talkpage of the relevant articles to include them then as the guideline says. If your complaint is that in some rare exceptions it should be included, then go re-add them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How does your automated script check whether such consensus has already been reached? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I thanked editors who made reasoned re-insertions (which should ring a bell on those who did not get thank - you did not use a reason that is backed up by policy or guideline). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; you edit-warred with me, even when I reverted your removal of a Twitter link that was fully in compliance with the guidelines which you cited in your edit sumamary. You're not checking before you edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A brief explanation of WP:EL with some notes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • WP:EL is the relevant guideline for including external links. As an article style guideline this should only be ignored in cases where there is a very good reason to. "There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.: Is the site content accessible to the reader? Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?" Social media such as twitter is rarely going to be useful, informative or factual compared to a proper official website. And given some twitter accounts, tasteful is also going to be an issue.
    WP:ELNO clearly states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:" - "10. Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists." - this establishes that the removals are in scope of ELNO. They should not be there in the first place.
    WP:ELOFFICIAL defines an 'official link' as "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2.The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." - this establishes that almost all twitter feeds (and quite a lot of other social media) is not going to be considered an official link as they are not primarily covering the notability.
    WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states: "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. - Even if a twitter or facebook page was accepted as an official link per the above, if there is an official website, the social media links would *still* not be included.
    "Inappropriate and duplicative links may be deleted by any editor" - where the links are clearly inappropriate they can be summarily removed. It makes no comment on mass or any other means of removal. It just says 'may be deleted'.
    WP:ELBURDEN in full: This guideline describes the most common reasons for including and excluding links. However, the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard.
    Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them."
    So there we have it. A guideline that clearly says the links shouldnt be there. That anyone can remove them, and that they should be excluded with the burden on justifying inclusion. And thats just the guideline for including external links. I didnt even look at the template documentation which editors above have indicated concurs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Only in death: How does Beestra's automated script check whether consensus exists, for a given article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The first point is that these are GUIDELINES, not hardcore policies, and mass-removal of something based on a guideline without a case-by-case analysis is disruptive and pointy. Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Everything, including our pillars, guidelines ánd the templates for these say the same: Do NOT add them if there is an official website, and even more if the official website is also linking to them.". One thing I would say on this point; many musical artists (and others in creative media), especially smaller and medium-sized ones, have their FB page as their main hub these days. They will probably have an official website - purely for those searching for them on the web - but it will quite often have basic content and simply link to the social media pages. In these cases I don't think it's unreasonable to include the FB page as well - why send the reader on a longer journey to access their main page?. Twitter, however, is usually pointless, especially as it's often fed directly from the FB feed. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Black Kite, just as a note, I did my best not to remove ANY social networking sites if there was an official site listed, even if there were next to the official site 10 social networking sites listed. But even if the official site is just a shell, it often has at least the relevant social networking sites listed. And I would then consider the facebook the official site, not <subject.com>, and I think that Wikipedia should reflect that as well, Wikipedia should list what is regarded to be the most relevant official site (note that <subject>.com, the facebook, myspace, twitter, instagram are ALL official sites of the subject, we chose to list only one. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • " I did my best not to remove ANY social networking sites if there was an official site listed" Patently untrue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You still seem to misunderstand the guideline, please ask someone to explain it to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another struggle to the death for the heart and soul of Wikipedia. EEng 11:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Article ownership by User:Drdpw

    User:Drdpw has consistently and constantly acted as if he owns articles related to U.S. politics, just take a look at how many times he's reverted edits for simply being "unnecessary" in his view or "trivial" in his view (see here and here and tap F3 to search for key words such as "unnecessary" and "obtain consensus", et cetera). A huge chunk of his edits consist of quite a number of reverts, and despite breaking WP:3RR at least once (actually he's been reported twice here and here in the last year without any consequences), it's almost impossible to make any bold edits without being plunged into a semi-reverting war with this user. In a simple nutshell, this user just reverts any edit he doesn't like in the name of "consensus". I've advised him to read WP:DONTREVERT numerous times, but that essay still hasn't enlightened him. I have tried to reasoning with the user in the past but this is a regular pattern, and it keeps going on and on without anyone else doing anything.--Nevé–selbert 17:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt anyone is going to sift through the list of contribs you posted to figure out which specific edits are evidence of the alleged problem. See HELP:DIFF and try studying the how-to-complain-at-ANI type stuff; that will give you an idea of how to present evidence to support your complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @NewsAndEventsGuy: How many diffs? Ones involving me or others?--Nevé–selbert 17:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you've been at it so long already, suggest a few more weeks won't hurt. In that time, you can carefully work through the options for WP:Dispute resolution while reading threads on this board that you don't really care about, but you will learn what sorts of packaging works and what does not. Hopefully you will not need to make use of that learning, but that's the best way to figure it out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend the best thing to do, is work out a consensus for changes to the article-in-question, at that article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, it isn't just one page. It's pretty much every single page in the vicinity of US politics, most specifically any article related to the presidency.--Nevé–selbert 17:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    These situations are quite frustrating. Reminds me of the articles Pedro I of Brazil & Pedro II of Brazil. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's only US politics after 1932. I am not sure. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    US politics after 1932 and DS applies. See WP:ARBAPDS NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that Nevé has reinserted the information that I removed the other day from (and which directly led to his bringing this action against me) into the President-elect of the United States article. As any action on my part to change or remove his most recent edit would be used against me by the complaint, I would ask that his editorial behavior here be examined. I question whether this edit, or any other edits he may make in the coming days to articles where we both have had editorial disputes will be good faith edits or ones made in hopes of enciting me to make a knee-jerk decision to revert. Going forward, I will not revert any edits he may make, nor will I subsequently modify them without stating a clear and concise reason for doing so and inviting discussion about my edit on the appropriate talk page at the same time. Drdpw (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't reinsert the information, I adapted it. I excluded the list for one thing. Nobody else had a problem with the added text, so to act as if you're defending "consensus" is nonsense. I don't want to "provoke" you into doing anything. I would just feel more at ease if you digested WP:BRD and WP:DONTREVERT in your free time to understand why bold edits that you may baulk at aren't detrimental to the encyclopedia. I hope we can sort this out and I don't necessarily want you to get blocked or anything. I just would like you to take a break from reverting and instead start adapting any edits you dislike more frequently, changing and tweaking the changes you don't like instead of getting rid of them entirely. Doing otherwise discourages other editors from making any admirable bold edit in fear of you reverting them. Kind regards and I wish you a Merry Christmas.--Nevé–selbert 17:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks not subsiding

    User:Asilah1981 with consistent erratic, irregular behaviour on summary lines and personal attacks, especially on sensitive Spanish articles related to national matters, like Basque Country related, or Gibraltar, and Spanish history, where he adds emotional, inflammatory comments in accusatory ways. After being blocked two weeks ago [89] in Gibraltar for personal attacks, he came back to a sensitive article to continue with his pursuit inviting another Spanish regular editor with like views and a very short record in the EN WP to come to the article [90]. After insisting in adding comments skipping community input,[91] and having his own way again with an irregular false summary line [92][93], [94] (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). He is sometimes accompanied by ghostly editors. [95]

