Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.38.154.23 (talk) at 09:00, 28 November 2017 (→‎All articles of all religion). 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:JohnMclean

    User has declared COI, and admin Ivanvector is on the case. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The first edit of this user was to add a 3k draft of an article, complete with infobox and photo into their userpage. They also placed it in Draft:Kelvin Roy and at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (from where it was promptly deleted). This was all back on 10/29. Then today, they put this article into Kelvin Roy - overwriting the existing article of a different person of the same name. They also made edits to several existing articles of just adding a single space (perhaps to build enough edits to be autocomfirmed?) This all seems rather suspicious. MB 00:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is all up in the air, then the user is WP:NOTHERE. It cannot duplicate any sort of description to another page or article. I would recommend to delete and revert all edits of the duplicates as a further precaution. Slasher405 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At first glance, the person they're trying to write about appears to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. Perhaps they are just having trouble with where to locate the draft? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps they are just a confused newbie. But their draft came from somewhere - maybe they have more experience IP editing and just enough knowledge to be trying avoid using AFC/NPP.MB 14:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And perhaps pugs fly. This is likely COI. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring: original research with an agenda at Fake news

    Plus, I've been accused of editing for money and censorship [1]. Some diffs [2]; [3]; [4]. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning themselves and "I operate so much like a bot that most humans like you may be offended on occasions."....???? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

    As stated: "Plus, I've been accused of editing for money and censorship" The agenda is self-evident. Done. BelAirWhale (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for fun, regarding the previous report, I've also been accused of being a sock [5]. Apparently I'm more corrupt than I thought possible. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Their reply made no sense at all. I've reverted their edit per NPOV and lack of sources. To use your POV that The Economist is a bad source because who runs it is seriously troubling. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be a pattern of proclaiming defense of the truth while accusing other editors of concealing the same. See the response to last month's warnings [6]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the above points, BelAirWhale seems to like threatening other editors. Not quite on to legal threats yet, but I'd certainly classify these as attempts at intimidating other editors into backing down. (I also undid this extremely dubious edit to Wikipedia:Academic use. Wikipedia is never a reliable source!) Marianna251TALK 02:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reverted this [7], a pointed little addition to the intro that has little or nothing to do with the article subject. There may be a long edit history that merits review. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor is very clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Endorse a short block so hopefully they get the message. --Tarage (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your concern and.. clarification? You are late to the party.

    Best regards,

    BelAirWhale (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • That borders on a non-sensical response. The goal of a discussion here is to determine consensus through the assessments of many participants; a discussion that completed in 48 hours would be considered quick. Do you feel there are WP:NPOV issues with that commit? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose indef block

    First of all: apologies, this got a bit long. Short version: I think BelAirWhale is trying to edit in good faith, but has some hefty WP:COMPETENCE issues and hasn't shown any willingness to take on board feedback or learn from more experienced editors.

    I've gone through a bit of BelAirWhale's contributions (nowhere near all) and they're kind of all over the place. A few are decent, but far more are POV, unsourced, original research or have other serious issues. Apart from the Fake news article, I've reverted BelAirWhale's edits to Whisper (app) due to their POV problems alongside misrepresentation of sources. If I try really hard to assume good faith, it's just about possible that BelAirWhale strayed into WP:SYNTH without intending to, but that's stretching good faith to breaking point:

    • They used an irrelevant Daily Mail article about husbands resenting their wives as a source for the statement "Whisper is also continuously being investigated by journalists and government authorities for Whisper's dishonesty to their entire subscribed users about Whisper's false statements about their privacy policy in regards to their users" [8].
    • They claimed that "Whisper has had to layoff 20% of their 71-employee staff due to a lack of revenue and operating plans which were based solely upon investment capital" ... except that the source mentions nothing about Whisper using investment capital and is actually fairly positive overall about their revenue potential [9].
    • They claimed that Whisper manufactured a story to "falsely indemnify" themselves against allegations made by the Guardian [10], with the only source being an article about the Guardian's retraction of their allegations - nothing about Whisper manufacturing a story. Basically, the source for the "manufactured story" claim was the allegedly manufactured story, which is practically the definition of original research. They also claimed that this meant Whisper's CEO had committed fraud - both OR and a BLP violation.
    • They claimed that even though the allegations were retracted, "the facts remain and there has been more proof that Whisper has breached the trust of its users identities, it's users locations, and its users activities", with the only source being the original allegations, which had been retracted by that point [11] (also note the edit summary "removed biased content made by paid contributors for Michael Heyward".)

    There are other, more minor issues with some of the edits I came across, showing a general lack of understanding of Wikipedia in general and sourcing in particular:

    • It's pot luck on whether or not their edits actually reflect the sources given. In addition to the Fake news and Whisper edits, I've just reverted this edit to the Isabel dos Santos article, because the sources provided only state that dos Santos was fired, with absolutely nothing to support the line "Authorities in Angola have recently taken action against and made criticism towards dos Santos in regards to the methods used by her to acquire her wealth and utilize her advantage in her business deals". Marking this edit as minor with the summary "corrected mispelling, grammar, clarified, added sources" is misleading as well. This was BelAirWhale's response to my cautioning them for doing so, asking if I am "afraid or biased"; when I explained the issue, I got this in response. (FYI, two more of today's edits by BelAirWhale were reverted by other editors for causing more problems than they fixed; the edits BelAirWhale made were good faith but nonetheless not helpful, further showing their lack of understanding/competence.)
    • They mark almost every single edit as minor (89% of their mainspace edits), even when adding a substantial amount of content [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. In fairness, this issue has not been pointed out to them before.
    • This was their cleanup of one article - personally, I would still tag that as needing a major cleanup.
    • They regularly use IMDB and other self-published sources [23][24][25]; comparatively minor, but even more of a problem considering that they tend to cherry-pick what they take from the sources.
    • And, of course, they think that Wikipedia is a reliable source.

    Generally BelAirWhale seems like they want to edit in good faith, and probably think that they are doing so. Unfortunately, their edits are frequently unhelpful, they don't seem willing to listen to feedback and their response to this ANI has been very lacking. If they're willing to work with other editors, they could become a good editor and a great help to Wikipedia, but they haven't shown any willingness to do so.

    Therefore, I propose an indefinite block for BelAirWhale, unless they show some willingness to take on board the feedback given and work with other editors.

    @BelAirWhale: please could you join this discussion? Marianna251TALK 22:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Edited for clarity: until BelAirWhale shows sincere willingness to take on board feedback and work with other editors, short-term sanctions would be a waste of time. We'd just end up coming back here again and again. Marianna251TALK 23:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

    Could someone besides Mariana join this discussion because Marianna has made grave errors in her corrections.

    When making claims that state articles that are “poorly sourced,” including claims that state information entered in a Wikipedia article is not correct, such claims are without merit when there is evidence that some of the articles are both not being read as well as manipulatively using other sources to claim that such sources were used to represent information entered in a Wikipedia article. This husband and wife article had nothing to do with the sentence that Marianna was claiming.

    For the record, since I know this is a contentious issue in U.S., I am unbiased: Female, Male, Genealogy, Personal identifying characteristics mean nothing in terms of errors made in editing and sourcing data.

    While there may be errors that I have made in mislabelling any “minor” edits. I certainly do not understand what is minor and what is not. I will appreciate receiving a clear definition of what is considered minor.

    Is there someone available that does not have an emotional or prejudiced basis in their analysis of my edits?

    I am always open to learn, without bias and without prejudice.

    Best regards, BelAirWhale (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you clarify why you feel I have "an emotional or prejudiced [bias]", please? Regarding minor edits, Help:Minor edit will explain what should and should not be counted as a minor edit. If in doubt, it's always better not to mark an edit as minor.
    (FYI, I'm on British time so I'll be logging out for the night soon. I'll respond to further comments/queries in the morning.) Marianna251TALK 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse proposal for indefinite block. Not a surprise, since I brought this here. Given the frequency with which the editor provides copious sources that don't support controversial or irrelevant claims, this seems appropriate. I've already mentioned the bizarre edits at Fake news and [26], and see that this edit to Kim Kardashian was reverted earlier this evening [27]. Not only are these off-kilter, tend toward personal commentary and often aren't supported by sources, they consistently veer into WP:BLP concerns, with a reliably nasty tone. Thanks to Marianna251 for digging deeper. This goes beyond a competence issue. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, thank you Marianna251 for providing the clarification on Help:Minor edits. "Minor" is always a point of view (POV) so this Help:Minor edit clarification really helps.[1]

    References

    1. ^ "Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology". American Psychological Association. 2015: 1(4), 269–282. ISSN 2332-2101. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
    I do recognise the "nasty" attacks on me from multiple users here so I would like to enquire why people are proposing an indefinite block on my Wikipedia account, rather than seeking a constructive resolution that has a target of problem solving, rather than emotionally loaded pleas to administrative personnel for retaliation against mistakes of Wikipedia formatting.
    BelAirWhale (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (I've indented your comment per WP:THREAD so we can have a clear line of discussion. Hope that's okay.)
    In response to your comment... There haven't been any attacks on you. Whenever an issue has been raised, it has been about the edits you have been making, with supporting evidence, not you yourself. We all get things wrong - it is not a personal attack on you to point out a mistake. It is a personal attack to respond by accusing others of bias [28], prejudice [29], manipulation [30] (or all three [31]), a conflict of interest via paid editing [32][33][34], or call them an embarrassment [35].
    I'm glad you found the minor edits help page useful. I'm guessing that you haven't had a chance to read it yet, though, since you are still marking non-minor edits as minor. Adding or removing references are not minor edits, whereas fixing a reference already in the article would be. Hope that helps.
    While I'm here, you still haven't explained why you feel I have an "emotional or prejudiced [bias]". Please could you provide evidence for that assertion? Marianna251TALK 14:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Marianna251,
    I read it again just now: I was relying upon "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits."
    I misinterpreted "formatting changes" as a category of "adding a source." Thank you for that clarification.
    Is there a significant value for Wikipedia in drawing upon past assertions?
    This chat page is not well organised.
    Regards,
    BelAirWhale (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Is there a significant value for Wikipedia in drawing upon past assertions?" - yes, there is. You asserted during this discussion that I have an emotional or prejudiced bias/basis. That is a blanket way of trying to dismiss every single concern I have raised without actually addressing the concerns. I have provided evidence for everything I have said; if you're going to accuse me of something, prove it. Otherwise I have to conclude that you can't argue against what I've written, so you're trying to remove me from the discussion via a combination of straw man and ad hominem fallacies.
    I'm quite prepared to pull a Jeremy Paxman and not stop asking until you actually answer the question. If you're not sure how to provide evidence, WP:D&L will guide you through looking at diffs and making links to them. Marianna251TALK 19:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Marianna251!
    I must say that you are starting to make this entertaining now. Are you serious?
    Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard. Is this a fantasy of yours or just some Forecasting of a Psychological projection. I don't have the interest to carry on with pointless bickering over something that you have decided to cherry pick out of context. I believe all of the points have been made clear to me. I have also thankfully learned more about how to properly contribute, and learn with the Wikipedia. I say you did something again and you carry on with endless bickering with me. I say you did not then we can focus on something of value, shall each of us move on or pull more meat from the dead turkey?
    Best regards and Good evening,
    BelAirWhale (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't explained why you feel I have an "emotional or prejudiced [bias]". Please could you provide evidence for that assertion? Marianna251TALK 21:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have, of course, read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelAirWhale (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indef. this recent edit by BelairWhale, while not offensive, is apt. In addition to the the diffs already brought, see tthis diff which could not be a more blatant "sell" for the PR director of the museum .This person is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is doing an excellent job of wasting everyone's time here. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading thru the defiant nature of the user's responses on his/her Talk Page, I see a whole boatload of trouble on the horizon - agree he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia. Support the block.104.169.28.113 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block. The user's attitude makes it difficult for me to belief the user is sincerely acting in good faith. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User consistently disrupting AfD process

    Störm (previously Greenbörg) has a problematic history with AfD nominations, particularly within the Pakistan topic area. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive955#Excessive nominations of Pakistani schools for AfD from User:Greenbörg in May for example, where he amongst other articles nominated 75+ Pakistani school articles in a single day. Back then, the excessive nominations were dealt with through procedural closure following input from several editors (Swarm, Squeamish Ossifrage, SL93, SpacemanSpiff, Jacknstock etc.). The user was asked on his talk to limit himself or abstain altogether from deletion discussions temporarily, and advised by Kudpung that "If you don't stop what you have been doing, there is a very strong chance that the community will take measures to limit your editing or even stop you editing altogether." [36]

    However, not much has changed since then and unfortunately, the same pattern of drive-by AfD sprees is prevalent with little to no consideration of WP:BEFORE. In July, I left this message asking Störm to reconsider his strategy after he nominated 48 articles within the space of 4 days. The problem, other than the volume, was the very little time (one to three minutes, sometimes less) between the dozens of successive nominations, which suggested little effort (if at all) was usually paid to verification, sourcing and notability checks, as my participation in several AfDs would later on indicate. This is actually a minimum requirement. Last month, I was forced to leave another notice on the user's talk urging him to pay greater care, after he nominated a further 30 odd articles within 48 hours, several within minutes, where again no evidence of due process was apparent. What I got, instead of an acknowledgement, was this on my talk labeling me "stupid".

