Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • To report a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster response.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.
The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives

Aggressive POV pusher[edit]

Essentially all edits by Ajackson12 (talk · contribs) are POV-pushing in areas of discretionary sanctions, either Israel & Palestine [1] or American politics [2][3] or both [4][5][6]. They've been warned plenty on their talk page; you can see their engagement in this edit. Basically, I defy anyone to find any signs that this editor is anything but a WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior. Some administrative attention (more serious than locking their preferred version into place) would be good. I will notify after posting this message. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The user Ajackson12 should obviously be kicked off Wikipedia. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The decision to lock Ajackson12's version of an article was unfortunate, as the article currently features poorly supported smears in the lede. The smears are sourced to non-RS or misrepresent what RS say. This is content that Ajackson12 has tried to force into the article before, and it was pointed out to be the user and everyone reading the page that the sources were either non-RS or misrepresented. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I've warned them about the Arab-Israeli DS, and noted that they do not yet meet the 30-500 requirement. If Ajackson12 is unwilling to engage with the community and makes edits that have a clear POV to them, they are likely to be blocked in the very near future. They should certainly have a chance to respond before any admin takes action, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Courtesy ping Ajackson12. There have been allegations made of a pattern of unconstructive editing on your part. Please read the above and respond. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The pattern of edits speak for themselves; there is no way to explain that behavior away. That is one continuous set of WP:SOAP edits. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Also, the user's relatively short edit history reveals a pattern of taking breaks of several days, particularly when their edits are challenged, so it seems unlikely to me that they will respond here. (Maybe this suggests a sock-puppet? I don't have any solid reason to believe so, though.) I think administrators should act based on the already-available information. Also, FWIW, here is a ARBPIA 30/500 violation from them that has not been reverted yet. --2601:142:3:F83A:A53F:3EA1:283:8C27 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Not that I agree with all of Ajackson12's edits, but I don't see most of them as bad faith. This is a classic case of WP:DONTBITE. I would suggest a boomerang on the reporter for not assuming good faith, but we don't even know who that is. How does an IP address with virtually no edits come here and file this report and have enough knowledge of wikipedia to provide diffs etc?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Given the nature of the edits, a Boomerang is a bit ridiculous, and given how well we enforce WP:DONTBITE, I'd recommend starting elsewhere with proper enforcement of this policy. This user has rather carelessly edited a number of areas under discretionary sanctions; the alarm of the proposer is more than understandable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm just saying given this edit history, we clearly dealing with someone who's hiding their identity. They should disclose who they are.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Considering they've responded in this conversation with two different IPs, their IP appears to be highly dynamic. Sure, they may very well be a registered user editing while logged out, but they could also be a long-term IP contributor on a dynamic IP—there's a fair few of those, including some who are quite active in the project namespace. AddWittyNameHere 00:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course. (And this comment is the same person, on vacation.) -- (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, hahaha, Rusf10 is this person? Yah I'm sure that was an open-minded and thoughtful analysis of Ajackson12's edits. Oy vey. -- (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Clear case of WP:Boomerang. Looking at 2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34's contribution history, his only purpose on Wikipedia is to whitewash articles of anti-Semites. And his location of Maryland is disturbingly close Washington, D.C. Paid lobbyist for a congressional candidate perhaps? (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You know that congressional candidates don't get offices in DC until after they win, right? -- (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I do rather like that someone has carefully used an IP with no edit history to make this accusation, though! Very chic in this post-truth era. -- (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by ‎Stefka Bulgaria[edit]

This user insists on pushing for his contested edits despite opposition of three other users. He's been warned to reach consensus before reverting his changes but he doesn't comply. In this edit I stated that this section must be integrated into other sections of the article because the article is chronologically ordered among other reasons. He soon restored the section by a fallacious reasoning along the line that it is not the subject history that gives the context to this section but rather it is this particular section that gives context to some half a century length of history! Taking it to the talk, I asked the opinion of another involved editor. Stefka however came back restoring the disputed content. Other involved users agreed that this section called "suppression ..." must be eliminated because it also represents a content fork. The section along with other disputed content is neutralized by the other involved editor, yet Stefka comes back restoring everything again including the section on suppression pretending that it was only the location of the section that was disputed not itself! By the time he is warned both in the edit description and in the talk not to do more revert wars against consensus but he comes back and reverts again against consensus by making a fallacious reference to my comment on talk! I must stress that this is only one segment of the article in which he has engaged in edit/revert wars with other users. He stubbornly defies demands on the talk to achieve consensus before pushing his contested edits. Such behavior has completely hampered our efforts to improve this article. To have testimony of other involved editors I also ping @Pahlevun and Mhhossein: --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For WP:AIV, not really here. IWI (chat) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thank you! Does that mean I should take this to WP:AIV myself? --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Expectant of Light: yes and they’ll probably block the person. IWI (chat) 10:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the user's problem is behavioral hence ANI is a suitable place for his misconducts. Among his disruptive edits and his ignoring the talk page discussions, just see this example: He removed a figure from the lead since he thought one of the sources was not reliable, while the material was cited to three sources! I think he's now hounding the nominator. --Mhhossein talk 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Rather, it is users Mhhossein and Expectant of Light who work as a duo to push POV in order to create "consensus" on certain pages, removing reliable sources per previous discussions at WP:RSN. See: Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I told you several times it is not about reliability of sources but context, weight and location of statements from a source. Moreover an otherwise reliable source may make certain claims that border on fringe. Not everything a reliable source says must be included in pages. Finally, this is your consistent disruptive editing which is the problem. You've been warned several times before this ANI but don't listen. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

More revert wars and defiance of consensus-building. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Two iranian users ganging up on a user who's posting negative things about Iran? Never seen that before! (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for "posting negative things" about any country but building a neutral encyclopedia through collaboration. But Stefka has been defiantly pushing to make certain POVs stand out in the article against the long-standing version which had been qualified as B class. It is all welcome to improve articles, but not making your favored views somehow stand out through content fork. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The most baffling part is that I'm actually quoting directly from the same sources Expectant of Light and Mhhossein are using in other parts of the article, but they keep removing this info (which has already been verified at RSN as reliable) based on the "consensus" of three heavily involved Iranian editors. Expectant of Light actually stated on the article's Talk page that "You don't persecute a vile terrorist cult but you rather repress them into destruction!" (referring to my edits outlining the persecution of the subject of the article by the current Iranian government, which again, were backed by reliable sources per previous discussions). If this isn't POV pushing, I don't know what is. It's making it very difficult to include any sort of neutral information into the article. Gaming the system by ganging up for POV pushing should not be. Need advice here please. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, you're the single biggest case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT I have encountered on Wiki! And you are now engaging in personal attacks to justify your ceaseless disruptive editing in the page. Whether us involved editors are Iranians doesn't matter. You have to be able to discuss, make your point, achieve consensus and then post your edits! But when you don't, but instead try to highlight pro-MKO views in the article and make them stand out, it seems clear that it is you POV-pushing not us! As for calling this "a vile terrorist cult" that's not my POV, there have been several credible sources that have described the group as a cult which are mentioned in the page. An honestly how else do you describe an Stalinist organization which brainwashes and mentally manipulates its members, forces its members to avoid any all emotional relations separating the members' children from parents who join them, staged an ideological coup killing its Muslim members in 1976, has been involved in killing spree against innocent people over the streets of Iran, fought against their own country in alliance with Saddam, was involved in brutal repression of minorities in Iraq, have been bribing French and US politicians to turn a blind eye on their dark record and give them political protection in France, gives money to unwitting tourists to attend their highly-touted meetings where they sell them as supporters of the MKO to make themselves look popular, have been engaged in a great deal of fraud and money-laundering and I can go on and on! Note all of these are supported by the page content already. So unless you are a MKO PR agent yourself, I can't otherwise explain your stubborn refusal to have this page represent the mainstream facts about this group or your attempt to put the legitimate Iranian government at par with such a despicable terror group. As for your other claim of selective using of sources, so far I have not used any source in other than adding summaries from a highly authoritative Iranian work on this organization that you kept removing. Other than that I have not added or used any source! And I'm presently focusing on two issues, the lead and the section on repression. However your disruptive conduct have prevented us from moving forward to other sections. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
My focus has been in quoting from the same reliable sources the article already has, not bickerin or name-calling, as I've already pointed out to you on the article's Talk page. I've said everything I needed to say on my previous message. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
And no longer any comments on "vile terrorist cult"? Your concern is to push your desired version by cherry picking only certain views from the wide range of facts and views covered in this long entry and give them higher weight than they deserve. In the meantime you keep saying that you "only want to quote reliable sources" as if anyone was ever opposed to quoting reliable sources per se! I suggest the arbitrating admin issuing a strong warning or temporary sanctions on your account for your disruptive behavior. --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) * Comment: This report is not regarding content dispute. It's aimed addressing the reported user's misconduct in the article. The article is locked or he would be consistently do his disruptive edits. There are many diffs showing his behavior and I'm not going to mention all of them. However:

- User's major issue is that he doesn't tend to follow the consensus building procedure ignoring his WP:ONUS. See the article talk page.
- Although he was told about COI [7][8], he used to remove well sourced contents on a bogus basis, i.e. source's COI.
- He used to forge self-made materials into the article. See Failed verifications and cherry picking. --Mhhossein talk 12:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Stefka Bulgaria, you are not listening - including about the point that just because a source is generally a reliable source doesn't mean that they are always appropriate - or the entire content from an article is appropriate. My suggestion is that you try and work with other editors, discuss issues civilly on the article talk pages, and realize that just because you want to add something to an article doesn't mean it's appropriate.
Working on an encyclopedia article doesn't mean that one comes in with an idea of what needs to be said and then finds the sources to support that position. That is WP:POV and it sounds like what you are doing. That's a problem.
Is it possible for you to work with other editors in a more collaborative manner, not cherry-pick points that fit your POV, and consider the guidelines more fully?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC) per comment below
SNUGGUMS Did you accidentally archive off this section? That's the only reason I can think of as to why an active conversation would have been archived without any comment at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
added a bit to clarify.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that CaroleHenson; this thread definitely wasn't supposed to be archived. I meant to click something that was already closed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Right now, the People's Mujahedin of Iran article is protected and users must submit requests for edits, which sounds wise. And, there is a sockpuppet investigation here of Expectant of Light and Mhhossein, started by Stefka Bulgaria.
So that could be a good cooling off period. I am striking out my comments above. I still think that they are valid, but if this is a sockpuppet scenario to gang up against a user, that's not cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The sockpuppet accusations will be certainly disproved and then I believe Stefka should face more severe sanctions for this libel after he's been shown to be a disruptive editor. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I hope that you're right and it is disproven. That was my first take when I saw that a sockpuppet investigation was opened. There have been enough circumstances, though, to at least question if it's the case.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson My objective here is to work with other editors, but this is deffenitely a "ganging up" situation where these users are acusing me of the exact same thing they're doing: cherry picking info, and not allowing any other type of historic background into the article that disagrees with their vision of the group as a "vile terrorist cult". If you look at the article's editing history and it's Talk page you'll see what I mean. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll make it easier, this is the sort of text they're fighting so hard to remove:

According to Ervand Abrahamian, it was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam that “differed sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his disciples.”[1]

This paragraph oulines why the People's Mujahedin first started to have issues with the Islamic Republic of Iran; it's an important piece of information (which these editors have dismissed as "outdated", which just does not make any sense considering Abrahamian is an expert on this topic and actually lived through the Iranian revolution!). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 1. ISBN 1-85043-077-2. 
Yes, I looked through the article talk page and the comments here before I posted my message above. I can see where you'd feel ganged up upon. The article talk page is the place to discuss content issues. It seems to me that you are not getting some of their points, and that of other editors, and just want to push information that you deem important to the article.
But, it will be good to sort out the SPI, and if that's not the case, which is possible - perhaps they could not gang up on you as much. If one person makes a salient point, maybe the other doesn't have to come along and add to it. They could just say that they agree. And, they could consider whether they are being too closed off in their definition of "fringe theories", for instance. It does seem, though, that they have a better grasp on the guidelines - and their nuances. And, have you read WP:BRD? If the consensus is that something should - or should not - be added, then that's it. If something doesn't get added to the article, it's not the end of the world, the world will still go on turning.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, will do my best to make it work through your suggestions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It baffles me that he is still beating the dead horse by repeats same points and accusations over! That shows that once the page ban is expired he would be back to revert wars! --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, if this is primarily a content issue, you could ask for a WP:Third opinion, which would require to summarize what content is being disputed (hopefully in a civil tone).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It is primarily a content issue, yes. The sources I'm using received support at WP:RSN, but there are 3 editors that are heavily involved in this page that won't allow these quotes into the page, even though these sources are being used to support other statements in the article. I will explore the third opinion option; hopefully that will help. Again, thank you for your advice :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Being a reliable source was not the only issue that came up, as I hope you remember, Stefka Bulgaria. Whoever looks this issue over would be looking at more than whether it was a reliable source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, should have mentioned that at RSN there was also a debate about the content itself as well as the source. Will explore these options further beyond the reliability of the sources. Thank you as always. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


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

CoolRichWiseGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user is repeatedly changing names without references [9], sometimes apparently based on what common naming systems are [10] [11], after a 4im warning by Dr.K. for adding unsourced content. As they don't appear to have made any non-mainspace edits, I think a block is necessary to force them to engage with the community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am a little confused, I see just a final warning (no preceding warnings) on the user's talk page to stop adding content without sources, and no other conversations in their talk history or that of any of the articles. There's no mention of WP:COMMONNAME with the user and all of a sudden they are thrust into an ANI discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Far too early to be dragging a newish user to ANI. You should know better. --Tarage (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
No reason for confusion if you follow their mass edits in many musicians' articles changing the middle name of many people without providing citations. They were so prolific performing these mass changes that to stop them I went directly to level 4 warning. Now they have resorted to socking. I will open an SPI soon. Please stay tuned. Dr. K. 01:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Please tune in to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoolRichWiseGuy. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Dr.K., You had not thought of giving them a specific message about the nature of the problem? And, are you sure that when they are inserting middle names that they are not getting them from cited sources in the article? I am not say they are, but have you had a discussion to know that?
When did this become a sockpuppet issue, too?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Before giving a level 4 I did the due diligence and checked the article and Google for the middle names, and I could not verify many of them. Please check other editors' similar reversions of the account. Surprisingly, the SPI just turned negative. Dr. K. 01:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
In the case of Manuel Rosenthal, I found an obituary in The Telegraph that confirms that his birth name was Emmanuel Rosenthal. Let's be cautious here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely in at least one of the cited sources here, too, from the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You still have had no conversation that I can see getting into the specifics that are here. I think this should be closed out until you do so. Why not give them an opportunity to get the details about what the problem is. In other words, you jumped to a relatively generic template, final warning no less, without the details.
It's mean to do this to a new user without giving them the opportunity to learn and mend their ways. –CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Generally I agree. But like I said before, this editor was performing massive unsourced changes at a very fast pace. I feel that in such circumstances, a level 4 unsourced warning is fair. Despite the warning, the user reverted again in some articles, without providing any sources. Dr. K. 01:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It also looks like they are tag teaming with themselves with a deliberately obvious 2nd account (TheCRW) in a mini edit war at Pete Seeger. But it also looks like they did a lot of real editing... I'll bet that they are new and got going too fast without understanding things. Maybe a short block and force them to engage and slow down. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if CoolRichWiseGuy and TheCRW would come here and discuss this rather than needing to be blocked. And, it would have been better if rather than posting an ANI, there had been some actual discussion with them. But, Dr.K. does not seem to want to hear that at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree. North8000 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I added a message to both of their pages to please join this discussion -- especially before they make any more changes to names in articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
But, Dr.K. does not seem to want to hear that at all I would like to know what exactly I said that led you to that conclusion. As far as I can tell, I was replying to your concerns regarding my level 4 warning, versus your suggestion that I should have left them another type of message. I don't think that I said that I dismiss any further attempts at communicating with that person, especially now that the pace of the disruption has slowed down. I would appreciate if my comments were not distorted. Dr. K. 03:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This comment, that starts out Generally I agree... seemed pretty dismissive to me. Your comments in this most recent paragraph, though, help to provide greater insight. Thanks for that. I hope that means that in the future you will try to communicate with users and not jump to a level 4 template. You may want to look at WP:BRD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
My reply was not dismissive. I first noticed this user when they added the middle name "George" to Mikis Theodorakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and there is no attestation of that middle name in any language, let alone Greek. The edit on the Greek composer was close to vandalism. I then checked several other edits of this user, and only a small percentage were found to be ok. This, and the sheer number and fast pace of the unsourced edits, led me to the conclusion to give him a level 4. If editors perform a massive number of controversial and unsourced edits, BRD is close to useless. Dr. K. 03:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I am finding sources for the middle name George. See this New York Times article. Please also see Cullen's comment above about Manuel Rosenthal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a very rare use of the patronymic name in a single source. There is no attestation of such a middle name for Mikis in the vast majority of sources. As far as Cullen's comment, I have also commented that several of this user's edits were found by me to be ok. Dr. K. 04:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there aren't a ton, but how many do you need for a middle name? New York Times isn't good enough for you? There are some books that have his middle name, but I'm not spending any more time on this. And, no, it's often "Michael George" and they mention his Greek name Mikis. I am not seeing "Mikis George".–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me try this another way. Here's what I would have done. I would have posted a message on their page, something like:
"I see that you are editing a large number of articles and changing or adding to the names of the subjects of the articles. It appears, though, that you are making these edits without the addition of a citation. Before adding content, you should be adding citations of reliable secondary sources. In addition, in some cases you appear to be changing the name to someone's birth name, rather than their common name, which is also an issue. Please don't make any more changes to names of subjects of articles without complying with these guidelines. I would be happy to talk through what you are doing and how to do this without making what are called disruptive edits, meaning edits that need to be reverted because they do not meet guidelines."–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Your approach is perfectly fine and understandable. However, from my experience, editors who perform fast-paced unsourced edits of a similar type, don't normally respond to personalised messages. Dr. K. 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Apparently you have not seen TheCRW's talk page that you've been pinged to, then - after I posted a message there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And, I see that you deleted and did not respond to an attempt to contact you here with an apology. Seriously?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw their comments. They also left the same message on my talk. I consider this to be trolling. I trust you saw the part where they ask me since I am a doctor what type of medicine I practice. Please see also Drmies's comment at the SPI. Dr. K. 04:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Amazing. You give someone a final warning and don't communicate with them, submit a sockpuppet investigation - which turns out not to be valid, pursue an ANI incident... and they apologize to you... and you call them a troll. Claim BRD doesn't usually work in these situations, so you're not even going to try. And, did you delete the message from them before you said If editors perform a massive number of controversial and unsourced edits, BRD is close to useless.? And, you claim that you cannot find the alternate names and middle names... but Cullen and I found the two we looked for very quickly. A m a z i n g. Seems close to a Boomerang scenario to me. Yes, by the way, I saw the conjecture about the users earlier.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What I find amazing is your lack of WP:CLUE. You seem bent on ignoring all the points I made, and you keep defending these disruptive accounts. You seem to not mind at all that a brand new account, namely TheCRW, with a username closely resembling the CoolRichWiseGuy, followed me around, reverted some of my reverts, and you think this is just a normal editing pattern despite what Drmies already said. I suggest you get some clue before you invoke boomerang. Dr. K. 05:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I never said it was a normal editing pattern. It is very clear that we would have handled this situation very differently. And, yes, I have had experience with massive, fast edits, too. I have deleted part of my comment above about boomerang. I apologize for not getting the scenario earlier, I thought something else was going on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It's fine. I respect your opinion and I also don't dispute that the situation could have been handled differently. In any case, I have struck my comments about clue. Regards. Dr. K. 06:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
That's very nice of you, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
IMO especially given below the SPI was ultimately a good thing. We now know that any edits by TheCRW should not be associated with CoolRichWiseGuy. It's therefore not worth litigating Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree. I was just responding to allegations that I did not treat TheCRW fairly. Dr. K. 05:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since it doesn't seem to have been made clear, the CU for TheCRW did not find that they were linked. It's therefore easily possible they are a joe job. Regardless TheCRW has been blocked but no blame should be placed on CoolRichWiseGuy for any things that TheCRW did given the absence of sufficient evidence they are the same person. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I am wondering why Sro23 blocked the user's account automatically without discussing what is happening with them? They are not a true sockpuppet. What if they are part of an informal or formal Wiki editing group? Or, they just haven't been told that ganging up on articles is an issue? This is likely my ignorance on this specific kind of issue, but it sure seems unfair to not even discuss it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sro23 explained it to me here. I get it, it was someone shadowing the user being investigated here to get him blocked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Regrouping and restating that I am not an admin. Ok, so there was the issue with the other user, TheCRW, who is now blocked indefinitely and we still have this original incident report. It's unfortunate that, so far, CoolRichWiseGuy hasn't commented here, but here are some thoughts.