    The last straw, he comes back to his old habits, with a straight libel and misrepresention of mine [96]. This comes from a long history previously, of intimidation by using very sensitive vocabulary to do so (see below), citing victims of ETA of which I have said nothing (they have all my respect for their suffering) but arrogating for himself some kind of representation, sometimes using the Spanish language. The editor seemed mildly to mend his way after he was warned in an ANI for his confrontational way months ago, but is not subsiding, set in his ways, see history here with a variety attacks and libels to discourage me from editing [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103]. After two years of account, a clear case of recurrent and continuous litigating ways, and confrontational, toxic editing. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a few comments here.
    First, I am involved in the Gibraltar dispute, but not in the Basque or Catalan ones. I am not a disinterested party.
    I note that multiple editors, including both Asilah and Iñaki, have broken 3RR at Basque conflict over the past few days. I note that this is a clear WP:CANVASS violation, that the canvassing should be taken into account when determining consensus on that page.
    Asilah was blocked on 9 December for one week following this discussion, in particular the issue was his repeated accusations of racism. He has since removed all mention of his block from his talk page (which he is, of course, allowed to do), but it may be instructive to look at it here. He is now accusing people of being terrorist apologists. I suggest that this is repeating the behaviour that saw him blocked two weeks ago and that escalating blocks are now appropriate.
    Second, I have had my suspicions of sockpuppetry from this editor, but nothing concrete enough to bring it to WP:SPI. But this from this editor is frankly taking the piss. Suggest we should also be dealing with both per WP:QUACK. Kahastok talk 21:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Iñaki LL Addressing you specifically: you accuse me of Personal Attacks. Look, when you are deleting sources from an article written by Basque intellectuals who are outspoken against ETA violence as "dubious" and only accepting sources from ETA´s ecosystem, then yes, you are editing in a way which is pushing the pro-ETA narrative and POV on the article. This is not a personal attack, it is an opinion regarding the nature of your edits which I am free to express. It is indeed an emotional topic, particularly to those of us who have lost loved ones to terrorism. But I have (recently at least) showed restraint and have focused on Wikipedia policy. We both violated the 3RR rule, but there has been no recent Personal Attack against your persona. I did go over the top last march, I concede. Nothing over the past couple of days merits me being discussing this on ANI.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Sockpuppetry, this is the third time I am accused of Sockpuppetry by this editor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carlstak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pablo.alonso Perhaps my "sockpuppets" User:Carlstak, User:Pablo.alonso, User:Sidihmed, User:Johnbod and User:asqueladd have something to say?Asilah1981 (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Iñaki LL Also one last thing. You are Spanish, so I have addressed you a couple of times in Spanish. I speak it to a near-native level but I am not a Spanish citizen. So it would be wrong to say "I invited another Spanish editor to do so and so". Spanish editors involved in this dispute are just you and User:asqueladd . I happen to be Moroccan in heritage as you should have worked out from my user name and my earliest edits on Wikipedia. My ethno-religious background may also explain my sensitivity to perceived apology of terrorist groups (in general).Asilah1981 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have been summoned... I have some things to put in here:
    1. With due respect, I am not exactly a user with a "very short" record in EN WP.
    2. Neither Iñaki LL nor Kahastok know "my views" as I haven't ever disclosed my views here.
    3. Have I been formally accused of being a sockpuppet?
    --Asqueladd (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to make a few points, maybe this isn't the case in Spanish (and some of the diffs are, so I can't really comment on those), but in English, Libel is a legal term, and accusing someone of making libelous accusations may very well be construed as a legal threat. That's likely not the intention, but it's a good idea to avoid it. The same goes for accusing someone of defamation, which is also a term of legal consequence in English.
    When it comes to calling something terrorism there is actually official guidance on that, and a redirect from WP:TERRORIST to guide you there. Furthermore, accusing someone of sock puppetry, especially repeatedly and without evidence, may be construed as a personal attack in its own right.
    So given that no one involved appears to be 100% on their best behavior, has anyone actually tried any of the steps in the dispute resolution process? TimothyJosephWood 23:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Asilah1981, yes, accusing someone of pushing an agenda is absolutely a personal attack, and a consummate failure to assume good faith. TimothyJosephWood 23:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Re User:Asilah1981. This is just adding to your personal attacks to the conscience of others. For a start, I should ask you not call me Spanish, since I am not, except for administrative purposes. You had that horrible experience no one deserves and others have been tortured by the state's forces, etc. Now that does not give you more reason, if you are unable to edit in the WP because you cannot refrain, have your own blog. I make also a very big effort to edit in these circumstances.
    I came here for suffering frequent personal attacks from the editor in question, but I could have posted equally for Sockpuppeting or Disruptive editing to be honest. The editor in question every time I bring up his irregular editing cites those two cases, which indeed are frustrating. The first one was a technicality, since I was not familiar with the resource, posted also another report failed for another technicality (oldest account...), and the third, User:Pablo.alonso, a sleeper/dormant account, I used the Checkuser and told that was not the case (IP alteration devices? There are), I do not think the administrator went through WP:DUCK. Evidence is extensive per WP:DUCK: topics, kind of language, timing, outlook/viewpoint, spellings, aggressive attitude but accommodating. I do not know who 83.213.205.100 is. However, this post seems to be only about only one kind of irregularity.
    The 3RR, well I did indeed, Asilah1981 always pushes the limits and the patience, I just restored it to the regular version, since the editor did not respond to any input whatsoever, a complete WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:JDLI) with self-entitled edit summaries contradicted by the very content (check reference) [104], [105] and altering the sources [106], it was a circus... Iñaki LL (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Timothy Well, I did add evidence in the cases cited above. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I went through the diffs in your original post again, and I may have missed something since I'm holding a fussy baby, but, where...exactly...did anyone do anything in the dispute resolution process? I'm afraid, with my handicap, you may have to point to specifics. TimothyJosephWood 00:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, by dispute resolution process, I mean things like requesting a third opinion, input from related WikiProjects, opening requests for comments, and appeal to the dispute resolution noticeboard, not simply continuing a dispute on the article talk. TimothyJosephWood 00:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes it could have been so had it been a very specific case, and your links are appreciated, and that may have been the most correct way altogether, but it was a full range of straightforward violations of WP policies (concerted with the other User:Asqueladd) and, above all, just including another personal attack, which bears witness to a way of operating in the WP for a long time, disruptive and daunting, see diffs above. As it happens, on a previous section, just above the latest ones, we find also this malicious comment [107], also discouraging User:Adam Cli from creating and editing the article Talk:Basque National Liberation Movement Prisoners with all kinds of personal and legal intimidations, see ANI [108] and here [109], basically do it my way of you will suffer the consequences ("piss him off"), some school memories?). Of course the newbie hardly comes back to the article now. The record is too long to overlook. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Iñaki LL Yeah, not just intimidation, "psychological torture". I must be an agent of the State abusing your human rights - online waterboarding. Btw, considering a majority of Basques feel Spanish (and many have been murdered for expressing their feelings)... considering the Basques are pretty much the founders of the modern Spanish state, the drivers of the Reconquista and subsequent Inquisition, as well as being by far the most important architects of the Spanish empire... considering they have been the most privileged region of Spain for centuries, since being granted, in the 16th century, "hidalguia universal" (race-based universal nobility) due to their supposedly pure untainted "Spanishness" to currently having a privileged tax status while simultaneously being the wealthiest part of Spain... Considering Spain´s financial sector is largely run from the Basque Country and the Basque region has received the most investment per capita under every pre-democratic regime in the last 300 years... then forgive me if I continue to consider you VERY MUCH Spanish. If you were from some other region of Spain (probably much further south), I might have been able to accommodate for your self-perception as an oppressed minority. I hope you do not consider that a Personal Attack.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, this is the category of the editor I am talking about, a POV rant with self-entitled monopoly on ideas in a imposition tone, a total inability to engage in constructive and collaborative editing. Have your own blog! I added above the evidence for consideration, self-explanatory, I expect protection to edit in a collaborative and safe environment, so nothing more to say. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But you've hardly helped matters, have you? You got to 5RR in the 24 hours from 9am UTC on 22 December and only stopped when people stopped reverting you. That's a block straight off in principle per WP:3RR. You have gone beyond the bounds of WP:NPA and WP:AGF at times, have used anti-vandalism tools for content reverts and have altered Asilah's talk page posts without permission (in future, get permission or ask an uninvolved admin for help).