    Usually, the copy-pasted nom. statements consist of vaguely worded one liners, which offer no explanations of concerns specific to the article. This AfD on a mainstream artist for instance, was opened with "Not much coverage in WP:RS. No achievement yet. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN", although that was clearly not the case. What is more unfortunate is that subjects which meet notability, but have poorly written articles, end up becoming a victim of these spree AfDs without the necessary background checks, due to the user's carelessness. For instance, this AfD was closed delete, only to have the article restored after I was able to provide multiple sources here. I have dozens of other examples but it will not be possible to list them all here.

    Since 17 November, there's been another 78 new AfDs from Störm in very much the same drive-by twinkle-per-minute manner. And as one user (L3X1) already noted, it's replete with the same issues all over again. Not surprisingly, another editor, Soman, also raised the same issue recently here and here. What is consistent with Störm's rampage of AfDs is that very little thought and research goes into them beforehand, and as can be viewed from the editing history, the articles usually belong to the same set of topics. For example, if there's a newspaper AfD, the next dozen or so noms. will most definitely be newspapers. If it's a television show, the next dozen will be other of those. If it's books, companies, poets, scholars, and scientists, then vice versa. He picks a category, list or template and then bulldozes it. This defeats the purpose of AfD, which IMO is a self-corrective process looking at each article by its own merit. Some days back, it was all articles under Category:Pop albums by Pakistani artists. Before that, it was articles on Pakistani-Australians [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] etc. What accumulates after these questionable, tedious noms. is a huge backlog of un-participated discussions, with no one having the time and resources to do the user's own homework, and the articles meeting their fate. And when I mention that little thought goes into these AfDs, the user's frequent habit of self-withdrawing noms. is self-explanatory: [42] [43] [44] [45][46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] etc.

    I am raising this issue here after exhausting other methods and believe it warrants discussion. On account of the user's lack of WP:COMPETENCY and long-term disruption being caused to the project from this habit, I propose that an indefinite ban be placed on Störm from nominating any AfDs for the forseeable future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar4d (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly urge you to stop using my previous username which I changed to hide my real-world identity. I don't think I'm that much bad what Mar4d posted above. This is more like cherry-pickings from my AfD nominations and accumulating it to portray bad of me. My quarrel with Mar4d started when we disagreed on 'Kashmir' topic categories then some Pakistani diaspora categories and then Pakistani nuclear scientist who participated in Project 706. My point was to give it a neutral view per our policy whereas Mar4d wants to portray them as heroes. This is what I had done in the past and majority of them are Pakistani articles. What I urge is to strictly follow WP:GNG but there are some users who follow old-style guidelines and consider anyone notable if that got trivial mention which I disagree with. Whatever I done so far was to raise the standard of Pakistani articles owing to the fact there are limited editors working on South Asian articles. I don't want to discuss what Mar4d has done in the past because he is discussing me here. I generally disagree with cherry pickings Mar4d above. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked by Störm to comment as a regular AfD participant in some of the subject areas he nominates (as may be seen here Störm / Icewhiz editor interaction. As a mildly inclusionist editor, I often vote against his nominations (but I have agreed on some) - but I do think that his noms are generally (at least lately and the ones I participated in - e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamran Farid (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the March 2016 Istanbul bombing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatma Omar An-Najar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Dynamics Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadie Jwaideh Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIDS Shahpar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SATUMA Mukhbar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vo Duc Van Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Defence Systems - are generally made in good faith and on articles with significant issues - even on the ones I disagreed with, I saw/see where he was coming from (though possibly failing on BEFORE quality). Unlike some other deletion nominators - I have not seen POINTy behavior at least lately. And the fact he is willing to readily and promptly withdraw noms when presented with compelling arguements and sources (as opposed to beating the dead horse endlessly and arguing the case, or just letting it linger there) - saves community time. Withdrawing a nom is not a bad thing - to the contrary - it is an indication of an editor willing to listen!Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. (edit conflict) This ([53], [54], [55]) looks an awful lot like WP:CANVASSING. Stop it.
    2. This is a gargantuan amount of AfD nominations and that's no cherry picking.
    3. Just looking at the nominations today: 13:21, 13:24, 13:29, 13:32 raises the question of how you even had time to find the articles and nominate them, much less do anything resembling WP:BEFORE. GMGtalk 15:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the 3 articles just mentioned as nominated today, Future Sonics is sourced to primary, deadlinks, and non-reliable sources; Amar Audio has been tagged ofr sourcing for 2 years and, as the nominaiton states, page has no sources; Dewan Salman Fibre is an unsourced article tagged for sourcing since 2008. We do get an awful lot of PROMO on non-notable companies; someone has to birng it to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... so... Progressive Education Network Pakistan was nominated three minutes after their last AfD nom. So, just for shits and giggles, I pulled out a stop watch, and it took me one minute and 38 seconds to just read the article from top to bottom, no looking at sources, no conducting independent searches. So if we're asking the question "How did this user perform a thorough BEFORE?" Well, let me save you some trouble and let you know that if you're looking for an answer that doesn't begin and end with "they didn't", then it's the wrong answer. GMGtalk 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And stop the clock. 11 minutes 45 seconds, not counting the time it took me to read the article. Express Tribune, Pakistan Today, and oh look, apparently they had a case study published in the Harvard Business Review. Is the company notable? I dunno. The Harvard source is behind a pay wall and I don't know what the name of the organization in Urdu might be. Are those all things that need to be considered before someone opens an AfD? Yes. GMGtalk 17:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it was written by someone whose username contains the letters "PEN" and is full of sentences like "The rationale behind this model is that by adopting under-performing public schools, PEN can leverage the existing infrastructure of public schools to focus on the quality of education delivery." I suspect the issue is not "should this go to AfD?" but "should it have been tagged as a G11 speedy"? Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. None of that changes the fact that if you are nominating dozens of articles in a day and spending less time on your BEFORE than it takes to make a cup of coffee, something isn't lining up quite right. And it's certainly not the first time something like that has come up. In that case, the editor voluntarily walked away from nominating, would have been TBANNED a month ago if they hadn't, and for fairly similar behavior: rapid fire noms, dozens of nominations, and little to no BEFORE. GMGtalk 21:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've come across a large number of Model UN articles nominated by this user. While (at first glance) the nominations are all correct, it's still a *lot* of work to go over them all. I definitely don't support a TBAN, but some limit may be called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      One could argue, per WP:NMODELUN (no, we don't need that nonexistent notability guideline), that regional Model UN projects are rarely notable. These are probably a case of locating the problem area (student created Model UN articles), some quick verification on each one (particularly given the lack of strong sources in the article itself), and then nomming the bunch. I don't think he was wrong here.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that individual regional model UN events aren't going to be notable; a single batch nomination containing one type of page would be fine. A few of the noms were of organizations that run multiple sites or other Model UN related topics. I spent probably 45 minutes on the 15 nominations (30 minutes at vote time, and 15 minutes of general research when I first saw them), and there's probably a need for 2 or 3 other people to spend that time as well. Again, nothing that justifies a TBAN, just exhausting when they show up on the AfD page en masse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was asked by Störm to comment as a regular AfD participant The nominations are in good faith at the time of nomination and looking at his Last 500 nominations over 70.4% of AfD's were matches at the time of typing here.I do not support a TBan at this point Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After going through above comments, I think I should improve my quality of AfD nominations. I know my short-comings and I want to improve my editing. I can understand Mar4d's worry because he is regular WP:PAK editor so he cares about Pakistani articles. I had written 250+ articles on Pakistani topics so in general I'm not detrimental to the project. From today, I will try to give detailed rational so no one complains that I'm not doing 'quality WP:BEFORE'. All who complain to me talks about the time but reality is that because my rationals are short and I spend time on spotting articles with issues and doing before(i.e. searching in Google News/Books etc,) and then nominating them at once so this gives bad impression. I will not repeat that. Thanks. Störm (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    + i am busy from july 2017 when this bad faith contributor spoil this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehsan_Sehgal), you all can review, how he and Landscape repton (talk | contribs) destroy it. i am making the case against him with my friends because i am not familiar with rules and how to make link blue. anyhow, he and others working here to damage the wekipedia and its article. i try to soon submit my case for honest and neutral contributors. he should be stop for ever. sorry my english is not good. no one care to improve article, no one investigate, it is conspricy, now he is playing drama to cover his bad faith motives, i come up with details, some people promise to help me. my one lawyer friend, she told me, he does not seem he is a english speaker, he writes very poor english. contributors let not him damage wikipedia and articles. i will ask to improve article, because i must not touch article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehsan_Sehgal). Moona Sehgal (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Störm: I'm glad to see you are apparently open to some feedback. The problem is that AfD can be an exceptionally labor intensive process. Probably a good middle ground for BEFORE is to expect to spend at least ten or fifteen minutes making sure there's nothing available. If you don't and you're wrong, then you essentially waste ten or fifteen minutes for every subsequent person who !votes, plus potentially a DRV and even a subsequent time consuming nomination. When you multiply that across sometimes ten or twenty nominations a day, you can fairly easily and singlehandedly waste dozens of man-hours across dozens of editors, and all because you couldn't be bothered to spend 15 minutes of your own time on the front end.
    I think it'd be a good idea to probably limit yourself to like five nominations a day at least for the foreseeable future. If you can be more careful going forward, and limit yourself as far as overwhelming volume goes, then we can probably get along just fine. If not, you're probably going to end up back here in a few months over the same issues, and given that it has now come up seriously twice, and you agreed to fix it, and then couldn't, there's probably not going to be very many people running to your defense, and not very many people who will be receptive to it if they do. We need more editors on southeast Asian subjects, but we still have to work within reasonable expectations regardless of our expertise. GMGtalk 20:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenMeansGo: I second your thoughts. There are more issues like this, which makes it extremely hard to arrive at a simple conclusion. When there are multiple people complaining about the same thing, then there is definitely something wrong, and acknowledging the problem is a good start. The issue is that despite Störm's repeated assurances in the past, it's always back to square one with the way he recklessly handles AfDs. The Model UN articles aren't a great example to form a judgement, because they are probably actually non-notable. My concern stems more from the way certain notable BLPs and other Pakistan-focused articles have been handled (and continue to be handled). And unfortunately, there is no one around to check or oversee. As it is already, there's a serious lack of coverage and editors in WikiProject Pakistan, a predominately non-English country, so when you have poorly-executed mass nominations coming in everyday without WP:BEFORE, we have a serious problem on our hands including wastage of time, content, and productivity.
    Trust me, there is no shortage of good faith on my side as E.M.Gregory, Icewhiz and Pharaoh of the Wizards imply. Raising the issue here was a final resort; it's me who's been letting this go on for months, trying to engage on talk and discussions, and even taking comments like this. Even if we for a second assume that all those AfDs (including improper nominations) were "well-intentioned", the fact remains that there are several bad nominations, and they're occurring regularly by the dozens. Even a single bad nomination is one too many. And it is causing more disruption to the project than good. Now multiply this over the course of several months, and see how it ends. I have so many more examples, but I will recommend to all above to actually go through the user's AfD contributions, and they are bound to find some issues. It did not take GreenMeansGo long enough to figure out what is actually the problem. There are a lot of rash AfDs that have been created and handled recklessly, unproductively, and for a lack of better word, unprofessionally. The result is several legit articles turning collateral.
    I agree partly with power~enwiki that a limit is warranted. That limit in my opinion should be a restriction on AfD nominations. I think this boils down to lack of experience also; as an editor, Störm is less than two years old. A substantial time of his current daily editing is spent on deletions. I cannot ever recall any substantial contributions from him towards writing a decent WP:FA, WP:GA, WP:DYK or WP:ITN. I think if he focuses on the content creation instead, that will accrue long-term benefits. Let the experienced users who are well-versed with deletion policies handle AfDs for now. As I said, AfD is a self-corrective process. If there is a non-notable article, it will be found, nominated and deleted one day regardless. I just don't think Störm's repeated approach is the correct way to deal with it, because it is causing irreversible damage. Mar4d (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We all here volunteer or donate our precious time for Wikipedia and we do whatever we like to do, not what other people demand us to do. I'm asking tell me how I can improve my editing in the area which interests me. Don't ask me for WP:FA or WP:GA quality articles when I'm two years old as you said above. I had written over 300 articles for Wikipedia, all with proper sourcing. Whenever I found that my article has issues then 'I myself' nominated it for deletion, check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIPS Schools and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News Room. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Mar4d should not be talking about competence since Mar4d himself has gross WP:CIR issues. Experienced editors like Störm takes lessons from every AFD and no one is perfect with AFDs. If someone has made many AFD nomination it is inevitable that some of them are going to fail but we have to see the factors here and there is nothing wrong with the nominations made by Störm. I am seeing that I have participated on 5 or 6 AFDs that he had nominated. I can recall one[59] where Mar4d had no concerns about the notability instead he was shielding creation of a disruptive sock, and this thread shows that Mar4d is disappointed that he has failed to change the result of the AFDs as much as he wished. The AFD data shows that most of Störm's nominations were positive. Strongly oppose topic ban or any other sanction. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    First off User:D4iNa4, accusing someone of having gross CIR issues should probably come with a diff or two, and is a pretty serious accusation. I'm not sure I'm in favor of a sanction at this time either, so long as User:Störm recognizes there are some concerns and is making a good faith effort at improvement. But poking through their history, finding something like this is a problem when it concerns a high volume nominator. That's not a nuanced debate about policy, or someone sweeping in with a shovel and a library card to rescue an article. That's just a google search, and is kindof just a nomination that shouldn't happen from an experienced user. That looks a bit like a preference for nominating bad articles instead of bad subjects, which I'd say could fairly conceivably be compatible with ~70% accuracy, especially if, for example, one was fairly systematically nominating articles where sources can be expected to be mostly in non-English languages, and non-Latin alphabets.
    Something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memon Abdul Majeed Sindh seems to square with that assessment pretty well. About half the original rationale is apparently a mild ad hominem, and the reply there is essientially 100% out of line with BEFORE, which explicitly expects nominators to consider non-English articles, and searches for non-English sources where the foreign language name is given, which in this case, it is. Those kinds of mistakes are perfectly acceptable for someone learning the process, but are not acceptable for someone nominating ten or twenty articles within the span of a day. GMGtalk 17:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I still have no idea what "gross CIR issues" D4iNa4 is referring to. It seems like a poor attempt to derail the discussion. I have no intention to entertain WP:BATTLE and WP:NOTHERE. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only from reading this frivolous report and demands for topic ban from AFD, one can tell about your disruption. The AFD[60] that I had cited is evidence of your "gross WP:CIR issues", I don't have to list every incident now since they are too prevalent when it comes to you. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revisiting this because as I sourced an article on a church, which was brought to AfD in a row of 3 articles on individual churches I found on the Christianity AfD list. Nomination statement: "Appears to be just an ordinary church ... highly unlikely to have a history with significant coverage." made it clear that Nom hadn't looked very hard, if at all. It made me return here because among the things that make Wikipedia such a nasty place is the ease with which editors can be dragged here for commonplace editing. I do not know Störm's editing well; I recounted what I do know above. But I do think that we should be as cautious about sanctioning editors as I wish all editors would be about copy-pasted and scantily researched nominations and iVotes at AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Five minutes spent reading this editor's talk page history is illuminating. Numerous warnings and exhortations about AfD and speedy nominations, declined speedy nominations, or their June 2016 spree of removing the religion of Muslim personalities, their creation of Category:Pakistani sex gangs, their permanent war footing against articles "within the Pakistan topic area" (as outlined by the OP) and their previously self-declared ethnicity of "Anglo-Indian" (but now described as Australian, Swedish, German and English, with the dog-whistle user name "Störm") all leave me feeling very unnerved and unsettled about this editor's neutrality and POV. I can't realistically list a hundred diffs here and expect you to check them all out. If you're interested you'll look at the contributions, across several different user names (is that deliberate? Is it ABF to wonder that?) and you may come away from it questioning this editor's long term pattern of edits. Or you may - as clearly many editors over the years have - not connect the dots and dismiss complaints as paranoia or mud slinging. But either way, I would urge you to look... Neil S. Walker (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Refusal to communicate or clearly source article creations