  • I have not seen any edits today in the last 10 hours or so.
  • He made something short of 100 edits, of those 35 are still "current" or the last edit made on the accounts. I can undo those edits. Then, when/if the user finds a reliable source for the information can be added back as long as they are also following WP:COMMONNAME, at the intro. I personally have put the birth name in the "Early years" section when it varies from the common name (e.g., Emmanuel Rosenthal was born on ...."  Done - there were a few that didn't need to be edited or undone, but most did.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Since birth name and the middle name may not be the common name, I don't see that a lot of sources are needed to add that information - as long as it's a reliable source.
  • I'll post the message I draft above on his talk page about needing sources, disruptive editing, common name + add something about the tutorials.  Done

Is that an acceptable approach? Is there anything else that needs to be done with this one?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Updates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Good day, everyone. This is CoolRichWiseGuy, and I am very sorry for not showing up on time for the conversation. Now before we talk, I want to say thank you so much for inviting me here for a discussion. I think that first having a talk here is necessary before a block.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolRichWiseGuy (talkcontribs) 14:48, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Did the information that I posted on your talk page make sense regarding: 1) needing to use a source to add information, 2) use of common name in the intro section, and 3) that it's disruptive to make a lot of edits that then have to be reverted? It's also disruptive to revert someone else's edits if they are correct.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I am tired undoing his edit because he keeps undid it back on. I think he deserves a perm block - Jay (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I see that you reverted a lot of his edits on July 8, but not since this ANI was posted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, this turned into a bit of a shitshow. As CoolRichWiseGuy does appear to have references for most of his changes and has been informed how to use them (and the joe-job sock has been blocked), I don't think anything needs to be done at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say that CoolRichWiseGuy had references for "most of his changes". There was just a discussion above that the changes looked to be correct, meaning no poor intention. But, I get your point about nothing more needing to be done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I should reopen an SPI under a new name. Please see also Antandrus's comments on CRWG's talkpage. Dr. K. 20:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps. From a little checking, I can see a similarity.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
From the user analysis tool, articles that they have both edited, and the edits that they have both made, I think that there is a strong case for an SPI, Dr.K..–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm quite certain it's the same person -- same interests, same style, same edit summary style, same persistent refusal to interact on talk pages until they finally do, and then the same exact writing voice -- and then the specific stuff: adding extra middle names, patronymics, etc. to the top of an article, insistence on adding the same peacock feather to the lede of Johann Sebastian Bach, interest in Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and obscure composers. I didn't realize there was already a sockpuppet investigation on User:Smart Aleck. I'm blocking CRWG as a sockpuppet pending explanation. Antandrus (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Antandrus! Did you also see my comment about RandomGuy2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? I don't know for sure if there is a connection, but there are some interesting similarities.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
See this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Carole for your investigation. I agree. RandomGuy looks like a sock. RandomGuy also has the same final component name as CRWG. I also thank Antandrus for his investigation and analysis, and, especially, for saving me the paperwork of another SPI. Finally, I also thank Power~enwiki for opening this report. Dr. K. 00:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Yeah, that sure does look like him. Thanks Carole for finding that one -- I would not have seen it. The only advantage of an SPI might be to find any other socks. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, paper­works's important.
Dr. K gonna get you. EEng, as usual, your humour is impeccable, although I really didn't contribute much in this SPI. Carole and Antandrus did all the legwork. I only finalised the paperwork. :) Dr. K. 01:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you again, Antandrus. I will open an SPI for any sleepers. Take care. Dr. K. 01:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Done. Dr. K. 01:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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

User:2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 and Kempner Function[edit]

Needless escalation and WP:IDHT-conduct that resulted in a justified block. Abecedare (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I reverted his/her edit[12] to Kempner function because they were removing content and sources with no consensus. Since then, they have:

Thank you for your time. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Aww jeez, do we have to do this? To cut a long story short, this disruption started with the reverting of this edit, which while slightly blunt and cocky looks like a good-faith removal of content by Florentin Smarandache that the editor believes is self-serving and unnecessary (and a quick perusal of the talk page shows that Smarandache has turned up on the talk page in the past to argue his point across). Yes, the IP was a bit blunt and cocky, but all you had to do is listen to what he had to say, and actually understand what you were reverting, and this would have been a non-issue. I have no opinion on whether the reference to Smarandache should stay or go - that's a matter for the talk page. If you think Smarandache is an important contributor to the field of mathematics and this nasty smear campaign is unacceptable, then great, state that view - however, I think you're just escalating this dispute because an IP had a bit of a go at you. A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and I have asked David Eppstein to take a look at it. I don't think anything else needs to be done there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
(e/c) Oh goody. I would be happy to offer a detailed analysis if one is requested, but the short version is that RandNetter96 is hostile to the basic work of thoughtful editing, and deserves a talking-to. The discussion here is certainly worth reading for anyone interested in this. I particularly like the bit about NPOV and OR, but YMMV. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
How about a racist edit summary? [23] RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Wow. I would like to escalate my comment above: this editor needs a serious talking-to. I don't really understand how that edit summary could be racist in any circumstance, but in case it needs to be said: two of my grandparents grew up in Yiddish-speaking households. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about the actual content issue at Talk:Kempner function. There are merits to the positions of both sides, and fault for edit-warring on both sides (removal of sourced content by an IP is not always cause for alarm), but unless the edit-war starts up again and we need to temporarily protect the article I don't think there is any cause for administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not interested in being a part of this. Please do not include me in the future. Thanks, Snowycats (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like to direct admin attention to the fact that the filer here has repeatedly reverted my own edits to my talk page, despite multiple requests to stop (and in direct violation of our guidelines, which I have mentioned to them): [24] [25] [26] [27] . This behavior is deeply inappropriate. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Something something socks, something something scrutiny. He is just trying to get away with logged out editing. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Um, right. I have a variable IP (is that the right phrase?), it will be different when I log on tomorrow. But that's the third or fourth completely baseless and unsupported allegation you've through around so far. Maybe you should call it a day? --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
How about you stop harassing people, as you did at יניב_הורון's talk page? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) It is beginning to look, RandNetter96, like you are throwing everything you can against the wall - in as many places as you can, and involving as many people as you can - to see what sticks. Had you thought about engaging in the conversation on the article talk page about the reason the IP user was looking to remove the content?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
With less than 250 edits and an account that is only a few days old, you don't need to be policing anything. You seem pretty cocksure of your actions despite being a brand new editor. One may start to think your talk of socks may be a little too on the nose if you don't take the time to learn how Wikipedia works prior to smashing buttons.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
As the person that reported this to the WP:AN3RR, this should never have gotten to this situation. Both sides should have taken this to the talk page instead of a continued edit war. As for myself, I made a mistake by not reporting both 2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 and RandNetter96 for the war. — Mr X ☎️ 22:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
See above. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@RandNetter96: It might be worth going to cool down for a bit, lest a WP:BOOMERANG finds its way toward you. You've now tried to issue me some vague, unconstructive warning, despite the fact that I was doing was putting back talk comments that you removed inappropriately for unsubstantiated claims of racism, and reinstating one of the IP's edits, because it was an obviously appropriate removal. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Mr. X and Deacon Vorbis. CaroleHenson, there has been for some time now an open discussion on the article talk page. Nevertheless, RandNetter is reverting edits of mine that have nothing to do with him on other users' talk pages: [28] [29] -- the out-of-controlness here is astounding. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@RandNetter96: "I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert." You don't say! I wholeheartedly recommend the following action. Log off Wikipedia, and go to the Numberphile YouTube Channel, where (personal opinion) you'll find some great fun introductions to math, with easy explanations. Take a look at Matt Parker's attempts to build a functional computer out of dominoes, or see how the sum of all positive integers is -1/12. If you find your keyboard is covered in drool after watching the videos of Dr Hannah Fry describing the mathematics of love, dating and relationships, don't say I didn't warn you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Funny, Ritchie333. One of the best de-escalation efforts I have ever seen. And, it made us (well, at least one of us) laugh, too. Great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) RandNetter96, you look just as guilty in the edit warring, well moreso, because you aren't even aware of the topic... and your behavior since then is problematic. What is the world is your goal by trying to make unsubstantiated claims based on the flimsiest of information? If you don't know enough to engage in a conversation about the topic, you absolutely should not have reverted after reading the edit summary. You should have immediately posted something on the article talk page to get a conversation started. And, the fact that you ignored that David Eppstein started a discussion, saw that an edit war issue was opened, and still decided to open an ANI and ping a bunch of administrators is very disruptive.
Perhaps a time for a breather and a cup of tea?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I have blanked his page and moved his warnings. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
How about you stop modifying the IP's (or anyone else's) comments altogether, stop blanking other people's talk pages, stop moving warnings, and stop making little lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
And this edit by RandNetter96 is abusive. Paul August 23:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted Wikipedia:Disruption caused by anonymous IP addresses (created by RandNetter96) per WP:G10 - pull that shit again and I will block you indefinitely. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I change my report for the IP user and switch it? — Mr X ☎️ 23:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
MrX, Perhaps you can hold off for a bit and see what happens here. And, later, perhaps ask for it to be closed out as both parties were at fault... and that the issue is being discussed with one of the parties, the IP user, on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I think an admin needs to have a good look at the IP's talk page history. RandNetter96 has reinstated templates that the IP removed; then templated the IP for "Refactoring others' talk page comments" (with no sense of the irony); then re-reinstated their templates; then reverted the IP's talk page to a previous version; then re-added their warning template after being removed yet again; and finally blanked the IP's talk page. I make that six wilful breaches of TPG. Please just indeff RandNetter96 until they can convince you that they have read and understand WP:TPG. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rand... you need to stop. Right now. Period. Full stop. --Tarage (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have created my own pages and will no longer edit his talk page. I will leave further discussion up to you. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
No. No you fucking won't. STOP DOING ANYTHING AND LISTEN. --Tarage (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen a user implode quite as fast as this. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked RandNetter96. I would have rather another admin did it, as I was pinged into this thread so there are WP:INVOLVED concerns but there doesn't seem to be anyone else on watch here, and several editors in good standing have called for it. I now have a sore head :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a fine block. He was driving at 90 miles an hour refusing to stop for the numerous people he'd run over. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel that the block is justified as the users actions called for it. Clearly there was a disregard to instruction that was provided to them by an admin along with the disregard of the suggestions by other editors to cease and desist. I feel bad to initiating this against the IP user as in hindsight they were just attempting to make a proper edit but with very controversial summaries to back the edits. — Mr X ☎️ 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
At the very least they seem to have taken my advice and stopped editing for today. --Tarage (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