    Don't get me wrong, I stand by what I said at the beginning. Asilah came back from his block and straight off repeated the behaviour that got him blocked. And that revert is still WP:QUACKing at me. But there are certainly areas where your behaviour could use some improvement. Both of you need to discuss this more calmly and dispassionately, and use WP:DR tools as needed if you can't reach consensus on your own. Kahastok talk 15:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the talk page talk of Iñaki and his use of the reversion tools were far from acceptable. Blatantly violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA (calling me "envoy" [110]and "campaigner"[111] and claiming I have intervened in a "concerted" way[112] and telling me to go back where I came from[113]), and dismissing an academic source as dubious[114] just because WP:IJDLI, acting like he owns POV. I concur, as both have kind of admitted[115][116], Iñaki and Asilah are under severe emotional stress regarding the topic of the Basque Conflict. Additionally to not having disclosed "my views" around here, I don't recall having disclosed my citizenship either. Merry Christmas to everyone.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Being under "severe emotional stress" in a topic area is not considered an excuse for poor behaviour on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not therapy; if you are not able to edit an article without severe emotional stress, may I suggest that it might be better not to edit it at all?
    You single out Iñaki's use of "campaigner". Do you condemn Asilah when he makes exactly the same allegation against others? Kahastok talk 17:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have singled nobody as "campaigner" regarding the Basque Country yet. Iñaki did[117] single me out as campaigner.Sorry, wrong reading.I would be moderately offended too if Asilah1981 self-righteously revert my edits (addition of content based in state of the art input in the basque conflict) per WP:BATTLEGROUND and as the act of a "campaigner" (taking into account its placement in the article may can indeed be discussed based on WP:LEAD in the talk page), yes, if that is what you ask.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilah has routinely been calling people not just campaigners and activists, but terrorist apologists and racists (the latter as per the last ANI), for quite a long time now. This, for example, goes far beyond a single use of the word "campaigner". This is a clear accusation that another editor is an ETA apologist. Do you condemn those personal attacks, as you condemn Iñaki's use of the word "campaigner"? I'm not defending Iñaki, but he is not the bigger problem here. Kahastok talk 18:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilah's contributions to that page have long been problematic. Accusing editors he disagrees with of being "being ETA sympathisers" for example or suggesting bad faith. It is a controversial topic and he needs to tone it down. Besides the canvass issue noted above, this diff looks very much like quacking. However, he hasn't been the only offender. Some of Iñaki LL's contributions to the talk page are unhelpful, for example accusing editors you disagree with of "verbal incontinence" and telling them to "go back to where they came from, the ES:WP" are also hardly likely to create an editing atmosphere which will enable us to overcome disagreements. I'm willing to work on that page to reach an acceptable version, but as I've said before there's too much commenting on other editors' supposed motives, which achieves nothing productive. After the holidays, we can get input from related Wikiprojects like Spain, Basque, Military History, Terrorism, Politics etc, but until then we need to stay focused on the content, not contributors. Valenciano (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Valenciano, you were yourself attacked by the editor in question Asilah1981. With re "verbal incontinence", it is an informal representation of breach of WP:ETIQUETTE and WP:CIVILITY, is that so bad really? Furthermore, "What the fuck" is even a censored word in English speaking media, nothing to comment about that? For the rest, your attitude and input is appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Valenciano Agreed.Asilah1981 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Re Asqueladd I should apologize for what my inexact comment on the history length of Asqueladd due to an oversight, he has done not many but significant edits in the EN WP, many of them related to national matters (Catalonia, Basque Country, etc.) [118]. I do not understand your answer to Kahastok, just be clear if you want to reply to the question. Secondly, you may have made a point, the use of campaigner is not right, but you just tell me what this is about [119] if not a call to continue with "the cause". The other comments are just noise, still you did not read. Again, per my own conscience I said that [120] and then I said this to make clear my position [121], still you keep coming back to me with the same thing as if you wanted to escalate. "State-of-the-art" is your own opinion. POV owning has nothing to do with what I did, just the opposite, I am defending from a ideological monopoly stated above by Asilah1981 of what an official truth must be, instead perhaps it is POV owning and apparent animosity citing in the lede of the article certain authors that need to be ostracized without going to details of such reasoning.
    You kept reverting [122][123] even when User:Valenciano had just pointed the problems with Asilah1981's intervention [124][125], reminded and reverted straight by me later (diff cited above) per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE (yes I rushed to reverting finally in my own detriment but the sequence of irregular editing was all too evident) seeing that your intent was not to contribute smoothly and total disregard to the input added in the edit summaries before, just after Asilah1981 left the message in your page [126]. For the rest... more and more noise. Please do not compare me with Asilah1981's serious attitude problem (check each ones history), I will remind I am not telling anyone what a content must be of their contribution or conditioning their edition, otherwise calling me unacceptable abuse per WP:LABEL plus intimidating me with ultra-sensitive (legal) vocabulary that is having consequences on the Internet in Spain, affecting selectively only people who show opinions different to positions officially held by the Sp Govt.
    Re @Kahastok:, thanks for your input, yes I did add this [[127], but it is on the article's talk page and removed as provisioned by WP rules WP:RPA, not on Asilah1981's talk page. "Campaigner" was probably not the good word to use, but this is just a detail in comparison to the rest of evidence affecting Asilah1981, starting from one of his main problems, misrepresenting the sources I added above on the NYT article (and insisting on it!, even in the face of direct text evidence on the contrary). It is not the first time I identify manipulation of the sources also in other topics (for which I can add evidence here if requested) and I consider it a clear confrontation with the WP community and altogether a very damaging factor to the WP since it erodes trust on WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gorilla warfare
    • We all better watch out. Asilah'sSomeone masquerading as Asila is trained in gorilla warfare [128]. I didn't know the Navy Seals take illiterates. EEng 06:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A momentary confusion ends amicably
    E What the hell?? Someone has hacked my account. When was that edit made. Was it you??? Asilah1981 (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see, someone has used an anoynmous IP to draft a fabricated Asilah1981 edit and publish it somewhere (fortunately does not appear on my edit history so I guess my account has not be hacked.) That is really falling to new lows and definitely deserves a sanction. User:EEng#s Can you say it was not you who posted this fabricated edit? Logic points to you. This is very serious malicious activity. Asilah1981 (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While I apologize for allowing myself to be fooled by the IP's forgery of your signature (and you'll see I've corrected my post above) your random accusation is consistent with the concerns about you presented by the OP in this thread. EEng 07:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks EEng, I also apologize for assuming you were involved. Note, I had never run into you before so it felt very random in the context of this ANI. All the best.07:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Asilah1981 (talk)[reply]
    I specialize in random stuff. EEng 07:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, the Navy SWEALS, sea, Wikipedia, air and land forces. TimothyJosephWood 10:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    I have only read the surface of this discussion but as I have been mentioned I have something to add. This post seems to follow on long and lasting disagreements between Asilah1981 (talk) and Iñaki LL (talk). Whatever is the quarrel I am not interested about, but in defense of Asilah1981 I have to point out that editor Iñaki LL (talk) has a long term history of launching sockpuppeting investigations based on fake facts and unsupported speculations on anyone who dares to disagree with him. Not only that, but in my case he even created an anonymous account to add modifications in a page that was subject of controversy and tried to make them pass as if they were made by me, trying to give further fuel to his quarreling. Pablo Alonso (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting lifting of create-protection imposed by "office actions"