    On 1st November I initiated an ANI about Dimitrije jankovski's editing, as they are producing lots of unreferenced articles. I have sent about 20 messages between April and November, but the editor has not responded to a single one, despite it being pointed out that WP:Communication is required. Unfortunately, the editor has continued since the ANI was closed with exactly the same behaviour (no discussion actually got started, and Dj did not comment or edit for a few days after the ANI was initiated).

    I have been sending the messages asking about the sourcing for this editor's many creations; none of them seem to have clear sources. I asked if by 'external links' DJ meant the usual 'friendly suggestions for further reading' or if these were actually the sources, and was happy to help make the sources clear, but DJ refused to answer and continued creating articles like Silvia Veleva, which has an empty references section and not even any external links. This is an issue because he/she is creating articles very regularly, all of which have significant issues with verifiability. I moved some to draftspace asking that they be moved back when it was clear they were not WP:OR, unfortunately Dj just reverted this but didn't add clear sources or communicate on the issue. I would like the editor to stop creating articles unless they have clear sources, and to please communicate with other editors on this issue. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also calling WP:DUCK on this IP [61], who mainly edits articles dj has created, including when they are in draftspace, and edits in a very similar way. The IP has been editing since this ANI opened to revert my edits on dj's articles, see [62]. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd really appreciate some comments here, as I'd hate it to just be closed again without any discussion. Dj seems to be using the IP but not logging into the main account, which may be to avoid this discussion. As there has been no communication, despite a previous ANI, and continued unsourced creations, I think he/she needs to be indefinitely blocked until he/she communicates. Then, if he/she is willing to discuss the issue and agree to only create referenced articles in the future, it can of course be lifted. Boleyn (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP 212.62.42.197 is continuing to edit only articles dj has created/been involved with. Boleyn (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Still refusing to communicate and just editing under the IP. Can an indefinite block please be put in place until the editor agrees to communicate and to reference? Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hesselp violation of topic ban

    I consider [63], and several other edits at Talk:e (mathematical constant) to be a violation of User:Hesselp's topic ban, which I have only now read in detail. But regardless of interpretations of "remotely related" in the statement of the topic ban, in my opinion, the user is engaging in the same behavior that led to the original two topic bans, and this therefore warrants further intervention. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • No action: I don't see this as a topic ban violation. I also don't see this as being particularly egregious bludgeoning behavior. It's all of, what, eight comments/responses? Is there a pattern of ongoing conduct here, or is this just an attempt to nip Hesselp's argumentative responses in the bud? I'm just not seeing actual disruption, just disagreement. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No action yet- I am worried this will develop into Hesselp transferring his obsessive ramblings from the subject of series to... whatever it is he's trying to say now. But we're not at that point just yet. Suggest keeping an eye on the situation and leaving the possibility of expanding the topic ban open. Reyk YO! 07:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • An even more explicit violation of the tban: [64]. Note the series appearing in the post. Any takers yet? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe a warning that he's getting close? The topic ban is "all articles on or related to mathematical series". The closer's statement includes the phrase This is understood to include all articles on mathematical series, those who developed them, theories on mathematical series, practical applications and uses for mathematical series, etc, as well as the article talk pages on related to the mathematical series in question. I don't think e (mathematical constant) is primarily an article about a mathematical series. That said, the argument I saw someplace that just about every mathematics topic can be discussed in terms of a series rings very true, so arguably e (mathematical constant) could be considered an article related to mathematical series in that respect. However, it's quite clear that the topic ban is not a topic ban from all mathematics articles, or even most mathematics articles; it's clear it's intended to be a fairly limited subset of mathematics articles. I definitely don't read the topic ban as saying he can't talk about series at all.
        And even then, his conduct at Talk:e (mathematical constant) still has not risen to the level of being disruptive. If he's being annoying and is obviously wrong, say so and ignore him. He's made seven edits to the talk page. I'm not even sure if this isn't somehow a content dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course e is directly related to mathematical series, and the comments on the talk page concern mathematical series. That is a topic ban violation. Johnuniq (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So simply because e can be expressed using a series, the page is entirely off-limits? There's virtually no mathematics articles that you can't say that with respect to. No, that's not what the topic ban was. If you want a topic ban from all mathematics articles, then propose it. You can't bootstrap sanctions out of another topic ban. The topic ban doesn't cover talking about series either. It covers participation at articles and article talk pages where the subject is a particular mathematical series, mathematical series theory, biographies about people known for series theory, and the like. Discussing mathematical series on the talk page of an article that isn't obviously off-limits isn't a violation of the topic ban. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. However, the link Sławomir Biały provided shows the same long-winded and argumentative rambling that led to the original topic ban. It is worth considering whether to extend the ban to cover all discussion of mathematical series, which I would support. Reyk YO! 06:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m on the clock at work and have only a moment’s downtime, but I can preliminarily attest that he is definitely in violation of his topic ban - he’s not supposed to be editing any talk pages for series, and the article says it’s part of a series. If he wants to discuss the matter of changes to a series page it would need to be done on a project talk page for the series in question such as wiki project mathematics or on a user talk page (more probably the former than the latter). That being said, the ban is amendable by community consensus at ani, so if ya’ll wanna move to amend the ban here be your chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a different kind of series than the kind the TBAN is talking about... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not he is in violation of his ban, I would strongly suggest that, in the spirit of WP:DENY he be ignored. Paul August ☎ 10:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban: For me, it is unclear wether he has formally respected the topic ban. But he has been topic banned twice for disruptive behavior, the first time from the article Series (mathematics) and its talk page, and the second time from anything that is related with series. Each time, he has reproduced the same behavior on articles that are not formally implied by the ban. Thus, he clearly refuses to question his own behavior. This is clearly a case of WP:RECIDIVISM. Thus it is highly probable that, if the ban is enforced, he will find new articles for continuing his disrupting behavior. For example, if he is topic banned from mathematics, he will continue with some philosophical or linguistic articles (his comments involve philosophical and linguistic (WP:OR) points of view (respective meanings of the words series and sequences, what is a mathematical concept?, ...). Therefore, a unlimited site ban seems the only way for avoiding further WP:RECIDIVISM. D.Lazard (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sławomir Białys support and agreement, here and here, can be seen as new facts? -- Hesselp (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Johndoe10001 and WP:EL violations on Nabeel Qureshi (author)

    Johndoe10001 has been continuously adding two links that violate Wikipedia's external link guidelines on the article of Nabeel Qureshi (author). The first external link from the website Bismika Allahuma is a Muslim apologetics site that mostly just criticizes the subject of the article and his views. The second external link titled Christianity Today is an obituary from a Christian apologetics site that supports the subjects views. Either way both these links violate WP:ELPOV and other guidelines put in place over external links. Johndoe10001 has repeatedly reverted any edits made to remove these links. I posted on the user in question's talk page to try to discuss the topic but they never responded back. A look at the user's contributions shows that they have made a a total of 8 edits (mostly reverts) on the Nabeel Qureshi (author) with no attempt to explain their actions. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If these are external links in violation of policy, we should warn the user, and if it continues, action can be taken. The warnings don't seem to be at the level where I think action is fair yet. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: how should I proceed then? I have already warned the user in question on their talk page but they did not respond and continue to re-install the content. I do not want to violate the WP:3RR. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johndoe10001: I am tagging the user being talked about here so s/he can explain his/her edits. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Inter&anthro - If nothing else comes of this ANI report and nobody else gives input or suggestions, I can add a discussion and warning to the user's talk page so that it's made clear that their edits are problematic, and that it can't continue. If that doesn't result in the user responding or correcting the concerns expressed, we can take things from there. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if the user will respond as with this edit they did not give any reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Oshwah that sounds like the best course of action. Also for the record I am not trying to get the user in question blocked, it's just that I am against the POV pushing their edits (appear) to be promoting. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for topic ban of Avaya1 from Israel-related pages

    Avaya1's behavior in the Israel article is well summarized in the first point of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article."