So to complete the story: RandNetter96 has been unblocked again, after being given a second chance and promising to behave. Most of RandNetter96's article-space edits continue to consist of patrolling and reverting edits by IP editors on an otherwise-unrelated collection of articles (the same pattern that got them into trouble before, because the edits they reverted were not all bad). I didn't see any problematic reversions among the new batch, but this reminds me of an older case, someone else who got in trouble for treating all IP edits as bad even when they weren't, and somehow finding large numbers of these edits to revert across widely-scattered and otherwise-unrelated articles. Someone jog my memory? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

No idea if RandNetter96 is a sock, but this reversion [30] is problematic to say the least. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D023:5AC6:6F55:AC73 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
In response to my informing RandNetter96 that I had removed the material he restored, he/she states that "It is properly sourced and is relevant". [31] A response which neither addresses the WP:BLP concerns nor explains the initial claims of 'vandalism'. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D023:5AC6:6F55:AC73 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I have just indeffed him. He has just made over 200 reverts in 3 minutes, many of which are likely wrong. It's not physically possible for him to have checked even a single one of those edits, he's just using tools to revert blindly. This editor doesn't want to listen and is not of value to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 01:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
And has just admitted to being a sock. We're done here. Canterbury Tail talk 01:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Well not done, now we have to comb through his last several hundred edits and undo. Some are genuinely undoing vandalism, but most are not, just IP reverts. Best way to do this? Canterbury Tail talk 01:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The socking admission seems ... implausible? Not that it really matters. --2601:142:3:F83A:1CA3:73E8:43EA:48E (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd also note that he left level4-im warnings on about 20 IP talk pages. I've been reverting some of his edits in article space, but I'm not sure how to best un-WP:BITE those users while also keeping WP:DENY in mind. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


Sir, After long talks and proper sourcing one editor agreed and did the changes about the cast in please see here .One editor keep fighting for his version. without any proper source. I doubt this user. I am new in wikipedia and learning new things in wikipedia. page is blocked for new editors. so I think some admins take this issue seriously and look in to the matter.

Thank you --Sameershan (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

S/he hadn't edited the article since consensus was reached on the talk page. But no one reverted to the more accurate version of the article, so I handled that. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 14:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
...AAAAAAND s/he kept it up, so another user reverted and then warned him/her. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Let There Be Sunshine is still doing it, apparently until his consensus is reached. In addition, after he was warned (by another user), he tried to use WP:DTR as an excuse. Would an admin step in, please? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Says the one who triggered the edit war at the first place without participating in discussion, which is still being discussed. I reverted my own changes (which Erpert deemed still doing it) - restoring the Cast to the old form before the disputed versions, which DBigXray reverted back again to his version. Thus, the same user who templated me of edit warring is technically edit warring on the page. I could have templated him back for the same. Reverting each time when you make a comment on talk page is not how consensus is reached. Indeed, it's high time an admin should step in.--Let There Be Sunshine 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I triggered an edit war? That's literally the only edit I made on the entire article. Anyway, keep in mind that an uninvolved admin isn't going to automatically take the stance that you like. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
When a discussion takes place, if you have an opinion you participate in it, not revert (especially when the discussion is hot). That's the way how consensus process works in Wikipedia. --Let There Be Sunshine 20:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

ECP gaming by User:Drowningseagull[edit]

Drowningseagull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I believe this user was deliberately gaming the WP:ECP rules. This is because of this ridiculous edit to their userpage (with an edit summary "my confirmation is now E X T E N T E D E D") as edit #500, and many 1-byte edits to their userpage before that. Their adding "main article" tags to the top of articles such as 2018 FIFA World Cup Group H were generally reverted. Please investigate and remove ECP if necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He is claiming to be the Zodiac Killer, and is a new user as of April 2018. Whether he is/is not who he claims to be, this isn't a threat, but shouldn't be overlooked. What do we do? — Maile (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Should we also ask him where Tupac is? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Don't we already about Tupac? His ashes were scattered in Georgia (the US state). Maybe we ought to ask the Zodiac Killer if he's seen any news in the last 20 years ... what with being on the run and everything, he probably missed a lot. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
No, per WP:RS the Zodiac Killer died of Heart attack. And the killings stopped as well. I saw it all in the film.--DBigXray 21:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look to me that gamey, for which a normal administrative action would be to remove the ECP flag until they make 500 worthwhile edits (manual readdition). It's not like they had an ECP article they wanted to edit, it looks to me more like HATSHOP activity. The number of edits to their user page is over 150 and less than 200. The majority of their edits have been minor, but constructive edits, in article space (adding templates to FIFA World Cup pages). I wouldn't want to dishearten them and lose the constructive editing, although a gentle note about hats is probably in order. Bellezzasolo Discuss 20:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

flag Redflag I find it more concerning that they have made edits to their user and talk pages (self-reverted) wherein they claim to be a sock of someone banned 11 years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Has a spi been filed. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm really rather amazed, some of you (above), are joking about someone claiming to be a serial killer. AnonNep (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

that’s because the user is quite clearly a troll and is obviously joking. Do you really think they could actually be a serial killer when they also claim to have every mental illness/disorder known to man, are confined to a wheelchair, has survived cancer for over 248 years, has diabetes, is a nudist, is near, far, and long sighted, supports the extermination of socialists and is also a socialist (maybe that’s their depression, which they also claim to have), and supports Trump, despite also believing he is going to destroy the world? Like I said, they clearly aren’t serious, so we should not be obliged to take them seriously, either (ie they deserve a not here indef)💵Money💵emoji💵💸 20:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Me Too movement edits[edit]

(non-admin closure) This appears to be over. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 17:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! I'd like to request editors to review the actions of User:Roman J. Lane, Esquire on the Me Too movement article. Specifically, I'd like to bring attention to the sentence "It was also a propagandist media campaign against American film producer, Harvey Weinstein, among others in the entertainment industry regarding anonymous and non-anonymous sexual misconduct allegations." Additionally, the sentence "However, these victims have many resources at their disposal especially those enrolled in an American K-12 school as well as in American colleges and universities through the federal equity law amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title IX as well as numerous local woman's centers on a national to international scale." concerns me; it seems like something that should go in an opinion piece, or, at the very least, distanced from Wikipedia. Furthermore, he seems to have violated the three revert rule. Thanks! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Per Riley’s Talk Page, I’ve compromised and changed the wording of a sentence in the lead. For the others, it seems he never read the rest of the article before I got to it. This whole article read like a blog by an activist. Actually read it. Even some of the sources were unreliable which prompted the template. He owes me an apology. Roman J. Lane, Esquire (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Roman J. Lane, Esquire, it does indeed look like you are on your 4th revert, no matter how you try to wiggle around it. If you were smart, you would revert yourself, then come back here say so, so the next admin doesn't just block you outright. Clock is ticking, and I would strongly discourage being foolish enough to debate me on whether or not this is a WP:4RR violation or not; it is. Learn to use the talk page instead of edit warring. - Dennis Brown - 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
–I did use the Talk Page, Riley’s personal one at his request. His reverts are politically motivated. Roman J. Lane, Esquire (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I second what Dennis Brown said. I just gave User:Roman J. Lane, Esquire a 3RR warning on their talk page; continued edit-warring even if it does not not break the explicit 3RR limit is likely to result in blocks. Also edit-summaries such as his politically motivated and I compromised but he/she won’t. and He’s being troll. are inappropriate and need to stop. Basically slow-down, discuss calmly, establish consensus on talk, and then edit the article. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. I made it clear that this wasn't a debate, and I gave the opportunity to self-revert, but oh well. Dennis Brown - 01:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Just my pointless 2c but as someone who reverted them I did state in the edit summary "Talkpage > Go to it." ... could've been a bit nicer but the point still stood, They had ample oppertunity to discuss it on the talkpage, Not moaning just my 2c. –Davey2010Talk 01:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The user wasn't going to stop the disruptive behavior until this happened. Multiple warnings and opportunities were given for this user to stop and correct the behavior, none of them were taken, and that's what has to happen sometimes... Hopefully this user takes this as an opportunity to shape up and sanctions don't have to be imposed. Only time will tell... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: This article is under discretionary sanctions, so going forward admins may impose editing restrictions at their discretion, though it looks like we may be dealing with more of a NOTHERE situation. Swarm 02:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
If it happens again, I doubt I (or any other admin) will be so generous. Thanks for the ARB template, I should have done that myself but it slipped my mind. I prefer to use normal sanctions when I can, fewer restrictions on the part of the admin, but yes, it should be on the table if needed. Dennis Brown - 17:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I concur that this seems to be a NOTHERE situation; specifically, this user appears to wish to use the page for the Me Too Movement to right perceived wrongs against Mr. Weinstein. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

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


relevant articles

Other edits by Annevalentino

Annevalentino was the subject of an ANI thread at here in July 2015. No action was taken. Annevalentino disclosed here to user:Moonriddengirl that she is the husband of George Ranalli.

For some reason the person appears to have stopped using that account and switched to Gurulupina around May 2016. (one stops, the other starts) It is not socking really, but it does appear to be avoiding review of conflicted edits.

Gurulupina was the subject of an ANI thread in the summer of 2016 and nothing was done then, as the thread focused on one of the articles they have worked on.

The two accounts together have about 4,100 edits; 3,500 in the AnneValentine account and around 600 in the Gurulupina one.

Neither account uses talk pages so I didn't see any point to trying to talk to them at their talk page.

Over the past couple of days Gurulupina has twice blanked Talk:George Ranalli; they have turned the associated page into excessively detailed fancruft full of promotional language.