    Resolved. In passing, Office actions can't be appealed here either; they can only be undone by the WMF. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. I posted here at WT:FOOTBALL to ask if any passing admin could lift the create-protection on the page Paul Hutchinson so that I could create a stub about a footballer of that name. In reply, Number 57 said he couldn't do so because the page had been protected as a result of WP:Office actions and I should make a request here. So here I am.

    Is it possible to lift the protection, or alternatively should I create the stub at a suitable alternative name, such as Paul Hutchinson (footballer). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing any evidence of OFFICE actions (though second opinions are most welcome). The unprotection page does say (as it always does), "If this page is protected due to office actions...". Maybe Number 57 wants to check again. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with zzuuzz, the appropriate page doesn't show Paul Hutchinson as an office action, | this log shows it's been protected from recreation, per | this AN request which doesn't specifically mention Paul Hutchinson, however, on the protection log , made in 2012 it does state he's an un-notable youth football player. Any evidence of notability ? KoshVorlon 20:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The AN request is only a bureaucratic deprecation of cascaded protection, and the deleted revisions all relate to a different player (born 1986/7). I understand this player played for Darlington, which I think might be good enough, so as it's a different article I'd defer to Number 57's judgment, as it's within his field of expertise. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @KoshVorlon and Zzuuzz: My bad, I misread the thing at the top of the page when I went to unsalt the article. @Struway2: I've now unlocked it for you to create (your subject is notable). Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Cheers, Number 57 22:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jennica cursing at me in edit summaries

    This is going nowhere but in circles. Feedback has been universal that this is not a case of WP:HOUNDING. Closing before this spins off the rails and someone ends up saying something that does need admin action. JbhTalk 05:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Sorry ANI, I didn't want to come here, but I have had a debate with Jennica (talk · contribs) on her talk page over whether it's okay for her to follow me around and edit articles I do, even if she isn't targeting me directly. That's not a problem I want to bring here, although I do think decent editors should respect reasonable requests. Jennica asked at the help desk page if it was okay for her to do, and was told by two users it could be interpreted as WP:Wikihounding, which I raised with her. The debate has still gone on, and she has told me to "fuck off" in an edit summary on her talk page. This is not okay to say to anybody, even if we're in a silly argument. Can an admin please tell her to lay off my edits (as I have done this at least 10 times and she has refused) and remain civil? Ss112 03:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm just so done with it. I'm sick of the debate. It is going nowhere. Now apparently, if we're on the same edit history, you get upset. I regret cursing in my edit summary. --Jennica✿ / talk 03:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not bringing a debate here. I'm asking for an administrator to tell you to please respect my request to not go through my contributions multiple times a day for things to edit when I don't like being followed. That's all I ever asked you to do. I know the reasons you put forward, and I still don't think it's okay. Ss112 03:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well okay. I'll just say to the admin who reviews this that I work on a lot of music articles, album pages specifically. So does Ss112. I've checked out his contribution history to see what else could be done to the pages -- not touching or impeding on any of his edits. It wasn't a personal vendetta thing at all, and it still isn't. He touches on a lot of album pages I may not otherwise know about or visit. I like to format articles to the MOSALBUM standards for consistency, no matter how pedantic this might seem. I don't do it to be rude to him. Wikipedia is a public domain and I can view other people's contribution histories whenever I please. Both of our edits are constructive and useful. I just feel like now I have to make sure Ss112 didn't edit recently so I don't make him mad or something. That's not how it should be. Everybody's contribs are open for view. I wouldn't be upset if someone went after me and saw things that needed fixing and fixed them. It's harmless. --Jennica✿ / talk 03:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have said to you I didn't ask you to not edit any pages I ever have. The issue is that you're going through my recent contributions and picking things to edit. I have taken issue with being monitored, and I initially kindly asked you to do it, then kept asking when things got heated. You have still refused. It doesn't matter that contributions pages are open for view; we all know this. The issue now is that you're refusing a simple request. "Don't be a jerk" definitely applies here. You might not think you are being one, but I think you are by refusing something that doesn't harm you to comply with. Ss112 03:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think Jennica was editing with any malice by looking through your history to edit. I noticed she did something similar with me when we first started interacting and I couldn't care less. From what I can see, she mainly makes format changes so music articles have a unified design. I get cursing is no way to have a fruitful discussion but can we just let it go and move on?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To make it clear, I can't recall ever looking through TheGracefulSlick's history -- it was a mere coincidence. And you are correct, there is no malice in the edits. --Jennica✿ / talk 03:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Truly, I don't want to debate this, but other editors not objecting doesn't mean others can't or won't have an issue with it. I do. I don't see why Jennica has to type in Special:Contributions/[User] to find things to edit all day. I know there's no malice. I still object to being followed by people. Now can we not bring the debate here and wait for an administrator's word? Ss112 04:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. misread that you said you were bringing the debate here. Sorry.--Jennica✿ / talk 04:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, you're not being civil by being sarcastic, Jennica. It's not helping. Ss112 04:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ss112: It wasn't sarcasm. I misread your sentence above, and that's why I wrote that paragraph. I thought it said "I'm bringing the debate here". It was my mistake. You were sarcastic plenty on my talk page, btw. --Jennica✿ / talk 04:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a couple of editors who often edit articles after I've edited them for the first time. Sometimes they fix little errors I made, or revise what I've done, or whatever. I'm not sure why they do this -- perhaps they've found we have shared taste in articles -- but there's nothing wrong with it as long as such editing is constructive. If it's not constructive, show us diffs; otherwise be flattered. And everyone only curse in moderation, as I do. EEng 04:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never said what Jennica is doing to these pages is not constructive. I object to her following me as a method of gaining more edits, because it's like I have someone over my shoulder watching everything I do. The thing here is that she has ignored a simple request to not do this, when I think it's WP:Wikihounding in a sense, even if she is not "harassing" me in the normal sense. Ss112 04:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should reread what I just wrote. EEng 04:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't need to; I just disagree. Ss112 04:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. What, exactly, do you just disagree with? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I already explained above in my edit: I disagree that there's nothing wrong with it. I'm waiting for an admin; I'm not getting into this with other editors. I don't feel there's anything left to say. Ss112 04:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it must be our turn. Per EEng#s and TheGracefulSlick, it is not a problem if the edits are constructive. It's just a mode of approaching wikignombing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a problem when you've told a user you don't like them doing it, and they've basically said they don't care how you feel and will continue doing it regardless. Ss112 04:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Who died & made you king? You don't get to restrict her approach to wikipedia; she has the right to improve such articles as interest her. It goes with wikipedia being a completely open system. The problem - really - is that you need to get used to this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm acting like a king by asking not to be followed? That's a ridiculous assertion. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years and have not had, to the best of my knowledge, someone continue monitoring me like this. Ss112 04:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only 'monitoring' in your chosen frame of reference. it's 'improving wikipedia articles' to the rest of us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Jennica is editing mainly to have a unified format across album/band articles. I'm sure she does not know every single album ever created with an article here, so she needs outlets to discover such pages. There is nothing wrong with it if it is constructive, nor is it hounding. If you're annoyed by that, honestly, it's just a personal problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked her not to do something that she doesn't need to do, and she's just disregarding that when I've told her I don't like to be monitored. I consider it hounding. Ss112 04:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked, she declined. That is the end of it. If she were obstructing you, reverting you etc you would have a case but you have clearly said that she is not doing any such thing. Wikipedia is a "public space". JbhTalk 04:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am more surprised a ten year veteran here is making such a big deal about someone taking an approach to improve the encyclopedia. What case did you possibly expect when Jennica did absolutely nothing wrong? Can you find a policy against editing that bothers specifically you?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...because it hasn't happened to me before. Just because it doesn't bother you, TheGracefulSlick, does not mean it can't bother me. I already cited hounding, as I feel that's exactly what's being done to me. Those at the help desk disagreed with you here; they said it was tantamount to Jennica being a jerk by not respecting a simple request that there's no real reason to not agree with. I agree. She also essentially told me on her talk page I was indirectly responsible for pre-existing errors on pages by not fixing what she comes in and does. Ss112 05:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ss112, I see that at the very first article I randomly selected from your interactions, you edited after Jennica did [129]. Are you following her? (Here's the full interaction result [130].) EEng 05:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng, I feel you try to derail and blow out sections here so administrators don't want to read them and just ignore them, but I told Jennica that I have looked at her edits before because she changed charts headings to chart positions, which I disagreed with and we resolved. That's why that happened. I'm not saying somebody can't look at contribs every once in a while. I'm saying I'm being monitored several times a day, for days on end. Ss112 05:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what you feel, is it? You feel a lot of things about other editors, it appears. I guess it was just chance that the very first article I sampled, of those both of you have edited, was one in which you came in after Jennica. You really need to drop this. EEng 05:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)You are indirectly responsible. I know all my work could be done better, and is often improved by others. I try to raise my standards, but my constant experience is that other people come in and improve on what I've done. I could have done better; I'm indirectly responsible for them having to improve it. You could, of course, head her off at the pass by implementing whatever the improvements are that she makes, if they're systematic. Or else you could just resign yourself to her improving articles which you obviously care enough about to expend your time improving. It seems pretty win-win. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    need a blacklisted page created