    Last year, I tried repeatedly to remove an image (which was pushed into the article by Avaya1 years ago [65] [66] [67]) from 'Literaure' section because there is no room for it, but Avaya1 reverted me, and I was blocked for 24 hours. Based on other editors' responses, they didn't look into the problem and were in favor of the status quo just to stop the edit-warring. Recently, another editor raised the issue and consensus was reached for the removal, which I implemented. Avaya1 added it back twice citing old consensus ([68] [69]), falsely stated that a minority supports the removal and called me sad stalker. Finally, I posted a RfC, which ended with overwhelming support for not including the image.

    In 'Military' section I replaced Avaya1's image with an image that he edit-warred out of the article in 2016. Then he tried to replace it with different images and rationales, including "no consensus", although there was no consensus for his additions ([70] [71] [72] [73]). I opened a RfC, which ended in favor of an image closest to the one I was trying to restore.

    After Avaya1's image in 'Tourism' section was replaced by me with more notable tourist site, he tried to replace it first with a location outside of Israel's recognized borders, then with a place that is not related to tourism. Now he's asking other editors to nominate new image, without ever giving a reason why it should be replaced in the first place.

    At 2014 WP:AE, admins agreed that Avaya1 is close to a topic ban, but at the time decided: "Avaya1 is subject to a zero revert restriction on all Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. If Avaya1 wishes to change or revert another user's edit (which does not unquestionably fall within the standard exemptions) they must propose the change on the article's talk page and obtain a consensus. Avaya1 should not be the one to determine whether a consensus exists." --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Malik Shabazz I have simply requested editors to discuss the tourism image edit. Check the image - it has been replaced by Triggerhippie4 here and here. My response has been to open a discussion here rather than edit warring or reverting, while Trigghippie4's response was just to revert. And Triggerhippie4's is to revert and try to get a topic-ban rather than responding to my attempt to open the discussion on the talkpage (I have not reverted his edit). How is this obstructionist? Note his response here is in response to this edit by me here.
    2. Likewise, Triggerhippie4 edited in a picture into the military section here and here and here - which was reverting edits not just by me, but by another user. My response was not to revert anymore but to let him revert, but to open up a discussion on the talkpage here. Which resulted in the consensus we have for the new image choice.
    3. Triggerhippie4 opens highly personal attacks on the talkpage. And then when I open the discussion on the talkpage, he responds with things like "If Avaya1 was an honest person, the captions would be". this
    4. Count the reverts on the page. In both the edit-wars, he reverts more times than any other editor and always has the last revert. Which I accept is fine, if there is a consensus for those edits on the talkpage first. Rather than reverting his last edits, I opened a discussion section on the talkpage in both cases (the last one needs input), while he reverted in both cases without any consensus. My opening the discussion for voting on the talkpage is the thing that stopped the reverting in of his choice of the military image which had been going on for a year or so, and which he had the final edit on. It resulted in a better image choice - which has consensus support. This was by the book.
    5. He refers to my trying to open discussion on the talkpage here as 'this joke' here. I opened the discussion to get a consensus, after he reverted the same image choice twice without discussion. I have not reverted him, but opened a discussion so we can get more input. Avaya1 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I gave strong arguments in those reverts' summaries. You proposed to change the image on the talk page without a replacement or explaining why.
    2. Another user didn't oppose the inclusion of the image but noted a Manual of Style issue, which I fixed.
    3. In your proposal, you captioned your image that no one supported as "One image that has been used", and the image that you were removing from the article for almost two years against four users (including me) as "Triggerhippie4's choice".
    4. You reverted my edits for months citing "no consensus", and opened a proposal on the matter just three weeks ago.
    5. See 1. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support topic ban, if not 1-way I-ban. Avaya1 is not going to be any help on this page, and his interactions with Triggerhippie4 are against our principles. I wouldn't go to a block yet, though. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Avaya1: As far as I can see, you are still subject to a 0RR "with respect to articles related to Arab-Israeli conflicts". Although these particular edits don't look particularly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the article itself definitely falls into that category. Can you please explain how the diffs linked above are not you violating that restriction? GoldenRing (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • After a quick search I can provide a recent example of him violating not 0RR but 1RR when both article and edits are directly related to WP:ARBPIA: early April in 'Ariel Sharon'. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a difference between trying to prevent disruption and trying to get someone in trouble. No one is going to take any action against a user for an edit made 7 months ago, barring extraordinary circumstances. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not familiar enough with the nuances that inevitably come with editing in this area to formally support or oppose anything, but I feel comfortable saying that Malik's summary seems to be spot-on. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I am going to say about this is that any edits about the IDF, including the photo, are edits about the conflict broadly construed. It would be considered part of the conflict area if the edits were about photos of Hamas, wouldn't it? Seraphim System (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So what's the decision? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Users Störm, Saqib, Landscape repton

    Relating - Ehsan Sehgal - Zarb-e-Sukhan - The Wise Way - Muslim United Nations

    This case was reviewed and suggested by my private friends' team, who went through the real conspiracy and dig into it, to brought up the matter, which deliberately and with the hired ones, who illegitimately, violating all the rules for their bad faith motives that achieved with the calibration of the visible and invisible contributors. My team has selected the major things that can help the neutral and honest and fair contributors, who work for the best of Wikipedia, not for intelligence agencies or personal hatred or jealousy. I am sorry if I don't use the Wiki way of language. I don't know the rules, it is just my feeling that I feel some contributors brutally misused the Wikipedia, even I doubt the involvement of some admins behind this game, because, I update all social media accounts of the subject, many of you know the relationship of it. I am thankful of those friends, who searched and provided me the facts, alone, for me was it very difficult, as the subject would never help in this regard. I don't worry if the result goes against this case, I want only that this case should be handled by the native speakers, who know the policies better than those ones, who misuse it.

    1 - The subject's mistake was that we misused his name, to create the account with his real name, we were not aware of that will be the ugly problem, the whole history is on Wikipedia, admins can easily find that on subject's talk page, which lead personal motives than rules.

    2. Small events are ignored, but issues started from here, 1

    3. About my role and others, who added the information in the subject's article, were explained by the subject through email privately, as I know, the subject and admins involved were satisfied, but not the opponents, they remained against the subject, with different accounts, and waited for lang for that and they finally succeeded.

    I come up to recently, in July 2017, started to mess the articles of the subject, and articles created by the subjects, it happened after I blocked several admins and contributors of Wikipedia, who were on friend list of the subject on its social media accounts, which I was time to time updating besides the subject. I don't want to reveal the conversation among them, I respect subject's privacy and those, who tried to --- (?) ---. Maybe, some of those got anger, I didn't realize, when I got email in July that pics, uploaded by me were for deletion, I without notice the subject, became aware that someone, not only nominated the pics on Commons but also subject's articles and created articles were under deletion, and messed, and well-sourced content was removed mindlessly. Mess the article Ehsan Sehgal started after that as such comments:

    [74]

    Saqib disclose the identity of Justiceoo7, for that Saqib got just a warning from Drmies, but damage was done. Such unjust practices lead that Justice retired from editing permanently

    Just after six months, planned bad faith practice started by Greenbörg (talk), now User:Störm, on article Ehsan Sehgal as this [well-sourced authentic weekly magzine of Daily Nawaiwaqt group source no-5. and so on- exceeding of hatred and bad faith resulted as these tags,and planned reaction.

    And helpers appeared, as Landscape repton and Saqib and double helper of both sides, as strangely NitinMlk, who one side criticized and other side to encourage for deletion or merging, telling the most comprehensive reliable sources, as:

    Comment – The links provided by the above anon user show that the cited offline sources of this BLP not only exist but also discuss the subject in detail. I also looked at the revision history of this BLP. It's clear that most of its online sources are archived at archive.is & Internet Archive. I am adding some of those archived sources here: Bilingual literary read. Daily Times. Daily Jang. 15 May 2012. Daily Jang. 24 November 2012. A splendid poetry collection. Daily Times. Geo Urdu. 2 January 2014. Urdu, surviving against odds. Daily Rising Kashmir P.S. As one can see in the BLP's revision history, User:Landscape repton – who registered here a few days ago – has cleaned it up, which includes addition of 20 plus tags by them. And its lots of sources & content has been deleted. So, I guess one will have to look at older revisions like this one for analyzing the sources. BTW, the user has also done similar sort of edits at the subject's book article – see here. - NitinMlk. Contributors can read through all comments to realize the bad faith and of citation templates. Only that three most honest contributors each after each spoiled the article, no one bothered to stop them, it had shown the complete conspiracy and preplanning agenda and motives, which was and is against the Wikipedia. Not only this, they went to all articles, created by the subject and user Justice, for deletion, in which those articles were deleted that subjects had received government award and prizes, it was very shameful practice but happened. Even though article Zarb-e-Sukhan well-sources, with comprehensive 5 sources had been merged by the nominator, who voted for deletion, and his self-closed as merge, it is a great surprise but no one's matter, more surprising, he with so called good faith went here too, for deletion all pics 1

    I just want to ask the nuetral and western contributors to judge and review the matter. It is not the compelete case, I will add more facts as my team ready to give me the draft for submit here, these are my comcerns, which I asked my friends to help me, they are not from Wikipedia, but somehow aware of that, we are busy from july 2017. I today also commented this. Moona Sehgal (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • It makes me more surprised what it means or something els? I will write after finding facts.

    On User talk:Mar4d - page: - 1 - 2.

    Moona Sehgal (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • i am not here for tricks, no one is using my account, my friends just make the draft that i paste, i tell that because i write in small letter as my habit. i fairly tell the truth, my concerns in another way of writing, i have asked many contributors through email, just help me, where to go and how to deal. it is a harassment that they don't dare to comment because later they will be targeted by such ones. i am not alone to say this. you can see others too, here. 1

    saqib & storm violated a rule, you mention here 1. thank for it, i am learning this, while i am not interested to contribute, i was just for upload pics of my father. my first task is to get delete my father article, which caused him humiliation, damage in private life, i don't think wikipedia is for this purpose, but these two have done this, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.

    Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information are not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing."

    don't ask me, just go and dig in the article history and talk pages, you will know what is reality. i am busy to add more things, as i have. Moona Sehgal (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • About Muslim United Nations, disgusting remarks of Landscape repton: It is just a pamphlet repton and Greenborg, as "he is a critic of UN so he wrote that charter and that's it." . It was deliberately insulting and degrading the subject, is the Wikipedia ground of such conduct or checking the reliability of sources or insulting of the subject, to enjoying self-egoism? While utmost two reliable sources were cited, as [75] Family Magazine of Daily [76] Nawaiwaq group, stated in second leads, "Muslim United Nations Founding Chairman Ehsan Sehgal, residing in the Hague, magazine issue of 1998 and Daily Hurriya Karachi, the biggest daily newspaper of its time, mentioned lead in box: To establish Muslim United Nations Is My Mission-Ehsan Sehgal - Good faith contributors had that seen and cited too, but working on agenda could not see, even making jokes in insulting way- They could not find that-- 1, 2, 3

    Charter.