This person doesn't grasp the COI guideline. I think they are kind of well intentioned but they do not appear to understand what we do here, and are not interacting with the community, at all. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

So, this is back here again; it's been here twice before, and also at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 105#George Ranalli. The problems continue; the obvious COI editing is inappropriate at best, but the absolute failure to communicate is more serious. Gurulupina has almost 700 edits over two years, but has never once posted on a talk or user talk page. Communication is required in this project, as I tried to tell this user here. Those who persistently refuse to communicate shouldn't be allowed to continue editing, and I think we have reached that point here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the account indefinitely, please see my rationale here. Normally I would wait for the involved editor to comment at the report first, but as noted the editor does not have the habit of participating in talk page discussions, and has refused all attempts to communicate. Alex Shih (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I just blocked that IP for persistent disruption for removing talk page comments. I was beginning to suspect a connection and that they are the editor with the COI that necessitated the maintenance tags. Block is only 31 hours; feel free to extend if you feel it's justified. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, C.Fred. I've extended to one month after seeing the comment above. Hopefully I did not step on any toes. Alex Shih (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Chongqing IPs[edit]

While looking at the problems caused by Special:Contributions/, I noticed that the disruptive person behind the IP has been using some IP ranges: Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ are the ones I found, along with Special:Contributions/ Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet, I have blocked both ranges for three months for now. Alex Shih (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Superb. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
For the record, here are other IPs used by the same person, IPs that are outside of the two new rangeblocks. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Binksternet, thank you for your diligent work on this. That is a lot of IPs; this must be some kind of systematic abuse, and there has to be a better way to deal with this. For the time being, I've done range block over the following as according to your compiled list:
Right on! Let's see what happens in three months. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Issue with deletion sorting[edit]

Hhkohh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

See User talk:Hhkohh#Delsort: You’re doing it wrong.

In all my years editing here I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an issue come here over deletion sorting. It’s usually fairly routine and any issues are easily corrected, but I can’t seem to get the message across here. This user is apparently scanning through articles and looking not just for the primary topic or topics, but for any mention of anything that might possibly have its own delsort list, and spamming each and every one of them. This led to this discussion being added to 27 delsort lists, which is just obviously wrong to my eye.

I don’t believe I have a policy to point to other than WP:CANVASS. I don’t think that is actually their intent but the effect is the same, posting to many tangential or irelevant pages, and their replies to my comments on this have left me unable to determine if they simply don’t understand my concern or are engaging in WP:IDHT. So here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I may not be uninvolved, as I previously commented about this user posting four RfPP backlog threads in one week. To focus on the current issue, they have been previously reminded by Doomsdayer520 to do deletion sorting "sparingly" on July 6 ([32]), in which they acknowledged before going on to do this less than a week later ([33]), as noted by Beeblebrox. So yes, despite of editing in good faith, there is WP:IDHT going on here. I think it is partially related to the way they communicate in English, and I think it would be helpful to hear input from experienced users like Northamerica1000 in this topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately I must concur with the matter of User:Hhkohh not getting the point. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians for many examples of overactive deletion sorting by this user. I am active at both of those pages and have observed that Hhkohh is putting album AfD's in the Bands delsort, band AfD's in the Albums delsort, and all kinds of other odd delsort decisions. My previous comment that was noticed by User:Alex Shih above came from the presence of AfDs for fictional musicians on TV shows being placed in the Bands delsort. The delsort process is useful in attracting editors to discussions on topics in which they have expertise, but Hhkohh is making it unnecessarily messy for who-knows-what reason. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

*Support a months delsort topic ban - Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular websites they were correct with the first 2 delsorts but that's where it should've stopped, Anyway if after the topicban they continue then they should be blocked for a week but at present I feel blocking would be OTT, A months topic ban would allow them to reread WP:DELSORT and to watch various AFDs so that they can see how it should be done. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Struck in light of the below proposal. –Davey2010Talk 20:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am increasingly concerned that they don’t want to understand the issue. Witness this edit, from this morning (now reverted) in which once again they put something not really related to California in the California delsort. Seeing as this is precisely what drew my attention in the first place, and they at least acted like they accepted that it was wrong, I think there may be a deeper problem than just not being fully aware of norms for deletion sorting. (Also, is it normal to be creating RFD logs four or five days in advance?) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
But why would you not want to understand something ? I don't get that but then again I guess that could fall into the WP:IDHT territory but I just don't get why one wouldn't want to understand something, Anyway yeah those creations are problematic they don't need to be created that early' ..... Perhaps a CIR block might be best ? ... Dunno ROPE & all that. –Davey2010Talk 19:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Interpret "they don't want to understand" as "they simply don't care". ansh666 20:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Ahhhh right thanks Ansh666, I took it as they didn't want to I guess learn ?, AH well thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It's likely there that "Carolina" was misread as "California". There are others that are probably not sorted as intended - Mr. Criminal and James P Honey AFDs added to the authors list for example, presumably because they are songwriters, which are categorised as writers, and the authors category redirects to Category:Writers although in deletion sorting there is "authors" but no "writers". Peter James (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at their talk page and other discussions at WT:DELSORT, I'm not sure that Hhkohh has enough proficiency in English to be doing this kind of stuff. They seem to frequently misunderstand suggestions and questions that aren't in simple language. ansh666 21:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid I agree with Ansh666. Beeblebrox I just request for other people comment because I cannot understand your saying at that time. I will remove some delsort per Davey2010 suggestion. If I sort into wrong pages next time, please let me know so that we can discuss, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
And I just misunderstood other people saying, sorry Hhkohh (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Beeblebrox Since bot is down, I just help create RfD log page Hhkohh (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, let’s go down these responses point by point:

  • You say you agree with with Ansh666. What they have said is that you don’t seem to understand English very well, and/or that you don’t really care. If you can’t understand English and can’t follow a conversation in English, that’s a serious problem so far as contributing to the English Wikipedia.
  • That you couldn’t or wouldn’t understand what I was trying to tell you is exactly the point. If you aren’t able to understand even after my explaining it several times, you shouldn’t be doing the work you are doing.
  • So, it follows from that that just saying “let me know when I do it next time” is not an acceptable response as you apparently aren’t able to understand the issue in the least. You still give no indication that you have the slightest comprehension of the nature of the problem, which would allow you to avoid making the same mistakes again yourself.
  • It seems increasingly apparent that at last part of the issue is a lack of proficiency in English. This is the English language Wikipedia. You have to be able to communicate and understand English to contribute effectively here.

I hate to ever say this to anyone, but you may not be able to contribute effectively here unless and until your English abilities are drastically improved from the current state. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Ok, I will not do delsort unless I am sure Hhkohh (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hhkohh, this is not about whether or not you are "sure" or not. Have you not read any of the concerns? I will repeat what Beeblebrox said, "You still give no indication that you have the slightest comprehension of the nature of the problem, which would allow you to avoid making the same mistakes again yourself". Alex Shih (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. I will not violate WP:CANVASS
  2. I will only catch primary topic in WP:DELSORT
  3. I will improve my English
  4. I will try to understand other people saying

Hhkohh (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal:Six month topic ban[edit]

Yesterday, while this discussion was under way, Hhkohh added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump baby balloon to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Context simply escapes this person. This is political satire, not a story about a Trump baby. I cannot take the above promises at face value because Hhkohh’s replies here and actions during this discussion show no comprehension of the situation. The promises look like they are just parroting the criticisms and show no depth of understanding. I therefore propose a six month ban from adding any deletion discussion to any deletion sorting list in order to give them time to study and understand the issues with their previous understanding of how deletion sorting is done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. Concur. I can't tell if the behavior is willful or simply competence related. At this point it doesn't matter. Tiderolls 17:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. On review of the evidence, I think this is warranted. Hhkohh clearly needs to step away from this activity because it's simply not helping. I see it as more competence-related rather than intentional. Mz7 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for now. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support WP:CIR. Paul August 18:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As a fellow DSer, I must confess some of his sortings eluded me. Reading through, I was really hoping this could be resolved sans any formal topic bans, as DelSorting is a broad and imprecise activity, with much subject to whomever is doing it (see the DelSort talk page for discussions), but now I think a formal TB is the only way. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per everyone above - Unfortunately right now they're being more of a hinderance than of help to the AFD process. –Davey2010Talk 20:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support myself Hhkohh (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Xaymaca1992, genre warring at My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy[edit]

The editor has made false claims in their edit summaries to rationalize their edits while ignoring talk page warnings. Similar vandalism was done to Heard 'Em Say earlier today ([34]) Dan56 (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I've revoked Dan56's ability to use rollback in this case: this is a content dispute with a new editor where the editor never had it explained to him how Wikipedia works and why we expect sourcing: all he got was templated and reverted using rollback for content changes that are not vandalism: [35], [36]. I've explained it to him and asked him to revert the most recent change. If he doesn't, we can block him temporarily. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at the talk page I get a bit of an ownership vibe from Dan56, am I the only one?  MPJ-DK  02:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've now blocked the new account for 31 hours for continuing to make these changes across multiple articles even after I had warned them, but I will point out that reverting genre warriors in not exempt per WP:3RRNO and is still edit warring over a content issue, which is why I revoked rollback in this case. The solution in these cases is to talk to people and try to engage them in the project rather than reverting them on sight and trying to get them blocked. Content disputes (which these are) need to be handled through discussion on talk pages and user talk pages rather than administrative action whenever possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Mitu Bhowmick Lange[edit]

This was actually quite wide ranging; numerous accounts and IPs had inserted BLP violations about Lange into numerous articles. I think I've managed to remove all of it; the accounts are blocked and I've watchlisted all affected articles in case the IP vandalism restarts. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few IP/new editors are continuing to edit-war to include negative information at Mitu Bhowmick Lange and Indian Film Festival of Melbourne. This is introducing BLP violations and disrupting the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitu Bhowmick Lange. Can an admin please do the needful here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like two BLP violation only accounts were behind this: I've blocked both. The articles weren't neutral before these accounts turned up, but their editing was to post single-sided attack material with no attempt to note any responses by the subject, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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


The ANZUS article was effectively trolled last year because one particular editor first took exception to me putting Strikethrough over NZL directly in the Infobox, who then proceeded to 'revert vandalism' as he saw it by restoring edits over the years which are materially false, disproved by official New Zealand government sources such as (See Defence and Security). New Zealand is NOT a member of ANZUS according to any reputable official New Zealand government source; NO official New Zealand government source supports the claim that NZ is only a 'partially suspended member'. [37]. NZ is out. NZ is a non-member. Full stop. Period. Nothing in-between. I do not however wish to cast too much aspersions on the original editor... I do however think that the whole "Anti-Vandalism" telly and barnstar business nonsense probably partly contribute to this sort of computer-gamey "the glorified arrogant ignoramus" general incivility all over Wikipedia. -- (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This IP editor was trying to edit war similar changes in last year. Their attempt at starting a talk page discussion was to abuse everyone else: Talk:ANZUS#New Zealand not a member of ANZUS. They're back at it. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
What discussion?! You and the others just summarily reverted nonstop! Any so-called 'Discussion' does not change the fact that no official New Zealand government sources backs up the claim that New Zealand is still a 'partially suspended' ANZUS member... just how many of them were actually from New Zealand?! And British English for an Australian article, come on! -- (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
WTF is this at ANI? It looks like a WP:content dispute and should be resolved, as with all content disputes, via discussion to achieve consensus. If you can't achieve consensus, then take advantage of one of the many forms of dispute resolution available none of which should involve ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jezyl Galarpe[edit]