    User talk:Marteybaker$$$$$$$$$ can't be created because of a blacklist issue. Edits such as these [131] [132] have been reverted, but only admins can create the talk page, so no warnings as yet. Or someone can just assume WP:!HERE. Meters (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Gave them a third degree warning. If vandalism continues just post on WP:AIV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Whoever it is has been quiet since they were reverted so hopefully we're done. Meters (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doniago

    Good edit summaries are a virtue, so as general advice can everyone please a) actually use them and b) try to make them explicable to others. In this specific case: true, the edit summary doesn't seem to match the exit, but a one-off and fairly minor instance like this doesn't require the use of admin tools. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Doniago

    I noticed this user had warned another about " incorrect edit summaries".

    [[133]]

    Yet here he does just that.

    [[134]]

    Not only did it not remove the uncited material, but reinserts equally uncited material (it just moves my added section back to where I moved it from). In addition the edit is marked as a minor when (this seems to be a common practice with this user) it is not.

    When I asked the user why he had done this his response was to claim he could not see what he had reinstated, and to say "well you have removed it anyway, so why do I need to explain myself".

    I was not going to report this, but as the editor seems to accept that incorrect edit summaries are in fact against the rules he has (surely) to be judged by the standard he judges others?

    Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sockpuppet Investigation not showing up on SPI

    The SPI had a structural problem that I have now fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The sockpuppet investigation I made for Jvolkblum -- a banned user infamous for editing New Rochelle articles and violating copyright, using hundreds of socks and it isn't showing up on SPI. Can anybody here help me? Here's a link to this sockpuppet report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jvolkblum - - so that whatever's causing this can be fixed. 89.243.176.152 (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you create it through the "How to open an investigation:" box at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? That ought to set everything up correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to, but I struggled with it and just copied/pasted the work I had made onto the Jvolkblum sockpuppet investigation's page, the page I linked to in my statement above. 89.243.176.152 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Multiple edit requests

    50.65.38.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making multiple edit requests, editors are taking time to respond to the requests, which most need further information, like references or a X to Y format. The IP has not provided further information when needed. Not sure how to handle this, but they are wasting many editors time. Examples: Talk:Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, Talk:Olympic Games. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Altamel for your help. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I left the editor a more detailed explanation. Speaking as somebody who regularly patrols edit requests, I don't think a block of the IP is warranted. I have taken a brief look at their requests, and most would be useful additions to their respective articles if they are true (I haven't verified) and if the IP had stated where they should go specifically. Plus, the templated decline messages are opaque and do a poor job of guiding new users. Any edit request patroller is free to reuse my trove of more detailed warning messages. Altamel (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, nice, clear job of explaining things to the IP, and I like your templates. Thanks. Meters (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrongful accusation from Walter Görlitz

    Walter Görlitz has wrongfully accused me of blanking "Vancouver Whitecaps FC" and is refusing to apologise. All I want is for him to openly acknowledge that I did not blank the page or any part of the page at all. Cédric HATES TPP. 19:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI? REALLY??? EEng 19:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Here's the first of Cedric's edits that I saw on that article: kʰä̃nt̚ bi ðat̚ ˈdɪfɪˌkəɫt̚ tʊ weɪtʰ fɔ̝˞ˑ ə̃n əˈfɪʃəɫ əˈnaʊsmə̃nt̚ naʊ, kʰæ̃n ɪt? made 2016-12-18T20:22:03. And here is the second: səˈspɛk̚tʰɪ̆d̚ ˈvæ̃ndəɫlɪzə̆m made 2016-12-23T21:34:03‎. Does any of that make sense?
    You have taken "‎Voluntary Disappearance" (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Multiple problems with editor Cedric tsan cantonais). You're not here. If you are, then we get to address the issues that put you into that discussion: using diacritics in your edit summaries to make them illegible to most native English speakers and attacking anons. As we can see from those two reverts you made, neither have been addressed.
    So what exactly would you like me to apologize for Cedric? I didn't accuse you of blanking the Whitecaps article, but rather of removing valid material (duties shared between ... and Scott Rintoul) and attacking an anon. That was your second edit, and the first I reverted. Nothing to apologize for there Cedric. You messed up because you hate anonymous editors Cedric. The warning was level four because you took voluntary disappearance rather than face admin action or community sanction, yet you have not disappeared. I made it clear that your actions are unacceptable Cedric.
    At that point I wanted to see how active you had been, so I started digging deeper. That's when I found Cedric's other edits. You've been quite active for someone who has disappeared. If you were in a witness relocation programme, you would be sanctioned for your behaviour Cedric.
    No apology is forthcoming from me for warning you for your behaviour and for attacking anons. And for the record, your request should have gone to a different forum, not ANI (as EEng#s' comment alludes to), but since you started the discussion: I would like to suggest a site block in accordance with the earlier ANI discussion. Pinging those involved in the previous discussion: @Hijiri88:, @OpenFuture:, @In ictu oculi: Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Walter Görlitz: You're lucky I just happened across this, as your ping was malformed. By the way, you should not phrase it as "using diacritics in your edit summaries"; "using gibberish edit summaries" would be better, as it seems likely that the bad framing (as though this was a reinvigoration of the old "diacritic wars") was what confused In ictu oculi and others last time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • <Insert cute circumlocution for BOOMERANG.> I'm concerned that OP's userpage suggests he has some kind of special role with WMF. EEng 20:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support boomerang. Clearly Cedric has undisappeared. As User:Rich Farmbrough (the only one against a block before Cedric disappeared) said in the previous ANI, "this editor is subject to a block at any time they resume this behaviour." Incomprehensible diacritic-filled edit summaries [135], [136], [137], and [138]. Personal attack via Nazi reference [139] Meters (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like I need to make something clear:

    • Neither of those two summaries were attacks directed towards anyone, registered or not. I admit that I used to have a foul mouth towards IPs, but I had since stopped. All I did in those edits mentioned by Walter Görlitz was suggesting the editor to "wait for an official announcement". So that's yet another wrongful accusation from Walter Görlitz. Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, there can be no peace between the two of us.
    • Just because I used a German term does not mean I was referring to anyone as a Nazi, just like the fact that calling someone a "grammar Nazi" does not equal accusing someone of being a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
    • Those aren't diacritics. They're called suprasegmentals.