    My friends are busy to help me, I come with all answers to bad faith contributors. It is not just conspiracy, it is a big conspiracy and very accurate planned to humiliate the subject. It has to come more, I am busy. Moona Sehgal (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: In the interests of making life easier for everyone concerned, could I just ask that you outline what the concern actually is, without the flowery language? Is it an issue of users deleting content when they shouldn't have done so, outing other editors, a combination of the two or something entirely different? If anything's going to come of this, it will come of it due to facts and policies, rather than oratory. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We I don't know exactly what we are here for, but we I do know that none of us are currently in a conspiracy, as far as I to my knowledge hand on heart. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As if arbs had hearts.[FBDB] EEng 14:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you admitting that multiple people are using your account? --Tarage (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a simple baseless allegation against editors by this SPA who has merely made 67 or so edits since 2011. Instead I suggest this SPA be blocked for COI editing and for accusing editors of hatching a conspiracy. --Saqib (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Mehmood Khan what you are pointing too but I can assure you whatever I had done was in good faith. Interestingly, you have developed an interesting story for us to read. Thanks. Störm (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • my helping text:

    You and your supporters assuming good faith, having no any clue what does it mean, make me surprised. You call it good faith? An IP removed term Scholar for having not citation that you and your supporter blindly first removed all sources, and then tagged multiple templates, and blaming subject's connections with media, you are well aware of my father's personal life than I do?? very interesting! The most insulting game did your supporter, as; A student of Urdu literature, you both had no manner of respect and civility, it was inserted without citation, is it good faith?

    Your good faith openly shows a reality, while you have more knowledge of a subject, even you tag Hoax, a completely planned and conspired edits. You still determine to be a good faith contributor? Do not worry, my friends helping me, you and your supporters can not damage Wikipedia. I am still busy to collect the facts, there is more of this conspiracy. Moona Sehgal (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Storm, you and suspicious account Landscape repton, which was created within the minutes and directly he or she found your adventure on Ehsan Sehgal, which you illegitimately messed the article, Landscape repton with its dubious tricks, as a newbie contributor demonstrated as an experienced administrator of Wikipedia. You stormed the policies on the subject and taking the gun of promotional, knowing nothing that was promotional? While here is your list of articles that you created, all fall under WP:COI and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising, your all articles are upon Pakistani subjects, while you are English speaker and from Australia, it is so strange that you are interested in Pakistani subjects, not the Australian ones???. You have let your previous account name Greenbörg, deleted, where, a contributor Mar4d posted you the Wiki Barnstar, while you asking him to help too, how you knew him?These are the question but my friends know the answer, I will come up later about this, Wikipedia is not a platform to misuse for personal use. I am not accusing, I am telling the truth if admins let me continue that because I and my friends are not much familiar, we step by step finding the facts. Don't forget, I have proof of harassment to the subject on its social media and real life, by the ISI and RAW agencies and at the same time, his articles were messed? Collibration of you, Landscape repton and Saqib, from different worlds, show doubts??

    You also targeted hundreds of other articles blindly because just to cover your way as normal practice while your created most of articles fail to pass notability, and you clearly breach COI and Advert policies, for example, these articles 1, 2 have none of the sources that establish WP:notability, just promoting subjects here as like things of supermarket. Well aware of rules may review your list of articles, most of the single line articles and fall under WP: COI and Wikipedia:Identifying blatant advertising articles. There is more to come, I will defend the credibility of the Wikipedia until I am allowed to do that.Moona Sehgal (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am a Dutch woman, wife, mother, sister, and daughter, I am here to ask fairness, not to threaten anything, but good for Wikipedia. Discussion on talk pages was not anymore possible, in a situation of three bad faith editors and their supporters, who occupied the editing process, no one was allowed to do, what they want they did, preplanning edits, if you will not allow me to express my concerns, as I am also contributor of Wikipedia, should not be taken side of anyone, it should be different here than the talk pages, but I feel harassment here too?

    As on article talk page, a contributor, User:Renzoy16 commented this

    As a result, a pinging contributor Jytdog went to the Renzoy talk page, rather reply on article talk page, it was openly way of harassment, that's why I am here. Working on agenda will try to cause me blocked, for me is not a problem that, I will not stop until there is not a fair investigation and decision, otherwise, I will take my case to The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. I hope, admins will give me, right to say my concerns, which are in the favor of Wikipedia. Moona Sehgal (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I will not stop until there is not a fair investigation and decision Well, I see why you're upset, then. You're getting a fair hearing but that it isn't what you wanted. Marianna251TALK 13:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • i am not upset, i am sad, a father who defended its daughters and self became humiliated on wikipedia. i trust fair admins. Moona Sehgal (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moona Sehgal: Why are you hiding behind other names? Be brave! Come up and discuss. You should start AfD where you think my created articles are promotional. I can assure that you will never do that. I want to hear more. Störm (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    i don't understand what you want to say, give the answers that are raised here, if you can't, plz go to school and first finish your study. i am here for fair investigation, not for your ordinary questions. Moona Sehgal (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I have tried a half-dozen times or so to read this section, and I could not make heads or tails of it, it's simply impenetrable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The impression I get is "content dispute, OP decides that since all the other editors disagree with their position they must be socks or at least a cabal, and when their ANI gets befuddled-yet-generally-opposing responses they double down, while playing the what a nice person I am/what terrible people you are card multiple times, all of this with a side of sounding seriously like a shared account or something indistinguishable from same". Having gotten a triple word score on Wikipedia Bingo, this should probably be closed while adding the '...before the boomerang', 'belongs at DR', and 'please try to be clearer with your complaint there' cards to the deck. (Now, that isn't to say there isn't fire under this smoke - see above - but this, as it is, is only going to hurt the issue, not help.) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, you got a lot more from it then I could. The major problems here are the English-language capabilities of the major participants, which are poor, and, to be trite, the formatting. I don't think people realize how important it is to use short paragraphs, indent properly, etc. so that the reader's eyes don't glaze over in trying to take in the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In all seriousness, I think it actually helped that when I looked at this it was at 6:30 in the morning after being up all night and I was about to fall over asleep. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Northerncedar: Disruptive editing on Mohs surgery

    Appears to be a content dispute. The article talk page is thataway→ and WP:DR is thataway↑. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Northerncedar (talk) has been repeatedly removing the infobox image in Mohs surgery without a reasonable rationale other than how it offends him in some way, with a rambling edit summary accompanying each removal. He additionally wrote a message on his own talk page and then proceeded to copypaste it here and here. He claims he is a Mohs surgeon, and is therefore basically attempting to force his point of view on the topic. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 02:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The user seems to think that Wikipedia is somehow a way to promote different medical procedures... it is not. --Tarage (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discuss at the talk page: Hasn't hit 3RR, doesn't even look like an edit war. It absolutely doesn't look like promotional activity; I don't understand how the above comments distilled that from Northerncedar's commentary. Northerncedar appears to have an honest concern, but is voicing it in a poor manner. Honestly, if he or she is an actual Mohs surgeon, then perhaps we have a potential source of better imagery. I actually don't really disagree with the comment, if of course he or she is correct in that the image of Mohs on the ear postop is not really an accurate depiction of typical outcomes, then that should be discussed. There are, honestly, many cases when no image is better than a problematic image (if it is problematic). In any event, ANI is the wrong venue to air out a content dispute like this, even though Northerncedar has evidently, probably due to inexperience, reverted instead of discussing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Reporting false vandalism accusations from Me-123567-Me

    diffs

    • My edit to the page [77]
    • His template vandalism warning [78]
    • My edit to his page [79]
    • His edit to my page [80]
    • My edit to his page [81]
    • His second false accusation of "unconstructive editing" for wanting to discuss this with him. [82]

    Notes: The Orville has been subject of IPs with one edit to their name attempting to force through changes to the Reception area which go against WP:UGC. My edit was removing one such edit which included duplicated links of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as per Wikipedia policy.

    I've been an active editor on The Orville page for many months and have regularly updated things such as the ratings and the reception area and kept the area as vandalism free as I could. Today I received a false accusation against me on my talk page and responded on the users page who left. He removed my comment and responded on my page basically saying he could do what he wants if he feels it goes against policy. I responded to this and left a comment on his page to remind him that leaving false accusations of Vandalism goes against Wikipedia policy and if he did that again I would report him on the admin board.

    I don't think it's right or fair for a long standing editor to behave this way. He refuses to discuss this situation and is throwing a bad faith accusation against me without any grounds to back this behavior up. I've received two templates from this editor that I feel are entirely unjustified and I would like to request an admin look into it. I've never vandalized Wikipedia in my life.

    The user in question also has a history of false vandalism accusations, such as this one [83] 82.15.11.92 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Me-123567-Me - I have to side with the IP user on this one. While I'm not 100% certain when it comes to community consensus regarding the use of rottentomatoes.com as a reference and if it's acceptable or not when adding content regarding the ratings of films, these edits made by the IP were definitely not vandalism... especially when the user cites a Wikipedia content guideline in their explanations (see edit summaries here and here) - which to me is a reasonable interpretation of it, even if the user is incorrect in this situation. I think the user was completely reasonable when they messaged you on your talk page and expressed their frustration toward you about it (I personally would't have said, "I thought you'd be mature enough to own up to your mistake and apologize but I guess not" as it starts to direct the discussion toward being "snippy", but it's not a statement I'd consider uncivil). Your response here obviously didn't make the concerns expressed by the user any better. If you think an edit is against a Wikipedia policy and don't know for absolute sure, you should ask and find out for sure first before you revert the edits of others. I'm not trying to be overly harsh here; I've been in this position a number of times before where I've done this in the past. But if you're going to patrol recent changes and take action with any edits, "shoot first and ask questions later" isn't a method that's going to be viewed positively by the community. I highly recommend that you re-evaluate your responses to this user and try to turn his/her frustration around. It's the least you could do (assuming I'm not missing anything obvious, of course). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that 82.15.11.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been around since August. If they don't know the policy and how to be WP:CIVIL then pergaps they need a refresher. I keep this particular mentioned page on my watchlist. I disagreed with this IP adddy, however, I chose not to engage in a revert war, which based on the tone of some of their messages I could see they would easily engage in. Do I own them an apology? Perhaps if they had a username (so I know who this person is in the future) I might issue one and if they too apologized. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Me-123567-Me - Aww, c'mon... IPs are people, too, man. You can't forget that fact. Look, I can't tell you what to do - you don't have to listen or do a darn thing I suggest here (and it won't hurt my feelings if you don't... lol). But if you want to grow as an editor and become respected and looked-up upon by the community as a leader and a user who sets the true example of how the rest of us should be, sometimes you gotta be the bigger person... :-). Other than that, there's no administrative action required here. Just be careful with your reverts; that's all that really needs to be said. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sidebar Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Sidebar: "IPs are people, too" - Obviously (unless they're bots), but not exactly in the same sense as accounts are people. With an editor who uses an account, I can be reasonably (although not absolutely) sure that I'm dealing with the same person behind the account name every time I see it. With an IP, I don't know if it's static, and therefore the same person, or if it's a different person every time, or the same person for a month and then a different person at another time, and so on.
    That, and the fact IPs are simply numbers, or, with IPv6, very long strings of quasi-random-looking numbers and letters, which do not have the same semantic value as do names, means that IPs are, in reality, perceived differently from account editors. That's not necessarily deliberate, and not necessarily an indication of prejudice, it's just the way our brains work. People who choose to edit without an account, for whatever advantage they see in it, have to take this disadvantage as part of the package, because trying to remember "IPs are people, too" will not make it go away, it's intrinsic to human psychology: we're simply not built to think of strings of numbers or numbers and letter as being name-like.
    That doesn't mean that IPs can or should be abused just because they're not accounts, but it does mean that they're always going to be perceived differently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    62.28.64.102

    Not sure what to make of this. Many of this editor's edits are fine, but all are unsourced and have no edit summary. Multiple warnings on IP's talk page have been ignored. I just reverted one at Warren G. Harding thinking it was vandalism, but with no edit summary I'm not sure. @Drmies: Editor has become active again after a short block from you, with no apparent improvement in behavior. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if their edit at Warren G. Harding is at all representative, we should be giving the IP a barnstar instead of complaining. Harding's mother's first name was Phoebe not Mary. The IP was correcting subtle vandalism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, their edits to Joseph P. Kennedy II and John F. Kennedy Jr. are complete bullshit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Their Rose Kennedy edit was also garbage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Me again

    Well the weirdness with my edits not being saved is happening again (now on Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, no warning or notice is appearing, they are just not being saved. It is when I try to undo an edit.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I wonder if this could be related (but I could ultimately see an error after a long hang). WP:VPT might possibly be where you wanted to post? —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be, but I seem to recall it was the same editors edits (and the same page) I was trying to revert last time as well.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction ban violations, again

    C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) continues to violate this interaction ban.