At User talk:Jezyl Galarpe, you can see ten messages from different editors, over the last year, including some from me, about adding information without citing a source, especially creating unreferenced new articles. Some of these articles have later acquired references, but not from this editor. Jezyl Galarpe has not responded to any of these. Jezyl Galarpe has been editing for a year but has never responded to a talk page message. I have pointed out the policies on sourcing and communication, explained where they can find help etc., but nothing. I'm hoping they will communicate here. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Texbook WP:RADAR user. They just keep plodding on, repeating the same errors and never communicating with anyone. If no reply is forthcoming from thema block is an appropriate response. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree Wikipedia:Communication is required. Paul August 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I’ve issued a short block as they returned to editing and ignored this discussion, as well as yet another question on their talk page. If they continue in this manner after the block expires an indef block would be in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Legal Threats[edit]

Right here. //nepaxt 01:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has made legal threats in edit summaries on Graham Rix. They have deleted what looks like reliably sourced content to me and have threatened to sue if it is restored. Aspening (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP address and made it clear that the person who made the legal threat cannot edit Wikipedia until the threat is withdrawn. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer- personally attacking me and making false accusations[edit]

Closing this before discussion digresses even further afield. The essay is already being discuused at the MFD. Meanwhile advise involved editors to stop commenting about each other and reacting to every such comment. No admin action needed yet. Abecedare (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparently upset because I nominated his WP:POLEMIC essay for deletion User:BullRangifer has resorted to personally attacking me and WP:Casting aspersions. First he accused me of nominating the page just for revenge and accuses me of harassment [38] In response, I advised him that he was casting aspersions [39]. He then accuses me of being ignorant [40]. Then threatens me saying that other editors who "objected to this essay have been "indefinitely topic banned from pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed." [41] The reason I nominated his essay for deletion (besides the policy-based ones I gave) is because I read it and said to myself, this is the type of content that doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia because it is so divisive and counterproductive to the project. There are legitimate problems with this essay. Even BullRangifer realizes there is a problem with this type of material, otherwise he wouldn't have started changing it [42] In making all these allegations about my motives and threatening to have me topic-banned, he is harassing me. And accusing me of revenge editing itself is harassment WP:AOHA. The issue over that he is accusing me of getting revenge for is over, after being made aware of it, I self-reverted part of my edit [43] He got what he wanted, its done, its over, then was no administrative action, and I don't know why he keeps hounding me about it, other then to deflect attention from the obvious problems with his inappropriate essay.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Utterly meritless complaint perhaps brought on by cognitive dissonance arising when delusion-bubble is penetrated by facts. (The MfD at issue is WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BullRangifer/Trump_supporters,_fake_news,_and_unreliable_sources.) EEng 05:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    @EEng:Wow, you want to backup that personal attack with any evidence or is your statement just based on your obvious hatred for Donald Trump as evidenced on your userpage?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    That would be a waste of time: if you don't see that Trump's a con-artist narcissist then you're impervious to reason. But hope springs eternal so I'll refer you to [44]. EEng 06:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Even BullRangifer realizes there is a problem with this type of material, otherwise he wouldn't have started changing it - Yes, this is what good-faith editors do when presented with new facts or good-faith advice about the propriety of their work - they make changes to ensure the material remains within community guidelines, acknowledging concerns and attempting compromise. That's how Wikipedia should work - editors working together in a fair-minded and factual manner. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who have decided that there are such things as alternative facts (like, a 400-pound guy in his basement hacked the DNC, as opposed to Russian military intelligence agents now under federal indictment; or that climate change is a Soros-ZOG-Sierra Club-National Academy of Sciences conspiracy) and there are a good many editors who have decided to attempt to make Wikipedia reflect these politically-expedient lies peddled by shills, as opposed to, y'know, good, old-fashioned facts presented in reliable sources. It is to these people that this essay is rightly addressed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Having looked at and commented on the deletion request, this feels almost like WP:FORUMSHOP. There was some relatively mild vitriol on both sides, but hardly anything I'd say would warrant bans; no one was told their mother sucks cocks in hell or anything like that. However, the userspace essay does seem like it is headed towards Keep, and the poster seems to be taking the Keep votes personally. While I do not have much of a strong opinion on the essay itself, I do not like to see abuse of Wikipedia policy. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
no one was told their mother sucks cocks in hell – Yes, well, we do have some standards. Believe it or not I'm having difficulty imagining the discussion thread that would somehow lead to deployment of that particular outburst. (For those of tender years, but not tender ears, the reference is to [45].) EEng 07:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • OMG! Rusf10, the only reason I reworked some of the essay was to avoid further misunderstanding. As far as this meritless forum shopping as one more of your attacks on me, you even distort your series of events to justify it: "The issue over that he is accusing me of getting revenge for is over, after being made aware of it, I self-reverted part of my edit [46] He got what he wanted, its done, its over, then was no administrative action, and I don't know why he keeps hounding me about it,..."
That's utter BS. After you were called out you self-reverted, and I did nothing. I did not hound you. Instead, you then started the MfD as revenge for the fact that Volunteer Marek and I had both called you out, leading to your self-reversion, but you couldn't just leave it there. You had to start harassing me and him by starting the MfD. That's when we responded to your harassment and aspersions. Now you're drowning and wildly casting more meritless aspersions by continuing here as your MfD is losing bigly. We're almost going to get a snow close "keep" there. How ironic. Hark! Do I hear the whistling sound of a boomerang? Face-wink.svg -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
First of all do you even know what forumshopping is? You're the one who escalated this to personal attacks. MfD is a deletion forum, its not for dealing with behavior like yours, that's why I brought this here. You had to start harassing me and him by starting the MfD Unless you and him are the same person (which until this point I assumed that you were not), its inconceivable that bringing the page to MfD somehow constitutes harassment of Volunteer Marek (he hasn't even contributed to that essay). that's when we responded to your harassment and aspersions If you're accusing me of casting aspersions against you, let's see the diffs. Familiarize yourself with WP:AOHA--Rusf10 (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything that NorthBySouthBaranof wrote above. The reliability of the sources that we use as references is all-important to the integrity of this encyclopedia. We cannot accept propaganda sources that deliberately and repeatedly spread lies. User essays that convey this message are useful. Those who are offended by these simple facts should simply refrain from trying to cite unreliable sources, and then all will be well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This essay is perfectly reasonable, and as long as you don't have a tendency towards using unreliable sources, it doesn't apply to you. Rusf10I suggest you withdraw your MFD and move on to something positive. Flat Out (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
How long till Rusf gets blocked? I'd like to take care of this sooner rather than later. --Tarage (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment- I did not bring this here to debate the essay, that's what the MfD is for. This discussion is about bullrangifer's behavior which everyone seems to be ignoring. How is it appropriate to make threats like It is worth noting that the last two editors who most strongly objected to this essay have been "indefinitely topic banned from pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed." Their objections were obviously not the only factors leading to their topic bans, but it was part of their bad behavior (and for one it was a MAJOR factor). Not only that br's other behavior is questionable too. Here he is accusing another editor (not me) of a BLP violation because he pointed out that Trump's current immigration policy has similarities to that of the last two presidents. [47]
His own track record on RS is not that great either. He has asserted that the Washington Times is not a reliable source [48] [49], yet I have not been able to find any consensus on that at WP:RSN. He also has asserted multiple times that anything the EPA says can't be used because they are part of the Trump administration and therefore not a reliable source (as in we can't even quote their response) [50] [51] [[52]] Whether or not you like the president, it should be okay to use a government agency's response in an article, it always has been with past presidents regardless of party. Finally his essay asserts that Fox News is unreliable. Time after time people have tried and failed to get Fox News banned, but it has not worked, it is still considered a reliable source. Here's the most recent RFC on the topic [53]--Rusf10 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Can an admin go ahead and block USER:EEng#s, posts like this are purely disruptive and not helping anyone.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid that at ANI, also known as the "drama boards" for a rather obvious reason, the behavior of all involved editors, including and especially the poster, are subjected to a magnifying glass. Regardless of what you intended to happen here, your behavior, and the area in which this interaction took place, are likely to be discussed. (Further, for not wishing to discuss a thing, you see rather eager to discuss it.) Finally, kindly refrain from editing posts by other users here. It is generally considered the height of bad manners. Icarosaurvus (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Rarely do things like that, but that post was uncalled for.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
How was it uncalled for? Trump sexually assaults women and is proud of it. Since the topic came up I thought I'd inject a little humor. Sorry if it's a painful subject for you. EEng 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Julio Puentes[edit]

JP has been creating unreferenced articles or articles with no clear references or just imdb. They have been creating articles for 9 years, most of which (from those I've seen) are tagged as unref, refimprove or notability concerns. After 18 messages I have got nowhere. I have offered help, directed to advice, explained the policies on sourcing and communication etc. but after eight months of this I've run out of other options. Their previous block in 2016 appears to be for edit warring. Some had imdb listed as their source and removed, there have also needed to be re-writing of some of the articles because they were copyvios of imdb. I think imdb has been their only source for most of their articles, but they won't clarify.

For full details of the discussion, please see User talk:Julio Puentes#Warning. They have replied twice but neither message has been reassuring:

  • Hello, sorry for being a bit lazy, it's just that the whole bureaucracy of Wikipedia can honestly be too much of a hassle at times.
  • Excuse me, but what is it exactly that you want? I've put the necessary references and tried to include as much information as possible on the articles. I really don't know what else to do.