    Therefore, if I go down, Walter Görlitz needs to go down, too, for refusing to apologise for repeated wrongful accusations.

    P.S. For future reference, anyone who does not fight back fiercely against wrongful accusations had lost the faith in the system. Cédric HATES TPP. 22:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a very large difference between calling someone a "grammar Nazi", and calling someone "Herr Reichkommissar" as you did. Meters (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, there can be no peace -- Can you spell WP:ḆÁŤȚĻĘĞŘỖŪŃĐ? EEng 23:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: Okay. I rephrase that: Until he publicly renounce and withdraw these two accusations, we will be unable to work with each other. My apologies for causing confusions. Also, if you want me to withdraw the "Herr Reichkommissar" part, I do that too. My intended reference was East Germany, not Nazi Germany. Cédric HATES TPP. 23:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the sort of system that you would be well advised to have faith in. It is designed primarily to keep the encyclopaedia running, not to mete out justice either for or against you.
    The fact is that these types of edit summaries are scarcely readable - to the extent that using them is disruptive.
    I do not want to see you blocked, but nor do I want to see this disruption continue. I suggest you stop using disruptive edit summaries, then you will have a much better chance of being treated as a colleague.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    @Rich Farmbrough: We'll have a deal. Cédric HATES TPP. 23:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a forum for political statements, so could you please remove "Hates TPP" from your signature? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And perhaps Cedric could also explain why we should believe that his or her reference to Reichskommissar was a reference to East Germany rather than to Nazi Germany when apparently East Germany never used the term? Meters (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaiser Wilhelm had them too so I guess it's OK. Near miss, though. EEng 00:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the Second Reich. Still has nothing to do with East Germany though, which was Cedric's explanation, and the vast majority of people will naturally associate "Reichkommisar" with the much-more-recent Third Reich, so I don't think it's a "miss" at all. I think Cedric got caught dead-to-rights throwing a Nazi-related reference at WG and his "explanation" was a lame attempt to wiggle out of it, just as his "explanation" that his edit summaries were "suprasegmentals" and not diacritics, was totally beside the point, which is that he was deliberately crafting his edit summaries so that no one (or at least very few people) could understand them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Fine. I admit it. I thought it was referring to the likes of Commissars from other Communist countries before I actually read the article and I admit that I shouldn't use that term now that I realise its Nazi reference. And If I get blocked for a definite period of time for this particular offence, then so be it. But it's only natural for a person to fight back again wrongful accusations like "attacking an anon" — Frankly, if "suspected vandalism" (key word: suspected) counts as an personal attack, I wouldn't know what doesn't count. So if WG refuse to apologise for his wrongful accusations, nobody should have faith in this system afterwards, since it's become little more than a popularity contest. Cédric 03:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Baloney. I don't know you, and I don't know Walter Gorlitz, so "popularity" has nothing to do with anything. Staying within the boundaries of acceptable behavior is what's on the line here, and that is why you're getting this pushback, which you keep making worse with each statement you make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, Thank you for removing "Hates TPP" from your sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry Cedric. I have nothing to apologize for.

    • Support BOOMERANG as well. I was much more accommodating nine months ago when Cedric was making some useful edits and the editor's edit summaries were somewhat legible. Both of those have deteriorated. Couple the editor's stance against anons, and I can't support anything other than a block. My preference would be indefinite own talk page privileges left intact so that an appeal can be made, something along the lines of a Wikipedia:Standard offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please indent this as needed. The diacritics-y stuff in edit summaries is IPA. kʰä̃nt̚ bi ðat̚ ˈdɪfɪˌkəɫt̚ tʊ weɪtʰ fɔ̝˞ˑ ə̃n əˈfɪʃəɫ əˈnaʊsmə̃nt̚ naʊ, kʰæ̃n ɪt? = "can't be that difficult to wait for an official announcement now, can it?"; səˈspɛk̚tʰɪ̆d̚ ˈvæ̃ndəɫlɪzə̆m = "suspected vandalism". Gotta run, tofu turkey time. --Shirt58 (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block for Cedric

    Obviously, I'm not still angry about what happened in April, and I don't even fully remember what was so bad, but my motion then had a fair bit of support, and was only shot down because Cedric chose to voluntarily disappear. Now it is clear that he has rescinded this offer. It's clear from his edits in this thread that he is WP:NOTHERE. I would ping the users who already !voted on a non-specific "boomerang", but I got Christmas-y stuff to do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support - Yes. NOTHERE, Disruptive editing, NPA, all sorts of stuff. Indef until he can convince the community that he's here to contribute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: If WG never wrongfully accused me of blanking any page (since I never did), none of this would've happened. It only natural for a person to fight back like a cornered animal when wrongfully accused. Cédric 03:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if you hadn't filibustered the last indef discussion by saying you would disappear voluntarily and then not actually disappearing, none of this would've happened. You have to understand that this has nothing whatsoever with being "wrongfully accused" (which by the way was a lie to begin with, as you clearly did blank some of the contents of that page, several times). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88 is perfectly correct in his analysis. And, no, in a civilized world -- which Wikipedia is intended to be -- it is not at all appropriate for an editor to act "like an animal" under any circumstances. That you think this is the case is actually a strong argument for your being indeffed, as you do not seem to understand the essential nature of a collaborative project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The link to the conversation from last April combined with the statements in this thread shows WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Hard to ignore that this is a WP:NOTHERE situation. MarnetteD|Talk 03:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarnetteD: Respectfully, does WP:NOTHERE prohibits fighting wrongful accusations? Cédric 03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Comment Leaning support. The prior ANI and current behavior here is a textbook example of an editor who does not have the necessary clue to edit collaboratively. "[F]ight back like a cornered animal" - Cedric please get a bit of perspective, this is Wikipedia not a fight for your life in some dark alley or battlefield for God's sake! The best thing you can do is drop this because ANI is simply not the place to use to try to force apologies. Beyond that stop using silly letters and made up spellings in edit summaries. It is disruptive, pointless and simply not amusing on any level. JbhTalk 03:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - There was no wrongful accusation by WG. The warning (using a standard template) was for removing content from a page, and that is what Cedric had done. Cedric's contributions to this thread demonstrate clearly that he does not understand the concept of collaborative editing, so he doesn't belong here. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block per all of the above and below. Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. BOOMERANGING here just to prove that he's a recurring problem who only got out of an index the last time by promising to disappear only to break that promise. Just not a benefit to the encyclopedia, and a battleground mentality to boot. oknazevad (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, even Galileo got out of an Index. EEng 05:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How ironic that one could get an excellent classical education just by reading the works on the list, and today's parents and educators – Catholic and otherwise – would cry out "Hallelujah" if a student today were to take up that task. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WP:NOT HERE. I have zero AGF left for this editor. Avoided a probable block at the last ANI by agreeing to disappear from Wikipedia but returned with more of the same behaviour. The disingenuous excuse for a Nazi attack is laughable. Meters (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing that this debate had degraded into a popularity contest, which makes wrongful accusations perfectly fine but makes defending oneself against wrongful accusations frowned upon as "WP:BATTLEGROUND", I don't see the need to defend myself any more, especially now that I can't even use a figure of speech without being targeted and intentionally misinterpreted (especially by Hijiri88). Here is my closing statement:

    • WG not only wrongfully accused me of removing encyclopaedic contents (while the content that I removed can be easily disproven by adequate research: David Ousted was never named the captain). He also wrongfully accused me of attacking an IP because I said "suspected vandalism" in the edit summary. The fact is, I made a deal in April and, after the deal, I already stopped attacking any editor unless explicitly provoked.
    • Hijiri88 not only has been intentionally misinterpreting me simply for the purpose of taking me down since April, but also is joining the ranks of false accusers by falsely accusing me of falsely accusing WG and of blanking any page, neither of which I am guilty of. I do not know about his motivation, but for someone to be so motivated that s/he resolved to wrongfully accusing me, s/he has to be benefitting somehow from my demise.
    • Long story short, everything here was incited by two wrongful accusations, which the accuser had since refused to withdraw.