    I'm in an editing dispute with Slatersteven and Gilmore heads over to his talk page and calls me a Pig He adds OR to an article I created and am still working on, so now I can't do anything to it. Can something be done now to stop this constant messing about. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a comment on a source I had just added. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC) You can still edit that article, you just cannot undo his edits. You should also inform parties mentioned as party to a dispute you have launched an ANI against the, You have failed to do so.[reply]

    As to the comments on my talk page, they do not mention you by name. But they may well be about you given the timing of them. Hence why I said to Gilmore he was sailing close to the wind.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now informed them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I find a clear violation of the interaction ban here. Aside from taking sudden interest in the Rose City Antifa article and editing it after the interaction ban was imposed, these messages here are a clear attempt to push the envelope and refer to the user without actually mentioning them by name. C. W. Gilmore has been blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ‎Darkness Shines

    ‎Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) I believe the user has major POV issues that make interacting with him on certain pages a problem.

    He has re-added material to this article [84] without consensus (And despite an ongoing talk page discussion).

    In addition to accusations of censorship [85]

    There are claims that his edit was accurate (when in fact it left out that this was only an allegation, not a fact) [86], [87],[88]

    A very battleground mentality over what (he see's as) antisemitism [89] & Getting personal [90], [91]

    It is clear to me the user is a POV warrior.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    When someone's able to point out what in the edit ain't in the source then there ain't nothing wrong with the edit, Slater, who btw is on 4RR over there, needs reminding ANI is not the place to win content disputes, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I point out the sources do not say he said it, they say he was alleged to have said it (thus this was a BLP violation). In addition there are (as I said) questions of undue and POV pushing. Also I am not at 4RR, if I am please provide the diffs.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, 1 2 3 4 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Errr, you are aware that repeating an accusation as if it is fact is a BLP violation?Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We also have attitudes like this [92] to anyone who posts what he does not want to see on his talk page. He really does seem to have a major attitude problem.What is galling is that here [93] he says "Allegations are not facts" yet when disusing the speech at the labour party fringe meeting he argued that an allegation was a fact. So we also have a double standard in operation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So we've gone from you saying it ain't in the source to it's an allegation, of course you know it was reported on from the source you presented on the talk page [94] and of course I wrote that it was reported on, not presented as facts, that's my last comment here, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time saying "Not sure why this matters....", if you cannot see why saying an unproven accusation is a fact (and that is then way you originally worded it) does not matter you should not be editing any BLP material. And I did not say it was not in the source, I said the source does not say what you are, it is not the same, but is a good reflection of the problem here)Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Can we have a moratorium on ANI threads beginning DarknessShines has done XYZ in what is almost always a content dispute. and I'm not sure if that 'almost' was actually deserved! — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This is, as has been shown many times, par for the course with the way DS operates. They push a very specific POV, make edits against consensus constantly, and simply don't hear things. Perhaps there is a reason why there are so many "Darkness Shines has done XYZ" threads.--Jorm (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They've got a WP:COI? Great, WP:COIN. Pushing a bias? Great, WP:POVN. Edit warring? WP:ANEW. Etc etc. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 19:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a continuing pattern of behavior forum?Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is a reason why there are so many "Darkness Shines has done XYZ" threads. Yes, and perhaps there is a reason a wildly disproportionate number of them seem to wind up as boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what I have done to deserve a boomerang?Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying you have. Just noting in response to others that it seems that a large majority of the complaints against DS wind up boomeranging, and thus the "well maybe there's a reason DS gets dragged to ANI so much" argument may not mean what those who say it think it means. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this would answer your question. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe instead of derailing this with discussions about others or past actions we should look at this case on it (or lack of them) merits?

    Did Darkness Shines repeatedly add material that breached BLP?

    Did Darkness Shines refuse to acknowledge this, and continue to say that his edits accurately reflect the sources (did they)?

    Does this (and other behaviors) demonstrate a battle ground mentality in relation to certain topics?Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So now It's WP:CRYBLP, make your mind up. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was you who said I had breached 3RR, I pointed out they were (to my mind) BLP violations that I reverted. I am asking if this was correct. It if is I did not edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment)I have edited alongside darkness shines (though I know nothing of the current dispute), and I have seen a pushy, somewhat [[[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] attitude, and perhaps some bias. However, I am hesitant to support sanctions as I fear overuse of discretionary sections may just make people afraid to debate things. But I will say that the pushiness in the diffs provided above is not surprising to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mean WP:ICANTHEARYOU? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fixing my previous typo. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over CAGE_(organisation)

    User talk:Pincrete is constantly deleting new content from the CAGE_(organisation) article. Due to the fact he is reverting the new content since a long time, the article is usually outdated. User Pincrete do not react to arguments and for example reverting to the false quotaion, only because his POV. Plaese help me to resolve dipute with him. Cautious (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Why should a content dispute be settled at ANI? And you did not bother to provide diffs. Regardless, it appears Pincrete perfectly described the issues with your additions here. It is much more appropriate to discuss with him and, if there is no resolution, perhaps initiate a RfC.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note By the looks of this discussion, Cautious has been particularly uncivil, accusing Pincrete of misrepresenting sources, POV-pushing, and being "blind". I find the accusations of misrepresenting sources as the most ironic as it appears Pincrete thoroughly describes how you are the one actually committing such an act.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff illustrates TGS's last point quite well. Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User Pincrete removed sourced quotation from Rabbani, who said that it was "moral victory". Cautious (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User Pincrete also replaced quotations regarding Zakat appeal with false quotation. Cautious (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem is that User Pincrete is reversing changes to that acrticle since long time due to that fact the content of the article is outdated. He is not even filling the reverted content with his version. He is removing content, because of some POV reasons. Cautious (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathsci this is not point of dispute. I answered his question, kind of open discussion. Above I mention 3 problesms I have with user Pincrete. Cautious (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rabbani did not say it was a 'moral victory', CAGE did in a headline on a press release, this I added back into the article Cautious's text, My addition of the shortened text, My explanation on talk, though the reason why many of these additions are unacceptable (analysis of a primary source), had already been explained several times. Cautious does not live up to his name and appears determined to use the article to put his own opinions of CAGE and its staff. His English is not always clear either.Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    https://cage.ngo/press-release/muhammad-rabbani-we-have-won-the-moral-argument/ Here is quotation from Rabbani: we have won the moral argument. Cautious (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "add CAGE (not Rabbani's) statement, which does not mention any 'demonstrations' ... see talk", while in the source the demo is clearly visible. You are reverting, ignoring sources, without reading sources. I propose to discuss sources first and than make decision to improve.Cautious (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are simply ignoring sources and writing content based on your imaginationCautious (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    That is not the source you were using. It still would not justify WHERE you put the text (splitting up citations), nor the claim of a 'demonstration, which appeared invented by you. I have no objection to saying that both Cage and Rabbani claimed a moral victory and will add it myself. What do you mean VISIBLE? Are you now interpreting photos? Pincrete (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of sources you choose to ignore. I just proven my point, why are unable to acknowledge it? In the previous source there are photos, clearly showing Rabbani within the crowd. Again, you are not reading the sources! Cautious (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how to 'read' a photo and your interpretation of one is not a source. You seem really determined to prove that you lack the competence, experience and neutrality to edit in a controversial topic area. I suggest you close this ANI before it blows up in your face. Pincrete (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been awhile, and I'm an old curmudgeon, but I'm pretty sure "this is a photo, I see X in the photo, therefore the photo is a reference for X" is pretty much one of the textbook examples of WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally I found the source, where I took the gathering from. Following the judge’s verdict yesterday Rabbani addressed supporters and members of the press outside Westminster Magistrates Court. http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/09/26/cages-muhammad-rabbani-to-appeal-guilty-verdict-in-schedule-7-trial/ Cautious (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed that Pincrete removed the whole chapter related to Political activities of Cage based on their article to remove US and UN Based soldiers from Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAGE_(organisation)&oldid=810837495#Political_activities https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAGE_%28organisation%29&type=revision&diff=812266638&oldid=810837495Cautious I believe it is important to know that the allegededly charity organisation has also political agenda. (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A photo showing Rabbani talking to reporters + supporters does not = 'a demonstration' . The "allegededly charity organisation has also political agenda" is your analysis of a primary document. CAGE opposes many of the laws and actions perpetrated by US and allies! It says that in almost that few words in their mission statement, yet you imagine you have discovered something important and sinister in their press releases. Read what others (not me) are saying above, you are way out of your depth here . Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking to reporters + supporters: quite a crowd! Regarding Political activities chapter, it is your POV that Cage is not sinister organisation. I am only quoting Cage press release with demand of troops withdrawal from Africa and I am nit saying they want it to make space for terrorists organisation to make them freely operate there. Cautious (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconding the comment made by TheGracefulSlick - why is this at ANI? This is a content dispute and would be better suited to WP:DRN. (Although for the record I think Pincrete potentially has grounds for filing an ANI against Cautious' POV/SYNTH edits plus WP:IDHT attitude. Watch out for WP:BOOMERANG.) Marianna251TALK 12:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see that you have a good point here. User Pincrete put the Cage article on his watchlist and contantly reverted the new content. When I provided sources, he reverted without reading the new sources. The article became obsolote, the sentence for Rabbani, though extremely important, was not even mentioned. I dont think he has good point to refuse the new content, if it is written in neutral matter and with sources provided. By the way, I provide sources from CAge own page, no hatred pages. Cautious (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading your most recent edit and the source, I've struck out my above comment about taking this issue to dispute resolution. There is an issue here with edits going against policy and an editor who refuses to listen, but it's not Pincrete. I reverted your most recent edit to CAGE because it is very, very clearly your interpretation (i.e. original research) and does not actually reflect the content of the source in anything approaching a balanced, neutral way. If your edits were written in neutral matter and with sources provided, then I would agree with you. But they're not. Marianna251TALK 13:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: criticising anti-terrorism laws =/= advocating for terrorism. Marianna251TALK 13:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As general statement criticising anti-terrorism laws =/= advocating for terrorism is correct. However, please focus on sources. One the source says as following:

    We must begin to openly discuss the root causes of violent incidents in a balanced and intelligent manner. This in turn, must prompt a re-examination of the neo-conservative and violent Western foreign and domestic policy towards Muslims.. There are other sources. Let us right NPOV article, not based on presumptions, but factual sources. Let us continue discussion here Talk:CAGE_(organisation)#Advocated_strategy Cautious (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of the rest of the dispute involved here, ANI is not the place to propose content. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Version 1 proposed: Cage advocates deeper view into the way the Muslims see the world and accomodate to their demands regarding foreign policy. In addition they demand to change policy towards Muslims to align with mainstream Muslim demands. Cage believes such a policy would influence potential and actual terrorists to prevent them from carrying out the terror acts agsint United Kingdom.