The second message indicated they were unsure with referencing, despite my explanations and almost a decade of creating articles, so I tried to explain further. 5 more messages later, I don't think they're reading them. Hopefully they'll engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Fixed the username spelling in section title and OP's complaint. Will leave it to other admins to rveiew the evidence itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC))
(Non-administrator comment) This user is clearly not wanting to learn the ropes regarding use of reliable sources. There are also some WP:POV issues in their editing history. I am confused why there is no attempt, after many repeated warnings, to try to use reliable sources. They are not listening or perhaps this is a CIR issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara   16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and this sure looks like last resort territory if they don't try to communicate effectively about the issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion spree by User:My_Lord[edit]

Wrong venue. Abecedare (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:My_Lord is placing deletion templates on articles that don't suit the Indian nationalist opinion for the disputed Kashmir region. Using his expertise he got deleted pages like 2006 Doodhipora killing, Bomai incident, Ramban firing incident etc. Here is an archived external link to a full article the user and its proxies got deleted so that you can know their intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I guess we are going to see this block evasion of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6 for some or a long time. My Lord (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to contest any of the deletions, take it to WP:DRV. Abecedare (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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


Govvy has been told that their behavior is misguided. Unfortunately, they refuse to accept that and exacerbate the problem by throwing other perceived offenses by GS into the pot and stirring. Still, I don't see their conduct rising to the level of justifying sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the absence of a civility noticeboard...myself and Govvy (talk · contribs) had (in my view) an incredibly minor disagreement about the display/formatting of referencing at the Ryan Loft article. He's taken it poorly and has now accused me of trying to hack into his account. I have invited him to retract the comments (twice!) but he has refused. Can somebody please remind him of WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL? GiantSnowman 10:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Really? I am not going to put any wood on the fire, all I can say is, that wikipedia said someone tried to access my account, and the only person I had any disagreement with was you... Govvy (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Everybody gets these messages - they appear to be the result of mass drive by hacking attempts and not something aimed at you as an individual.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree that the accusation, even indirect, of hacking is pretty serious. I think an uninvolved admin should have a chat with Govvy, who should fix this first by retracting. An apology would be useful as well. Jusdafax (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, Govvy, please retract your unsubstantiated accusation now. Alex Shih (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For Govvy's benefit, as he may not have ever had one of those emails before, can someone please point him to somewhere that explains what those messages are and that getting one is not a big issue. If we're going to expect him to assume good faith of GiantSnowman (which he should), let's extend him the same courtesy. If you have never had one of those emails before, it can be quite an alarming and frightening thing for some, reading that someone has tried to access your account, and that unfounded accusation may have been borne out of this. Fish+Karate 10:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not retracting anything, I asked and GiantSnowman said no he didn't try to hack me, I saw timing issues between the two points of interest. I really don't know why GiantSnowman is so stubborn, Or Who, or why someone or some bot tried to breech my account. I see no point to this ANI, I feel violated and it doesn't help that GiantSnowman always sounds like a Vulcan, from memory I don't ever remember seeing a sorry from him for anything and multiple times have felt offended by him and his style of editing of wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is an example from WP:AN showing how common this sort of thing is. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Someone tried to hack my account at that time as's very common. GiantSnowman 11:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This happens to some of us on a monthly basis - it's not uncommon. It can be alarming the first few times you see it, and there was a recent wave of such attempts against admin accounts. Make sure you have a strong password. Govvy, please drop it, you're on the wrong track. The email reset attempts are a common thing from new and inexperienced users: long-time editors know it doesn't work. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Dream Focus and Hijiri88 (again)[edit]

(non-admin closure)DF blocked for violating unblock conditions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but following on from the events discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive986#Dream_Focus_repeatedly_insinuating_that_I_have_a_mental_illness,_etc., Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has been blocked to stop the ongoing feud with Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). Following the latest block, I unblocked DF on the strict condition he does not talk about H88 anywhere on Wikipedia, full stop, but it seems further clarification is wanted. Frankly, at this point I was half-tempted to reblock per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but DF does good work for the encyclopedia, so I am reluctant to go that far at this stage.

I think the obvious solution is to propose some sort of formal interaction ban between the pair (not necessarily two-way, if one-way is all that's required let's just do that). As for how "broadly construed" an interaction ban would be, I think those who are more familiar with this dispute than I should bring that up.

I apologise in advance for everyone who has read this thread and is now thinking "aww jeez, not this again"; I really don't want to be any part of this feud and my goal here is essentially to nip all this in the bud right now before one (or both) of these two gets indeffed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • No This was shot down last time it was proposed (which was the last -- and first -- time this came up on ANI). It would be far too easy to game. And why would you even bother igniting the dispute again right now? If you think DF's reaction to your unblock was inappropriate, then you should deal with him yourself; if you think your conditional unblock has done its job, then there's no point bringing this up again. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, so you unblocked someone with 'strict conditions'. They *straight away* break those conditions, and you arnt going to reblock? If you are not actually going to enforce unblock conditions dont set them in the first place. Can another admin please re-block, it would not be wheel-warring since they have blatantly refused to abide by their unblock conditions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: When you unblocked, it was conditional upon "See below conditions. Do not break them or the next block will be longer." I trust your judgment to decide whether the conditions have been broken. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Considering, per this thread [54], that Cullen328 only agreeed with the unblock "as long as Dream Focus accepts your advice without wikilawyering" I would suggest an immediate reblock - say a week for violating unblock conditions. The very first thing they did was to start wikilawyering the edges of what was essentially a one-way iban. After expiration of the block I support a one way iban with Hijiri88. Ibans suck but it is either that or an indefinite block until DF gets a proper clue. I suggest one-way because Hijiri seems to have backed away on their own and the mental health digs in the linked ANI thread showed DF, in my opinion, as the more problematic editor.
    Based on previous behavior I suspect any interaction ban will be quickly broken and/or wikilawyered but it is either that or go straight to an indef block. It might be a nice show of GF if Hijiri88 voluntarily accepted the iban being two-way but DF is the editor at issue and there was no consensus previously to force a two-way iban. Jbh Talk 11:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, "some sort of formal interaction ban" doesn't necessarily mean two-way; if a one-way DF -> H88 interaction ban is all that's required, we can do that. As hinted above, I could have indeffed Dream Focus and probably have justified it; I just think getting a final decision on ANI is fairer, and stops a lynch mob of whoever supports Dream Focus turning up at my door. I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I definitly can understand that and I agree that the history of the dispute is long and murky enough that any of the definitive ways of ending it that I can think of are very likely to lead to more than a bit of drama. Dealing with intractable bad behavior from long-standing contributors is always going to be a drama-fest to one extent or another. Regardless, I think at a minimum there is now enough for an indef next time. I do not think anyone here really believes there will not be a 'next time' regardless of ibans or more warnings/admonishments. A straight re-block might be best right now, that and the sure knowledge that the next one is likely to be an indef. Jbh Talk 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
There's also this which I closed very recently. I do have some (not recent) history with DF so I'm not going to recommend any action although I do think there should be some. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m having trouble understanding what is being asked here. Ritchie333 unblocked with conditions which were immediately broken. I don’t think a mutual IBan is warranted, and I think DF needs to be reblocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  • While I proposed an IBAN last time, I'm not sure what use it will be at this point. If sanctions are needed, a block would be the way to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Feels like another classic example of taking WP:AGF too far. User was unblocked with conditions, user violated conditions, user should be reblocked. Taking it back to ANI to revisit other, lesser sanctions sends a message of "You can get away with bad behavior if you're persistent enough." Grandpallama (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what diff(s) lead up to DF's latest block, but I guess it takes two to tango. Looking at Hijiri88's blocklog, pretty much all of them are for iban failures or battleground/harassment issues. Offer them both the final chance per WP:ROPE and see which one hangs first. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Except this isn't one user complaining about another. It's an admin asking what to do when they unblock someone conditionally, and then that user immediately violates the conditions. That's a simple answer that doesn't have anything to do with ibans. Grandpallama (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I can see that now I've had a further look into this ongoing issue - thank you. This thread at Cullen328's talkpage is quite interesting, esp. the final comment to them both. Lets see if either of them take the advice. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 1) "Do not talk about Hijiri88, at all, in any way". 2) "So can I talk about him like this?" 3) "No, do not talk about him" 4) "But what about when he did this and this and this and this"?
A clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Block DF for a month, give everyone a break, and if he so much as mentions Hijiri88 once, in any way, when the block ends, indefinitely block and let's get back to more productive things. Or, at least, less counter-productive. And I'd be inclined to extend the same warning to Hijiri88, who is not wholly innocent here, and also keeps picking at this festering scab of a relationship. Fish+Karate 13:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
And do we have an essay anywhere about how being a good content contributor ought not to give you a free pass to ignore civility and trample over social interaction norms? If not, we need one. Fish+Karate 13:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables explains how the opposite is usually the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators comes to mind. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Yup, perfect summary of the situation. Though I think it's less a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as WP:IHEARDTHATBUTAMCHOSINGTOIGNOREIT. Reyk YO! 13:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) They were unblocked per strict conditions... and then 2 hours, 13 minutes later they immediately broke those conditions .... so imho they should be reblocked for it, Could be IBANNED but I feel it would be better with just outright blocking, Both are great editors but if one or the other cannot stop this then I guess we'll have too. –Davey2010Talk 13:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree fully with my fellow commentators: conditions were imposed; said conditions were broken. A block is entirely justified, and I would support one. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go with the literal crowd, here. If you unblock with conditions and the editor then immediately breaks those conditions, you re-block for longer. Anything short of that is just an invitation to game the system. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Extended re-block - Dream Focus blatantly violated the conditions of the unblock. Admins should not permit themselves to manipulated by wikilawyering because it just encourages more of the same. A block of between two weeks and a month seems about right. - MrX 🖋 13:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (EC) Immediately doing the thing that got you blocked after you've been unblocked with the condition you don't do that said thing? That's a paddlin' That's ground for a re-block and for a longer time, with the caveat if it happens again after the block, that's an indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose reblock at this time - A voluntary-but-then-later-not-really-voluntary one-way interaction ban that might be informal but seems more formal with each passing exchange, accompanied by warnings for the other person along with encouragement for the other person not to engage but no reciprocal quasimandatory interaction ban, when the users keep having cause to interact otherwise and the blocked party is worried about being followed around (whether or not that's true and whether or not it's called for) seems like a reasonable scenario to ask for very detailed explanations, context, and what ifs. There needs to be a window of time when people can ask for clarification about their newly imposed sanctions if they don't understand how it applies. "Here is the window of time when you can ask questions about this and then don't bring it up again" seems like it would be reasonable. None of this is to say that I think DR is necessarily in the right in this or related disputes; I just think it's unreasonable to block for asking questions about a sanction shortly after receiving that sanction. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with some of this. There's history between these two, neither of them really willing to drop the stick against the other, and DF is asking a fair question in light of this that if Hijiri purposely gets in their face, do they have the ability to discuss that behavior? I do agree it is bordering on Wikilawyering, but I'm not seeing it so much as trying to test the limits - they're asking on the unblocker's page the extent of the conditions knowing past behavior, rather than actually testing outside that venue and complaining after the fact. I do agree DF needs to figure out what they do that causes Hijiri to get on their case and avoid that behavior, but we don't want Hijiri to take advantage of the specific unblock conditions to rub that in DF's face, if we don't have an iban in place. --Masem (t) 14:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with the assertion that DF was merely seeking clarification, except DF didn't ask what he/she could or could not do. They asked what Hijiri88 could or could not do. The only use DF could possibly have for that information is either wikilawyering about their unblock conditions or trying to get Hijiri blocked (read: blatantly violating their unblock condition). Alternatively, one could interpret the questions as rhetorical, presuming that DF was merely alerting Ritchie to Hijiri's behavior. Well, in that case, they're directly violating the unblock condition. So if you think it through, DF's questions were either a direct violation of the conditions, or intended to help DF violate the conditions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
True, but asking about what Hijiri can do in this context isn't like asking "is Hijiri allowed to write about X topic" or something otherwise not DF's business; DF is asking about what Hijiri can do in relation to DF and the implications for the iban. I don't think that's unreasonable (to a point -- surely right after it happens we should be tolerant of requests for clarification, even if it seems obvious). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
But again, I ask: What would DF do with that knowledge if not go after Hijiri? And as was pointed out in response to DF, they were asking about things Hijiri had already done. So either asking for punitive sanctions to be levelled, or trying to find out if he can get away with asking for punitive sanctions. I'm open to being wrong, because I take WP:AGF seriously, I just don't see any interpretation here that doesn't boil down to "DF is still going after Hijiri." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Not for the purpose of punishing Hijiri88 but for Hijiri88 to stop following Dream Focus[55] and criticising their edits[56] (the "disruptive" edit was a revert of an IP user's edit that had replaced existing terminology with a red link and is what would typically occur without further discussion). It looks like the "plenty of admins" were failing to deal with it effectively[57]. Peter James (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You unblocked, this is your call whether or not they broke the conditions. Dennis Brown - 15:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis Brown. I thought it best that DF agree tof the unblock conditions, and Ritchie333 decided to go ahead without that. I do not disagree with Ritchie's decision but think it best for him to deal with the aftermath, and reblock for an appropriate period of time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • At the moment, Dream Focus has not had a chance to log on and have his right of reply in this thread. He is very obviously in a hole (I think we can all agree on that) and he will now either reach for the ladder, or the spade. Whichever he chooses should decide which action we take next. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to hear from DF then why did you bring it here? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I should be allowed to post on my own talk page asking for clarification. This all started up yet again when Hijiri88 followed my contributions, as he has admitted to doing in the past, then posted on a talk page about me. User_talk:TonyBallioni#DF_and_"illlegal_Latinos" Five minutes later another editor reverted my revert on the article in question[58], I then started a conversation on the talk page of that article, he then showing up to respond to my post there. I did not engage him at all. I was previously told by Cullen328 at User_talk:Dream_Focus#July_2018 "Ignore them as if they did not exist. If they misbehave in any way, let others deal with it.". So I did report him to that administrator. User_talk:Cullen328#Hijiri_88_violated_your_instructions And now I'm told I can't mention him on any talk page or interact with him, even though he is the one doing that to me, not the other way around. I avoided all interaction with him him and reported him, then I get blocked and sanctioned. And when I ask for clarification, I get told I'm wikilawyering. Why not just do a two way interaction ban already? He has a long history of following my contributions and posting about me on various talk pages. Multiple administrators have in the past suggested he stop doing that, he still refuses to stop. And apparently whenever he does it I am not allowed to even report it? This makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 15:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say that is a prime example of reaching for a spade - consequently I have blocked DF for a month. I think there's pretty much a majority consensus for that up thread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus is continuing to complain about Hijiri88 even after this new escalated block, so I have revoked talk page access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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