    Peace out! And I hope this will go down as the biggest case of tyranny of the majority in English Wikipedia's history. Cédric 05:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope this goes down as the biggest case of tyranny in Wikipedua's history too: it would speak very well for Wikipedia. EEng 06:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Cedric, if you don't stop pinging me I'm going to privately ask an admin to block you for a few days while the discussion of whether you should be blocked indefinitely takes place. Your "figure of speech" apparently refers to your use of the word "wrongfully". If you did not mean to claim that you had not blanked material from that article, then you should not have claimed that it was a false accusation. I don't want to post here again. Kindly leave me alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Mistrial due to Hijiri88
    Given that Hijiri88 has wrongfully (and possibly maliciously) accused me of:

    • Lying about Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) accusing me of continuing to attack IPS (which had already stopped since April);
    • Actually blanking any page (which I never did),

    I move for an immediate mistrial and a new trial without Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). Cédric 03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not a legal system. This is another piece of information which shows that you really don't understand this place, and don't belong here. Someone please hat this nonsense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already commented above, but in case it's not obvious: Support Cedric made me think that things would be better this past March and April (in the previous ANI discussion) and the voluntary disappearance did not seem to work. Here I am being asked to apologize for placing a standard warning template on Cedric's page for removal of valid content. All of Cedric's good edits have been eclipsed by the voluntary disappearance and now only negative, skewed and at times angry responses ensue. Editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to attack anon editors and write edit summaries in a script only he and possibly one or two others can fully understand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Not a very Christmasy spirit from this editor. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The messages here and the excessive pinging prove the point an indefinite block is needed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Don't usually comment here but the replies to others combined with that obnoxious and ridiculous message at the top of User talk:Cedric tsan cantonais, their page isn't protected, really doesn't show any other way. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting topic ban for User:Jennepicfoundation

    The named user is a disclosed COI editor.[140] She is the Director of Communications for the Epic Foundation, whose founder and CEO is Alexandre Mars. She is a single purpose account who created and has worked exclusively on the article Alexandre Mars. (She previously used two alternate accounts, User:Andamanes and User:Jennchowdhury, which are currently blocked at her request.) User:Ritchie333 and I assisted her with creation of the article in May through July of last year, and it was accepted July 9, 2015. We and others counseled her about her conflict of interest and told her she should suggest edits at the talk page, but she persisted in doing direct edits to the article. On July 13 I gave her a strong warning.[141] She made a few innocuous edits, then the article was quiet and stable for a year and a half. On December 15 of this year, she pasted a mostly-new biography into the article.[142] The new material, which she described as "Epic Foundation-approved", was very promotional. She described her employer as "the French Bill Gates" and used language like "made a fortune", "the world's largest mobile agency", and "he is an avid runner and sports fanatic". She was warned that the article was a copyvio because it is duplicated in multiple other places, but she replied that the bio was created by the Epic Foundation and given to the other places where it is published, so she didn't regard it as a copyvio. (Of course, by our rules the fact that it had been published elsewhere meant that it was.) The situation has been discussed at her talk page [143], the article talk page [144], and most recently the COI noticeboard [145]. She appears to have no understanding of the problem or how inappropriate this recent addition was, and she clearly intends to keep doing this kind of thing. Although she has been told, repeatedly, not to edit the article herself, she insists that she can and will add anything she wants as long as it is sourced.[146] I don't think further counseling is going to help. I am recommending an indefinite topic ban, for User:Jennepicfoundation and any alternate accounts, from any editing having to do with Alexandre Mars or the Epic Foundation. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Since she's never edited anything but the Mars article, and she is an obvious SPA with a self-admitted COI, a topic ban would be the equivalent of a block, so why not simply indef block her until she agrees to not edit the article directly, but to make suggestions on the talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Hard block indefinitely. Her statements at the talk page are the equivalent of giving us the middle finger. John from Idegon (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with JFI. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer a TBAN as more appropriate to the offense. There are things you get blocked for; there are things you get topic banned for; they are not the same things. But that's what discussion is for. I would just request that this discussion remain open until at least the 27th, so that she can have a chance to respond. (Chances are she does her posting from work, and she probably has Sunday and Monday off.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support pageban (allowing input on Talk) and block if it's not honoured. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an indef block, with talk page access. Why do we go through all these hoops to preserve the 1/1,000,000 chance that someone like this will ever be a productive editor? EEng 06:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page ban Not many hoops to go through. If they edit the page then they get blocked, if they stop editing altogether then it is effectively the same as an indef. If they start editing at the talk page (however unlikely this is seen to be) then we have the desired result. Jumping straight to indef seems a bit harsh. AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bet you three AfDs, a GA, and ten DYKs it doesn't work. Deal? EEng 08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your money is safe, but at least this way we're seen to be fair. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page ban with talk access - if she doesn't get the message, indef. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: If Jennifer acting as agent for the Epic Foundation has pasted EF copyright text into Wikipedia in full awareness of the T's and C's, then it has been released under the appropriate license. "Our rules" may of course demand an OTRS release in addition, or they may not. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support page ban with talk access. User:EEng, Hope costs nothing. Tiderolls 13:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...nothing but yet another ANI thread. But hey, we got a zillion of them anyway, so what's one more? EEng 18:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page ban with talk access Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just so resolution of this is not held up because of an apparent division between editors as to what to do, let me be clear that if the consensus is for a page ban, I'm OK with that as well. I agree with waiting until the 27th for a close, seems only fair. (Unless she edits the article before then.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Another page hijacking

    I've restored the disambig page. I've also blocked Ameria Sal (talk · contribs · count) and Ranke8 (talk · contribs · count) as  Confirmed socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have run across another disambiguation page that has been hijacked by an editor. (See the previous incident I reported.)

    In this case, the dab page Botanique was turned into an article and moved to SurvivalLife, of course taking the history of the page with it. The remaining redirect was then targeted to one of the articles that had been on the dab page, Le Botanique. Those pages and histories need to be sorted out, especially restoring the dab page at Botanique.

    Most of my work is with dab pages, and this is about the fourth or fifth "hijacking" incident I have run across. Sometimes I can fix things myself, and sometimes it's the result of an editor who doesn't know any better. However, I suspect this is sometimes used as a technique to bypass WP:NPP, as might be the case here. Should I just keep bringing them here to AN/I, case by case? Or is there a better forum? I would be grateful for any advice that I might pass on to the participants in WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. — Gorthian (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Your concern re: malicious dab page moves was not specifically addressed but I believe this is a priority that can be fixed. I think an edit filter could be set up so that if a page that contains the {{dab}} template is moved then it will be flagged. If they remove the {{dab}} template before moving it, then maybe just removing the template could trigger an edit filter. You could also have a bot (if this task is possible) check for recently moved pages w/ the dab template, or something to the effect. Mainly just thinking outloud to give you some ideas. Rgrds. --64.85.216.152 (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    IP block for IPV6 range by Cox Communications out of Buckeye, Arizona

    Editor has been asked several times to be civil on Talk:Canada and is now making personal attacks at me. There's no way to address anon other than by the city in which the editor's IP is located and the editor seems to have decided to out me, and my location. I can't warn anon because of IP hopping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Walter Görlitz, the IP isn't hopping on purpose, their ISP does that. The whole /16 range can be blocked if required, as it's all one person and carries no risk of collateral damage. But I'd need some examples of the personal attacks before considering such a rangeblock. I'm having trouble finding any attacks — they may be there, but there are a lot of edits from the range on the talkpage, and all I see at a quick look is basically discussion. And what about the outing you mention? Bishonen | talk 17:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • More: PS, I understand it's difficult to warn them, but you certainly missed an opportunity when they came to your page and you simply removed them. They're probably keeping an eye on your page, so it would make sense to a) put back their post, and b) respond to it with a warning and a specific mention of this ANI discussion. Just a thought. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    I understand how IPV6 works. Each time you sign on, you get a new IP. However, I would like a block. I placed a warning on the Canada talk page expressing the facts. I also asked for proof and the editor, who has no proof, called me a troll for requesting proof. A block please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    multiple ip changing

    Article semi-protected for one week (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [[147]] [[148]]

    keep makes edit warring on page Ruby Lin with multiple ip address. Please check [[149]].