    Rangeblock evasion

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Range blocked for 6 months. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The range currently blocked as Special:Contributions/2602:306:CDA2:E890:0:0:0:0/64 is being evaded by Special:Contributions/2600:1700:F91:A610:0:0:0:0/64 from the same area. This person is a long-term genre warrior, uncommunicative, with no sign of stopping. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Edit warring to restore NFCC violation and unsourced claims

    Walter Görlitz has been blocked at least a dozen times for edit warring and 3RR violations. A few days ago, I removed a clear NFCC violation (nonfree album cover in musician bio, no discussion of cover in article text) from Terry Scott Taylor. Görlitz restored the image and made a non-policy-based justification for his action on my talk page. Two other editors, including one admin, pointed out his error, and explained carefully why the image should be removed (User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#FUR). After twodays, when no other editor supported retaining the image and Walter did not respond, I removed the image again. Walter, without engaging in substantive discussion, has restored the NFCC violation several more times. I have also removed a laundry list of about twenty-five performers supposedly "influenced" by this musician, sourced only to a blog post where one of those twenty-five performers describes a song Thomas wrote as "awesome". Walter also restored that, arguing that "referenced content" cannot be removed even if the reference does not support the claims. It's pretty evident that he either does not understand or is unwilling to follow basic NFCC, RS, and BLP principles. There's no point in waiting until he formally violates 3RR again; this is a longstanding misbehavior pattern without any reasonabnle justification. Since he's abandoned the substantive discussion he began on my talk page, and hasn't engaged with the other editors who tried to explain his errors to him, I don't believe this can be resolved without further intervention. (and, of course, my removal of a clear NFCC violation is exempt from 3RR limits). Perhaps, as long-term remediation, Görlitz could be placed under 1RR limits to prevent further timesinks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no clear NFCC violation as there is a fair use rationale provided on the image. That FUR has not been contested. Despite pointing that out to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, the editor is clearly ignoring the law and using some undefined consensus to support edit warring in removing the image. I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And now that Adam9007 (talk · contribs) has correctly nominated it for deletion, it should only be a short while before it does not exist and the process started by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz in the incorrect location will be over. Again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes that album cover any different from the hundreds and hundreds already used in Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs, the vast majority of images of album covers are used only in articles about those specific albums. In occasional cases, they are used in an article about a photographer, for example, if there is critical commentary about the cover photography in the article. In this case, Walter has been trying to use the cover art in a biography of the musician, without any critical commentary of the album cover. That violates WP:NFCI. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So the solution or workaround is to write a separate article about the album? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look up fair use doctrine, User:Baseball Bugs. It specifically allows use of non-commercially damaging reproductions and excerpts when there is scholarly commentary on that copyrighted item/excerpt. So a mere gallery of album covers is not fair use, but reproducing covers which are famous in themselves is allowed in articles on those albums or covers or cover designers. Evidently this is argued not to be the case in this complaint. I might support action, but where are the supporting diffs, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no gallery and there was discussed of the album, although not of the cover (not that there is discussion of the cover art in 95% of album articles I've seen). And in this case, there was a fair use rationale that was applied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did not argue it was invalid nor was there an attempt to dispute the FUR or have the image deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the point I'm making. If 95% of album articles have no commentary on the cover, that means 95% of those articles are simply using the album covers as decorations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "decoration", illustration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly; having the image of the album cover in an article on the album adds to the encyclopedic value and comprehension of the article subject, and is thusthus should be permissible under fair use. Having a random album cover as "here's an album this artist made" in an artist's article does not. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So, again I say, the workaround is to create a separate article about the album and post the picture there instead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming the album is notable, that should be an approprate use, yes. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That gets into a slippery issue. For example, are all Beatles albums automatically notable? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (From an NFC standpoint, if an album is notable, then it is presumed there is secondary sources that talk about the album in depth. As such one cover image of that album is within NFCC guidelines as it also implicitly gives the marketing and branding that was associated with the album, along with the "commentary" aspects for fair use for the discussion about the album (see WP:NFCI#1) This only applies to the standalone article on the album - anywhere else, the use must have a proper rationale and should be more than "just to illustrate the album on a different page".) --MASEM (t) 04:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say there was a gallery in that article, did I, Walter? You need to understand a principle being explained when you see one. Your edit history shows a lack of reading comprehension and raises questions of WP:Competence is required. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To clear up several mistakes by several editors, just because an image fails WP:NFCI it doesn't mean it can't be used. That said, the current rational for its inclusion is using {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} which can only be used as the rational for a standalone album page. This is an insufficient rationale for use on the artist's page (and just arguing "well, this is the only place we're talking about the album since it can't have a separate page" is not a usable rationale/reason for this. But that all said, while one should not edit war over a disputed rationale, disputed rationale is not also an "automatic" NFCC violation that would be exempt from edit warring (that would be if it was a flat-out copyright violation). The image should be discussed appropriately at WP:FFD to determine if its use can on the artist's page can meet NFCC (specifically NFCC#8) and if it can't it should be deleted. If it can, the rational needs to be fixed and use a non-canned rationale to justify the reason. (All that said, I don't think we can justify the image on NFCC#8 grounds - there's very little discussed about the album relative to the artist, so it fails NFC) --MASEM (t) 04:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Masem: Thank you for the voice of reason. Fair use is not a black and white issue. Disputed fair use rationales are serious, but not so serious that they require immediate strong-arm suppression in favor of the person advocating deletion, or admin action against the person advocating fair use. Overreaction to disputed fair use rationales constitutes copyright paranoia, and that is not something that should be encouraged. These issues can, and should, be reasonably resolved via FFD, without edit warring, and without admin intervention. The project has never been harmed by waiting for the correct process to take its course, and I will add that the image has been in use since 2014, so let's not pretend that this is an urgent issue that requires immediate admin intervention. I agree that the NFCC rationale is weak, but regarding the requested admin intervention, the relevant policy here is WP:3RRNO, which very intentionally addresses this specific issue. Edit warring is only allowable if the disputed content is "unquestionably" a copyvio. If we're dealing with a longstanding fair use image, that has an FUR (however debatable), and an established editor advocating in good faith for its continued preservation, that, to me, does not appear to be an "unquestionable" violation in need of one-sided action, but rather a genuine FUR dispute that should and is being hashed out at FFD. Recommend closure of this complaint without action. Swarm ♠ 06:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is the rule about pictures of albums so much more lenient than pictures of living persons? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While someone is living, there is the possibility a compliant photo can be taken that illustrates the subject (person). It is unlikely-to-zero a compliant album cover will be released that illustrates the subject (album). Its the same principle, but one can happen, the other will not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely that a compliant album cover will illustrate the album? I think you've got that backwards. An album cover will always illustrate the album. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you understand how/why NFCC is applied. We can use pictures of the album cover on the album page to illustrate the album, because despite being non-free media, they are the only likely possible image available to illustrate the album so fall under fair use. They are not going to re-release the album with a new album cover that satisifies our criteria for being a 'free' picture. With a living person, given the copyright rules on photos of people, there is always a likelihood that a new photo could be taken that can be released under a free licence, so you cant get away with stating that a non-free alternative cant be found. (With some exceptions, do we have a free picture of the leader of NK yet? -edit- Apparently we use a photorealistic sketch, ha.) Which is why with dead people we can often use non-free media. Its unlikely we will get a free replacement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless an album is pulled from circulation and hence no longer exists in public view, a picture of the album is not needed for identification purposes. The only reasonable justification for an album illustration is if (1) there has been notable commentary about the cover (as with, for example, the Sgt. Pepper cover); or (2) the album is no longer available, i.e. "dead". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes? Feel free to go nominate album covers from their respective articles if you feel the community considers that interpretation valid. Good luck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more of an inclusionist, so I would take the opposite argument: That the notion that identifying albums is somehow much more important than identifying people, makes no logical sense. Maybe this is why some other Wikipedia sites don't allow fair use at all. Then there's no argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I lean towards making it possible to use more images, even if it's at the expense of some disputes over NFCC. I'd love for it to be easier to use non-free pics of living people when it's proven very hard to impossible to find free ones, but not at the expense of losing another category of images (album covers) which it is currently possible to use in most circumstances editors would want to use them (in album articles).
    It's very frustrating to be working on a BLP and not to be able to illustrate the person's physical appearance because a hardline-NFCC patroller insists that a free image is technically possible. There are a number of notable people who are either notoriously camera shy or who work overtime to control access to photographs of themselves, and free images just don't exist. I feel ghoulish just waiting for the person to die so I can add a non-free image to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all about the potential of getting that free image, which is required by the Foundation. They specifically laid out the example of a non-free photograph of a living person of the case we shouldn't allow. Yes, it sucks, but it also prevents a potential slippery slope that if you start letting in edge cases, more and more editors will want to claim this type of exemption. In response to @Baseball Bugs: about when album covers can be used, please see the footnote on WP:NFCI#1 which links to three previous RFCs about this type of use that clearly shows consensus is for this piece of "implicit marketing and branding" , even if the cover is never discussed in text. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, it's unclear to me why you say "this is the only place the album is covered" isn't a valid argument. Could you elaborate? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The NFCI#1 provision for covers to identify works like albums is presumed that there is significant discussion (critical discussion, not just rote facts) of the album. This aligns with the album itself being notable and thus allowing for a standalone article where that significant discussion occurs. In this case, the album does not appear to be notable, (not enough to have a standalone), and the "discussion" of it is simply the factual nature it exists - fine to include on the musician's page, but that changes how NFCC applies. Without any significant discussion, the standard provisions for NFCI#1 no longer exist, and now one has to have a more concrete reason to include the cover image for the album in this case. I don't know immediately of any existing cases where this has occurred, but I recognize that there is a possibility for it (eg maybe the person was also a painter and painted the cover image themselves and shows an example of their work?) I don't think that exists in this case. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And that takes us back to the point that nearly all LP or single covers in the articles about the records are merely decorations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with you, but that's why its important to recognize that across 3 RFCs, consensus has claims this is not the case. (I will also note that the Foundation does actually suggest its okay for illustrating culturally-significant works). I'd love to say "nope, not usable" but that would be removing content against strong consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what's so special about this one that it needs to be deleted? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, as explained previously, the copyrighted image is in the biography of the musical artist, rather than in a freestanding article about the album itself (which does not appear to be notable). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If album covers are copyrighted, then why are they being used for decorations all over the place? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can call them "decorations" all you want, but policy and long-standing consensus allow for the use of low resolution images of album covers, book covers and movie posters in articles about notable albums, books and movies. "Illustrations" is a better word, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, as mentioned, it is (entirely reasonable) consensus that using the image of an album cover, book cover, or film poster to illustrate the article on the album, book, or film is a proper use of fair use as it enhances the encylopedic value of the article and adds to the knowledge of the reader, as the image is both in context and provides context, while a random "this is an album this artist produced" image does not. (tldr: Bugs, this isn't the rabbit-hole to die in.) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreeing here that this idea that we allow articles on albums, books, people (sometimes) to have non-free pictures of the topic of the article and generally not elsewhere unless discussed in reasonable detail in the text of the article. This is the compromise we've reached. I personally think that compromise is too strict and hurts the encyclopedia a bit (e.g. "decorative" things like album covers in a musician's article can be informative about the nature of the time period, what "vibe" the musician is trying to project, etc.). But it is largely where we are. And sometimes it's worth it to have fairly bright lines. That said, once contested, FFD is probably the right venue. It is 99% likely to get removed from the article. Suggest closing this discussion and letting the FFD proceed. Hobit (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Need block

    Copydef. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please see Acamprosate and Talk:Campral1234. Editor is edit warring copyright violations into the article. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Campral1234 is a redlink. What diffs in specific? What page are they copied from? SQLQuery me! 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Shit. User talk:Campral1234. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User indeffed, copyvios revdelled. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP harassment