SST vandal at it again[edit]

2600:100A:B00C:DB60:B875:5F16:5150:75D2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The Supersonic transport vandal is at it again. He edited Airbus A310 and Airbus A300. This IP should be blocked and the pages protected. Funplussmart (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And he vandalized Boeing 737 as well. Funplussmart (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay this particular IP was blocked, but chances are the vandal will show up again. This person has made so many disruptive edits over the past year that resulted in many articles about aircraft being protected. This has been discussed on the noticeboard before. Any suggestions? Funplussmart (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Pinging MusikAnimal who was going to create an edit filter, FWIW I was about to close this thread only so I have no opinion/comment on this. –Davey2010Talk 17:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea if this user has been banned or not. I think he should at the very least be topic-banned from editing aircraft-related articles. Funplussmart (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Repeated recreations of deleted BLP[edit]

Lana Rhoades was deleted following an extensively discussed AFD last July and redirected to a list article. The deletion was resoundingly upheld following a deletion review. There have been multiple attempts to recreate the article, including an effort to reverse he redirect and substitute a thoroughly unsourced, heavily promotional text, and very recently the creation of a draft article including a major BLP violation and an absence of reliable sourcing. (The BLP violation was also reflected in an edit summary). There's been an outbreak of nastiness regarding this porn performer on reddit and other message boards in the recent past, and I see no reason to allow platforms to be created here which might provide additional outlets for it, given the repeated consensus that this performer is not notable.

I therefore ask that Draft:Lana Rhoades be promptly deleted and protected against recreation for at least ninety days; and that the recent history of Lana Rhoades be suppressed and the redirect protected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic: Jeez, how many times I have mentioned I think Hannah Fry is cute now? Stop it Ritchie, stop it.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
the cake is a lie Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The AFD outcome was deletion, and that was endorsed at deletion review, there's no consensus for a redirect, which hides search results. Peter James (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted the draft because of the BLP concerns discussed here. Would welcome a review from other admins, especially ones more familiar with the sourcing and BLP practices followed in the WP:PORN-area. Abecedare (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I gave the redirect ECP and move protection for 3 months. Feel free to undo or modify.Guess I'll protect the draft next.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account[edit]

User is already indef blocked on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedias, vandalizes articles about medieval Bosnia. Check CentralAuth, this user does the same thing on dewiki, bswiki, hrwiki and enwiki (here). --Munja (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Yes, I see that out of their 12 edits since they created the account in April, their edits have not been helpful. There hasn't been one post to their user talk page, though, until this ANI notice.
And, I see a total of 25 edits across four languages here. This all seems to have become an issue with the upload of 2 files to commons on July 13, which the user tried to add to the articles.
There should at least have been a warning about disruptive editing. They are blocked indefinitely on the bs and hr language wikis.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Compromised account?[edit]

Closing as not compromised after all - Would seem for whatever reason they dislike Wikipedia ... Anyway can be dealt with through the proper channels. –Davey2010Talk 21:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Sorry not sure where to ask,
Auréola has just made this edit - They've had the account since '09 and don't appear to be or have been a vandal so is it likely the account's compromised ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment they seem to have just been blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Well they appear to have been on a vandalism crusade - They've been blocked 3 times over there and they've been acknowledging all of the blocks so this doesn't appear to be compromised after all, Maybe they should just be indeffed here if this is anything to go by. –Davey2010Talk 21:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

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


Could an admin please take a look at this, this and this and offer me some advice. I'm disappointed by the complete lack of cross-wiki coordination.

I've also posted the above at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Advice? nagualdesign 04:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as cross wiki coordination nagualdesign. Each language wiki is an entirely separate organization. The restrictions enacted (agreed to, whatever) on only apply on No comment on the advisability or utility of this, just stating the facts. John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
As I wrote in my original report, I realize that WP:ANI may have no jurisdiction over on Commons, or no interest in some of those links/diffs, in which case I would counter that Winkelvi is gaming the system. Well, there you have it. Guanaco has kindly offered to have a word with him over on Commons. You can follow the ensuing discussion here. His response so far exemplifies his attitude to a tee.
Hint: He's playing the nice, fun guy at en.wp now because he thinks he "won". = "I've been following his contributions on en.wp."
Although simply following my contributions doesn't equate to hounding per se I think it demonstrates his continuing fixation on me as well as his warped perception. His voluntary IBan was disingenuous and he's simply changed tack. More to the point, there's nothing to lose by issuing a permanent interaction ban both here and on the Commons, and enforcing them if necessary. (I say that here because this section is linked to from Commons.)
In short, I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. If my hands weren't tied I'd just shrug my shoulders and tell him to eff-off, but if I'm expected to play nicely then I expect him to be held to account. He's deliberately antagonizing me, and transparently so. nagualdesign 06:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
My advice would be to stay off commons for a month or two, and stop mentioning him. Every time you mention things like "warped perception" and "disingenuous" over here, he's going to react over there (because there's an interaction ban here). While the interaction ban is very correctly one-way only, stuff like this is only going to exacerbate the issue. Fish+Karate 09:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ban evading WP:CIR sock[edit]

Gangadesh721 is a sock of banned editor Nangparbat as per the CU results Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat that came as possible. He is being as disruptive as he can by misrepresenting sources and edit warring[59][60] on many articles for the sake of his ethnic POV. He is WP:NOTHERE. My Lord 05:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment "Possible" and "is a sock" are two different things. The CU explicitly stated it was "Possible" but did not state it was confirmed.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Thats very usual with socks of Nangparbat. See [61][62] As a side note, please don't copy paste others signature when you are copying their messages. Though I also avoid copying messages since others are able to read from diffs. ML talk 07:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah that makes sense now. I just find it strange how penalties can be handed out on a "Possible" as opposed to it being confirmed but that's just me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've gone ahead and removed the entire message as per your recommendation and slightly changed my original message. Sorry about that :(

Probably a good idea if any further correspondence is brought to my TP rather than cluttering up this ANI report.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Compromised account[edit]

My account got compromised. I do not know who did it. Could have been anyone. A hacker, a classmate, who knows? The compromiser made two edits. First, he or she created my talk page and spammed it with some random message. Next, he or she stated that hacking was fun on my user page. Fortunately, the compromiser did not edit any actual pages, otherwise I could have been blocked or something. Since I am new here, I do not know what to do. Should I start a new account? Help me please. ShangKing (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: The talk page was spammed again, this time logged out, most likely by the same compromiser. I reverted it again. The unregistered IP address (Special:Contributions/ that performed the spam is mine, but it apparently got compromised. ShangKing (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
If your account is compromised, it should be blocked. Change your password immediately, otherwise I will have to block if any further vandalism occurs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I have blocked Sh2ngKing (talk · contribs) as a vandalism only account. Regardless of whether the opening post is genuine (account compromised) or just a troll having a laugh (not here to write an encyclopedia), the next step has to be an indefinite block of ShangKing, which I have now done. Zzuuzz has taken care of the IP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
For the record I've informed them that they can try again with a new account, when any problems have been resolved. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)