    Since september,this user makes countless unexplained removal of content on page. Sometimes use resisted id(Xdeluna) but almost time keep changing ip address(ip start with 2404)

    its impossible use talk page to talk with this user because he keep multiple ip changing(didnt read talk page under other ip) and even clear up talk page without any feedback(Xdeluna).

    dont know how to handle. Edit and deleted the contents without giving a valid under various ip address. plz give me the idea. User:110.47.128.174 (User talk:110.47.128.174) 01:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Normally the way to deal with IP-hopping article disruption is to request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP. This prevents IPs from editing the article. However, you yourself would not be able to edit the article either. Therefore, I suggest that you register an account (all it takes is a screenname and a password) beforehand. Softlavender (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. There are several IPs that request protection knowing that they can't edit the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rococo1700 being disruptive on Menachem Mendel Schneerson

    Please intervene at Menachem Mendel Schneerson where Rococo1700 is being disruptive with edit warring about a non-consensus edit and incompetent behavior on the talkpage, including personal attacks, as well as forum shopping. I propose 1. to revert to the consensus version, which means removal of the paragraph proposed by Rococo1700 2. to ban Rococo1700 from the article and its talkpage, or at least a last warning that he may not make any further edits to the article without establishing clear consensus first. For the record, the editor was extensively warned on his talkpage (including regarding another recent WP:ANI thread), even though he removed most warnings.[150][151][152][153] Debresser (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just about to warn both Debresser and Rococo1700 about their edit-warring, but I see that Debresser has begun this request instead. Please fully protect the article for a week or so, until the on-going talk page discussion reaches consensus. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I think Debresser's assessment above is pretty accurate. Rococo1700 has been engaging (unsuccessfully) in forum-shopping in an attempt to shoe-horn a mention of the Crown Heights riot into the biography of somebody who had no part in the riot, although the driver of a car behind him in his so-called "motorcade" lost control of his vehicle, causing a deadly traffic accident that was the spark that ignited long-simmering neighborhood resentments into a riot. (Yes, Schneerson's "involvement" in the riot was just that great, so it clearly warrants prominent mention in his Wikipedia biography!) Perhaps cooler heads can communicate WP:UNDUE to Rococo1700, to whom the word jihad seems to apply. Rococo1700's unwillingness to discuss and her/his absurd demands (that one editor produce sources for another editor's opinion, for example) are making some of us wonder about her/his competency. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked Rococo1700 for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User keeps characterizing the Syrian rebels as "terrorists"

    I just want to raise a concern on this board about Silicondale (talk · contribs). This user has been making some bizarre additions to the Syrian Civil Defense article with highly charged unencyclopedic language that consistently refers to the rebels as "terrorists". I warned him about it, but the user reverted me and said the following beneath my warning on their talk page:

    In that case the Wikipedia "standards" are wrong. They are terrorists. Even the Pentagon recognises that there are no moderate rebels in Syria (how many? - "just 4 or 5"). Silicondale (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

    This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    +1. Note also the blatant POV-pushing on Bana Alabed:
    Enough of this feverish, conspiratorial nonsense. Please block to prevent ongoing disruption to Syrian Civil War articles. GABgab 18:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified user in question. GABgab 18:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Poor decision and abuse by admin Toddst1

    EDIT: I am so sorry, Toddst is not an admin, I owe him an apology. Sammy D III (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a message on his talk page, but someone might want to check to see if I got it right.

    I believe that on 15 Dec 2016 between 1:33 and 02:34 admin User:Toddst1 gave me no AGF at all, was rude, and attacked me on the talk page in question. These are my contribs, this is the talk page history itself, and here is Todds1s talk page (I don't know how to link it before he selective archived it, the very act he reverted me on). This is the article's history (I can't make this one work either), just for background.

    My thinking: I want to put this article in a cat, but the talk page is terrible. Personal (and embarrassing) stuff completely killed the talk page. Archive? I didn't get it right at M123, where is the help page? New page (Archive 1, clearly a vandal name), cut stuff per direction, save, no floppy disc flag, will this fix it? Save, edit conflict, what is that?

    Did you notice that ONE MINUTE after I posted I had been found, investigated, condemned, and action was taken? ONE MINUTE!!!

    Well, I have to go to his talk page and beg for my good faith edit back. And even then, although he clearly doesn't get it, he still edits my edit anyway. He deletes a discussion which matches a flag. Other people's opinions, which address a flag. I thought that it should stay. I guess not. But we will leave the flag up anyway. Since we understand the situation so clearly.

    All he had to say was "oops, sorry, maybe this is the flag you are looking for" (that I had probably already found before the edit conflict). "Oops, sorry" was clearly too much for him to say. Instead, he started posting on the very page in question.

    His first insult clearly showes that he is very ignorant of the subject. Maybe he should have a clue before he says a major contributor "asserts" something is "dubious" (flag on article itself). Or he could have checked the first reference link, TM 9-2800 Military Vehicles. US Dept. of the Army. 1947. p. 302. Retrieved 12 Apr 2016. The answer is on page 302. The next two links have it in the title on the front cover. THE TITLE ON THE FRONT COVER.

    You have to give him the AGF he didn't give me. No, he didn't attack me, he didn't delete all that discussion to cover his actions, he didn't selectively archive his talk page (17:50 19 Dec 2016) to hide his actions from his talk page stalkers. But you have to be able to imagine what this looks like to me. Maybe someone who he considers a contemporary, someone he will talk to, instead of down at, might want to give this a glance.

    Is this revenge? Sure, we would never have met again. But I am not slinking away, I am walking away with my head held high. If you would have acted like he did, congratulate him.

    That's is all I have, thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Toddst1 is not an administrator. Putting that aside, I can't follow what you're saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sammy D III Your edit here looks like vandalism and you left no edit summary as to why you blanked the content, I would have reverted you as well. Also Toddst1 isn't an Admin.@Bbb23: this is what they were trying to link, took me a sec to figure it out too. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 18:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the edit indeed looked like vandalism. I've left suggestions (like using an edit summary) on the article talk page once I realized Sammy D was trying to do something usefu. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Thomas & Friends railway engines

    User:69.113.198.84 is constantly making these changes to List of Thomas & Friends railway engines without citing any sources or even giving valid reason other than "This is my page". I made it clear to her that she does not own anything here, and that the only person who owns anything here is Jimbo Wales. I verbalized to her multiple times that she needs to stop claiming ownership over anything on Wikipedia and stop screaming in her edit summaries. She is continuing to claim ownership of the article and scream in her edit summaries. CLCStudent (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I've issued a block and I'm watching the article, and I'll block further and/or protect as necessary. (As an aside, Jimmy Wales doesn't own the content of Wikipedia either.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=756648939"