    The allegation of harassment is roundly dismissed, and the reporter is reminded that unilaterally suppressing good faith attempts at creating legitimate articles, over a technicality, is frowned upon. They have been directed to the essay WP:NODEADLINE, and when it comes to specific policy guidance on this issue, Jd22292, see WP:PRESERVE, which states that appropriate content should not be removed unless the issues associated with it are unresolvable, per the first pillar of Wikipedia. Reporter, for their part, has acknowledged their error, taken steps to rectify it, and the article in question has even now been further developed. This was a good faith misunderstanding, and these incidents are how we learn and grow as editors. Admin action is not necessary, 106.133.173.219 is urged to continue contributing and not be discouraged, and all editors are encouraged to help out with the new article, List of British films of 2016! Best regards, Swarm ♠ 05:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    106.133.173.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resorted to harassing and possibly threatening me on my Talk page after I reverted their continuous additions of a list containing a single entry at List of British films of 2016. Please look into their recent edits. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP creates article from redirect: 0245
    You revert: 0249, four minutes later
    IP attempts to recreate list, 0251
    You revert: 0252, one minute later
    IP attempts to recreate list, 0254
    You revert: 0254, less than one minute later
    ...and my feeling was right: WP:BITE. Good grief, how do you expect anybody to work on expanding the list when you're reverting them almost instantly, in one case literally within seconds? The only result of this is going to be the IP throwing up their hands and no longer bothering, since by the time they have more to add you've already wiped out their prior work. Also I find it hard to imagine there was only one notable movie put out by England in 2016. WP:NODEADLINE. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bushranger: Thanks for informing me of this guideline. I have decided to revert my reversion and remove the listing from ShortPages, which is where I kept finding the page. I will make sure to be careful before making these kinds of reversions in the future. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you The Bushranger. jd22292, did you get the point? I'm not sure what guideline you were looking for--you don't need a guideline to tell you that your reverts were very, very unproductive. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. As a footnote, having looked at the history of JD's page, the IP needs to remember WP:NOTVAND, as well, but given they were pretty thoroughly bitten I think they can be forgiven for getting a mite testy. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just some thoughts from another perspective (with respect to The Bushranger, just voicing my disagreement on minor details). 02:49 was a standard revert, perhaps based on misunderstanding, but with appropriate edit summary. IP did not "attempt to recreate list", but to revert the revert at 02:51 with the edit summary "revert vandalism". What should have been done at this point by Jd22292 (in the ideal world where everyone is on self-enforced 1RR) is to manually write a message at the IP's talk page (a message was left at article talk page, but in this case it was unrealistic to expect the IP to see that without explicitly telling them so at their talk page, even though they left a message there first), since no obvious polices/guidelines were broken. 02:54 revert by IP (with the same "revert vandalism" edit summary), if this was a regular user, would be considered disruptive, especially considering it was immediately followed by this post (which was in response to this revert, which was unproductive as Drmies mentioned, but at the very minimum, it was written with the kind of edit summary that shows attempt to communicate. I just wish people can manually write messages more at user talk pages, instead of templated warnings. I'll stop my rambling here, but I guess my point is that I disagree with the assessment that the IP was "thoroughly" bitten, but I agree with the rest of the assessment of this situation. Seeing that Jd22292 is planning to take a break, I think this is a good idea too, and I'll be waiting for their return. Alex Shih (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    110.54.128.0/17

    Can anyone revoke talk page access for this range IP? Multiple IPs seems to be spamming this on their own talk pages. This looks like a LTA of My Royal Young. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct, the IP range was use by My Royal Young. SA 13 Bro (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page access revoked for that range. Should something be done for the talk pages themselves? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Could you help blank some pages and ask the steward to globally block the user via m:SRG for the global blocking as well. --99.109.85.105 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted the not yet blanked ones under WP:CSD#G3 since that's what they are. Checking global contributions now... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I can't tell. 99.109.85.105 if you can find any problem edits on the other projects you can report that yourself on the Steward board. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I found 112.198.64.0/18. He's attacking Zzuuzz a CheckUser. Could you revoke talk page access for this range and let me help Ajraddatz to globally block two ranges on m:SRG and I leave Filipino cases alone. --99.109.85.105 (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block a Thai editor Golf-ben10 again

    hi sir, please Block Golf-ben10 again, he is back to spam on many pages of The Face, The Face Thailand season 3,The Face Men Thailand season 1, The Face Vietnam season 1-2 again and again after he got unblock. he still did not stop to spam on The Face and many pages of Wikipedia, please block him. thank you.Anybodyfitfit (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anybodyfitfit: I don't see the spam. Can you give some examples of such edits? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't looks like spam to me. Looks more like a content dispute / edit war / lack of communication: taking The Face Thailand (season 3) for example, these content additions [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] appear identical (corresponding to the prior deletions [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] (by different users), and are marked minor and have no edit summary. The talk page only has a third party entreating the edit warriors to come talk it out, and no discussion from them. The request from the reverting editor (looks like it is one person with dynamic IP who then created an account) is to "use same color code with Thai page" and to not "spam", but the edit doesn't look like spam to me. Both parties should go to the talk pages of the affected articles (this pattern seems to occur on other articles also, judging by Special:Contributions/Golf-ben10) and discuss the issue — we've got the "B" and "R" of WP:BRD (and some more Rs for good measure), so it's well overdue to Discuss, I think. There's no deadline, so it's not a big deal if the article is stuck on the "wrong" version for a while until a consensus is reached. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 18:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    White space adding

    Rural Lyra who started editing on Wikipedia in September 2017, has been making 'un-necessary' edits to several articles (mostly Republic of Ireland & List of Presidents of the United States), mainly adding or moving 'white space'. He/she has been doing so in spurts, without edit summaries & no responses at article talk-pages or his/her own talk-page. We may need help here. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Haven't reviewed many of the edits. What I did see looks like it might be another 30/500 issue, but it might not as there are some other, more major edits. Not any accusations, just that it could be. A lad insane talk 17:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Salomeeaalexandru899 impersonating an admin

    Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 18:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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

    Salomeeaalexandru899 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is impersonating an admin by misusing warning and blocking templates, as evident by this edit. He was also warned for similar behaviour on 7 October. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Left a rather stern message on their page. If they do such a thing again they'll be the one blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incorrect edits made by Clue bot especially

    Not a matter for admins. --NeilN talk to me 02:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There are many mistakes made by various people and by CLUE BOT especially on religious articles during editing specifically regarding Islam on e.g. wudu, Hazrat Abu Bakr(R.A). Such mistakes are undoubtly unacceptable to all muslims such as removing S.A.W and R.A which is written after Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W) and his companions respectivelyin order to respect them. Therefore , it is suggested to edit all Islamic articles on wikipedia under various true Islamic scholars and protect these pages to prevent any vandalism. I surely believe that my suggestions would obviously be considered as a priority and would be implemented. As it is not just for me it is for the muslims all over the world. Why should we spread unauthentic information especially on the matters of religion to the people who are unaware of such precious matters? It is true that racialism has spread all over the world so why should we give such people a chance to spread the wrong information in order to fool others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad25199907 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:SAWW. —PaleoNeonate – 16:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The link above is to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. If you disagree with this guidance, please discuss it on the MOS talk page, which is the appropriate location. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that our policy is the same towards people venerated by other religions. For example Jesus is, unless there is an overriding reason justified by the context to do otherwise, referred to as "Jesus" rather than "Jesus Christ". There is nothing racist about using neutral names for religious figures. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Muslims are not a race. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For better or for worse, 'racism' has become a catch-all term for 'bigotry' (even when that term itself is already the catch-all for, well, bigotry). - The Bushranger One ping only 22:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging in Cobi, I cannot see that the OP has notified him and as the ClueBots are his bots I think it only fair.
    Muhammad25199907 when ClueBot NG reverts anything it reverts it as POSSIBLE vandalism. ClueBot NG is not human therefore it cannot read articles or reference the Internet to see if an edit is true. I looked up one of the articles you said that the bot had operated on and I found this edit. The bot was correct to make this reversion I'm not saying that the editor making the edit is a vandal, however as I'm sure you can appreciate "sex" is a word a lot of vandals will use when vandalising. ClueBot NG has picked up on that and reverted it because ClueBot NG is an anti-vandal bot.
    If the bot has reverted something it shouldn't have, use the instructions at the bots talk page. 5 albert square (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the bot's edit that 5 albert square (talk · contribs) linked, it's borderline, but understandable why the bot decided to revert it. The user already had one warning on their talkpage, they had made this edit minutes before, and this edit, also the username sounds vandalistic, and the edit in question had a typo in it. All of these factors taken in as a whole made the bot decide that this borderline edit should be reverted. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 21:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Making all the religious articles private

    Sorry this was really unacceptable for me when I read an article regarding Islam . However , all religions should be respected so to prevent any wrong information to be spread through wikipedia a well-known websites for authentic information even for me, all the religious articles should be kept private to prevent incorrect edits made by other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad25199907 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read the advice given a couple of sections above: there is no such procedure on Wikipedia,and your suggestion cannot be implemented from this noticeboard. Acroterion (talk)
    @Muhammad25199907: Many religious articles are protected when they are vandalized or when false information is repeatedly inserted. However, we don't protect all articles related to religion as a blanket policy. Further, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy means that information is presented neutrally, so adherents of some religions may feel that some content is incorrect or disrespectful; however, Wikipedia's policies make an intentional effort to be neutral and treat all religions fairly. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All articles of all religion

    Look what I mean is all the religions from Christianity to Islam should be kept private . If you take a look at the articles Hazrat Isa (A.S) i.e. Jesus some information is also incorrect there. Islam also says to believe and respect all the previous Prophets which came before Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W). If a Muslim doesnot respect the previous Prophets he is not a true Muslim. I too believe in Jesus and Moses that they were the Prophets of Allah, our God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad25199907 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunatly, that is not how Wikipedia works. Anybody (who is an editor in good standing) can edit any topic, whether they're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, American, Russian, Indian, Martian, or even Randy from Boise. And Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; to use a slightly flippiant but entirely accurate description of how that works here, if members of every religion belive their articles are "incorrect" in some way, they're probably all neutral. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    65.182.125.30 trying to act like an admin

    RBI. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP user acting like an admin, see the post history. Modifying talk pages and putting block notices. User 261115 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been warned, spurious sock block warning deleted. I don't think any further action right now is needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's a diff of the IP saying he had blocked you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also reverted edits that were either vandalism or disruptive editing if that helps. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    185.26.183.45

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

    • Massive addition of BLP violations (the info is apparently correct, but refuses to add references to the articles; additionally personall attacks in edit summaries (for example, this one refers to me as a "Russian moron", which is factually wrong).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now continues as 185.26.183.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), again with personal attacks in edit summaries, probably a block range needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good one:[105] "rus is loosers". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they're switched to 178.93.236.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Probably need some fairly wide-spread semi-protection for a bit. Ravensfire (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are they doing with those category edits, like this? Is that useful at all? Sure it's the same person, and I could block again, but if the edits from that IP are constructive, and they leave out the semi-literate insults, what's the point? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's the odd part, and I almost wonder if this is a different IP user. They did add doping categories to Sergey Chudinov without any sources, which I reverted. I just added them back, after adding the ban info to the article with a solid source that was dead simple to find. Given the hostility of the early IP's and the strong nature of the claims, I'm comfortable with my revert; just wish the 178 IP had bothered to take 30 seconds to add something to the article with a source to support the doping categories. Ravensfire (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the end of the day, all this info was restored, and everything is unsourced (the generic source would be this one. I am not sure why they refuse to add sources (thus making BLP violations), but at this stage probably we need to go after them and add sources ourselves. Reverts do not work, they just hop to a new IP and continue reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm a lot of Nazi stuff this evening

    I just blocked someone for, well, I don't want to repeat it. Also of note are recent edits to Keith Olbermann and Joseph L. Goldstein: we have a joker who takes images on Commons and turns them into antisemitic caricatures, and then uses those in our articles. You can see what happened in the histories of those articles. A lot of you who read this page also follow Recent changes; the new image names were minor variations on the old. Please be aware of edits to images in our articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I put those three biographies on my watchlist but who knows which bio that troll will hit next? Why a 77 year old scientist other than pure hate? So sad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those images are now deleted and I'm sure they'll catch it on Commons if that happens again. No, my friend, it's on to the next one. I saw Tony's by pure chance, and the ball got rolling because I saw a strange edit in Recent changes, which led me here, User talk:2620:0:E50:3400:184B:973B:A52B:69EE--I cannot ascertain if they have anything to do with it. CU revealed nothing that I can make sense of, but I emailed the CU list. On Commons, PumpkinSky and Guanaco have been deleting files. Thanks Cullen, Drmies (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking to see if an underlying IP (or range) could be blocked. I found several of these yesterday morning: User:James Edward Washington, User:Not (((them))), User:Bornsteadfast, User:J3wboss, User:Super editor 2. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Paul Erik. Good work. I wonder why somebody would bother to spend the time messing with Eddie Cantor who died well over 50 years ago, but I am no psychiatrist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a bit of speculation about a returning sockpuppet known for white supremacy stuff over at Talk:Nathan Damigo earlier. Not sure if it's related but it wasn't the only time I witnessed stuff like this today. Could be related, might be just coincidence. -- Longhair\talk 06:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably worth noting that repeating parentheses (at least three sets, as in the username above) seems to be an alt-right meme; you might get a decent hit rate on a search or edit filter. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See also[106]. Admin eyes on Filter 877 pls. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=812523309"